Restrangled:That seems to be a very black and white view of a historic tapestry, given that they also produced Mother Theresa. I guess for similar reasons I can't join the Navy - they had a terrible history of killing people, slavery and b*gg*ry of cabin boys!
Q:
You're sidetracking the discussion again. S'ok, I was taught to do that as a JW, so I know how deep the training can be. In particular I state this concerning:
...used to show examples of authority are actually my attempt to prove the LDS.
For the third time - I never laid such a claim. Your sensitivity to comments about your own faith, when used as examples to you, seems to be causing you to conclude that we all think you're trying to promote your own faith. That isn't the case, so stop making this personal and distracting the discussion from the main debate that currently appears to be the doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" (regardless of denomination). Besides, a pity-party for one isn't going to get you anywhere, it just puts chum in the water. I'd use examples from the JWs but they don't believe in the doctrine.
you have not yet put any convincing effort to answering the claims of apostolic succession or authority RE the catholic church. You said you reject the need for it and I am interested in a clearer reasoning behind that rejection.
More reading comprehension problems and side-tracking. I never said any such thing. I simply see no convincing proof that the Apostles passed on their authority to an individual each, or that there's some kind of unbroken chain. If you want to take the view that their successors were all the people that became believers then I might be more agreeable but I don't find the idea, that a single (or even twelve) individual[s] today exclusively has that power vested in them, finds a firm basis in scripture.
I do find it interesting that you find apostolic succession a key article of faith, and yet conveniently dismiss the RC claims because of some unstated apostacy allowing Joseph Smith the opportunity to take up the claymore. Somehow you dismiss all claims to fallibility in your own leaders while featuring the failures of the RC Popes. If you hadn't been raised in your faith do you truly believe you would think all of this?
Per your quoting of Ephesians, I agree with you concerning the unity in the body just not your identification of the body as a specific (in this case LDS) faith-group. I hold that the Body of Christ is united in Spirit but, as with everything that goes the way of fallen flesh, expresses that in a plethora of ways. It was the same in the First century where there was one "church" but a variety of beliefs concerning the minutea. Nowadays we are just more likely to take a more precise label for our beliefs concerning minutea. We still take the communal title "Christian". Ironically God seems to have no problem permitting it. Hence I believe that Augustine stated this best: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, diversity; in all things, love!"
If I was ever to leave my faith (assuming I still believed in the christian God) I would be left with two choices of church to follow - either the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox Catholics...
That sounds like the old JW line of "if I left the JWs, where would I go to?" instead of properly quoting Peter's words where he said "Whom would we go to?". Another parallel? You have come to the right place. They've done a good number on you! (and before you get your knickers in a twist, it was stated tongue-in-cheek)
I'd like to take up a couple of your comments to Lil:
if you want my defence of the LDS faith you won't find me doing it from the flawed bible alone - I hate reasoning from that divider of christians
A little bit of LDS contempt for the Bible thrown into the mix? At least you're open about it! How do you think the church survived before Joseph Smith came on the scene? If, as you highlight, "God is not a God of confusion" then how do you explain His permitting centuries of believers to be so confused by such an inaccurate couple of "Testiment"s?
...when you or I interpret scripture against one claiming authority from God we must be darned sure we aren't arguing the wrong side of the fence.
Are you talking about the God of Moses in the wilderness or the God of the NT or some other God from a more modern "Testament"? Are you truly claiming to be a child of God, or do you continue to be afeared that God condemns you? I think I'll take my chances with Daddy, since the Holy Spirit (whom you seem to eschew as being able to teach anything to individuals) informs me that He already loves me (Rom.8). Meanwhile you seem to have spent months on this Board dancing between your own opinions and a strict party-line.
Some genuine questions for you:
- how do you identify a modern-day Apostle?
- how do you determine the accuracy of Holy writ?
- how do you confirm the accuracy of the interpretation of holy writ?
Oh, and lest you think your faith is excluded from the debate because Jim is RC, allow me to remind you of some of the comments in his opening post to the thread:
So, Let's have it out ... let's post all the concerns, issues, claims, and even nasty remarks against the RC Church, Baptists, Presbyterisn, Angelican, Episcopal, Methodist, Non-Denominational, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Mormon, Church of Christ, Free Bible Students, Dawn, and whomever else you want to criticize.
He opened it up completely; you joined the fray of your own free will; kindly don't call foul; feel free to get your own back. To that end I offer that I predominantly attend a Presbyterian denomination
Didier:
Yes, I'm still chuntering on about the "invisible" vs the "visible". Since the spiritual house is supposed to be holy, then how do you explain the concept of the wheat and the weeds? I guess I'm quite taken with the Ecumenical umbrella title of "Christianity" rather than the specific denominational titles. However even here there is a potential for being overly strict against Rom.2:13-15: "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)"
Covenant theology (or meta-theology) sounds a bit like "new wine in old wineskins" to me... Yeah I know that's not an argument but I have a feeling that you'll get what I mean.
LOL
I'm not sure if your emphasis is on "written down" (vs. oral) or "by them" (vs. "original apostolic authority" as a retrospective fabrication by a later generation, as I suggested).
I have have proof for neither position. So in the absence of said proof, how do you determine the correct understanding? Do you use the "longevity of tradition" argument that I make for the RC (even though, itonically I'm not RC)?
