Welcome Anonymous!
We host quality Star Wars sites - inquire at The Star Wars Rebellion Network  
SW:Rebellion Network
imminent-bean
 



Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Redirected Mormon thread
PostPosted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:14 pm 
Offline
<!-- Corporal //-->
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:00 am
Posts: 37
Master_Xan wrote:
We find it ridiculous that God would so drastically change the pattern which He has used from the beginning of biblical history (namely, the calling of prophets and others to be His direct representatives on earth).

Jesus prophesied, but prophets cannot replace Jesus. Just the same, high priests cannot and do not replace THE High Priest. The question, at its root, has little to do with high priests and more to do with whether or not God still calls prophets and other servants (and bestows upon them a portion of His power). Although I could quote scriptures and use logic to say prophets are called, the only reason I know its true comes directly from my answers to prayers on the subject.

I'm still curious, what leads you to believe there was/is only one high priest at a time?


1. Hebrews 1:1-2 says explicitly that the time of prophets is over, that now God has revealed himself finally in the person of Jesus Christ

2. The purpose of prophets in the OT was to foretell of Jesus. That was their whole point of speaking to the people, to reveal God to the people. Jesus is the fullness of God's self-revelation to his people. Prophets, the kind seen in the OT that you're talking about, are no longer necessary.

3. If it were true that this was an unchangeable pattern: Where were the prophets between Jesus and Joseph Smith? Where is "the prophet" in the early church? There is no primary leader of the early church who is called a prophet, in fact, in the Bible, the office of prophet is lower than that of apostle. Peter is never called a prophet, ever, in the NT. Not only that, but the way the lds 'prophet' is chosen is not how OT prophets are chosen. If your argument is that this is the way it's always been, there's not much evidence to support that at all.

4. There was only ever one high priest in Judaism. There can be only one, and that is Jesus. Read Hebrews.

5. Your reasoning is exactly how I know that mormonism is false. You can't argue against someone saying, "well I prayed about it and God said it was true." Do you know how many religions use that exact same method of "proof" to show their religion is "true"? The Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing. It's completely invalid. It's a cop-out.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redirected Mormon thread
PostPosted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:51 pm 
Offline
<!-- Admiral -->
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:00 am
Posts: 866
I apologize for not having responded sooner. My apartment's internet has been off and on all week (all semester really, but this week has been especially bad). I think I'll get time tomorrow to respond on campus (where the 'net works all the time).

_________________
Star Wars: Rebellion, A Field Manual
"O be wise, what can I say more?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redirected Mormon thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:07 pm 
Offline
<!-- Admiral -->
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:00 am
Posts: 866
1. Hebrews 1:1-2 says explicitly that God spoke to their ancestors via prophets, and in their day did so through Jesus Christ. It does not say God is done calling servants by which to operate in the world. Such is, I suppose, and interpretation of the verse, but we view it as an incorrect interpretation.

2. The purpose of prophets in the OT was not just to foretell of Jesus. It was to reveal God to the people. Revealing God means revealing His purposes and His will, as well as foretelling the Savior's coming. Isn't the Savior coming again? Do you suppose the world has no further need of understanding and direction from God?

Taken from Hugh B Brown's talk, some reasons for which God would stop talking to man are:
A) God has lost the power
B) God doesn't love us anymore
C) We don't need Him anymore

Of course, A is blasphemous, as B is to a degree. God is no respecter of persons, and certainly loves us even as He loved those of old. Do you mean to say we don't need God's voice anymore? I would argue otherwise, that in this world of conflict and confusion, we need His direction just as much as anyone previously ever did.

3. The pattern found in Biblical times was not that of prophets at all times. A prophet would be called, and as time went on the people would stop listening to him. In the church we call it apostasy. During times of apostasy, there was no prophet, while God waited for a time when the people would again listen to His servants. Frequently, God would humble the people Himself to accomplish this. The people of Jesus' time rejected Him, crucified Him, and hunted down and killed the Apostles He had called to carry on in His stead. Over the course of time, the church which Jesus set up was changed; parts were modified, removed, or added. God prepared a place and time when again He could speak and people would listen. Enter Joseph Smith, in the religious freedom of America (the only place at the time with this freedom).

