The ECFs must be crazy

  • Thread starter Thread starter arieh0310
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, prophecy, tongues, and knowledge cease because there is no need for such in Heaven. When we have completed our journey and entered heaven in Eternity, there will be perfect communion and understanding, therefore not need prophecies, tongues (languages), or knowledge (studious learning); conversely, only our Charity will continue in the Eternal.

This is also why Charity is above Faith and Hope as well, as both of those latter Virtues have an end programmed into their definitions. As we say in Lodge “…for Hope may end in Fruition, and Faith ends in Knowledge, but Charity alone continues…” [without end, ie in Eternity/Heaven]

The issue of things “failing” *due to * lack of charity was addressed earlier in the “sounding brass” section of Paul’s discourse, but his final conclusions have moved on to a different, and larger, perspective.

As prophecies (for example) by definition reveal a future circumstance (if not event), they necessarily must end when that future becomes the present. They will also end, as a function, when we enter eternity through lack of need. Likewise Knowledge (whether Revelatory or Learned) ends as we enter Eternity due to the perfect understanding we gain (ie when we no longer see through the glass ‘darkly’ as Paul alludes to elsewhere) there.

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas
 
As it got lost in my exlanations;

There is also a temporal recognition of the failing or ending of prophecy/tounges/knowledge. Since I already explained the issue of this with prophecy, I’ll only go into the other two.

Tounges, as a recognized spiritual gift, becomes superfluous as the people involved learn through natural means the languages previously unknown, making the supernatural necessity of translation uneccessary and ultimately un-economical. Further, as regions with multiple base languages ultimately develop or adopt a single base language to maintain relations, the necessity for knowledge of those vase languages becomes similarly superfluous, being relegated to a mere academic exersize. We see this in the adoption of Greek, and then Latin, and even to day with English being the international Business language, and the attempt at making French the diplomatic language of the World.

Knowledge is also limited, as we can see within History how the “knowledge” of one age is superceeded by the kowledge of a succeeding age. Similar to who Newton’s Law of Gravitation is superceeded by Einstein’s Relativity & Special Relativity theories; or how the ‘science’ of Alchemy has been transformed, and all but fundamentally replaced by modern Chemistry. Earthly Knowledge is necessarily limited.

Revealed Knowledge is also largely limited, as what specific things may be revealed are limited by their audiences, and are necessarily “trapped” into a temporal limitation. This is why I believe Christ’s teachings are the final “revelation”, because He made sure that his “revelations” were framed in a manner to actually reveal the eternal principle He wished to transmit, rather than limit Himself to specifics that would necessarily be destroyed by time, such as the Law of Moses, which in modern time would be largely held as “barbaric”. I think it is Smith’s (and therefore the lds) recognition of this limitation that calls him to necessitate the “fact” of continuing revelation; even as it undermines the role and import of Christ’s revelation in the process.

Thus, as Paul is ultimately saying, all things in this world will come to an end (as even our eternal souls will leave it), save one; Charity.
 
40.png
amgid:
These are the conditions that President Lee lays down for accepting a new doctrine as the doctrine of the Church. This, if you like, is the LDS Church’s equivalent to the Catholic Church’s “ex-cathedra” pronouncement of the Pope. All the above conditions must be fulfilled before a new doctrine or practice becomes binding on the Church. If the Church wanted to give the priesthood to women, for example, it would have to be done like that. If the Church wanted to believe that Jesus was married and had 7 kids, it would have to be accepted through that procedure.
amgid
Click to expand...
How would you then explain polygamy? Was it really accepted by all of the first presidency? the quorum of the twelve? the members? It was certainly new doctrine and it cetainly did conflict with what was then canonized scripture in the Book of Comandments. (and the Bible and the Book of Mormon)

Please explain to me where this process that you outlined was followed by Isaiah, or Nephi, or Moroni. (or even Moses for that matter)

you guys are really confusing me on this thread. Am I supposed to be defending the accuracy of LDS prophecies?
 
mormon fool:
Well in case you can’t tell I was ressponding to your parenthetical about there being “no room for incorrect transmission.” In other words it is great to be inspired in regards to the mind and will of the Lord, but there are no gaurantees about inerrancy when doing so…

Yes, I would say that D&C is cited more frequently in church than the passages I brought up. I memorized it on my mission even. However it doesn’t address the issue of how error-free the transmissions are. The scriptures I cited are much more directly and explicitly to the point.
Click to expand...
D&C 68
4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the aHoly• Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the bpower• of God unto salvation.
5 Behold, this is the promise of the Lord unto you, O ye my servant

I don’t see how it could be any more explicit. I guess you just read this differently. I see the promise from God as described here as ensuring that everyone knows that this precludes error. If the Lord doesn’t feel folks are ready for something then why would he have a prophet reveal an incorrect scripture on it? He had no problem in telling JS “that part is sealed”. JS in the BoA tells that there are things that are only translated to an authorized point. even your own BoM example shows us a prophet telling us when there is a chance for misunderstanding. When a prophet tells you “thus saith the Lord” doesn’t he mean here is infallible scripture? My goodness just the BoM v. the Bible in early LDS teachings would seem to require this.

