Christian, Mormon doctrinal differences

No compensation that I’m aware of, but I seem to recall that they would be judges during the resurrection. So there is the “promise” of authority to reign and rule so to speak.

However, I have larger issues with the “lay” leaders...

Besides living in the world on a daily basis;

No ecclesiastical/theological training.

No marriage counseling training.

No psychology training.

They are “lay” in every sense of the word.

I would say you get “what you pay for”.

Bogged down with ward administrative issues, family issues, work issues, etc. There is only so much time in a day to devote to the bishop’s duties. How then, can he be expected to do the job he’s been called to efficiently? How can he ensure the member’s spiritual needs are taken care of?

I can recall how difficult it was to get time with a bishop to discuss spiritual matters. I didn’t trust any others in the wards because they were just like me, trying to sort it all out and coming with as many interpretations as there were people.

I’ve sat and listened to speakers put forth erroneous interpretations of scripture and doctrine during their assigned talks and not once did I ever see one of these “lay” bishopric members stand and correct it.

When confronted afterwards, I would be told that since I wasn’t in the bishopric, I had no standing in attempting to correct the speaker.

### Then we find in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. "15 So then, brothers, dstand firm and hold to ethe traditions that you were taught by us, either fby our spoken word or by four letter." ### Had to take a break by obligations on the Lord's Day, Monday, and today, so it happened that I could not reply until now. And indeed, also as I indicated before that we would only find a profitable point of departure when you find any place in the Holy Scripture ordaining infants to be baptized. So I do not intend to strive, especially since the voluminousness of your responses only prove that you have found simple positive affirmation for paedobaptism in Scripture; and therefore you have only uninspired tradition, post-dating the completion of the canon, to lean on. Now, considering your reference to the passage above, there are three points: (1) Your Greek above is identical to that found in both Scrivener's TR and Nestle's 4th 1904 ed of WH. -- no fault there. But the translation you give is not merely imprecise, it is very misleading. Three faithful interchangeable English renderings are given by AV, ASV, and Douay-Rheims of which the following is representative: "(Therefore)(So then), brethren, stand (fast)(firm) and hold (to) the traditions which (ye)(you) (were taught)(have learned)whether by word, or (by) our epistle." The RV and NASB are discounted because seek to improve by adding to the sentence, embroidering the truth, thereby destroying the integrity. Yet they are modified not quite so much as the version you have given above. To "taught" you have added "by us", and to "word" you have added "our spoken." This lends a completely different and unwarranted complexion to the interpretation, not confirmed by a precise hermeneutic. (2) Even then, the traditions taught to the Thessalonians only comprise the teaching by word of mouth (inspired only during that limited phase of the development of NT canon), or by written embodiment of known _doctrine_ (Heb. 6:1)(logos); or by OUR letter (singular), which can only be the single previous letter written by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy _together_ (who were all still then together in Corinth in 51 AD, with even the first Synoptic Gospel not yet widely distributed); and the NT ordinances to be held fast were only those derived from the OT, or directly from being discipled by The Christ, or just being written down. (Note that Paul saw The Christ, and was discipled by Him for 3 1/2 years in the Arabian desert). Now, I know that the transmission of oral precepts were permitted under the Mosaic/Davidic Covenant. In just one instance it is (now) _recorded_ that Joseph "... came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.' "(thus making what had been an oral tradition not found in the OT, into inspired Scripture by being written down by the Holy Ghost through Levi). But now, since the methods of mouth to mouth revelation or oral transmission from God to man are no longer taking place, your basis of these kind of post-canonical traditions is no longer relevant. The application of inspiration of the new orally-delivered precepts is limited to the time period concluded by the death of John. After that, the only new "traditions" formed were uninspired. Furthermore, if there were any supposed precepts formed in that time and holding over after the canon was closed -- if they were not clearly cited in the Holy Scripture, they were extra-Biblical, uninspired, anthropocentric, and invalid. Your citation above as you translated and used as you have done, only leads you to draw weak conclusions by referring to extrabiblical practices that are founded on false doctrine. (3) I have a bit of understanding of paradohses, such as the Ordinance of Honor, taught by Paul to the Corinthians in about 50 AD, his reminder set down by inspiration in 1 Cor 11:2-15, and which is now a flat-out order, not just to the Greeks of Corinth, but to all believers everywhere. It amazes me that the Greek bishop that you hold up as an example, regularly does (as the Pope does) directly disobey the clear precept that "... the head of _every_ man (male) is Christ; ..." v. 3, "Every man (male) praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." What tradition of that bishop is it whereby he is able to supersede the direct command of the Holy Spirit in this matter by dishonoring The Christ??? I wouldn't lift _that_ up in defense of unscriptural tradition. I didn't miss the point of Jesus' talk to the Pharisees at all. I think perhaps that slipped right by you in your lecture on this principle. (3) One of the problems people have demonstrated in this thread is the implicit assumption that human-administered water baptism, even immersion and not merely topical, effects salvation: that man's determined wilful conduct forces The God to respond to that provocation by regenerating the person suffering the rite. This is a wholly incorrect and presumptuous doctrine. In fact, this does touch on the "Christian"/Mormon doctrinal differences, which baptism would be one topic of this thread. ***************************** So again (and this is my last attempt) find me a Scriptural ordinance for water-baptizing an infant -- yea, even a convert who has never become a disciple -- and I will be corrected. If not, you need to find someone who can disciple you into a productive maturity, whereby you may become a discipler according to Scripture. (2 Pe 3:15,16 unlearned = undiscipled) As a further note, be aware that I am not a Protestant, and am not a sectarian. I am a believer in the Scripture that alone The God uses to present His plan of redemption as executed by The Messiah The King, and His coming Kingdom of Righteousness and Peace; and his guidance for the churches in every age. I a constituent of an independent local assembly of fundamental immersionist believers. I believe that is the only manifestation of His true visible churches on earth. Also, you might check out: http://www.happyheralds.com/

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.