Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is the difference between the Anglican and Episcopalian Christian sects, unless perhaps the Episcopalians don't recognize the Queen as the head of the church.
Well, that's how the Episcopal Church in the United States came to be. It was the Church of England, but then the Revolution came about and a Bishop could not be ordained unless by another Bishop of the Church of England (it's an apostolic succession thing), and that entailed swearing allegiance to the King, George III at the time, specifically.
So they formed the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States ("Episcopal simply means 'run by bishops') and found a Scots bishop who wasn't particularly fond of the King of England and who was willing to ordain the American bishops. It's more complex than that, of course, but that's the gist of it.
Now it's all back to one big happy called the Anglican Communion, EXCEPT that the US Episcopal Church is right now under a three-year sanction, sort of a slap and a finger-wag, by the rest of the Anglican Communion because we perform gay marriages and ordain gay people to the clergy, and some of the rest of the Anglican Communion still doesn't like that.
On the other hand, who gave the sermon at the latest British royal marriage, eh?
and the sole means by which we may be saved. There's a pretty significant difference between any LDS prophet and Jesus Christ
OK well Mormons believe in the bible unless the BOM contradicts that, in which case the BOM is correct, unless the current prophet contradicts that, so on and so forth. There's a pretty significant difference between LDS and other Christians, who have no new Prophet whose word to take over that of Jesus's.
And they did such a thorough job that in 325 A.D. people were still arguing about the nature of God and the relationship between the Father and the Son. Creeds had to be established to "clarify" what the Apostles supposedly didn't sufficiently fine tune. Today, however, we all agree on what the teachings of the Apostles were, huh? There is no significant difference between Eastern Orthodoxy and Presbyterianism and Pentecostalism.
They weren't "still arguing". A new heresy had crept in. It tends to happen that way. It has happened that way. We have the clear teaching of Scripture, but every so often someone comes along and writes their own, or claims their own message from God.
As for the nature of God, being a Trinity, it was settled 1800 years ago. But even today, there are people that come along with new ideas.
Why would Mormons accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and not Ellen White? She did come after Smith.
I'm not arguing that any of the are prophets, but both proclaimed to be. What makes one more reliable than the other?
Well, for one thing, we don't just believe that anybody who claims to be a prophet is one. There is a very specific way by which we believe a prophet must be called.
By way of clarification... The Church is governed by the President (aka the Prophet), his two counselors, and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Whenever an Apostle dies, the remaining fourteen men meet, talk, pray for guidance and ultimately choose an individual to replace the deceased member of the Quorum. Typically, this is an individual who is well-known to all of them and who has served for a period of time in a position of leadership within the Church. This individual is then called to be an Apostle. If he accepts this calling, he is ordained by the Church leaders and sustained by the vote of the Church membership. He becomes the junior Apostle (in terms of seniority). He will serve as an Apostle until He dies.
When the President of the Church (i.e. the Prophet) dies, the Quorum of the Twelve, the keys of authority he alone held, are automatically passed to the Quorum of the Twelve and his two counselors. In a manner similar to how each of them was initially called, they meet, talk, pray and choose the new President from among their group. In the past (in other words, on each of the sixteen times a Prophet has passed on), this has always been the senior member of the Quorum, i.e. the man who has been serving in the Quorum of the Twelve the longest but there is no rule that says this must be the case. He picks two men from the group to serve as his counselors. That, of course, leaves a vacancy in the Quorum of the Twelve, which is filled as previously explained.
This is the way we believe the Lord wishes the succession to work, so any man who is called to be an Apostle is called to someday potentially become the Prophet. Unfortunately for Ellen White, she was never called to be an Apostle.
We are all the spirit sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father. We are all His spirit offspring. We are not, however, the physically begotten sons and daughters of God. We are the spiritually begotten sons and daughters of our own mortal parents. Jesus Christ was unique in that He had a mortal mother and a divine Father. He was therefore God's "only begotten son."
Quote:
OK well Mormons believe in the bible unless the BOM contradicts that, in which case the BOM is correct, unless the current prophet contradicts that, so on and so forth. There's a pretty significant difference between LDS and other Christians, who have no new Prophet whose word to take over that of Jesus's.
No. That's not correct. First of all, The Book of Mormon does not contradict the Bible. The Book of Mormon contains doctrines that the Bible makes no mention of, but you can't very well contradict something that's not there. Nobody in the LDS Church is superior to Jesus Christ. We believe that our prophets are called by God to direct the Church established by His Son, Jesus Christ, through revelation from Him. So we never have to worry about any human being's word being accepted over the word of Jesus Christ. You're right in saying that it's significantly different from mainstream Christianity where each congregation is pretty much autonomous and each individual preacher gets decides for himself how to interpret the Bible. He teaches what his parishioners want to hear or they show him the door and find someone who will. And this is precisely what Paul said would be the case without prophets and apostles at the helm of the Church.
They weren't "still arguing". A new heresy had crept in. It tends to happen that way. It has happened that way. We have the clear teaching of Scripture, but every so often someone comes along and writes their own, or claims their own message from God.
