Cause of my Tanner Kerfuffle

[huckelberry]

H-B wrote....
This fits Protestant church authority for which priesthood of all believers is a part but only a part.
There are ordained ministers who lead churches. Their authority is a combination of learning, commitment, a sense of being called of God, but also selected by the group and organization of believers together in a church.

It is really not my intent to get into a huge discussion on this, but I think it is important to understand that authority to a Evangelical/protestant is a personal thing. In John, I believe either verse 12 or 13, or both, it reads that to as many that believe in Christ to them He gave them the "Right" (literally power an authority) to become a child of God (by sonship and adoption), not by a genealogy or by man's authority, but by God. Paul in Roman's, around chapter 8 teaches that because of this adoption, we can call God father, literally in the sense as calling or father papa or daddy. And in Corinthians or Colossians, Paul teaches that the believer is adopted into the body of Christ (the church) by the agency of the HS (literally emersed/baptized). This is basically the priesthood of believers, who offer up living sacrifices. No longer needing dead ones via the Law. This compliments Christs statement that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

Authority for being a pastor is a different thing all together and subjective for sure, and I believe "ordained" and "set apart" is a better term in regarding a protestant pastor.

Markk, I understand that the function of priesthood in the New Testament is connected to all believers in many places. That idea is the foundation of the organization choosing a leader and giving that leader authority. There are variations in color or detail among Protestants(some even keep an episcopal succession)but I think you are right to point to a priesthood of all believers as foundation.

[Markk]

It is really not my intent to get into a huge discussion on this, but I think it is important to understand that authority to a Evangelical/protestant is a personal thing. In John, I believe either verse 12 or 13, or both, it reads that to as many that believe in Christ to them He gave them the "Right" (literally power an authority) to become a child of God (by sonship and adoption), not by a genealogy or by man's authority, but by God. Paul in Roman's, around chapter 8 teaches that because of this adoption, we can call God father, literally in the sense as calling or father papa or daddy. And in Corinthians or Colossians, Paul teaches that the believer is adopted into the body of Christ (the church) by the agency of the HS (literally emersed/baptized). This is basically the priesthood of believers, who offer up living sacrifices. No longer needing dead ones via the Law. This compliments Christs statement that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

Authority for being a pastor is a different thing all together and subjective for sure, and I believe "ordained" and "set apart" is a better term in regarding a protestant pastor.

Markk, I understand that the function of priesthood in the New Testament if connected to all believers in many places. That idea is the foundation of the organization choosing a leader and giving that leader authority. There are variations in color or detail among Protestants(some even keep an episcopal succession)but I think you are right to point to a priesthood of all believers as foundation.

There is a huge difference between people or an organization giving a leader authority vs. the LDS doctrine that PH authority is an eternal law. There is really no function of a PH in the New Testament, other than we are to give living sacrifices, meaning from our hearts. Christ is the eternal HP, a Mediator, having fulfilled what the HP could not do in his yearly attempts in the H of H's.

The Royal Priesthood of believers are those that are adopted into His body, the church. It is not some sort of church function for a selected group.

[Kishkumen]

Kishkumen, I was reflecting on a couple of your comments and though you may not wish argument about them this is a discussion board so I will add my thought.

I can understand affinity with Orthodox Christianity. It is reasonably seen as the oldest organization. It has thought which is a valuable part of Christian thinking. I do not see your dismissal of Protestant tradition. It is clearly built upon the preceding tradition of Christianity. It discarded a few items and kept the body of essentials.You mentioned the Didache as showing the need for further material than the New Testament itself. Of course you realize the reformers study patristic thought and the tradition of Christianity has been important. Scripture only means it has first authority. Nobody has thought it means you could think about nothing else. You said something like Didache is needed for understanding church order. I thought to review the Didache. It has basic teachings from the gospels. I hardly see the book as foreign to Protestants. It does have an interesting statement about church order.

quote Didache: Of Local Officials.
You must choose for yourselves overseers and assistants who are worthy of the Lord, men who are humble and not eager for money , but sincere and approved for the are carrying out the ministry of of the charismatists and teacher for you. Do not esteem them lightly for they take an honorable rank among you along with the charismatists and catechists

This fits Protestant church authority for which priesthood of all believers is a part but only a part.
There are ordained ministers who lead churches. Their authority is a combination of learning, commitment, a sense of being called of God, but also selected by the group and organization of believers together in a church.

hmm, For all it would not hurt if that little comment about eager for money was not forgotten.

