Yeah, I haven't posted for about four months.
Well, let me qualify my statement. What I was trying to say is that God chooses who He's going to use as a spokesperson. I don't believe that a person can be considered to be a prophet just because he claims to be one. My point was that the Latter-day Saints accept their prophet as God's spokesman, not because he predicted x-number of future events correctly, but because we trust the process by which a prophet is chosen. I would expect that if God wanted to inform "His Church" of something, it would be through "His Prophet." I believe there is only one such church and one such individual on earth. That would not, of course, preclude God from communicating with anyone He might choose to communicate with. Here, for example, is a statement by one former LDS leader (now deceased):
“While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men, it is ONE of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth; yet God is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. He raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them… Whenever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom His Spirit can communicate, lo! He makes of him a teacher of men.”
Such as?
Uh... numbers have nothing to do with truth.
Blacks have never been said to be "evil." No, they couldn't hold the priesthood for a time. Yes, they can now. Is that supposed to prove something?
If you're talking about inheriting the greatest heavenly blessings, it works both ways. Neither men nor women can do so without the other.
In essence, I would have to agree with that.
Why do you think Jesus called Him "Father"?
Is it possible that you answered all your own questions while sidestepping the answers?
But lets take it from the top. Why? I dunno I should be going to bed... hehe.
Yeah, I haven't posted for about four months.
Why? Don't take RF personally. Ever. We are just here to chit chat. We all have different points of view and that doesnt mean were wrong or judging each other. I like to talk freely about religion somewhere... (Hard to do it any where else imo... Imagine me trying to talk about religion after church or at a scout meeting... yeah I still go to church some times)
Well, let me qualify my statement. What I was trying to say is that God chooses who He's going to use as a spokesperson.
Cool. Happy face. I was brought up to believe god is unknowable and beyond us... Perhaps you were brought up that god is not all the different from dad and dad if dad cant talk to us then he is damn sure gonna choose a good person to talk to us...
Do you see where we conflict? Even as a religious person when I was a Jehovah's Witness I would disagree. Does that mean you are wrong? Absolutely not. Does that mean you can't have your opinion? Nope, you can think whatever you want.
But I do want to explore a bit of what you seem to be conveying to me...
I don't believe that a person can be considered to be a prophet just because he claims to be one. My point was that the Latter-day Saints accept their prophet as God's spokesman, not because he predicted x-number of future events correctly, but because we trust the process by which a prophet is chosen. I would expect that if God wanted to inform "His Church" of something, it would be through "His Prophet."
So does that actually address my point? You agree with me that no one is a prophet just because they say so but then you disagree and say if a mormon prophet says he is a prophet then he is and you trust whatever process allowed said prophet to make said declaration.
Hmmm.... I am not trying to be confrontational but am trying to express where I see a disconnect. On one hand you say if someone says they are a prophet you say nay unless LDS accepts it in which case you say yay... It seems removed from there the ability you have to interpret and judge. You have that ability and you can decide for yourself. Just because Bob says yes and you really like Bob and might even be married to Bob does not mean Bob is right.
I believe there is only one such church and one such individual on earth.
How does that differ from the terrorist that flew planes into the towers in New York? They wholeheartedly believed that their actions were good and would get them virgins... Just because you believe that your beliefs only will get you into heaven and do not require you to commit heinous acts does that then make your beliefs more true?
Granted I think you should be able to believe what you want so long as said beliefs do not cause you to interfere with freedoms of others. (Negative freedom I think is the term)
That would not, of course, preclude God from communicating with anyone He might choose to communicate with. Here, for example, is a statement by one former LDS leader (now deceased): “While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men, it is ONE of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth; yet God is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. He raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend; not always giving a fulness of truth such as may be found in the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ; but always giving that measure of truth that the people are prepared to receive. Mormonism holds, then, that all the great teachers are servants of God among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them… Whenever God finds a soul sufficiently enlightened and pure; one with whom His Spirit can communicate, lo! He makes of him a teacher of men.”
So in your words could you describe what his words meant to you? I could describe how I interpret it but I think you and I disagree with what he was trying to convey.
Many greater minds then mine have described why they think there may be a god but if there is such a god then he is definitely not a personal god. Einstein stated: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
So have you ever read about Baruch Spinoza or tried to understand what Einstein was trying to convey? How does mormonism answer that question? (That god is actually personal)
Blacks have never been said to be "evil." No, they couldn't hold the priesthood for a time. Yes, they can now. Is that supposed to prove something?
I dunno how do you interpret that for sometime god said Blacks cant be priests and then changed his mind and said you know what... Sure they can be. Why did god originally say no blacks?
Why do you think Jesus called Him "Father"?
Why do I think? Because a human wrote it at a time where they could not imagine a sexless god and did not realize the logical fallacy of assigning the creator of all a sex....
Why did Jesus call him father? I dunno you got a camcorder mate? When did people start writing about jesus and what did they remember him saying? Humans wrote down what they remembered hearing about jesus so far as I can tell... (Its not like they had eye witnesses, tape recordings, video and CNN)
How could I have known you for this long and never known that?
