Page 2 of 6
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:47 am
by _CaliforniaKid
Hi Cogs,
I agree that the beginning of the third century seems like a landmark in the corruption of the Church, since it was at that time that the idea of a Christian "priesthood" first found expression. How unfortunate that, when Luther did away with this corruption, Joseph Smith felt the need to "restore" it.
-CK
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:49 am
by _Jason Bourne
Jersey Girl wrote:Resurrecting this thread. Jason wanted to know why I bring up the Great Apostasy.
1.The threads that are started there are frequently interrupted with excessive blathering, making it impossible to have a serious dialogue. Why wouldn't I make
repeated attempts to engage a person or person(s) in serious dialogue on "Mormon Discussions" MB?
2. To the best of my recollection, I've brought up The Great Apostasy only once before. It is the VERY CORE of Mormon doctrine..why wouldn't I want to discuss it?
3. In those rare instances where I've been able to engage a serious LDS poster, I almost always learn some new piece of information that has not been presented to me previously. Sometimes it has little to do with Mormon doctrine itself. Why shouldn't I want to learn?
As I stated in the OP and thread title. If someone is willing or interested to participate in this thread, please do. If you dislike the thread, why bother?
Jersey Girl
I am challenging you on a couple of points. Did you see them? And I am pretty certain you have brough this up more then once. But if my perspective on your motive is incorrect pardon my please.
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:51 am
by _Jason Bourne
CaliforniaKid wrote:Hi Cogs,
I agree that the beginning of the third century seems like a landmark in the corruption of the Church, since it was at that time that the idea of a Christian "priesthood" first found expression. How unfortunate that, when Luther did away with this corruption, Joseph Smith felt the need to "restore" it.
-CK
Nonesense. Priesthood and authority are discussed in the New Testament. Try Hebrews
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:06 am
by _Jersey Girl
Jason,
No, I haven't give this thread any attention yet.
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:48 am
by _Coggins7
Martin Luther was proposing a wildly radical concept that would have utterly astounded the New Testament Christians just as much as it would have flummoxed the writers of the Old Testament scriptures, the Intertestemental Jewish religious corpus, and the Qumran community.
Luther was here overreacting to the corruptions of the Roman Catholic Priesthood, and he rejected "Priesthood" as a concept in a baby and bathwater way in the process.
But "the" Priesthood was long departed, and could only be restored by direct, divine intervention.
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:50 am
by _Jersey Girl
Coggins7 wrote:Martin Luther was proposing a wildly radical concept that would have utterly astounded the New Testament Christians just as much as it would have flummoxed the writers of the Old Testament scriptures, the Intertestemental Jewish religious corpus, and the Qumran community.
Luther was here overreacting to the corruptions of the Roman Catholic Priesthood, and he rejected "Priesthood" as a concept in a baby and bathwater way in the process.
But "the" Priesthood was long departed, and could only be restored by direct, divine intervention.
That's one concept that I fail to understand, Loran. How do you know the Priesthood was long departed or departed at all? Perhaps you need to define Priesthood for me.
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 7:01 am
by _Jersey Girl
Jason
I am challenging you on a couple of points. Did you see them? And I am pretty certain you have brough this up more then once. But if my perspective on your motive is incorrect pardon my please.
Let me tell you something. As I stated in a previous post, one of my main objectives is to learn. I've brought up this topic perhaps twice, I don't honestly recall. I find it odd/insulting that you would complain about a poster who NEVER approaches the TBM's on this board with ridicule or mockery regarding their beliefs, bringing up a topic more than once!
This topic has been raised respectfully. If you find it tiresome, then don't bother with it!
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:44 pm
by _CaliforniaKid
Nonesense. Priesthood and authority are discussed in the New Testament. Try Hebrews
Hebrews makes Jesus the one great high priest who makes human priesthood obsolete. By the third century, the early Christian church had abandoned this foundation and set up their own human priesthood. It's a shame, isn't it?
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:46 pm
by _beastie
One of the ironies of LDS apologia regarding past, erroneous teachings of LDS prophets is that prophets are "allowed" to speak their opinions, even when speaking as a prophet of God, and simply teaching his OPINION, which may be incorrect, does not alter the authority of the LDS church. So, in essence, false teachings alone cannot rob the church of God's "real" authority.
And yet that is one of the primary arguments for the Great Apostasy - ie, leaders began teaching erroneous ideas, and the church lost its authority.
So why does the modern LDS church and its leaders get a pass on this, while it robbed the primitive church of its authority??
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 3:50 pm
by _harmony
CaliforniaKid wrote:Nonesense. Priesthood and authority are discussed in the New Testament. Try Hebrews
Hebrews makes Jesus the one great high priest who makes human priesthood obsolete. By the third century, the early Christian church had abandoned this foundation and set up their own human priesthood. It's a shame, isn't it?
So you're saying the basic premise on which the LDS church is founded (that priesthood is necessary and needed to be restored) is flawed? That Christ by his divinity made the need for priesthood obsolete?