Joseph certainly was called as past prophets were; by God directly. Compare Moses and Adam, who also spoke with God in such a way. If you don't believe Joseph was a prophet, there is no point in comparing the calling of past prophets after him. The truth of this church compared to other Christian groups is either found in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, or the religion is false and all that has come after it is inconsequential.

4. I feel we must agree to disagree on this point. Judaism may have only had one high priest, but this was a different office than that which we call a high priest in our church. The position of high priest in Judaism was done away with when the Mosaic code was done away with. If you insist on comparing two different offices of the same name, then there is nothing I can say to dissuade you from such a comparison.

5. *sigh* As I said, I'm NOT trying to convince you that my position is the right one. No man can, nor should any undertake to prove by reason and logic alone ANYTHING that is of God. When a person tries to prove by empirical reasoning and evidence the things of God, that person has become a hypocrite. You cannot prove the existence of God with science, why would you argue His word by science? Everything certainly does make sense, but we lack some of the information necessary to reach the same conclusions God has. His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways are higher than our ways.

Just as we do not understand the details of Jesus Christ's sacrifice and Atonement, there are other parts of the gospel which only God can explain to us. If you are unwilling to ask God questions, then you are missing out on a vast store of knowledge and direction. You may argue whether or not I did receive the answers from God I claim to have received, but to disapprove or disbelieve my process is to disagree with God when He said "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God" (James 1:5).

I did not say it was impossible to prove by the Bible that God still calls prophets. I meant that I would not attempt such. Such discussions go no-where quickly, as the interpretations of the scriptures in question vary drastically from group to group. I have prayed, and that is why I agree with the interpretations given by LDS prophets. "I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true..." Moroni 10:4. If you do not wish to ask, that is perfectly fine. But I am saying I believe what I believe because I asked, and received an answer. Again, I am not trying to convert you, and see no reason to attempt to prove by reason or scripture that which I believe impossible to prove. Others say the same, that they believe what they believe because of answers to prayer. The only way to know what they know is to ask God yourself, and I invite you to do just that whenever anyone says such a thing. Those truly seeking truth seek it from the source, not from books and scholars down-river.

"Inquiry is the birthplace of testimony." -Dieter F. Uchtdorf

I feel we have probably reached the end of this line of questioning. To stick with this topic is to induce argument, not explanation. Feel free to respond to what I've said, but know I probably won't respond again in depth on this topic.

_________________
Star Wars: Rebellion, A Field Manual
"O be wise, what can I say more?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redirected Mormon thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 1:26 pm 
Offline
<!-- Corporal //-->
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:00 am
Posts: 37
Master_Xan wrote:
1. says explicitly that God spoke to their ancestors via prophets, and in their day did so through Jesus Christ. It does not say God is done calling servants by which to operate in the world. Such is, I suppose, and interpretation of the verse, but we view it as an incorrect interpretation.

2. The purpose of prophets in the OT was not just to foretell of Jesus. It was to reveal God to the people. Revealing God means revealing His purposes and His will, as well as foretelling the Savior's coming. Isn't the Savior coming again? Do you suppose the world has no further need of understanding and direction from God?

3. Joseph certainly was called as past prophets were; by God directly. Compare Moses and Adam, who also spoke with God in such a way. If you don't believe Joseph was a prophet, there is no point in comparing the calling of past prophets after him. The truth of this church compared to other Christian groups is either found in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, or the religion is false and all that has come after it is inconsequential.

4. I feel we must agree to disagree on this point. Judaism may have only had one high priest, but this was a different office than that which we call a high priest in our church. The position of high priest in Judaism was done away with when the Mosaic code was done away with. If you insist on comparing two different offices of the same name, then there is nothing I can say to dissuade you from such a comparison.


1. there's no way you don't get that the time of the prophets is over from that verse.

