Clarification on Mormon Belief

[Marie5890]

Spockrates,

Going back reading your posts it seems to me you must trust human beings more than I do.

You are looking outward, towards others, not only for guidance, but apparently for your answers.

I tend not to do that. I find human beings, myself included, weak at best.

I put God and the Holy Spirit into the equation of my life.

Now perhaps you dont trust yourself enough, perhaps you lack the confidence in God to do that. I dont know that is something only you can answer.

But you do seem to be trusting human beings, and human responses more than turning to God, asking Him and following Him.



You and I have different approaches in how we under take our spiritual journeys.

I know God will be more of help to you than either myself or others here, although I have no doubt that their insights and thoughts may aid you.

If you are sincere in your quest for God, I wish you well in whatever avenue you try to explore.

Considering your handle is Spock Rates (referring I expect to Mr Spock, the logical Vulcan of StarTrek fame), Im suspect your quest will be limited and you will be left unfulfilled and empty.

He worked in the sphere of the logical and was devoid of faith.

When it comes to Judeo-Christian experience, faith is part of the equation.

If you tend to the strictly logical, you may want to consider another spiritual journey other than Christianity, one that demands no faith.

Best to you.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker!



Are you saying that Jesus words are solid and reliable and those on which I can count to make the truth clear to me?

Spockrates,
It is very true that Jesus’ words are solid and reliable and that you should “count on them”, but when I think of Jesus Christ as the “rock”, I think of His atonement (and our human need for repentance every day) and of the offers He has made to all of us, that we can have a sure foundation of belief and knowledge that He lives, that He loves us, that He proffers us by His grace, that we will indeed be resurrected and should prepare ourselves for that reality by what we do in this life, and that as you noted before, we can “know the truth and the truth shall make [us] free.” To do that, He must be our foundation–not any other means of a foundation for our lives besides Him and relying wholly upon Him “who is mighty to save.” As Zerinus has noted, this ties to Peter’s experiences, and Peter’s expressed knowledge that “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Have a good day.

 

[Marie5890]

I just finished today’s Gospel reading and thought it was an appropriate mediation for the tone of the conversation in this thread.

Lk 10:21-24

Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said,
“I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth,
for although you have hidden these things
from the wise and the learned
you have revealed them to the childlike.
Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.
All things have been handed over to me by my Father.
No one knows who the Son is except the Father,
and who the Father is except the Son
and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him.”

Turning to the disciples in private he said,
“Blessed are the eyes that see what you see.
For I say to you,
many prophets and kings desired to see what you see,
but did not see it,
and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it.”

(it can give us pause to consider where to we fall in Jesus’s description? The wise and the learned that had things hidden from them? Or are we the childlike who will have things revealed to them from the Father?..Hopefully we are the humble. )

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, what do Mormons consider the Journal of Discourses to be?

It is a cool collection of speeches made by early church (well, early LDS church) leaders. They were transcribed by listeners and published in England as a…well…journal of discourses. None of the speakers had the opportunity to proofread the speeches before publication. Many of them never knew that those speeches would be published.

They are a rare and valuable insight into history, and into the thoughts of men who led the church in its early years. You can see the evolvement of thought and policy in them, and when you place those speeches side by side with the events happening around them at the time, they are incredibly valuable historic references.

What they are NOT, is doctrine or scripture.

Personally, I love 'em. Brigham Young was a fire eater, fire spouter and pulpit pounder. He needed to be in order to keep the Mormons together, safe and strong. After all, during that time some incredibly unprecedented things were going on.

 

[dianaiad]

If the General Conference addresses are inspired

I said “may well be,” not “absolutely are.” That’s not quite the level of scripture, y’know.

Remember, we don’t have a handy ‘Sacred Tradition’ to stuff everything in that is not scripture but is as important as scripture." We have scripture. If something is important enough to be scripture, then it becomes scripture. Officially. It is canonized.

and official, your Church is responsible for them. Because you do not explain why they are not official doctrine, I am left to guess at your reasons.

