Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[RandyForRubio]

I think that is what bronco is saying.


Us Mormons view Peter, James and John as the presidency of Christ's church and ordained prophets after Christ's leaving the earth. Seems like Catholics view Peter as the first Pope. The succession claims are the same, Mormons just believe the line if authority was broken for a long while, and believe it to be restored to Joseph Smith

What do most Christians believe in this aspect Christianity?

I've always just thought of them as leaders, not leader, the plurality being the key point. I just never got in line with the idea that there's one leader who has clear communication to God and the rest of us need him to communicate with God (that's more Pope than Morman). God gave us His Word, He gave us prayer, and He gave us the Holy Spirit...so why do we need the middle man?

 

[LogGrad98]

A world where everyone has a choice? Hell no. Everyone must remain steadfast to my propaganda. REMAIN FAITHFUL AND ENDURE TO THE END!!!

Choice is over-rated. There have been studies done that show that increasing options for people actually decreases their perceived satisfaction at their final choice.

 

[LogGrad98]

I've always just thought of them as leaders, not leader, the plurality being the key point. I just never got in line with the idea that there's one leader who has clear communication to God and the rest of us need him to communicate with God (that's more Pope than Morman). God gave us His Word, He gave us prayer, and He gave us the Holy Spirit...so why do we need the middle man?

Amos 3:7
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

So in essence you are saying God has done everything he intends to do.

 

[RandyForRubio]

So in essence you are saying God has done everything he intends to do.

Ummm...no. There's still the Anti-Christ, tribulation period, etc etc. So no, I'm not saying that at all.

As for Amos, it's an OT book, so we have to take context here. In the OT a prophet was needed, in fact, it wasn't until Jesus ascended that we didn't need a prophet. That was when God gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit.

John 14:15-17

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

 

[framer]

If the Church is led by God, why was there so much dissection and confusion over the next prophet?

At the very least, wouldn't God or an angel appear to each remaining leader and make it perfectly clear who the successor was?

And if so, why did Young reach out to Smith III so often to have him join church leadership, and why did Smith III refuse?

I'm wondering other's thoughts. Thanks.

Supposedly, for many, this is EXACTLY what happened. Now, if they chose to listen is another matter. . .

https://scottwoodward.org/brighamyoung_transfiguration.html

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Struggle is overrated.
I would prefer that God come show himself to me and tell me what he wants from me in person...... Rather than trusting in some books and church leaders.
I could still choose to struggle and make incorrect decisions in any case

In my experience, and in what I have observed I have learned that what is given to someone with no effort on their part is not appreciated, understood, or cared for. What a person puts blood, sweat, and tears into gaining/earning/achieving is better understood, appreciated, and cared for.

I also think there are at least two different types of struggle. There is a struggle to overcome an obstacle/issue/challenge, and there is a thrashing around in anger/defeat at an obstacle/issue/challenge with no attempt to overcome.

Let me explain my thoughts in a way you might understand better.

If someone hands you a salmon steak that has been cooked and seasoned the way they like it, you may like it too and appreciate what they have done on a surface level because it saved you some effort.

If someone teaches you how to fish for salmon, takes you to Alaska, and you spend time fishing yourself. It takes some time but you catch the perfect salmon. That same day you clean it, season it and cook it the way you like it. There is a lot more you take away from the second scenario, and if you wanted salmon again you could do it.

In both cases you got to eat salmon. In the second you have an idea of what it takes to get the salmon, and most likely you appreciate everything about it more. Also if someone asked you to teach someone else how to get their own salmon you could most effectively if you had experienced catching salmon much more than if you had not.

You learn more from the actual experience, and if you actually like fishing, you enjoy almost everything about catching the fish.

In this case, the struggle was a good part of the experience and enjoyable.

fishon, do you go fishing for the fish? Would you rather someone else did the fishing for you and just gave you a fish?


A second example would be similar, but have to do with something you don't enjoy doing. I still think you gain more from the struggle, even in things we don't enjoy doing over having things given to us with no effort on our part... despite the fact that you think you would just rather it be given to you.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Ummm...no. There's still the Anti-Christ, tribulation period, etc etc. So no, I'm not saying that at all.