2. the purpose of the OT prophets was to reveal God, as both you and I said. Jesus is the FULL and COMPLETE revelation of God, therefore the prophets were foretelling Jesus. There is no more need to reveal God, Jesus did it completely. You commit a logical fallacy when you presume when I say that it means we don't need God any more. It's obviously not what I'm saying; we always need God. I won't refute this since it is a completely false inference from my comment. I never said we don't need God. ... Since this is clearly of the utmost importance, where are these saving revelations that are absolutely necessary for the church? What did Hinckley or Monson reveal from God lately that's so important? Ear piercings?? Are you kidding me? And if their revelation is just the daily management of the church, how is that any different than what a Christian pastor does in the running of their congregation?

3. Perhaps Joseph's story matches up to the OT criteria, but NONE of the subsequent prophets were - they are simply the longest serving member of the quorum of the 12 apostles. Speaking of which, how can you POSSIBLY claim the exact same organization of the early church when there were quite clearly 12 apostles, led by one of their own, Peter, and you have 12 apostles separate and distinct from 3 extra apostles and the leader, who is NOT one of the 12??

4. You claim that the setup of your church is the same as the early church. You cannot prove this, as all your offices and titles are related in name ONLY to ANY Biblical priesthood or office, from the Old or the New Testament, and that includes that of high priest. You use the title without any respect for the original meaning of the word, as if Christianity wasn't the natural evolution from Judaism! Of course there should be a relationship with any title or rite that carries over from the Mosaic traditions, just as Christ's paschal sacrifice on the cross has a direct relationship to the sacrifice of the lamb at Passover!

Deacons in the NT were chosen to run the charitable distribution and temporal affairs of the church - only 7 men were chosen for the church in Jerusalem, having over 1000 people. The criteria listed for deacons makes it obvious it was a role intended for adult men. It was clearly never meant for every 12 year old boy to have!

Ephesians 4 v.11 says that SOME are teachers, etc - NOT all. But the lds church makes every 14 year old boy a teacher.

There is no such thing as a Melchizedek priesthood in the Bible. The Hebrew word, dibra, translated as order, actually means "style" or "manner," not a class or order of priests. Jesus is a priest after the manner of Melchizedek in two ways: 1. offering bread and wine, as I already said and 2. he's a priest of God who is NOT of the line of Aaron, the tribe of Levi - Jesus is of the tribe of Judah. The letter to the Hebrews makes reference of Melchizedek ONLY when addressing the fact that the Jews are asking how Jesus can be a priest when he's not of the tribe of Levi. They're not asking what their priesthood should be called. There is no relationship between the lds Melchizedek priesthood and the Bible's references to Melchizedek.

The titles Bishop and Elder are also completely misused in the same context. Read the NT thoroughly, front to back, and you'll find no substantive relationship between the early church and the lds church in organization, practice, or belief.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redirected Mormon thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:26 pm 
Offline
<!-- Admiral -->
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:00 am
Posts: 866
And thus the discussion degenerates into argumentative dogma. I have tried my best to put forward my point of view without overly criticizing others, and certainly without trying to insult you. I apologize if anything I've said has caused offense.

Perhaps YOU can't help but infer the end of the prophets from Heb 1:1-2. I can. Perfect example of how arguing with the scriptures is a waste of time; hence I AM NOT trying to convince you. What I've said is my beliefs, but rather than understand my beliefs you attempt to prove them wrong. That's not a discussion.

Modern revelation reveals that the church in our day is organized in the same way it was during the Apostolic age, with only a few exceptions called for because of different circumstances (such as vastly larger distances and populations). These exceptions also come from modern revelation. Again, if you don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, this is irrelevant. Take things in order, rather than swallowing an entire truck load at once.

Without prophets after Smith, we'd still be practicing polygamy, men of color wouldn't have the priesthood, we wouldn't understand the Atonement or judgment or temple ordinances nearly as well as we do; we wouldn't be able to send missionaries to exactly where they are meant to go, nor would we have keys to perform temple work and eternal family sealings. Do not mock what you do not understand, and if you believe earrings to be the only thing addressed in recent years, then you truly do not understand.