My reason is simple. It is truth. I understand that someone who has to juggle non-scriptural (as in 'not found in the bible) doctrine and talk about it coming about through extra biblical (or extra scriptural) means might have a problem wrapping the mind around the concept, but it really is that simple. Our doctrine is contained, completely, within those things WE accept as scripture. Everything else, though it may be inspired, and may be helpful–and may even be ‘True,’ doesn’t rise to the level of doctrine.

When additional, or different, doctrine is required, it is canonized into scripture. That’s why we have the Doctrine and Covenants.

My best guess (and tell me if I’m wrong) is that you are thinking of the distinction between doctrine and counsel in LDS teaching. I think I should have just said “counsel.” Even so, inspired is still inspired, regardless of which category of content you are talking about. If it comes from God, it is to be believed, is it not?

If it comes from God, yes. Not everything does. Even prophets are allowed to have there own opinions, and to state them…and be wrong.

In any case, your point does not respond to the argument of my post. You said you have never been to a Church meeting where Catholic doctrine has been discussed at all. Yet I have provided an example of a Church address attempting to explain and critique Catholic Councils (and some Protestant documents too),

You have just disproven your own point. This speech addressed a specific belief which many Christians hold. It did not EVER mention Catholics specifically, did it? It simply mentioned a doctrine; a belief. there IS a difference: a fairly big one.

As well, while you pulled a quote from that speech, you forgot another quote from that same speech…

“It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?”

continued on next post…

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post…

which was broadcast to LDS wards around the world, with a potential audience of many millions. Just look at how many languages they have got it in at the website. If you missed that broadcast and didn’t read Ensign that month, ok, but you can no longer claim that criticism of Catholic teaching is absent from LDS Church meetings. I have documented a recent example from the highest level of LDS Church meetings. That this example contains misrepresentation and ridicule while later demanding respect and fairness from the LDS Church’s critics hardly warms my heart, particularly since the main purpose of counsel is moral guidance.

I see.

So…we have a man who addresses a doctrine/belief that is shared by many denominations (not just Catholics) and doesn’t mention Catholicism, and addresses the doctrine/belief only: he does not call Catholics names, does not vilifiy them, doesn’t say that people who believe this doctrine are not Christian, does not, in fact, discuss the fate or faith of the believers of this doctrine–and you are insulted and incensed. Yet we are on a forum where, RIGHT NOW, there are anti-Mormon books being advertised, a forum dedictated to the defamation and mockery of non-Catholic religions, a forum that is a Catholic forum–a church that comes right out and says that Mormons are not Christian.

The comparison to a papal bull is not mildly relevant, because the popes have never claimed the bulls are “inspired,”

They never had to. Their proclamations were recieved and acted upon as if they were scripture…and the Popes who wrote them expected them to be so recieved. Millions of lives were affected…and often lost…as a direct result of those bulls. Some of them declared blanket absolution of sins if certain actions were taken (for instance, soldiers who invaded Africa and took slaves there were granted absolution of all their sins.) I don’t know about you, but how can that actually happen if the Pope didn’t have the authority to do it…and he’d jolly well better think he was doing the will of God when he made such an offer; certainly the men who acted on it thought he was.

Which is worse; a man who makes promises for God without being inspired to do so…resulting in the fall of nations and the enslavement of peoples—or a speech by a man who says he is inspired–but whose speech is not expected, by him or anyone else, to be taken as scripture/ doctrine?

whereas Mormon prophets have claimed that General Conference addresses are. Thus I am not using an inconsistent standard since my standard is to judge to authority of each Church’s leadership according to the particular claims they make about themselves. By that standard, General Conference addresses can be evaluated as inspired without demanding the same for papal bulls.

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree. While it is true that I do not think the papal bulls were inspired (at least by God), I can certainly judge them as if Catholics considered them to be inspired. After all, they acted upon them as if they were purest scripture, and trusted in them.

