Posted on 04/21/2004 9:40:18 PM PDT by restornu
That was a response to a post by another freeper.
Define "doctrinal".
The guys who wrote it were the bishops of the different churches, were they not? No apostles left among them?
Each item is simply a restatement of Scripture.
I believe that there are three beings, united in purpous and equal in love and understanding (they are all infinite), but they are nonetheless individuals.
"Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord."
Indeed. So how about this...living responsibly in the public square? Kudos to California LDS folks who were, of their own free will, involved in the good cause of passing the proposition a few years back that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. The LDS Church in CA then was a key ally in getting that passed.
Unfortunately, as someone who has been involved in the pro-life movement, I have seen much less involvement in this arena by Mormons--both at the church authority level and at the grass roots level.
You would think that the only church body on the planet that has the doctrine that there are baby spirits up there having been hatched by MomGod and they are simply awaiting bodies down here to inhabit would be leading the line of pro-life activists. Sadly that is not the case.
Lds folks are generally pro-family and pro-life; but like too many other church bodies, it often is "paper tiger" status beyond their immediate families. Worse, and I've seen the LDS-sanctioned book published for its bishops (someone placed it online)...bishops are given the "okay" by Salt Lake City to allow for LDS members to have abortions for reasons of "health" without even bothering to define what "health" is.
And, that, my friends, is notliving responsibly amidst the overseers of any church body...(not that the Christian denominations can easily point fingers given that the insurance policies for the Presbyterian Church-USA and Evangelical Lutheran Church-ELCA both pay for abortions in targeting offspring of churchworkers!).
I would say those whose heritage has evolved from 19th century Protestant evangelists have been given a faith to responsibly pass down to the next generation--what some call the biological commission. That would be living out what we profess generation unto generation.
Someone once said that children are missionaries we send to a time we will never see. For Mr. Duncan, a break occurred somewhere in that heritage. [Someone could say the same thing in reverse about me re: a heritage-break: My triple-great grandfather was a polygamous bishop in the LDS church]; Mr. Duncan openly concedes he is now not living what his ancestors professed. The Bible says "you shall know them by their fruits" and one fruit we can evaluate in others' lives is: Do we responsibly honor the faith of the saints of the 18th century, the 17th century, the 16th century, and on and on previously, before us? And so the question arises: How do latter-day Saints, who typically fail to honor most saints who lived between the third and 18th centuries, live out what they profess to believe in Jude 3? How can they broad brush so many previous generations as outright heretical apostates when the Bible clearly says it was a "once and for all" delivery unto a church who would prevail vs. the gates of hell?
Some of the shortest books of the Bible can teach us some of the greatest lessons for living out what we profess. Jude 3 is a primary example:
"...I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for allentrusted to the saints."
Notice that Jude says the faith was delivered once for all, not once for a while upon earth, only to be totally lost and need to be restored. Latter-day saints say they honor and revere the King James version of Jude 3. How do they live out what they profess to believe here? Do they take scissors to the "once for all" by simply ignoring it? I'm truly interested in knowing a response.
He then goes on in Jude 4 to talk about "certain men" have "secretly slipped in among you" who deny Jesus as "our only Sovereign and Lord." Some people treat modern-day prophets as pseudo-sovereigns; some people treat modern-day revelations as pseudo-sovereigns; some people treat modern-day church authorities as pseudo-sovereigns; and some people fail to acknowledge the sovereignty of our Lord Jesus Christ by not praying to Him as the Nephites allegedly did; by not recognizing Him as Creator as John (1:3), Paul (Col. 1:16), and the writer of Hebrews (1:2-3) did; and by not believing Him when He said "wide is the road that leads to destruction; narrow is the way that leads to life" (Matt. 7:13)
Being disagreeable
Some folks wonder what the purpose is even for books like 3 John in the Bible. For one thing, John names names: saying both positive things about Demetrius (12) and negative things about Diotrephes (9)...I guess John wouldn't pass muster from some posters for he openly said negative things about Diotrephes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.