I don’t agree that Protestantism discards a few things. It discards many things. Orthodox theologians view Protestantism as heterodox for a reason. On the one hand, I don’t really have a dog in this fight, but I do take Orthodox theologians seriously in their claims that Catholics and Protestants are heterodox or heretical. Maybe we could have a discussion on this basis, the one where Orthodox and Protestant theologians’ disagreements are brought into conversation with each other.

[Kishkumen]

I am not sure what that has to with what you originally wrote and asserted. However, It is just a general statement that is lacking history a nuances. For one, Mormonism at its inception attacked Christianity, and still does. Christianity fought back against "Mormonism" for many many reasons, to say it was just a numbers games is just not close to looking at or addressing the history of the birth of Mormonism. I also disagree with Mormon's being entirely Christian, and that we could discuss another day, but in fact, their cannon teaches that they are the ONLY true Christian church or body of believers, so your argument misses the very premise of Mormonism, that God came to Joseph and gave him the authority to restore the Christian church that basically an abomination to Him, because of what they taught an believed.

A rational historical perspective on this is that Christians in the 19th century as today are playing boundary maintenance games. Mormonism is a Christian faith that declared the need for a restoration of primitive Christianity through divine revelation. Other Christian churches reject their claim. It is a struggle between Christians, not between Christians and non-Christians.

I disagree on several levels. One being that your claim was, that my view of Mormonism is skewed because I read a publication by the Tanners, while completely ignoring I was born an raised in the LDS church, of deep pioneer stock, with a fairly exhaustive LDS library (with notes) at my finger tips to cross check and test what I read in what were referred to as "anti" books.

The fact that you studied stuff and chose the Tanners’ view over your former LDS Church does not make you objectively right. It is perfectly possible for you to have reached faulty conclusions. That said, if your Protestant faith works for you, then I am all in favor of you practicing it.

Another is that you just generalized the assertion that the Tanners material is skewed in a short sentence, with no real backup. I get you are not impressed with the Tanners research, and you believe that they have no right to criticize Mormonism, while you do, but in my opinion that you have some deeper issues here that you are reluctant to reveal. You are a member of a community that exists to criticize Mormonism, a yet you want to exclude the community that Mormonism attacks from having a public opinion of it.

It takes more than research to reach good conclusions, Markk. You can read a lot, read in depth, and still reach incorrect conclusions. Every well-read heretic is, I am sure, convinced they are right.

A finally you do all this while refusing to reveal what you believe about Joseph Smith an "what you believe, and why."

Maybe because I explained my position on this already, a couple of times.

The rest of what you wrote in the quote here has nothing to do with what you claimed about me, and the Tanners. However your writing ..." They are just very popular, as they are the majority Protestant perspective. ..." makes me believe you are ignorant of their research an work as a whole, have you read "Mormonism Shadow, and Reality?"

I am talking about their religious perspective and how it informs their rejection of Mormonism as expressed in many different ways in their written works including the newsletters.

Your assertion was and remains, that you claimed my view of Mormonism is skewed because I read Mormonism Shadow and Reality, and that basically the Tanners view of Mormonism can't be trusted, which is unsustainable in my opinion.

Yeah, it remains. I don’t trust your take on Mormonism at all. You are a convert to another faith who judges Mormonism in accordance with your faith and its advocates. It’s like an argument between Dodge and Ford truck owners. Both own trucks that serve their own needs, and they each may feel passionately about their choice, but I would hardly expect either set of fans to be unbiased in their views.

[Markk]

Kish wrote...A rational historical perspective on this is that Christians in the 19th century as today are playing boundary maintenance games. Mormonism is a Christian faith that declared the need for a restoration of primitive Christianity through divine revelation. Other Christian churches reject their claim. It is a struggle between Christians, not between Christians and non-Christians.

Well the Tanners, as I do, and basically the very most of protestants would disagree with you; that Mormon Doctrine is Christian Doctrine, it is simply not. The Book of Mormon was inspired by Christian thought and doctrine, but soon evolved into something that is hardly Christian, especially from the 19th century Protestant/Evangelical faith.

Your argument stands, and fall's, on the straw-man that the Protestant faith must somehow adhere by your view that Mormon Doctrine is Christian Doctrine. When core LDS doctrine and thought is broken down and shown for what it teaches ,and it's logical ends....it is far far from Christian.