General conference talks, on the other hand, while I believe that they are inspired, do not have that result. In fact, our church leaders would be utterly appalled if they had that result.

 

[dianaiad]

(sorry for the…umm…passion… I just feel strongly that Christ really IS God. That He really IS all-powerful…That He really DID overcome all and establish His church)

I dont think He is a weak wuss…

Well, we don’t think He is, either.

Far from it. A ‘weak wuss’ wouldn’t give His beloved children the freedom to make choices–and take all the consequences of those choices good and bad–if He could prevent the suffering that goes with all that.

A ‘weak wuss’ would put His creations in padded safety boxes to make certain nothing bad would happen to them, not allow them to grow and have to deal with all the pain that involves.

A weak wuss would not allow the apostasy to happen even if it WAS the result of stubborn human choice.

 

[spockrates]

I am saying nothing more or less than what is implied in those passages of scripture, as I had described earlier.

Yes, but does a implication (that is, a suggestion) a certainty make? Let’s say someone named Evangelical Ed suggests that Peter saw Jesus fulfill Old Testament prophecies about the coming Christ, day after day. Now if Ed told you and I that the fulfillment of these predictions was the reason Peter said Jesus was the Christ and Son of the Living God, then I suppose you and I would be right to be skeptical.

We might have good reason to point the finger and say, “Not so fast, Ed! Aren’t you making an argument from ignorance? You don’t really know what Peter’s reason for saying Jesus was the Christ, do you? You cannot say with certainty that these prophecies spoken by the Holy Ghost hundreds of years prior to Jesus birth were that to which Jesus was referring when He said, ‘the Holy Ghost revealed this to you,’ can you?”

I suppose Evangelical Ed might say the same to you, Zerinus: “Wait one darn minute, Zerinus! You’re talking as if you know Jesus was speaking of some unintelligible communication spoken directly to Peter by the Holy Ghost. But the truth is, the method the Holy Ghost might have used to speak to Peter is to remind him of all of the Old Testament prophecies about the Christ. Jesus fulfills a prophecy about the Christ; the Holy Ghost reminds Peter of the prophecy. Jesus fulfills another prophecy about the Son of God; the Holy Ghost reminds Peter of this prediction, too. And so on, and so on, until it finally dawns on Peter of Jesus really is!”

From my point of view, Zerinus, both you and Evangelical Ed are guilty of making the same mistake of jumping to conclusions about Peter’s reason for believing Jesus to be the Christ, when the author Matthew really does not give the reason why. Rather than make the mistake of saying that I know, I believe the right thing for me to do is to say I really do not know.

Yes, I agree with you, and with what Peter is saying. But that begs the question: how do you know that the “word of prophecy” is true? How do you know that it is reliable? How can you believe it in the first place? How can you trust it? There are, and have been millions of people throughout the history of Christianity who have not believed any of that. They think that prophecy is baloney and the Bible is a fairy tale! So how do you know that they are not right? How can you trust the Bible in the first place? Because Peter said so? How do you know that Peter is right? How do you know the religion you believe in is true at all? That takes us back to Peter in the boat! That is how you can know. That is how religious truth can be known and discovered in the first place. That is the role of the Holy Ghost to reveal to you the truth as you come across it and discover it and learn it. The miraculous events come much later after the “trial of your fait” has taken place. But to begin with, you have to walk by faith, and learn to rely on the Spirit of the Lord. So it looks like we have come full circle, to Peter in the boat! We took a long detour; and we ended up at the same spot that we were before.

How can you ask me questions when you already know the answer? Or rather, why ask if you already know?



If you want to know what I think, I’ll tell you. Please tell me if you disagree. I think that if God wanted to prove that what a prophet said was really a revelation from Him, and not just the imaginations of the man who spoke them, He’d say something that no man could possibly know. So, please, answer this question for me: What is it that God knows that no man–and perhaps even no angel, nor any demon–can possibly know?

