My analogy is the man who is given a large amount of counterfeit money and is told that in that large bundle of counterfeit money are a few genuine bills. He is told that if he is found to have spent any of the counterfeit money, he will go to prison for a very long time. Will he dare take a chance on discovering the counterfeit? So, trust all? Or trust none. Choose wisely.
As pointed out by myself and others, this is not at all what we believe.
Yes, David, being King (and remembering that this society was a theocracy), was entitled to receive revelations relating to his people and which we’re pertinent to his stewardship responsibilities in this position (I.e. application of the law and justice; carnal/physical/temporal wellbeing of the people). However Nathan was the prophet, and so only he could receive Gods will regarding their spiritual welfare.
Let’s have a count of people in the temple: Eli, his two sons and Samuel.
Are you trying to suggest that any mortal man has/had more power or authority than Jesus Christ? It is His priesthood that all men act in, therefore nobody holds a higher station in that priesthood than He does.
Why is the nature of God of any relevance to whether we should follow His teachings? All we really need to know is that He exists, and what His will is. The outcome will be the same for us in the end, whatever His nature.
We invite all to come to Christ.
Yes, there is some logic and reason to how you interpret scripture: but logic and reason alone can produce many different interpretations, and they have done for many years: if logic and reason had only one possible outcome, there would be only one denomination and one church. As it is there are some 38000 Christian denominations alone…
What list?mi haven’t see anyone listing anything related to age. We pointed out that everyone is entitled to revelation within their role and responsibility. Samuel was called to work in the temple, which means he would be called upon to perform the priests duties in his absence. Eli had been neglectful on his duties, and so was no longer in a position to receive God’s revelation, and neither were his sons, therefore the mantle fell to Samuel.
Your concepts are flawed, especially your ideas of x,y,and z here. Everyone can receive revelation, from the youngest child who prays. What revelation they might receive, though, is based upon their needs and their responsibilities. As far as doctrine and interpretation tjereof; anything that has already been revealed through the prophet, God could reveal to any individual: but the prophet will always receive such information and distribute it to the church first. Revelations regarding how the church is to be administered: use of funds, temple locations, callings: are received by those who have been called, set apart and given the necessary keys to perform these duties. The president of the church is the only person who is authorised to exercise all priesthood keys; but these keys are held collectively amongst the quorum of the twelve, and the authority to exercise some of them may be (and are) delegated throughout the church.
I expect He did.
Can you explain what you understand by ‘nature’ Mostly to make sure that we are both talking about the same thing.
And the fact that it takes so many failed attempts for your ‘so called leaders’ who you claim are led by God, to pick a new chap to wave his hand around in the vatican shows that your claims to any revelations are a joke.
Hardly.
Because we rely on the word of the Lord, the revelations of His Holy Spirit, and the personal confirmation of truth.
It is the emphasis you have provided concerning revelations only coming as appropriate to one’s station. I really have no idea what Samuel’s postion was in the Temple - but he was a small boy and considering how the Jewish religion looked upon Elders, my guess is that he was seen as kid in school - as a young student if you will and not as one to instruct others.
What list?mi haven’t see anyone listing anything related to age. We pointed out that everyone is entitled to revelation within their role and responsibility. Samuel was called to work in the temple, which means he would be called upon to perform the priests duties in his absence. Eli had been neglectful on his duties, and so was no longer in a position to receive God’s revelation, and neither were his sons, therefore the mantle fell to Samuel.
Your concepts are flawed, especially your ideas of x,y,and z here. Everyone can receive revelation, from the youngest child who prays. What revelation they might receive, though, is based upon their needs and their responsibilities. As far as doctrine and interpretation tjereof; anything that has already been revealed through the prophet, God could reveal to any individual: but the prophet will always receive such information and distribute it to the church first. QUOTE]
By “…based on their needs and their responsibilities…” sounds like the way a parent would respond to a child - not how God determins who will receive revelation. Truly, we have no knowledge of how old Samuel was when God first revealed His Message to him - except that he was a young boy - and that is vague enough to cover quite a lot of territory. But, the mental picture I have is a little child being awakened and going to Eli. But, there is nothing in Scripture to identify that he was being groomed to be a priest or scribe or lawyer or any other position. Samuel was dedicated to God - and that really means '…duties as assigned…"
God bless
This is just what I am talking about (large type)
"there are at least two points of doctrine and history of the church about which many LDS themselves-to say nothing of non-members-feel apologetic or critical. One of these is its doctrine and history regarding plural marriage. There is probably no other Church subject on which there is so much ignorance and misunderstanding and so many conflicting views" "So gross have been the falsehoods circulated against it, and so strong the feelings created over it, that it may be an understatement rather than an over-statement to say that within the Church itself misunderstanding and lack of understanding about it are more nearly universal that a correct understanding of it. This despite the fact that seven of our nine Church presidents have lived plural marriage, and that this principle still is and always will be a doctrine of the Church."