Everything you infer about the offices in the NT are just that- inferences. The NT books were written to people who already understood these offices and NEVER give a definition. They hint, they sometimes mention duties and responsibilities, but never is any office fully explained. Hence the need, again, for modern revelation.

Look around; you won't find any church that agrees in doctrine and practices with others. Is God the author of confusion? If the Bible was meant to end it all, it would be clear enough to allow at least SOME consensus. Even major doctrines, such as the doctrine of grace and practice of baptism, are subjects of contention between denominations.

I have read the NT. Thoroughly, start to finish. I don't know everything, but I am not another man's parrot.
Bruja wrote:
Read the NT thoroughly, front to back, and you'll find no substantive relationship between the early church and the lds church in organization, practice, or belief.

I'm sorry that this discussion has to end this way. When I see statements like this, it's time to end the conversation. Only contention will come after such statements.

_________________
Star Wars: Rebellion, A Field Manual
"O be wise, what can I say more?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redirected Mormon thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:28 pm 
Offline
<!-- Corporal //-->
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:00 am
Posts: 37
You say you haven't insulted me (and I really don't think I've insulted you or anyone else). You don't think you insult me by inferring the 'contention is of the devil' doctrine? You're essentially calling me evil. You are dismissing an intellectual argument by calling me petty. I'm not worth your time, as you make ridiculous insinuations that my claims just silly and mean.

You say my argument against your church's doctrines isn't discussion. Argument IS discussion. I don't know what you expected from me based on my initial comments, but argument is what I live for. Honestly, what do you think I'm talking here for if not argument? You appear to have a lot of contempt for my honest questions (and I mean a lot). I really think religious training in evangelizing should make a person less afraid of such honest inquiry, and if it doesn't happen, I question the quality of what's being presented to potential converts.

Since you bring up how very different all the Christian denominations are, what can you say about the over 100 mormon sects, all differing in doctrines and organization, and most claiming authority from Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, PoGP, and D&C? How is that any different?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redirected Mormon thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:33 pm 
Offline
<!-- Admiral -->
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:00 am
Posts: 866
I can no longer read your posts without feeling a degree of frustration or anger. Regardless of your intentions, when I feel such it comes out in my writing (as it would in speech). I promised myself long ago to not speak of God under such conditions. It just seems... wrong, somehow. Even if it didn't, a frustrated mind is a closed mind, not open to new perspectives or insights.

I certainly did not call you evil. You take offense where none was intended. If anyone who has ever been involved with or caused contention was evil, then who among us would not be? We both participated, and the contention came from us both. Though I do resent your attempts to draw me back into the discussion. You speak as though to get me to defend my earlier statements, refute yours, and continue. You claim honest inquiry, but statements such as "Read the NT thoroughly, front to back, and you'll find no substantive relationship between the early church and the lds church in organization, practice, or belief." do not show honest inquiry, but rather a pre-made decision and unwillingness to accept my responses, as though I was trying to convert you when I had no such intention. Perhaps your intention was not to draw me back in, but it feels as such to me. And to prime me for response you ask a question which I would normally not hesitate to answer.

You certainly have a way with words, an eloquence. I suspect I lack such skill. Eloquence is wasted, however, if used (even accidentally) to anger or frustrate others. Perhaps you may find another to argue with, but my disposition is such that I cannot and will not do so. It may be a weakness, I can't tell. Irregardless, I must excuse myself. God bless.

_________________
Star Wars: Rebellion, A Field Manual
"O be wise, what can I say more?"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Redirected Mormon thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:36 pm 
Offline
Dark Lord of the Sith
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 3173
Location: USA
I generally don't like religion topics on forums.
Given the way this thread has turned out, this is why. (Not to say any one is at fault)

I am closing this as further discussion would not help anyone.

_________________
Evaders99
Image Webmaster
Image Administrator

Fighting is terrible, but not as terrible as losing the will to fight.
- SW:Rebellion Network - Evaders Squadron Coding -
The cake is a lie.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

 
 
 
^Top 
Home Your Account Forums Downloads F.A.Q. Submit News Hosting Contact Us

© 1999-2008 by SWRebellion.com. All Rights Reserved.
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters.
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php

    Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group