As for Amos, it's an OT book, so we have to take context here. In the OT a prophet was needed, in fact, it wasn't until Jesus ascended that we didn't need a prophet. That was when God gave us the gift of the Holy Spirit.

John 14:15-17

My understanding of this seems to be different than yours.
The Holy Spirit was there to help prophets and people before Christ was on the earth, and after, but not during.
Even with the Holy Spirit we need prophets.

 

[RandyForRubio]

My understanding of this seems to be different than yours.
The Holy Spirit was there to help prophets and people before Christ was on the earth, and after, but not during.
Even with the Holy Spirit we need prophets.

I suppose you're correct in part. The Holy Spirit was needed for prophets before, but after something amazing happened...God allowed all of us to partake of the Holy Spirit. After Jesus, there is no man set apart from another. You'll notice that even Peter, Paul and John did not refer to eachother as prophets, or anything like that. So why should we?

 

[The Thriller]

I've long thought that God pretty much stays out of it, unless somebody is going to really screw it up. My view is that He sits up there on His throne and says "Yeah, that could work. Give it a shot." I don't necessarily view it as Him saying "Do it THIS way or be damned!!!"

Which is interesting since the vibe I always got from uber opinionated self righteous leaders like: Spencer W Kimball, Ezra T Benson, and Packer was just exactly that. "DO IT THIS WAY OR BE DAMNED!!!"

Whereas, I see other leaders (Hinckley, Uchtdorf, etc) not as headstrong.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I suppose you're correct in part. The Holy Spirit was needed for prophets before, but after something amazing happened...God allowed all of us to partake of the Holy Spirit. After Jesus, there is no man set apart from another. You'll notice that even Peter, Paul and John did not refer to eachother as prophets, or anything like that. So why should we?

What would be your understanding of Ephesians 4 as a whole with specific emphasis on 10-12?

The gifts Christ gave unto men (after his ascension) were -- apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ(church).

Am I missing something?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Which is interesting since the vibe I always got from uber opinionated self righteous leaders like: Spencer W Kimball, Ezra T Benson, and Packer was just exactly that. "DO IT THIS WAY OR BE DAMNED!!!"

Whereas, I see other leaders (Hinckley, Uchtdorf, etc) not as headstrong.

That's strange. I kind of thought you would get along more with uber opinionated self righteous people because you could relate.

<-------- it's okay to say because I added a smiley

 

[RandyForRubio]

What would be your understanding of Ephesians 4 as a whole with specific emphasis on 10-12?

The gifts Christ gave unto men (after his ascension) were -- apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers for the perfecting of the saints, the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ(church).

Am I missing something?

Good question.

Basically, there are two trains of thoughts on this: cessationism and continuationism (because we don't have enough -isms)

Cessationism is the idea that certain spiritual gifts ceased with the twelve apostles, continuationism is of course, the opposite.

So, the thought here is that these gifts were given in order to set up the church correctly, and BC the NT was not yet complete. See, that verse also references apostles, which were people who had seen Jesus. Now since Jesus isn't coming again until the foretold date, how can somebody be an apostle today?

Now that's not to say there aren't prophets, but it depends on how you define it. Most prophecy in the Bible was forth telling, not fore telling, as in affirming God's Word. I do believe that happens. As for new revelation, I do not think that occurs. If you look at 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, it explains how prophecies and tongues will pass away, for when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. The Bible is perfect, it has come. We know this based on 2 Timothy 3, "for all scripture is God breathed..."

 

[LogGrad98]

But the bible wasn't even a bible, as it were, for centuries after the death of Christ, and the early canon changed a lot, with different books added and others taken away. Were the spiritual gifts present during these centuries? If not how do we know they got the bible "right"? How do we know that important books weren't left out and others included that shouldn't have been?

 

[RandyForRubio]

But the bible wasn't even a bible, as it were, for centuries after the death of Christ, and the early canon changed a lot, with different books added and others taken away. Were the spiritual gifts present during these centuries? If not how do we know they got the bible "right"? How do we know that important books weren't left out and others included that shouldn't have been?