"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle of doctrine of their having many wives and concubines-
The Mormons on this board will tell you that that was Brigham Young " speaking as just a man" and that because he’s passed on the words of the 15 now alive override his words. That’s always the explanation, or should I say excuse they cite when trying to work themselves out of sticky doctrine.
Sadly, you are right. When one of their prophets say things they like, he is speaking as a prophet. When they say something he does not like, he is speaking as a man.
Indeed. This principle also holds in many cases where the prophet claims that he is passing on a revealed teaching. I have never once encountered a Mormon claim that such-and-such an historical teaching was a mere “theory” in which that actually held up to scrutiny. There may be some obscure exceptions, but in every case I can think of, reading the context shows that the prophet considered his teachings doctrinal, revealed, and, as such, binding upon his congregation to believe. Yet when even such teachings turn out to be bad for modern LDS apologetics, they are still called “theories.” That is why Soren’s Satirical Lexicon of LDS Apologetics defines “theory” as follows:
God has never changed a law given by Him. Yes, Israel broke covenant after covenant and our loving God kept making new covenants with them, until Jesus came and gave us the new and everlasting covenant in his blood. There will be no more covenants. The law of Moses was the law of Moses, not of God. For instance:
Yes I can, and I suspect that this is foreign to the Mormon mindset.
We might as well be pets if Jesus is the Good Shepard and we are His sheep. As a Shepard He might have the same feelings and attentiveness to care for His flock as a owner has toward his pet. I wouldn’t rule the comparison out completely. I mean it’s just one way at looking at it and seeing a positive comparison instead.
(name removed by moderator) was much more eloquent and charitable in his response to these comments than I can muster. We have never claimed that the Pope is there to receive “modern revelation”. What in the world does this have to do with being led by the Holy Spirit? The Mormon assumption that revelation must continue is just that, a Mormon assumption. Christ is the New and Everlasting Covenant. He is God’s only word; He has no other. Nor do we need another. He is the fulfillment of all revelation.
And why do you assume that we do not listen to God? I have taken courses on “listening to God”. Ever heard of “Lectio Divina”. The entire purpose of this method of reading Scripture is to have an actual conversation with God. You will find no people that enter into deeper prayer than Catholics. You should, just once, experience falling on your knees and worshipping the God who made you.
This is all true, but I’d like to add some specifications. When we speak about “natures” there a number of different possible meanings. The one that matters for the Catholic doctrine of God is the meaning indicated by the Greek word “physis,” which occurs in the New Testament, most importantly at 2 Pet 1:4, and which has a very definite meaning. The *physis *of an object is that principle of its existence that can be cited in answer to the question “What is it?” For instance, “dog, tree, aluminum, man” can all answer such a question by reference to some kind of nature, namely, “dogness, treeness, aluminumness, manhood.”
We are His children…
Perhaps you need to further study the Laws given through Moses after he broke the tablets containing the Lord’s original message. Although commonly called the Law of Moses, it was no less divinely appointed than the original, or than the words that Christ spoke during His mortal ministry. All of the basic principles of the Gospel are still enshrined therein, and it’s every gesture and facet was designed to turn people’s minds to Christ.
We are two parts (as you rightly say); body (flesh, bone & blood) and spirit.
The calling of a new leader is something heretofore unknown, and the decision must come from The Lord. If the new head of the church is not called and sanctioned by Him, then they are not valid in their position. Therefore, by definition, this calling can come only by revelation: a direction from The Lord as to what is to be done. If you don’t want to call it revelation, and just say ‘led by The Holy Spirit’, that’s fine… But it would still be revelation, as The Holy Spirit is the messenger of divine revelation.
Then perhaps you should train your (hose)monkey better: I quoted his words.
Perhaps you would do well to read the book of Enos in the Book of Mormon, then you might understand our concept of earnest prayer.
Actually, the ressurection is a change to our nature in exactly the way you use the term here. We do not believe that we are of the same stuff as God already (except that our spirits are of the same stuff as His), but as currently we are a ‘mortal soul’ (eternal spirit and mortal body combined), and were we not resurrected we would remain a spirit for all time; but in the resurrection there are different degrees of change to our bodies. All will become immortal, but our personal actions in this life determine the degree of glory we attain. The highest of these causes a complete transformation of our mortal soul, not only to an immortal soul, but to a god in our own right: just the same as God & Jesus Christ are now. They have already gone through the same transformation, and as such their nature has been changed to something other than our present state.
This is exactly what I mean by the misuse of the word “nature.” If by “nature” you meant physis, then these would be incoherent statements. The reason I used the word *physis *over and over again, rather than just “nature,” was to keep it distinct from the alternative ways in which “nature” is used in Mormon theology. Physis encompasses only those characteristics of a subject that can neither come to be nor pass away without that subject being destroyed. You cannot change the *physis *of anything without destroying its old *physis *and creating a new one. Every other kind of change is accidental, even the acquisition of perfections, and that would include immortality. To acquire a new physis would require the human nature to annihilate. *Physis *as such is not subject to progress. Anything that can be attained by progress is outside the boundaries of what the word is able to signify.