You would surely liven up our Gospel Doctrine Class.
I've been studying a bit more in regards to early Christian history in the years after Christ. Interesting stuff. It is true that the Restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a behemoth organization with a firm system of practice and doctrinal control and implementation along with strict guidelines which protect the distribution of authority and keys. I think that it is this, however, that gives the church the ability to stay true to the guiding principles that Jesus taught. It is these principles that, at the end of the day, are core to the everyday practice of being a Latter-day Saint and disciple of Jesus Christ. That's the way I see it anyway.
Regards,
MG
Well, personally although I affiliate with LDS I'm not what you would call a traditional believer. I don't even believe in a God that gives revelation to people or can hear prayers or make intersession.
However, I would say that the LDS Church doesn't really have anything to do with what Jesus taught. That's not a criticism - the same is true of the protestants and the Catholics. Christianity in general is a religion about what people think Jesus' death means. All modern Christian sects ignore most of what Jesus taught. Or they seem to think he didn't mean what he said.
Jesus' movement was really of its time and place. It would be hard to replicate today, but if you did, it wouldn't look like a church. It would be a wandering band of homeless pacifists with an emphasis on charity and ethical behavior. No ordinances, no atonement theology, no heaven or hell. A much simpler world view than Mormonism or mainstream Christianity.
Here's some more food for thought. This was posted on the Academic Biblical subreddit. It's handy for getting a sense of just how diverse the views were in early Christianity. There was never a consensus view until a few centuries in with the development of the Catholic Church. The text below is quoted from that sub:
The canonical gospels and the authentic and inauthentic Pauline texts were mostly crafted between (perhaps as early as) 60 and 185, and were created to advance the positions of Christians who sought to advance their own ideological, philosophical, and theological agendas.
During this timeframe, several distinct and influential groups contributed to the later orthodoxical Christian paradigm.
Below are the sects which were probably most influential to the emerging Christian orthodoxy:
The Nasaraeans – The Nasaraeans were a heretical Jewish sect not explicitly attached to Christianity. Hippolytus and Epiphanius describe a sect leader named Elxai, who in the late 1st/early 2nd century, led a band of Nasaraeans, Nazarenes, Ebionites, and Essenes; this group believed the Christ was a masculine, 96 mile tall figure in the sky, and had a feminine counterpart, which was the Spirit. The Nasaraenes rejected the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament), believed scribes had corrupted Moses’ teachings, and they claimed to possess Moses’ true teachings. Epiphanius also said they resembled the Hemerobaptists, which, coupled with these other details, implies they might be the source of the John the Baptist sect. Epiphanius puzzled over how the Nasaraeans could be Jewish in nationality, practice Jewish customs, yet reject Judaism’s tenets as he understood them. My speculation is that these Nasaraeans were derivatives of a Queen of Heaven cult, which revered a long-lost deity which was purged during King Josiah’s Deuteronomic reform in the 7th century BCE.
Only a portion of the original post is copied here. Complete statement and more is in the link.
PseudoPaul,
This selection you provide does show variety and proposes some unusual and perhaps questionable connections. In terms of the discussion it is odd that what is usually thought of as proto catholic is left out. By end of first century there are bishops and letters, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Time gets to Irenaeus we find a pretty clearly developed idea of what Christianity is which historical result shows to be the main line. (Though not the only line.)
MG is correct, I think, to point out that what Christianity was is a moving target. If one askes what Jesus's religion was more specifically than Jewish it might be important to consider that Jesus's view of the meaning of the kingdom coming may have been a developing idea and not a fixed doctrine. His death and followers believing in his resurrection opened a new dimension to that project. l would not see that process of discovery as done but continuing now.
Yes, I think that's a missing piece in what I quoted - where do the proto-orthodox church fathers fit into that matrix of competing Christian groups? I need to do more research on that.
But I will say that the kingdom of God didn't seem to be a moving target for Jesus - he defined it very clearly. However, because the kingdom of God never arrived as promised, Christianity developed other ideas, like church and heaven and hell, to take the places of what Jesus taught about the afterlife.
Only a portion of the original post is copied here. Complete statement and more is in the link.
PseudoPaul,
This selection you provide does show variety and proposes some unusual and perhaps questionable connections. In terms of the discussion it is odd that what is usually thought of as proto catholic is left out. By end of first century there are bishops and letters, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp. Time gets to Irenaeus we find a pretty clearly developed idea of what Christianity is which historical result shows to be the main line. (Though not the only line.)
MG is correct, I think, to point out that what Christianity was is a moving target. If one askes what Jesus's religion was more specifically than Jewish it might be important to consider that Jesus's view of the meaning of the kingdom coming may have been a developing idea and not a fixed doctrine. His death and followers believing in his resurrection opened a new dimension to that project. l would not see that process of discovery as done but continuing now.
I've come to believe/think that the 'project of Christianity' has always been an ongoing and evolutionary process that God has implemented and carried out in order to bring souls to a greater understanding of who they are and what they can become. It wasn't something that God or Jesus could simply wave a magic wand and 'make happen'. Too many things in the way.
Regards,
MG
MG, there are a number of things we see differently. Even so, I am happy to agree with your observation here.
I've come to believe/think that the 'project of Christianity' has always been an ongoing and evolutionary process that God has implemented and carried out in order to bring souls to a greater understanding of who they are and what they can become. It wasn't something that God or Jesus could simply wave a magic wand and 'make happen'. Too many things in the way.
Regards,
MG
MG, there are a number of things we see differently. Even so, I am happy to agree with your observation here.
Friends, when MG 2.0 uses "TTOC" it signifies a retreat or complete white-flag surrender by him and the LDS apologists on the point to which the TTOC is thrown up by MG 2.0.
Yes. He always gives explanations like this and attacks people directly when he runs out of bogus mopologetic stuff.
Friends, when MG 2.0 uses "TTOC" it signifies a retreat or complete white-flag surrender by him and the LDS apologists on the point to which the TTOC is thrown up by MG 2.0.
Yes. He always gives explanations like this and attacks people directly when he runs out of bogus mopologetic stuff.
Friends, when MG 2.0 uses "TTOC" it signifies a retreat or complete white-flag surrender by him and the LDS apologists on the point to which the TTOC is thrown up by MG 2.0.
Yes. He always gives explanations like this and attacks people directly when he runs out of bogus mopologetic stuff.
Yes, he is a great missionary. Inevitably, MG gets bored with pretending to have a valid point and just cuts to the part where he's an ass.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Yes. He always gives explanations like this and attacks people directly when he runs out of bogus mopologetic stuff.
And here she goes again...
Regards,
MG
Just like Hansen, MG particularly likes interacting with strong minded intelligent women. He doesn’t feel threatened by strong women, and isn’t insecure about his manliness when in a discussion with strong minded intelligent women.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
JACOB HANSEN
Husband. Father. Latter-Day Saint. Business Owner. BYU-H Alumni. Six Sigma Black Belt. Surfer. Hunter. Boxer. Trapper. Athlete. Sailor. Inter-Faith Advocate. Thinker. Eagle Scout. Content Creator. Forum Moderator. Adventure Lover.
He could have just said “Narcissist”.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