I find myself scratching my head at what seems to be a concerted effort to convince me that LDS prophets can’t guarantee us accurate scriptures, much less general guidance on God’s will…

OK you win. :confused:
 
HEh.
I find myself scratching my head at what seems to be a concerted effort to convince me that LDS prophets can’t guarantee us accurate scriptures, much less general guidance on God’s will…I find myself scratching my head at what seems to be a concerted effort to convince me that LDS prophets can’t guarantee us accurate scriptures, much less general guidance on God’s will…
Click to expand...
Just an example of the self-defeating/negating nature of lds apologetics I mentioned earlier.

At any rate, as RCIA is finally beginning, in conjunction with JustFaith and ACTS, I am going to be too busy with more important stuff regarding the positive affirmation of religion than hanging out on this particular forum, discussing the impossible proving a negative, so today is likely going to be my last day lurking/posting in the lds forum. (and there was much rejoycing…).

Still, a few loose ends to clear up here.

TOm; my “atheist ex-mo” proposition is not based upon the fact that the lds merely attack other religions (as your response seems to indicate was your perception); it was that, after these attacks, the apologetic of the church reduces itself to the same level of all those religions it destroyed in trying to create itself. It is this factor, I believe, (that is fairly unique amongst the lds, deriving from their relativistic foundation) which contributes to the higher than “normal” presence of atheists amongst those lds who ultimately reject the church. Note that the relativistic foundation of the lds church is in reference to its claims that, rather than being an new religion, it is instead a restoration of other religions; thereby making its existence a function dependent upon the status of the religions it claims to be restoring. Even your church has taught that it has to be either the RCC or lds, and hense the need to disprove the rcc at any turn. I say this is unique, because your religion ceases to have a foundation if the RCC is correct, whereas any given Protestant church still has a valid foundation for existance, regardless of the ultimate truth of their correctness.

And finally, while we can debate the merits of the hypothesis until we are both blue in the face, as it were, neither of us can actually prove it; the only thing that will validate my supposition is the collection of data, which must necessarily derive from ex-mos, with a heavier weighting for those ex-mos who became atheists. As a “faithful” lds, your “observations” are necessarily blinded to the objectivity needed to understand the mind of an apostate mormon; and mine are necessarily limited by my own personal experience (which only includes the witnessing of two apostasies from the lds chruch) which as we all should know from Sociology 101, is not a valid “evidence” (even if it is a valid point to start an iinquiry) for the hypothesis made.

MFool;

I give up, though you do not win. The more you attempt to tear apart my argument, the more you reveal that you do not, in fact, understand it. I am merely recognizing that you cannot/willnot see what is a clear disconnect in your reasoning here. Obviously I am trying to rationally subdue a wall of irrationality (whether it be confusion, Faith, outside clouding of discernment, intentional stubborness, conscious choice, whatever), which is wholly pointless. So, we can each walk away believing that we each are correct in our point (subjectively making us both right, though in reality only one of us is).

Wow, it is interesting the wide path this thread has wandered…

Anyway, have fun all, and God Bless.
 
40.png
BJRumph:
I give up, though you do not win. The more you attempt to tear apart my argument, the more you reveal that you do not, in fact, understand it. I am merely recognizing that you cannot/willnot see what is a clear disconnect in your reasoning here.
Click to expand...
We will miss you here. Good luck at RCIA. I have gone to a meeting myself and found it wonderful.

In case you couldn’t tell. I was trying to make your argument work from the kernel that you presented in. I was playing devil’s advocate giving it the strongest possible reading I can give it. My conclusions resembled TOm’s in that ECFs can and should be scrutinized, however LDS should consider how informed Catholics look at the evidence as well as consider how a given criticism “cuts both ways”. Failure to do so would constitute a misuse of the evidence presented in the ECF writings. I doubt any stronger conclusion can be made from the argument kernel that you presented.

God bless,
fool
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top