Denominations?

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Only that cannot hide behind a belief that his/her faith must be true because there is no dissention, deviation, nor conflict within the group; when the opposite is plan for anyone to note.

My own faith is not based on which denomination I side with. My faith rests on GOD's Holy Word.

Well, the idea that there is authoritative conflict within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is debatable, at best. Spin-off branches that teach a different branch of Mormonism have no effect on the policies of the LDS Church, and they often evolve to teach different, sometimes radically different, doctrine than the LDS Church. The LDS Church proper is very authoritative and stresses one religion to reflect the one true Gospel of Christ.

On another note, I don't remember anyone 'hiding' behind a belief like you mentioned above.

Lastly, I can agree that my own faith is not based on a denomination but is given lifeblood through my testimony of Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Maxel

Well, the idea that there is authoritative conflict within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is debatable, at best. Spin-off branches that teach a different branch of Mormonism have no effect on the policies of the LDS Church, and they often evolve to teach different, sometimes radically different, doctrine than the LDS Church. The LDS Church proper is very authoritative and stresses one religion to reflect the one true Gospel of Christ.

On another note, I don't remember anyone 'hiding' behind a belief like you mentioned above.

Lastly, I can agree that my own faith is not based on a denomination but is given lifeblood through my testimony of Jesus Christ as my personal savior.

Please don't take this as an insult, it was not meant to be. However, it would seem that by your very words you may just consider that you are hiding behind the "authority" of a church...

The church I presently participate with is supportive of my biblical salvation understanding, and couples that with a healthy need to mature spiritually in my christian growth/walk that is spoken of in the New Testament. The church functions to cause interaction among other believers of like minds with the leading of the HOLY SPIRT. The church is not THE AUTHORITY as I understand it from a Biblical perspective. The WORD and HOLY SPIRIT are the authority. The HOLY SPIRIT providing the understanding of scripture to the children of GOD.

Consider if "A church" was the authority, then would JESUS be addressing 7 churches in Revelations?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Please don't take this as an insult, it was not meant to be. However, it would seem that by your very words you may just consider that you are hiding behind the "authority" of a church...

The church I presently participate with is supportive of my biblical salvation understanding, and couples that with a healthy need to mature spiritually in my christian growth/walk that is spoken of in the New Testament. The church functions to cause interaction among other believers of like minds with the leading of the HOLY SPIRT. The church is not THE AUTHORITY as I understand it from a Biblical perspective. The WORD and HOLY SPIRIT are the authority. The HOLY SPIRIT providing the understanding of scripture to the children of GOD.

Consider if "A church" was the authority, then would JESUS be addressing 7 churches in Revelations?

I think we are running the risk of falling into a legalistic trap here. Seems like we are talking semantics here rather than substance. Christ is the corner stone of the Church and the absolute center of our worship. Repentance, baptism for the remission of sins by authority and the reception of the Holy Spirit are basic tenements of our religion.

The collective membership as guiding rod of the church sounds very good, in principle. In reality the priesthood HAS to be the guardian of the keys and the doctrine. You may read the scriptures and feel of the Spirit and receive, individually, revelation and knowledge. That does not equate with doing the same fot the WHOLE organization or the Church collectively. When we speak of "The Church" we are referring to the First Presidency, the Q of the 12, the General Authorities the Stake Presidents, the Bishops, the Elders Q and HP group leaders as the instruments thru which the work of the Lord is carried out and service to the members is provided. Even when John was still alive and perhaps the last of the Apostles, there were congregations that began to break away from the "church" and refuse direction and counsel from one of the witnesses of the Savior, if you can imagine that.

So, collectively, it is called "The Church." And, the Priesthood ensures that the doctrine and the ordinances are not corrupted, that vague and obscure interpretations are not ascribed to the scriptures and the work is done according to the will and revelation of God. I have traveled the world over in the last 10 years and everywhere you go the Sacrament ordinance is conducted exactly the same way, the lessons are the same in ALL organizations, the Temple ordinances are exactly the same.

Again and again, the Apostles in their letters told the brethren to stick to what they had been taught, to ignore new doctrines and theologies for they were not of God. I don't know about you, but I spent 7 years visiting just about every congregation under the sun in LA looking for a home. What I saw stretches from the bizarre to the inspired and every shade in between. Some say it is all the same. I categorically state that it is not.

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Islander

I think we are running the risk of falling into a legalistic trap here. Seems like we are talking semantics here rather than substance. Christ is the corner stone of the Church and the absolute center of our worship. Repentance, baptism for the remission of sins by authority and the reception of the Holy Spirit are basic tenements of our religion.