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates,

Going back reading your posts it seems to me you must trust human beings more than I do.

You are looking outward, towards others, not only for guidance, but apparently for your answers.

I tend not to do that. I find human beings, myself included, weak at best.

I put God and the Holy Spirit into the equation of my life.

Now perhaps you dont trust yourself enough, perhaps you lack the confidence in God to do that. I dont know that is something only you can answer.

But you do seem to be trusting human beings, and human responses more than turning to God, asking Him and following Him.



You and I have different approaches in how we under take our spiritual journeys.

I know God will be more of help to you than either myself or others here, although I have no doubt that their insights and thoughts may aid you.

If you are sincere in your quest for God, I wish you well in whatever avenue you try to explore.

Considering your handle is Spock Rates (referring I expect to Mr Spock, the logical Vulcan of StarTrek fame), Im suspect your quest will be limited and you will be left unfulfilled and empty.

He worked in the sphere of the logical and was devoid of faith.

When it comes to Judeo-Christian experience, faith is part of the equation.

If you tend to the strictly logical, you may want to consider another spiritual journey other than Christianity, one that demands no faith.

Best to you.

Spockrates is actually a play on words–a combination of the logical Spock, and the philosophical Socrates. Yes, Spock might not have been religious, but he was committed to honesty, for he never told a lie, and to non-violence, for he firmly believed that he should never do harm to anyone, unless in self defense. Socrates was equally committed to truth, for he was always seeking wisdom by asking questions of anyone who he thought wise. But, unlike Spock, Socrates was highly religious. In fact, even though he lived in a pagan society, he believed there was one God above all gods who was the source of all wisdom and the object of his desires–the one he longed to see face to face. It was Socrates who said this:

Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous—he is perfect in righteousness. He of us who is the most righteous is of all things most like him. Herein is seen the cleverness of man, and also his nothingness and want of manhood. For, to know this is true wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of this is manifest folly and vice.

(Theaetetus, 176)

But you question why I ask questions of people, and not of God. My answer, sweet Marie, is that I do ask God, but for some reason, He only tells me to ask others, like yourself. And when someone like you whispers words of wisdom, I do get my answer from God, though not in the way, I suppose, that He answers you. You, Marie, and Parker, and Zerinus, all have the potential to be God’s voice to me, if only you will let Him speak through you.

But I find one thing curious, and a paradox I hope you will be able to explain. Both you and Zerinus say that I should do as you do: I should ask God to give me wisdom and not ask others. You both say this works for you, and keeps you from deception. But what you both believe is contradictory, for you are a Catholic and Zerinus is a Mormon. You say there is only one God, and the Catholic Church is His only true Church. Zeriuns believes there are three gods (I think) and that the Latter Day Saints Church is His only true Church. You cannot both be believing the truth, for both beliefs cannot possibly be true. One must be true and the other false. And I do not doubt your sincerity, nor do I doubt Zerinus sincerely believes what He says.

So I find that I’m, as the Greek hero Jason, between a rock and a hard place. If I become a Catholic, as I’m considering returning to the faith I left long ago, I might sincerely believe, and yet be sincerely wrong. If, on the other hand, I become a Mormon, I might also be sincerely wrong, no matter how sincerely I believe. One of you is deceived, and I’d like to know which one, or at least I’d like to know why each of you believe youself to not be deceived. For I want to avoid the fate that Socrates feared would inflict himself:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to “look fore and aft”.

(Cratylus, 428)

 

[Marie5890]

Spockrates is actually a play on words–a combination of the logical Spock, and the philosophical Socrates. Yes, Spock might not have been religious, but he was committed to honesty, for he never told a lie, and to non-violence, for he firmly believed that he should never do harm to anyone, unless in self defense. Socrates was equally committed to truth, for he was always seeking wisdom by asking questions of anyone who he thought wise. But, unlike Spock, Socrates was highly religious. In fact, even though he lived in a pagan society, he believed there was one God above all gods who was the source of all wisdom and the object of his desires–the one he longed to see face to face. It was Socrates who said this:

Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous—he is perfect in righteousness. He of us who is the most righteous is of all things most like him. Herein is seen the cleverness of man, and also his nothingness and want of manhood. For, to know this is true wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of this is manifest folly and vice.

