A sense of "Church"

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You're just thin skinned, Rock.

You need to stop being a [something or other].

And again.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

And again.

Considering what you called me, I'm starting to wonder if you want to get a room....

Well, I don't swing that way, but hey, not that there's anything wrong with that!

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Considering what you called me, I'm starting to wonder if you want to get a room....

Well, I don't swing that way, but hey, not that there's anything wrong with that!

I figure you can get one and then I can show SIRS what real balls of steel are like.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I figure you can get one and then I can show SIRS what real balls of steel are like.

Now, now... I can imagine what it must be like to be "frustrated." (I can't empathize, but I can imagine), but there's no reason to bring my Mrs. into this.

Maybe an Audrey Hepburn movie is in order. Get Breakfast at Tiffany's and a quart of ice cream, and have a lost weekend.

You'll feel much better.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Now, now... I can imagine what it must be like to be "frustrated." (I can't empathize, but I can imagine), but there's no reason to bring my Mrs. into this.

Maybe an Audrey Hepburn movie is in order. Get Breakfast at Tiffany's and a quart of ice cream, and have a lost weekend.

You'll feel much better.

lol...actually not a bad idea.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I have no problem with anyone who has a differing opinion. That they don't actually account for the text is something that I can legitimately take umbridge with.

I accounted for the text.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I accounted for the text.

I suppose what Tex is arguing and SEIQ is discussing are two different shades of the same tree.

Tex vigorously defended the institution establish in light of the combination of many scriptures whereas SEIQ was looking at the purpose of looking to the text of the single scripture for purposes of inter-faith dialog.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

frequently overlooked in D&C 10:

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

70 And now, remember the words of him who is the life and light of the world, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Amen.

Written in the summer of 1828, I find this passage delightfully inclusive.

Interesting. I have two thoughts about this.

The first is that Joseph's understanding clearly evolved. I hope I won't get shot for suggesting that D&C is not the literal word of God, but rather is Joseph giving us the word of God as he understands it. There are many, many areas where his understanding and explanations of things evolved. The first vision, the priesthood restoration, etc.

The second is that we ought to read scriptures as being in harmony with one another if at all possible. This is an argument against both the notion that the corporate church is not necessary as well the argument that this verse has been replaced. Rather, I would read this verse as standing on its own merits with subsequent scripture being a footnote to it rather than replacing it.

My own reading of this is that Joseph is telling us that, boiled away, here is the essence of God's church. Later Joseph begins to organize the corporate church as a vehicle for accomplishing the establishment of the "church" as he uses it in the verse above. I think it is an important idea that it is the vehicle for the establishment of such rather than the embodiment of it.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

In a previous post I mentioned what I think it means. For one thing, it gives Mormons scriptural ground to consider members of other Christian churches as "Christian" in a very real sense. Mormons often say others are Christians, but we really don't mean it. Mormons consider others Christians in the apostate (aspostasy), no authority, and sometimes even "Church of the devil" sense. Some Christians have pointed out that Mormons double talk on this point--and they're right--except that passages like this one allow for the consideration of the Christian church in a broad, non-institutional way.

Of course the "church" in an institutional sense is invoked in many passages. But D&C 10:67 is different, and can in fact serve as a jumping off point for interfaith dialogue.

I like UtahDan's point on this and I'll credit you for bringing my attention to this. Interesting thought, and I too like the inclusiveness of it. (I also do you think you're a little hypersensitive--creekster's question seemed sincere...)

Question though--what is the role then of baptism? If it's all about repentance and coming unto Christ, is baptism a step in this process? Do we really need to rebaptize those who have been baptized into other churches? What about the priesthood? Role of authority? Ordinances? I'm not "quibbling"; I'm just curious how you frame these concepts into these verses.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I suppose what Tex is arguing and SEIQ is discussing are two different shades of the same tree.

Tex vigorously defended the institution establish in light of the combination of many scriptures whereas SEIQ was looking at the purpose of looking to the text of the single scripture for purposes of inter-faith dialog.

I haven't "vigorously defended" anything yet, Arch. Did you bother to read the thread, or just have a Pavlovian response to my name?

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Interesting. I have two thoughts about this.

The first is that Joseph's understanding clearly evolved. I hope I won't get shot for suggesting that D&C is not the literal word of God, but rather is Joseph giving us the word of God as he understands it. There are many, many areas where his understanding and explanations of things evolved. The first vision, the priesthood restoration, etc.

I'd like to nit-pick with this a little, if you don't mind. While it's clear Joseph's understanding did evolve (unsurprisingly), I put scripture on an exceptionally high plane. And though scripture may have its own prophetic style (Isaiah is not Mormon is not Joseph Smith), it stands as close to the literal word of God as we are likely to get it mortality.

In other words, I believe scripture gets a special standard above and beyond other prophetic statements, Joseph's evolving intellect notwithstanding.

Originally Posted by UtahDan

The second is that we ought to read scriptures as being in harmony with one another if at all possible. This is an argument against both the notion that the corporate church is not necessary as well the argument that this verse has been replaced. Rather, I would read this verse as standing on its own merits with subsequent scripture being a footnote to it rather than replacing it.

My own reading of this is that Joseph is telling us that, boiled away, here is the essence of God's church. Later Joseph begins to organize the corporate church as a vehicle for accomplishing the establishment of the "church" as he uses it in the verse above. I think it is an important idea that it is the vehicle for the establishment of such rather than the embodiment of it.

I think this is generally a good approach, and one that harmonizes with what I posted earlier.