Like I said, the Holy Spirit. And faith that God wouldn't allow His Word to become false for centuries. To me, it doesn't make sense that He would write this book so that people can learn about Him, but then allow it to go away for centuries.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Good question.

Basically, there are two trains of thoughts on this: cessationism and continuationism (because we don't have enough -isms)

Cessationism is the idea that certain spiritual gifts ceased with the twelve apostles, continuationism is of course, the opposite.

So, the thought here is that these gifts were given in order to set up the church correctly, and BC the NT was not yet complete. See, that verse also references apostles, which were people who had seen Jesus. Now since Jesus isn't coming again until the foretold date, how can somebody be an apostle today?

Now that's not to say there aren't prophets, but it depends on how you define it. Most prophecy in the Bible was forth telling, not fore telling, as in affirming God's Word. I do believe that happens. As for new revelation, I do not think that occurs. If you look at 1 Corinthians 13:8-10, it explains how prophecies and tongues will pass away, for when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. The Bible is perfect, it has come. We know this based on 2 Timothy 3, "for all scripture is God breathed..."

That is an interesting take on the Corinthians verses.
If you take those verses without thinking about the context of what Paul is talking about I can see how you can understand it that way if you want.

I read it as Paul talking about charity for the whole chapter. He is saying that everything else has an end, a completion, a stopping point... but charity does not have an end and it endures forever. I'm not really following you in the jump from there to the understanding that there is no new revelation or that the Bible is perfect and so therefore God will stop speaking to men through the Holy Spirit.

There are other scriptures that describe God as an unchanging being. Why would He then change from speaking to people and/or prophets and giving revelation, to not doing so in your opinion? Would that change make him a changeable being? I'm just curious what your thoughts are on this.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I never said God stopped speaking to people via the HS. I said I didn't believe there will be any new revelation. Could there be? Sure, I'm not going to claim I'm 100% doctrinally sound. I just don't think we have people going around making prophecies, nor do we need one person in charge of a religion. I mean, I don't think much of the Pope at all.

But basically what I'm getting at is that to be an actual prophet that gives prophecies from God, you have to be 100% perfect in your prophecy. I do not believe we have seen that in recent times.

 

[colton]

Now that's not to say there aren't prophets, but it depends on how you define it. Most prophecy in the Bible was forth telling, not fore telling, as in affirming God's Word. I do believe that happens.

That's interesting. That's probably how most LDS also view it, although I haven't heard that term before (at least not recently). Our church leaders, which we view as prophets, typically don't predict the future (except I suppose in general ways), but rather they testify to God's Word and give us counsel/advice on how it should be applied in our lives today.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I never said God stopped speaking to people via the HS. I said I didn't believe there will be any new revelation. Could there be? Sure, I'm not going to claim I'm 100% doctrinally sound. I just don't think we have people going around making prophecies, nor do we need one person in charge of a religion. I mean, I don't think much of the Pope at all.

But basically what I'm getting at is that to be an actual prophet that gives prophecies from God, you have to be 100% perfect in your prophecy. I do not believe we have seen that in recent times.

I guess I should ask, what do you consider revelation?

 

[RandyForRubio]

I guess I should ask, what do you consider revelation?

New edicts, laws, etc.

For example, I don't expect that in 10 years we'll get a new revelation that homosexuality is ok, just because it's popular.

 

[Bronco70]

I guess I should ask, what do you consider revelation?

New edicts, laws, etc.

For example, I don't expect that in 10 years we'll get a new revelation that homosexuality is ok, just because it's popular.

I've found it interesting that General Conferences often have "themes" - that is to say, recurring visits to a particular topic. It's seems to me that these "themes" are, a goodly portion of the time, not something that is being generally discussed in the church, but warrants dialogue.

To me, this seems like revelation. A bunch of old white dudes know what the membership needs to hear. I realize you could argue that it's just a case of "whatever the bretheren deem important becomes important to the membership", but I don't see it that way. And I'm a pretty sketchy mormon.