The collective membership as guiding rod of the church sounds very good, in principle. In reality the priesthood HAS to be the guardian of the keys and the doctrine. You may read the scriptures and feel of the Spirit and receive, individually, revelation and knowledge. That does not equate with doing the same fot the WHOLE organization or the Church collectively. When we speak of "The Church" we are referring to the First Presidency, the Q of the 12, the General Authorities the Stake Presidents, the Bishops, the Elders Q and HP group leaders as the instruments thru which the work of the Lord is carried out and service to the members is provided. Even when John was still alive and perhaps the last of the Apostles, there were congregations that began to break away from the "church" and refuse direction and counsel from one of the witnesses of the Savior, if you can imagine that.

So, collectively, it is called "The Church." And, the Priesthood ensures that the doctrine and the ordinances are not corrupted, that vague and obscure interpretations are not ascribed to the scriptures and the work is done according to the will and revelation of God. I have traveled the world over in the last 10 years and everywhere you go the Sacrament ordinance is conducted exactly the same way, the lessons are the same in ALL organizations, the Temple ordinances are exactly the same.

Again and again, the Apostles in their letters told the brethren to stick to what they had been taught, to ignore new doctrines and theologies for they were not of God. I don't know about you, but I spent 7 years visiting just about every congregation under the sun in LA looking for a home. What I saw stretches from the bizarre to the inspired and every shade in between. Some say it is all the same. I categorically state that it is not.

Unlike some christian denominations, my own faith, as understood from Bible study, would indicate that those holding the keys were the chosen founders/teachers/spreaders of the faith. The term was unique to the chosen and not for this age. They wrote the New Testament as so moved by the HOLY SPIRIT and founded the CHURCH on CHRIST as HE charged them. The CHURCH at large would seem to be entirely in the hands of GOD at present.

[Maxel]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Unlike some christian denominations, my own faith, as understood from Bible study, would indicate that those holding the keys were the chosen founders/teachers/spreaders of the faith. The term was unique to the chosen and not for this age. They wrote the New Testament as so moved by the HOLY SPIRIT and founded the CHURCH on CHRIST as HE charged them.

Do you believe the New Testament to be fully complete in its present form? That is to say, do you believe that the current Bible (especially the New Testament) contains all the books that God saw fit to include for the spreading of His Gospel until His second coming? Also, do you believe anyone after the original apostles would have authority to declare correct doctrine or canon?

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

The CHURCH at large would seem to be entirely in the hands of GOD at present.

I couldn't agree more.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Unlike some christian denominations, my own faith, as understood from Bible study, would indicate that those holding the keys were the chosen founders/teachers/spreaders of the faith. The term was unique to the chosen and not for this age. They wrote the New Testament as so moved by the HOLY SPIRIT and founded the CHURCH on CHRIST as HE charged them. The CHURCH at large would seem to be entirely in the hands of GOD at present.

The Pharisees and Sadducee set forth the exact same argument. "We need no more prophets or teachers. We have the Law of Moses" They put John the Baptist to the sword and killed and persecuted the Apostles. The argument was the same, Jesus was as sinner and agitator. They failed to see the teachings, the doctrine, the authority and the majesty of His presence. To this day, Jews do not believe the miracles performed. No amount of evidence would ever be enough to demonstrate to them the Jesus is the Christ , the Son of God and the Redeemer of ALL mankind. But one day, it will come to pass that: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

I can read your posts and see where your convictions lay. We read the same bible and treasure the same scriptures. Now, I wonder if there can be room in your position to explore the unexpected? Can you allow for the possibility that God can manifest what seems to this day for you an impossibility?

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Islander

The Pharisees and Sadducee set forth the exact same argument. "We need no more prophets or teachers. We have the Law of Moses" They put John the Baptist to the sword and killed and persecuted the Apostles. The argument was the same, Jesus was as sinner and agitator. They failed to see the teachings, the doctrine, the authority and the majesty of His presence. To this day, Jews do not believe the miracles performed. No amount of evidence would ever be enough to demonstrate to them the Jesus is the Christ , the Son of God and the Redeemer of ALL mankind. But one day, it will come to pass that: "And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

I can read your posts and see where your convictions lay. We read the same bible and treasure the same scriptures. Now, I wonder if there can be room in your position to explore the unexpected? Can you allow for the possibility that God can manifest what seems to this day for you an impossibility?