Your baseline for criticizing Mormonism is that "kind" can't criticize "kind," which is just silly in my opinion. Everyone else can criticize Mormonism except those you categorize as being the same "kind" as them. And to boot, without you identifying your "kind" in your criticisms of the church

Mormonism excluded, and doctrinally still separates themself from 19th century Christianity, and did so well into the 20th century with teachings like the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon, and the Protestant Church it's Harlot Daughter. (Pratt and BRM).

“And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.269).

Back on the old boards I once had a similar conversation with DCP. As you know it was his pet peeve that Evangelicals do not consider LDS doctrine Christian doctrine, he wrote a book about it called something like "offenders of a word" if I remember correctly. I asked him (several times) if the "Children of God" was a Christian church....even though they taught sex with children, even their own (incest) were Christian, and finally, he reluctantly stated "unfortunately yes." You seem to share that same shallow definition of what Christian doctrine teaches.

More Later

[Kishkumen]

Well the Tanners, as I do, and basically the very most of protestants would disagree with you; that Mormon Doctrine is Christian Doctrine, it is simply not. The Book of Mormon was inspired by Christian thought and doctrine, but soon evolved into something that is hardly Christian, especially from the 19th century Protestant/Evangelical faith.

Your argument stands, and fall's, on the straw-man that the Protestant faith must somehow adhere by your view that Mormon Doctrine is Christian Doctrine. When core LDS doctrine and thought is broken down and shown for what it teaches ,and it's logical ends....it is far far from Christian.

Your baseline for criticizing Mormonism is that "kind" can't criticize "kind," which is just silly in my opinion. Everyone else can criticize Mormonism except those you categorize as being the same "kind" as them. And to boot, without you identifying your "kind" in your criticisms of the church

Mormonism excluded, and doctrinally still separates themself from 19th century Christianity, and did so well into the 20th century with teachings like the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon, and the Protestant Church it's Harlot Daughter. (Pratt and BRM).

“And virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.269).

Back on the old boards I once had a similar conversation with DCP. As you know it was his pet peeve that Evangelicals do not consider LDS doctrine Christian doctrine, he wrote a book about it called something like "offenders of a word" if I remember correctly. I asked him (several times) if the "Children of God" was a Christian church....even though they taught sex with children, even their own (incest) were Christian, and finally, he reluctantly stated "unfortunately yes." You seem to share that same shallow definition of what Christian doctrine teaches.

More Later

Yeah, this is the reason I have no time for you guys. This is a big SMH. The world’s largest sect of heterodox Christians denies Christian identity to millions. A sect of bigotry. I am not interested.

[Markk]

Markk wrote...I disagree on several levels. One being that your claim was, that my view of Mormonism is skewed because I read a publication by the Tanners, while completely ignoring I was born an raised in the LDS church, of deep pioneer stock, with a fairly exhaustive LDS library (with notes) at my finger tips to cross check and test what I read in what were referred to as "anti" books.

Kish wrote...
The fact that you studied stuff and chose the Tanners’ view over your former LDS Church does not make you objectively right. It is perfectly possible for you to have reached faulty conclusions. That said, if your Protestant faith works for you, then I am all in favor of you practicing it.

Well, once again you ducked addressing and owning what you wrote. Now please focus, I learned, from the Tanners, truths about Mormonism that were being withheld from me. False truth claims. I could have become a atheist, Buddhist, JW, Hindu, agnostic, or what ever....that all came later as I explained to you, after I learned the truth about the Mormon church and history. I did not study Mormonism Shadow or Reality to become a Christian, I studied it to learn about the truth of my faith.

Right or wrong my conclusions about my faith have nothing to do with the Tanners, other than opening my eyes to just how many lies I was told by the church, and inadvertently by my parents and grandparents who were equally lied to. In another post I shared a few of the folks that helped me with finding my new faith, and they were not the Tanners. I understand very well that my faith, what I believe and why I believe it could be wrong, as I understand Mormonism could be wrong, yet objectively I know they can't both be correct in that they are 180 from each other.

I am glad you are okay with me practicing my faith.

[Markk]

Markk wrote...Another is that you just generalized the assertion that the Tanners material is skewed in a short sentence, with no real backup. I get you are not impressed with the Tanners research, and you believe that they have no right to criticize Mormonism, while you do, but in my opinion that you have some deeper issues here that you are reluctant to reveal. You are a member of a community that exists to criticize Mormonism, a yet you want to exclude the community that Mormonism attacks from having a public opinion of it.