(Theaetetus, 176)

But you question why I ask questions of people, and not of God. My answer, sweet Marie, is that I do ask God, but for some reason, He only tells me to ask others, like yourself. And when someone like you whispers words of wisdom, I do get my answer from God, though not in the way, I suppose, that He answers you. You, Marie, and Parker, and Zerinus, all have the potential to be God’s voice to me, if only you will let Him speak through you.

But I find one thing curious, and a paradox I hope you will be able to explain. Both you and Zerinus say that I should do as you do: I should ask God to give me wisdom and not ask others. You both say this works for you, and keeps you from deception. But what you both believe is contradictory, for you are a Catholic and Zerinus is a Mormon. You say there is only one God, and the Catholic Church is His only true Church. Zeriuns believes there are three gods (I think) and that the Latter Day Saints Church is His only true Church. You cannot both be believing the truth, for both beliefs cannot possibly be true. One must be true and the other false. And I do not doubt your sincerity, nor do I doubt Zerinus sincerely believes what He says.

So I find that I’m, as the Greek hero Jason, between a rock and a hard place. If I become a Catholic, as I’m considering returning to the faith I left long ago, I might sincerely believe, and yet be sincerely wrong. If, on the other hand, I become a Mormon, I might also be sincerely wrong, no matter how sincerely I believe. One of you is deceived, and I’d like to know which one, or at least I’d like to know why each of you believe youself to not be deceived. For I want to avoid the fate that Socrates feared would inflict himself:

I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to “look fore and aft”.

(Cratylus, 428)

If you go back and re-read my posts I have said I recommend prayerful research.

I cant speak for Zerinus nor do I know how much prayerful research he/she has done or if they value it.

I have always been consistent in that.

Love the idea behind your nickname!! Very cool indeed.

 

[spockrates]

If you go back and re-read my posts I have said I recommend prayerful research.

I cant speak for Zerinus nor do I know how much prayerful research he/she has done or if they value it.

I have always been consistent in that.

Love the idea behind your nickname!! Very cool indeed.

Yes, I like my alias, too!



No, I’m not asking you to speak for Zerinus. But I hope you appreciate why I’m asking both you and Zerinus why you believe you are not deceived. It seems to me you are both engaged in prayerful research, so prayerful research, it appears, is not enough to guarantee that one is kept deception free.

 

[zerinus]

How can you ask me questions when you already know the answer? Or rather, why ask if you already know?

I know that it is true because the Spirit of the Lord has already revealed it to me. The question I was asking you was how you know? The point I was trying to make was that you can no more know of the truth of what is in the Bible without the witness of the Spirit, than you can know of the truth of what is in the Book of Mormon except by the same Spirit.

If you want to know what I think, I’ll tell you. Please tell me if you disagree. I think that if God wanted to prove that what a prophet said was really a revelation from Him, and not just the imaginations of the man who spoke them, He’d say something that no man could possibly know. So, please, answer this question for me: What is it that God knows that no man–and perhaps even no angel, nor any demon–can possibly know?

Sorry, but I didn’t understand your question. Do you think you can explain it differently or better so I can understand? Perhaps if you gave us an example I could understand it better.

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates,
It is very true that Jesus’ words are solid and reliable and that you should “count on them”, but when I think of Jesus Christ as the “rock”, I think of His atonement (and our human need for repentance every day) and of the offers He has made to all of us, that we can have a sure foundation of belief and knowledge that He lives, that He loves us, that He proffers us by His grace, that we will indeed be resurrected and should prepare ourselves for that reality by what we do in this life, and that as you noted before, we can “know the truth and the truth shall make [us] free.” To do that, He must be our foundation–not any other means of a foundation for our lives besides Him and relying wholly upon Him “who is mighty to save.” As Zerinus has noted, this ties to Peter’s experiences, and Peter’s expressed knowledge that “thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Have a good day.