But there was a difference that might be overlooked. The Pharisees & Sadducees were reinterpreting the LAW to suit their agenda (to remain top dogs and control the masses). They refused to see the prophetic messages throughout the scripture which pointed to the need of and coming MESSIAH because such seemed to them to spell the end of their reign. They looked to keeping the LAW and being of the chosen people as their salvation. And when there seemed to be an impossible commandment, they simply interpreted it to cover their sin.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

But there was a difference that might be overlooked. The Pharisees & Sadducees were reinterpreting the LAW to suit their agenda (to remain top dogs and control the masses). They refused to see the prophetic messages throughout the scripture which pointed to the need of and coming MESSIAH because such seemed to them to spell the end of their reign. They looked to keeping the LAW and being of the chosen people as their salvation. And when there seemed to be an impossible commandment, they simply interpreted it to cover their sin.

Isn't that what you may be doing? Are you not accepting and internalizing somebody else' interpretation of the bible and justifying your position with a circular argument. There are dozens of prophetic statements in the bible that speaks to prophets in the latter days, to a re-birth of Israel thru and by the hand of the gentiles, to the building of the Lord's House atop of the mountains; a Temple and for ALL God's children (Jew and Gentile) to receive therein a new covenant, a hand and a name better than of the original sons and daughters.

Now, you can rationalize how that does not ring true to you. It is only because you chose to deny the possibility and ignore the prophesies. Because you will not accept that God can speak again and reveal to His servants His will. And that my friend is truly your choice.

[LittleNipper]

Originally Posted by Islander

Isn't that what you may be doing? Are you not accepting and internalizing somebody else' interpretation of the bible and justifying your position with a circular argument. There are dozens of prophetic statements in the bible that speaks to prophets in the latter days, to a re-birth of Israel thru and by the hand of the gentiles, to the building of the Lord's House atop of the mountains; a Temple and for ALL God's children (Jew and Gentile) to receive therein a new covenant, a hand and a name better than of the original sons and daughters.

Now, you can rationalize how that does not ring true to you. It is only because you chose to deny the possibility and ignore the prophesies. Because you will not accept that God can speak again and reveal to His servants His will. And that my friend is truly your choice.

Secularly speaking, it is possible to consider anyone's "religious" views and Biblical interpretations as so much hogwash...

I hold to a strict interpretation of scripture, seeing it as historic, prophetic, and with both specific & general profoundly good advice. Now a "prophet" can be a divinely inspired individual who applies his biblical understanding to warn of the dire circumstances surrounding various forms of behavior.

A prophet doesn't need to be some individual adding to "scripture" nor making predictions of future events that have not been already revealed. One might be considered a prophet when speaking against abortion & the recognition of homosexual marriage as anything other than sin.

One does't need additional "scripture" to preach such. One needs only to be presenting the treachings regarding such as already found throughout the Bible.

As for Israel being re-established, I do already hold to that biblical insight. The 144,000; for example, are virgins from the 12 tribes of Israel. They are none other without reading into what GOD already inspired to be written.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by LittleNipper

Secularly speaking, it is possible to consider anyone's "religious" views and Biblical interpretations as so much hogwash...

I hold to a strict interpretation of scripture, seeing it as historic, prophetic, and with both specific & general profoundly good advice. Now a "prophet" can be a divinely inspired individual who applies his biblical understanding to warn of the dire circumstances surrounding various forms of behavior.

A prophet doesn't need to be some individual adding to "scripture" nor making predictions of future events that have not been already revealed. One might be considered a prophet when speaking against abortion & the recognition of homosexual marriage as anything other than sin.

One does't need additional "scripture" to preach such. One needs only to be presenting the treachings regarding such as already found throughout the Bible..

It is obvious you already made up your mind on the subject. You ignored my point about revelation in scriptures about the latter days but that goes to the weakness of your argument.

Just to call you attention to a simple point. If your premise is true, then after the Torah God should have stopped talking to his prophets (I am speaking of prophesy not just warning) and we should not read beyond that point. That was all the scripture Israel needed any how, according to your logic. But God in His love and wisdom continued to provide line upon line of NEW scriptures for our benefit and care thru His prophets.

After the Savior was crucified the Apostles went about spreading the Gospel. So, we'll take the Gospels and Acts and close the NT. No need for new scriptures? Guess what, 30 years later, Christ revealed to Saul he was to become an Apostle and carry on since some of His original disciples were killed. And then you have 13 more books in the bible thanks to that NEW revelation.

Now, YOU made up your mind and decide that God can not speak again to his servants to lead His Church by revelation, to safeguard the doctrine and the teaching and to watch over the ordinances of salvation. At this point you have elevated your assumed insight and intellect above any other consideration, including God's will.