As for the nature of God, being a Trinity, it was settled 1800 years ago. But even today, there are people that come along with new ideas.
Sorry, but if the teaching of scripture was as "clear" as you say, heresy couldn't creep in. The Bible alone could have settled any dispute or difference of opinion that came up. The Trinity was one of several teachings about God that had existed for a couple of hundred years before a pagan emperor decided that this bickering had to be settled once and for all and convened a council where this would take place. Some new heresy didn't just surface immediately prior to the Council at Nicaea. Christianity had been unbelievably fragmented almost immediately after Jesus' death. The Trinity became doctrine because of a majority rule, plain and simple. Had the vote gone another way, you'd be arguing for a different doctrine today. But as I said before, show me where the Apostles taught it any more clearly than they taught the doctrine of deification and I'll be convinced.
Sorry, but if the teaching of scripture was as "clear" as you say, heresy couldn't creep in.
Yet...there are actually people that believe, in the face of all sorts of evidence otherwise, that the earth is flat. And Creflo Dollar has a private jet.
People are gullible. They'll believe anything.
Quote:
The Bible alone could have settled any dispute or difference of opinion that came up. The Trinity was one of several teachings about God that had existed for a couple of hundred years before a pagan emperor decided that this bickering had to be settled once and for all and convened a council where this would take place.
Nonsense. It was clearly taught through Scripture. Beginning with Genesis where God says "Let us make man in OUR image". We see in Acts 5 the Holy Spirit is called God. We see Jesus called God throughout Scripture, and we see him calling himself God in Revelation 1.
You may point out the word "Trinity" doesn't appear in Scripture? OK..neither does "Mormon". So...your point?
Quote:
Some new heresy didn't just surface immediately prior to the Council at Nicaea. Christianity had been unbelievably fragmented almost immediately after Jesus' death. The Trinity became doctrine because of a majority rule, plain and simple. Had the vote gone another way, you'd be arguing for a different doctrine today. But as I said before, show me where the Apostles taught it any more clearly than they taught the doctrine of deification and I'll be convinced.
The Trinity had been taught since the beginning. The apostles taught Jesus as God from the beginning. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. I won't go back and rehash all this--it's been done a thousand times on this forum.
The Trinity had been taught since the beginning. The apostles taught Jesus as God from the beginning. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. I won't go back and rehash all this--it's been done a thousand times on this forum.
Not to mention it was brought up as a diversion to the lack of scripture to back up the belief that men can become Gods.
That is completely antithetical to the God of the Bible. The one and only God over everything, not one of many ruling over only this planet.
Nonsense. It was clearly taught through Scripture. Beginning with Genesis where God says "Let us make man in OUR image". We see in Acts 5 the Holy Spirit is called God. We see Jesus called God throughout Scripture, and we see him calling himself God in Revelation 1.
That's right. Scripture teaches of a divine Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nowhere does it teach that they are "one substance." As The Book of Mormon teaches, "And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end."
Quote:
The Trinity had been taught since the beginning. The apostles taught Jesus as God from the beginning. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest. I won't go back and rehash all this--it's been done a thousand times on this forum.
Yes, the claim has been made a thousand times, but the evidence has never been produced. Had the Apostles ever taught the Trinity, as it was formally established as "Christian doctrine" at the first Council at Nicaea and as it is believed today, you'd be able to show me where. So much for dishonesty.
Not to mention it was brought up as a diversion to the lack of scripture to back up the belief that men can become Gods.
Nonsense. You show me a single, solitary scripture where the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are said to be "one substance" and I'll believe the Trinity is a biblical doctrine. It was not "brought up as a diversion." It was brought up as an example of how mainstream Christians are doing exactly what you're accusing Mormons of doing. The Trinity is not taught in the Bible even as clearly as the doctrine of Eternal Progression is. I can understand why you wouldn't want me to mention that fact, but maybe you just don't like having a level playing field.
Quote:
That is completely antithetical to the God of the Bible. The one and only God over everything, not one of many ruling over only this planet.
It is not antithetical to the God of the Bible. Paul taught, "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." That is exactly what we believe. No Latter-day Saint believes that God is "one of many ruling over only this planet." We actually believe that the God of the Bible has created "worlds without number." He rules over all of them. Stop misrepresenting my church's doctrines!
Romans 8:16-17, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:26-27 and Revelation 3:21 are the four passages of scripture that teach us that, as children of God, we may also be His heirs, joint-heirs with Christ, even glorified with Him. We might partake of the nature of divinity and be allowed to sit with our Savior on His throne, to rule over the nations. If these promises are true, what do they all boil down to? They mean that we have the potential to someday, be “godlike.” One of our prophets explained that "we are gods in embryo." If our Father is divine and we are literally his "offspring", as the Bible teaches we are, is it really such a stretch of the imagination to believe that he has endowed each of us with a spark of divinity?
Last edited by Katzpur; 09-14-2018 at 10:26 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