Thank you, Parker! Yes, I understand that Jesus is the rock on which the Church stands. Just trying to figure out which Church that is! I’m told by Catholics that this is what they believe, too, although they say He was speaking of Peter in this case. What I find is that you and Zerinus and other thoughtful and knowledgeable Mormons read the same words of Jesus that Marie and MT and other thoughtful and knowledgeable Catholics read. And yet, you and they still respectfully and sincerely disagree as to His meaning.

Please consider the passage you mentioned:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

You appear to be telling me that our Jesus meant this:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [myself] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

While someone by the name of Catholic Carl will likely say He really meant this:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [you] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

Then again, someone named Evangelic Ed might throw in the opinion that Jesus truly meant this:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this [truth that I am the Son of God, which you just spoke] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

Thus the figure of speech I mentioned before. I find myself at a crossroad, and do not know where to go. Prayer does not help me, for I pray daily asking for wisdom, not doubting the words in which Joseph Smith put his trust:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

(James 1:5-6)

I have full confidence that the Holy Ghost is able to show me the truth. I’m just surprised by the truth He has shown me! That truth is this: Some of Jesus’ words are unreliable guides to the truth for me; for when I try to grasp their true meaning, they flow through my fingers like dray desert sand. For you, I apprehend, His words are solid as a rock, for you are convinced of their true meaning. For Marie and other sincere Catholics, they are also rock solid, for they are convinced of their true meaning. For me, they are sand, for I don’t know whether Jesus meant what you believe, or what Marie believes, or what Evangelical Ed believes.

To modify my metaphor, I’m at a crossroads in the desert. One way promises to take me to an oasis and cool, life-giving water. The other two ways to more hot and lifeless sand. The only problem is I cannot see which way the Living Water will be! The reason is, to my dismay, is that Jesus’ words are ambiguous.

Perhaps you can make it clear to me how they have become clear as the oasis water of Paradise to you?

http://salaamshrine.com/images/DesertOasis.jpg

 

[spockrates]

I know that it is true because the Spirit of the Lord has already revealed it to me. The question I was asking you was how you know? The point I was trying to make was that you can no more know of the truth of what is in the Bible without the witness of the Spirit, than you can know of the truth of what is in the Book of Mormon except by the same Spirit.

I do appreciate your insights, Zerinus! Great stuff, and as inspiring as the photo in your signature!



How do I know the Bible is divine rather than human in origin? My thought is that one way to objectively know this, apart from the subjective witness of the Holy Ghost, would be if God spoke words, through His prophets, that only He (and no human being) could possibly know. Finding such words in the text would be objective evidence that they were from Him, I gather.

Sorry, but I didn’t understand your question. Do you think you can explain it differently or better so I can understand? Perhaps if you gave us an example I could understand it better.

Yes, sorry for being unclear!



Let me try to rephrase the question: God is omniscient, so I suppose that means He knows all. What is something, besides true doctrine, that He knows and that no human being could possibly know?

 

[Marie5890]

Thank you, Parker! Yes, I understand that Jesus is the rock on which the Church stands. Just trying to figure out which Church that is! I’m told by Catholics that this is what they believe, too, although they say He was speaking of Peter in this case. What I find is that you and Zerinus and other thoughtful and knowledgeable Mormons read the same words of Jesus that Marie and MT and other thoughtful and knowledgeable Catholics read. And yet, you and they still respectfully and sincerely disagree as to His meaning.

