How important are the prophets of the Lord?

[Cow Poke]

[roadwalker]

Prophets are necessary, because without a prophet to provide structure you could have thousands of people who all believe they have received revelation from the Lord (and may have, for that matter) who all interpret it differently and are then the cause of much contention. In fact, this is precisely what led Joseph Smith to question the churches of his day, and I can say that when I left the Jewish religion, a big part of it was the level of contention and divisiveness that accompanied what should have been routine elections for leadership positions in some of the auxiliary organizations tied to the local synagogue.

With a prophet, you have a clear line of authority on down, and not the level of confusion and contention that exists without that line of authority.

[Cow Poke]

Prophets are necessary, because without a prophet to provide structure you could have thousands of people who all believe they have received revelation from the Lord (and may have, for that matter) who all interpret it differently and are then the cause of much contention.

That's what Pastors are for.

[roadwalker]

That's what Pastors are for.

Ah, yes. But when I was looking at different churches (while my office mate was teaching me about the LDS religion but I did go and investigate other churches) I saw some Pastors contradict other Pastors. How many churches are there? I've seen estimates of 3000 Christian denominations alone on the earth. But Jesus didn't start 3000 churches. Jesus started one church. The rest of them have all, over the past 2000 years since he started the original church, been started by men, who either broke off over some disagreement or disappointment, or felt inclined to start cold,a new church.*

But does Jesus WANT 3000 different churches? I don't believe that he does.

*-- and before you say it, I believe that the LDS church is not technically a 'new' church, but a restoration of the original church that Jesus directed Joseph Smith to recreate.

[JB]

Ah, yes. But when I was looking at different churches (while my office mate was teaching me about the LDS religion but I did go and investigate other churches) I saw some Pastors contradict other Pastors. How many churches are there? I've seen estimates of 3000 Christian denominations alone on the earth. But Jesus didn't start 3000 churches. Jesus started one church. The rest of them have all, over the past 2000 years since he started the original church, been started by men, who either broke off over some disagreement or disappointment, or felt inclined to start cold,a new church.*

But does Jesus WANT 3000 different churches? I don't believe that he does.

*-- and before you say it, I believe that the LDS church is not technically a 'new' church, but a restoration of the original church that Jesus directed Joseph Smith to recreate.

I would say that for us, there is only one church - the church - of which regenerated members of all the various denominations are in fact a part. It is true that at this time, we lack institutional unity and have some diversity of opinion. But it seems that just about as much diversity of opinion is present within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after a much shorter history - and that's not even bringing into play the wide diversity of opinion or institutional disunity if we take into consideration the other groups descended from the early Latter Day Saint movement.

[Cow Poke]

Ah, yes. But when I was looking at different churches (while my office mate was teaching me about the LDS religion but I did go and investigate other churches) I saw some Pastors contradict other Pastors.

It happens.

How many churches are there?

One.

I've seen estimates of 3000 Christian denominations alone on the earth. But Jesus didn't start 3000 churches. Jesus started one church. The rest of them have all, over the past 2000 years since he started the original church, been started by men, who either broke off over some disagreement or disappointment, or felt inclined to start cold,a new church.*

So, Smith was 3001?

But does Jesus WANT 3000 different churches? I don't believe that he does.

Jesus has ONE Church... we just can't all fit in the same building, and we're not even in the same cities.

*-- and before you say it,

Too late!

I believe that the LDS church is not technically a 'new' church, but a restoration of the original church that Jesus directed Joseph Smith to recreate.

Of course you believe that. Jim Jones believed that about his Church, and David Koresh believed it about his Church... and all the Mormon splinter churches.....

[roadwalker]

Diversity of opinion isn't the same thing as diversity of significant doctrinal issues, in particular of the type that actually cause churches to split apart.

And yes, there are offshoots of LDS. Which is exactly how all the different denominations got started early on in the history of the church. They were misguided then as they are now. Not necessarily bad, just off track.

[Xru]

I would say that for us, there is only one church - the church - of which regenerated members of all the various denominations are in fact a part. It is true that at this time, we lack institutional unity and have some diversity of opinion. But it seems that just about as much diversity of opinion is present within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after a much shorter history - and that's not even bringing into play the wide diversity of opinion or institutional disunity if we take into consideration the other groups descended from the early Latter Day Saint movement.

Is this true? I didn't know that.

Like breaking into denominations?

[Cow Poke]

Diversity of opinion isn't the same thing as diversity of significant doctrinal issues, in particular of the type that actually cause churches to split apart.

In my experience, RW, Churches don't split over doctrine -- -they split over the color of the carpet, or whether the piano should be on the left or right side of the platform, or whether we should buy a pipe organ....

IN FACT ... one Church was voting on a Wednesday night to purchase a Chandelier for the foyer... one of the old men stood up and announced "Well, I'm Agin it!"

The other members were surprised, and the Pastor asked WHY he was "agin it".

Well, for THREE REASONS...
1) Aint nobody in here can SPELL chandelier
2) Ain't nobody can PLAY one of them things
3) We need some LIGHTS in this place!

And yes, there are offshoots of LDS. Which is exactly how all the different denominations got started early on in the history of the church. They were misguided then as they are now. Not necessarily bad, just off track.

