cardero said:
But isnt this what people in ecclesiastical authority or doing, promoting an authority to tell you or me what is correct to believe? And what of the other religions (who also claim authority), who may share similar beliefs but differ in other ones? Doesnt this diminish authority or at least call it into question? What church does GOD belong to?
This may or may not be an accurate example but let say that Church A has a book (we will call it the Blue Book) that they say was derived by a prophet who has encountered divine intervention. Church A says that they are going to use the Blue Book in accordance with the already established Yellow Book that most churches have testified to being inspired. Enter Church B who only utilize the Yellow Book but does not recognize The Blue Book as divinely inspired. A discrepancy has developed. Both church A and church B claim authority (ecclesiastical or otherwise). Another discrepancy has developed. Enter Joe/Josephine Schmoe, he/she says that they have compiled their own Bible (the Orange Book) from inspirations from GOD but is not affiliated with the Body of Church A or Church B. This is another discrepancy. Without any other evidence than a book of inspired beliefs (and the faith that they put behind it) who is correct? Who claims authority? Who is to be believed? (anyone may use a calculator if needed).
I still appreciate your statements and thoughts about sharing authority. I am not sure if I am in accord with your description of the Body but this just might be a personal misunderstanding on my part.
Yeah. First of all, you and I are on the same basic page here, and I have to say that I appreciate your thoughts and skepticism here.
You're right -- differences in the perception of "correctness"
do, indeed, call into question the authority that is claimed. It's too bad that the parties involved see the differences as threats from the "outside" instead of opportunities for one part of the Body to hold another part accountable. One of the biggest mistakes Xy made in the beginning was seeking to silence the "other voices" that could have expanded the scope of Xian thought.
The problem extant between orthodox (small "o," not big "O," for lack of a better term) and LDS authority derives from a misconception about a) the nature of the Church and b) the nature of the authority granted to the Church.
It is
Christ himself who is the unifying principle of the Church -- not doctrine, not praxis, not organization. Paul writes, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all." No one -- let me repeat that -- NO ONE has ever been granted authority to either question this unifying principle, or to change it in any way. The Church is not ours to break apart, ours to change in form or function, ours to dictate.
The Mormons rightly discerned that the Church had departed from the sense of
laos in which it had been conceived, lifting the clergy above the laity to a degree of authority. But then, they turned around and reorganized Church
in the same way!
Oh, sure, they call their leaders by different names and give them slightly different job descriptions, and they don't wear funny hats (yes, I know, they're
mitres), but they are lifted just as high and exercise the same authority over the "flock."
Since the
ecclesia has seen fit to order themselves in this way, I feel that
all should recognize the called nature of these offices. But I also feel that it's incumbent upon these leaders who have been accorded ecclesiastical authority to temper their authority with an ecumenical mind, not a parochial mind. The Pope should make his decisions bearing in mind the sensibilities of his Protestant siblings. The Presiding Bishop should make decisions bearing in mind the sensibilities of his Mormon siblings. The Prophet, Seer and Revelator should temper his revelations, bearing in mind the sensibilities of his Orthodox siblings, etc. These leaders need to begin thinking more seriously about their commitment to ecumenism -- or begin to develop a sense of ecumenism. It really does the Mormons little good to go off on their own tangent, ordering the Church the way they think it "should be" ordered. That's kind of like the arm refusing to do the job of the arm, preferring to act like hair. Ditto the RC's, the Anglicans, the Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Baptists.
Edit: I think that the different ordering can be a
good thing (and it
should be a good thing). Unity does not necessarily mean
uniformity. But the branch considering differences should take into consideration the impact they will make upon the other branches of the faith, as well as the impact of the other branches upon themselves!
Edit #2: The leaders would do well to figure out how to reconcile the inequalities inherent in this type of hierarchical church government, remembering that, in the beginning, there was no distinct set-apart clerical order.