Please consider the passage you mentioned:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

You appear to be telling me that our Jesus meant this:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [myself] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

While someone by the name of Catholic Carl will likely say He really meant this:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon [you] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

Then again, someone named Evangelic Ed might throw in the opinion that Jesus truly meant this:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this [truth that I am the Son of God, which you just spoke] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

(Matthew 16:18)

Thus the figure of speech I mentioned before. I find myself at a crossroad, and do not know where to go. Prayer does not help me, for I pray daily asking for wisdom, not doubting the words in which Joseph Smith put his trust:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

(James 1:5-6)

I have full confidence that the Holy Ghost is able to show me the truth. I’m just surprised by the truth He has shown me! That truth is this: Some of Jesus’ words are unreliable guides to the truth for me; for when I try to grasp their true meaning, they flow through my fingers like dray desert sand. For you, I apprehend, His words are solid as a rock, for you are convinced of their true meaning. For Marie and other sincere Catholics, they are also rock solid, for they are convinced of their true meaning. For me, they are sand, for I don’t know whether Jesus meant what you believe, or what Marie believes, or what Evangelical Ed believes.

To modify my metaphor, I’m at a crossroads in the desert. One way promises to take me to an oasis and cool, life-giving water. The other two ways to more hot and lifeless sand. The only problem is I cannot see which way the Living Water will be! The reason is, to my dismay, is that Jesus’ words are ambiguous.

Perhaps you can make it clear to me how they have become clear as the oasis water of Paradise to you?

http://salaamshrine.com/images/DesertOasis.jpg

May I suggest you may want to research what faith is? It looks like you want to walk by sight and not faith.

Have a great day!

 

[spockrates]

May I suggest you may want to research what faith is? It looks like you want to walk by sight and not faith.

Have a great day!

You words to me are like suggesting to a drowning man that he learn how to swim!



If you want to save me from my shipwrecked faith, please lend me a hand, or at least throw me a lifesaver! Please tell me, Marie, what is faith?



If you don’t want to save me, then you have a good day, too! I’ll be here treading water if you change your mind.

 

[Marie5890]

You words to me are like suggesting to a drowning man that he learn how to swim!



If you want to save me from my shipwrecked faith, please lend me a hand, or at least throw me a lifesaver! Please tell me, Marie, what is faith?



If you don’t want to save me, then you have a good day, too! I’ll be here treading water if you change your mind.

Oh dont be such a drama queen.
You are not drowning.
You are exploring and discerning.

See you are again looking to human beings for your answers, rather than prayer and prayerful research.

Have you prayed to God and asked “what is faith”? Then turned to the scripture yet?

Start there.

 

[zerinus]

I do appreciate your insights, Zerinus! Great stuff, and as inspiring as the photo in your signature!

Thank you! I try to be as helpful as I can.

How do I know the Bible is divine rather than human in origin? My thought is that one way to objectively know this, apart from the subjective witness of the Holy Ghost, would be if God spoke words, through His prophets, that only He (and no human being) could possibly know. Finding such words in the text would be objective evidence that they were from Him, I gather.

Can you give some example of this in the Bible? Is this how you determine if the Bible is true? If so, then you should be able to give us some examples. And by the way, I don’t consider the testimony of the Holy Ghost to be subjective.

Yes, sorry for being unclear!

Let me try to rephrase the question: God is omniscient, so I suppose that means He knows all. What is something, besides true doctrine, that He knows and that no human being could possibly know?

Thank you. See my question above.

 

[Marie5890]

Spockrates,

I havent been following your journey on the forum so completely that I know exactly where you are at?

Do you see yourself as a Christian? A deist? Agnostic? Atheist?

I only ask because a few of the posts that I have read over past few days makes me think you are evening questioning the existence of God? I could be wrong I know.

Im just sensing some mixed-messages, confusion on your part?

I dont know where square one is for you.

TIA for the clarification.

 

[Marie5890]

(I should add before I head out the door…If you are leaving God, prayer, prayerful research and faith out of the equation of your journey and leaning completely and totally on humans, you will just end up stuck in a rut and get nowhere. Getting on one’s knees in sincere prayer and faith is profoundly necessary.)