Kish wrote...
It takes more than research to reach good conclusions, Markk. You can read a lot, read in depth, and still reach incorrect conclusions. Every well-read heretic is, I am sure, convinced they are right.

I am genuinely surprised, that I am surprised, after 30 years of talking with folks like you, who completely ignore what was written, even while you quote it.

But are you suggesting one needs a spiritual intervention above and beyond research to receive correct conclusions? And it seem here that you are asserting that the Tanner's and myself are akin to well read heretic's?

How did you come to your conclusions about the false claims of Mormonism, beyond your research? But the More I read what you write I might be leaning you are LDS/Mormon....i.e. a believer that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God.

[Markk]

Markk wrote ...A [nd] finally you do all this while refusing to reveal what you believe about Joseph Smith an[d]"what you believe, and why."

Maybe because I explained my position on this already, a couple of times.

You stated whether or not you believed Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God? I missed that, was it a yes or a no?

Markk wrote...The rest of what you wrote in the quote here has nothing to do with what you claimed about me, and the Tanners. However your writing ..." They are just very popular, as they are the majority Protestant perspective. ..." makes me believe you are ignorant of their research an work as a whole, have you read "Mormonism Shadow, and Reality?"

Kish wrote...I am talking about their religious perspective and how it informs their rejection of Mormonism as expressed in many different ways in their written works including the newsletters.

You are stating that now, but it was not what you wrote....you stated I have a skewed view of Mormonism because I said I read Mormonism Shadow or Reality. Have you read it?

Markk wrote...
Your assertion was and remains, that you claimed my view of Mormonism is skewed because I read Mormonism Shadow and Reality, and that basically the Tanners view of Mormonism can't be trusted, which is unsustainable in my opinion.

Kish wrote...
Yeah, it remains. I don’t trust your take on Mormonism at all. You are a convert to another faith who judges Mormonism in accordance with your faith and its advocates. It’s like an argument between Dodge and Ford truck owners. Both own trucks that serve their own needs, and they each may feel passionately about their choice, but I would hardly expect either set of fans to be unbiased in their views.

That is such a weak statement and argument Kish. I was a LDS for 33 years and equally a Evangelical Protestant for around 33 years. Your assertion implies I don't know Mormon history and Doctrine because I converted to another faith. My guess is that you really do not know mush about core LDS doctrines other than the talking point doctrines you were spoon feed as a saint. And, for sure, you know nothing about the core 19th century Christian doctrine that Mormonism rejects in their Cannon and the reason for a full restoration of a lost and perverted church....i.e. the 19th century New England protestant church.

But you got one thing correct, I did convert to another faith, from Mormonism to Christianity. Mormon doctrine, not Christian doctrine in my opinion, not even close, and again having spent a life time learning both.

[huckelberry]

There are interesting questions that emerge comparing Protestant and Orthodox thought. Neither is unified enough to lay out simple yes nos, which makes it interesting.

To be fair, two nineteenth-century Reformed theologians, John Williamson Nevin and Philip Schaff of the Mercersburg Theology school, sought to highlight the more holistic understanding of salvation within the Reformed tradition. (See my assessment of this small but important movement.) More recently, Anglican bishop N.T. Wright’s writings and some of his Reformed followers in the Federal Vision movement have moved away from this narrow, exclusively legal-forensic view. Sadly, in their attempt to incorporate aspects of patristic theology, they have been charged as heretics by their Reformed brethren for seeking to recover ancient Christianity! (See the Recommended Reading at the bottom which lists several articles about the alternative soteriologies that recently surfaced within the Reformed tradition.)

https://orthodoxbridge.com/2018/07/22/o ... atonement/

This is from a discussion of penal substitution and older understandings of atonement and relating questions of theosis and idea of infused grace seen by Protestants as sanctification subsequent to initial salvation resulting from Christ rightenesss being imputed to sinner.

I do not think these differences are going to be completely separated or resolved anytime soon.

Perhaps I could explain that despite my studied copy of Westminister Confession and appreciation of John Owens Death of Death in the Death of Christ I remain influenced by Irenaeus and am a fan of New Testament Wright so I see dialogue not a simple one side is right and the other wrong.