So, how do you know that one of THEM isn't the truly reformed restored Church, and the MAIN branch of Mormonism has drifted off course?

[OtherCheek]

I would say that for us, there is only one church - the church - of which regenerated members of all the various denominations are in fact a part. It is true that at this time, we lack institutional unity and have some diversity of opinion. But it seems that just about as much diversity of opinion is present within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after a much shorter history - and that's not even bringing into play the wide diversity of opinion or institutional disunity if we take into consideration the other groups descended from the early Latter Day Saint movement.

Every 2 years, active LDS adults are interviewed for worthiness to enter the temple. Questions range from support and affirmation of a testimony of core doctrines to how we treat our fellow man and our honesty. Beyond those things, there IS a lot of latitude in what people believe. So I think you are right.

I think that orthodox Christians probably have fewer "core" foundation pieces than do LDS. For orthodox, it is Jesus Christ and the Bible mostly. For LDS, it is Heavenly Father & Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, the BoM, and living prophets & revelation through them. And a lot of pieces that rest upon those.

[JB]

Diversity of opinion isn't the same thing as diversity of significant doctrinal issues, in particular of the type that actually cause churches to split apart.

And yes, there are offshoots of LDS. Which is exactly how all the different denominations got started early on in the history of the church. They were misguided then as they are now. Not necessarily bad, just off track.

But that's precisely the sort of diversity of opinion I'm talking about. Within even just the mainstream LDS church, there can be disputes over how many Gods there are, whether our Heavenly Father himself has a Father, whether our Heavenly Father was once a sinner, whether our Heavenly Father's divine status was achieved or innate, whether our Heavenly Father could in fact lose his divine status through some factually possible means, the existence, nature, and/or identity of one or more Heavenly Mothers, whether Jesus is to be worshipped and in what sense, whether plural marriage was ever commanded by God, whether Jesus' birth was a virgin birth using the conventional sense of the word "virgin", what exaltation may entail, and so forth. Those are far more significant doctrinal issues than the ones currently undergirding the institutional separation of most if not all sections of the Christian community; and on the issues I've outlined, with some quite minimal flexibility, the traditional Christian communions are united.

Regarding institutional unity vs. schism, it seems that unless the institutional diversity arising from the Latter Day Saint movement itself tells against that movement, than neither can institutional diversity tell against traditional Christianity.

[Xru]

For LDS, it is Heavenly Father & Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, the BoM, and living prophets & revelation through them. And a lot of pieces that rest upon those.

I've never seen this priority . .. thanks . . . that clarifies a lot.

[OtherCheek]

But that's precisely the sort of diversity of opinion I'm talking about. Within even just the mainstream LDS church, there can be disputes over how many Gods there are, whether our Heavenly Father himself has a Father, whether our Heavenly Father was once a sinner, whether our Heavenly Father's divine status was achieved or innate, whether our Heavenly Father could in fact lose his divine status through some factually possible means, the existence, nature, and/or identity of one or more Heavenly Mothers, whether Jesus is to be worshipped and in what sense, whether plural marriage was ever commanded by God, whether Jesus' birth was a virgin birth using the conventional sense of the word "virgin", what exaltation may entail, and so forth. Those are far more significant doctrinal issues than the ones currently undergirding the institutional separation of most if not all sections of the Christian community; and on the issues I've outlined, with some quite minimal flexibility, the traditional Christian communions are united.

Regarding institutional unity vs. schism, it seems that unless the institutional diversity arising from the Latter Day Saint movement itself tells against that movement, than neither can institutional diversity tell against traditional Christianity.

To me, there is a degree of magnitude of diversity. I would imagine one would find a lot of diversity of opinion WITHIN the Baptist sect, or the Methodist or Lutheran sects. But that is on a different magnitude than the diversity BETWEEN Pentecostal and Baptist sects for example.

[JB]

To me, there is a degree of magnitude of diversity. I would imagine one would find a lot of diversity of opinion WITHIN the Baptist sect, or the Methodist or Lutheran sects. But that is on a different magnitude than the diversity BETWEEN Pentecostal and Baptist sects for example.

And what I am saying is that the degree of diversity found here WITHIN even just the largest LDS sect on major issues (particularly theology proper, Christology, etc.) is of greater magnitude than the diversity BETWEEN, e.g., Pentecostals and Baptists on major issues.

[OtherCheek]

And what I am saying is that the degree of diversity found here WITHIN even just the largest LDS sect on major issues (particularly theology proper, Christology, etc.) is of greater magnitude than the diversity BETWEEN, e.g., Pentecostals and Baptists on major issues.

Well, the most major issues are the foundation pieces that make up a testimony. Every 2 years, active LDS adults are interviewed for temple worthiness. We are asked questions regarding our testimonies of those foundational doctrines, as well as how we treat our fellow man and our honesty, and obedience to the commandments. So there is a check done, but beyond that, yes there is a lot of room for latitude. And thankfully so.

If you are right, then perhaps it is because we just have more doctrines-- along with their interweaving with other doctrines--to believe and discuss than do orthodox Christians, and that is why we have more diversities of opinion. (i.e. salvation for the dead, a corporeal Father in Heaven, atonement for "original guilt", BoM, D&C, PGP, etc.