Ravi Zacharias Speaking With

[followerofemmanuel]

Sorry somehow this posted before I was far from complete (lol) and that is reflected in the title (my apologies). Ravi Zacharias was invitited to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle to an audience of 7,000 people. Zacharias is a Christian Apologist. His visit and speak at the Mormon Tabernacle generated both praise and critism for what he shared.

A little back ground

http://www.standingt...itn_111604.html

Part One

Part Two

There are 7 parts to his talk and the are all on youtube. For the sake of getting the conversation started I have posted the first two clips.

What are your thoughts on what he shared? Do you believe LDS and Evangelicals should keep this type of conversation going? (yes or no) and why.

Edited February 13, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[orion88]

Talking with each other instead of displaying hatred or meanness is always a good thing.

At the 4:25 minute mark of part 2, Ravi makes a reference to the word "bootstraps." I think

this worldview is summed up by this LDS teaching:

"Man can transform himself and he must. Man has in himself the seeds of godhood, which

can germinate and grow and develop. As the acorn becomes the oak, the mortal man

becomes a god. It is within his power to lift himself by his very bootstraps from the plane on

which he finds himself to the plane on which he should be. It may be a long, hard lift with

many obstacles, but it is a real possibility” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 28) -

quoted in chapter 19 of Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.

[mfbukowski]

Whos that guy with no light whatsoever doing at the podium of the tabernacle?

I don't know who he is, and have not listened to the talk. First impression. Plus all the guys behind him look mad. He kinda looks angry too.

Now to see if I am right.

[followerofemmanuel]

Whos that guy with no light whatsoever doing at the podium of the tabernacle?

I don't know who he is, and have not listened to the talk. First impression. Plus all the guys behind him look mad. He kinda looks angry too.

Now to see if I am right.

Sorry,

I should have put more info in the opening of the thread. I accidentally first posted it before I even finished the title or putting content in. Ravi Zacharias is a Christian Apologist, who was invited to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle.

Edited February 13, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[mfbukowski]

Talking with each other instead of displaying hatred or meanness is always a good thing.

At the 4:25 minute mark of part 2, Ravi makes a reference to the word "bootstraps." I think

this worldview is summed up by this LDS teaching:

"Man can transform himself and he must. Man has in himself the seeds of godhood, which

can germinate and grow and develop. As the acorn becomes the oak, the mortal man

becomes a god. It is within his power to lift himself by his very bootstraps from the plane on

which he finds himself to the plane on which he should be. It may be a long, hard lift with

many obstacles, but it is a real possibility” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 28) -

quoted in chapter 19 of Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual.

Yep- isn't that a great idea? It helps me want to do better just reading those words. What greater gift of love could God give us than to become like him?

It is an incredibly enobling idea.

[Calm]

Yep- isn't that a great idea? It helps me want to do better just reading those words. What greater gift of love could God give us than to become like him?

It is an incredibly enobling idea.

It is...and it is not suggesting that exaltation is simply a matter of ourselves pulling up our bootstraps, though that is our part of it. God's part was placing within us the seeds and then making the path to exaltation one that others could walk. Before that, no matter how hard we worked at those straps, we weren't going so far.

As such it ennobles God as much as.....no more so than man.

Edited February 13, 2012 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

It is...and it is not suggesting that exaltation is simply a matter of ourselves pulling up our bootstraps, though that is our part of it. God's part was placing within us the seeds and then making the path to exaltation one that others could walk. Before that, no matter how hard we worked at those straps, we weren't going so far.

As such it ennobles God as much as.....no more so than man.

Without this kind of view, the whole question of why God made us in the first place is called into question. I could never understand the traditional view- God floating around for eternity before creating the world from nothing- and for what? Because he needed people to worship him?

But the pure unselfishness of a God who would create us so we could prove ourselves and then allow us to grow for a few eternities to become like him? It is the most sublime gift of generosity anyone could ever imagine.

And Evangelicals see this as a "gotcha"- "Oh those Mormons want to be like God!" like it's prima facie unthinkable- NO ONE could possibly find that a good idea.

The mere fact that they cannot conceive of such generosity - that they must limit God in this way, as though he could not do that, or not want to give us that gift, I find a telling argument against their position.

What loving father does not want to give all he has to his children?

[Daniel Peterson]

I was there. It was a pretty good talk. Not great, but pretty good. Certainly there was little or nothing that was objectionable in it. I think Mr. Zacharias may have imagined, and that the Evangelicals who brought him there may have imagined, that, in preaching about Christ as redeeming and atoning Lord, he was bringing something new to the benighted Mormons. But he wasn't.

The real news that evening was Richard Mouw, who issued an apology to Mormons for the false witness that, he said, Evangelicals had often borne against us.

Do I think that friendly conversations ought to continue? Yes. Of course.

[zerinus]

Sorry somehow this posted before I was far from complete (lol) and that is reflected in the title (my apologies). Ravi Zacharias was invitited to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle to an audience of 7,000 people. Zacharias is a Christian Apologist. His visit and speak at the Mormon Tabernacle generated both praise and critism for what he shared.

A little back ground

http://www.standingt...itn_111604.html

Part One

Part Two

There are 7 parts to his talk and the are all on youtube. For the sake of getting the conversation started I have posted the first two clips.

I listened to the first video and didn’t bother with the rest. He came over as too brash, forceful, and overbearing. He definitely failed the test:

D&C 52:

16 He that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances.

It was a typical Evangelical speech. It was neither "contrite," nor "meek," nor "edifying". It was not "of God". He has long ways to go before he can learn to fulfil the above requirement.

What are your thoughts on what he shared? Do you believe LDS and Evangelicals should keep this type of conversation going? (yes or no) and why.

Conversation is always a good thing. Nothing wrong with talking with each other.

[Damien the Leper]

I was there. It was a pretty good talk. Not great, but pretty good. Certainly there was little or nothing that was objectionable in it. I think Mr. Zacharias may have imagined, and that the Evangelicals who brought him there may have imagined, that, in preaching about Christ as redeeming and atoning Lord, he was bringing something new to the benighted Mormons. But he wasn't.

The real news that evening was Richard Mouw, who issued an apology to Mormons for the false witness that, he said, Evangelicals had often borne against us.

Do I think that friendly conversations ought to continue? Yes. Of course.

The conservative Evangelicals (especially the Acts 29ers) seem to have a low opinion Richard Mouw because of his moderate views. I have heard a great deal of criticism against him that I believe is worthless. I have a copy of Strangers in Paradox by the Toscanos and Mouw gives it praise.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Valentinus

[mfbukowski]

I listened about 5 minutes. I kinda agree with Zerinus, which is unusual for me. Just not my cup of tea.

And of course we should keep talking- if there is anything to talk about.

[followerofemmanuel]

Great feed back all around. I know that Ravi was judged by many evangelical's so it is also iterestesing to hear feedback from LDS

[mfbukowski]

OK OK I listen to about 5 minutes more of section 2 because Orion mentioned the "bootstraps" thing.

That was enough.

Nothing wrong except he sounds like any TV Evangelist. Because of the accent and his look, Benny Hinn comes readily to mind. The wandering around away from the pulpit is definitely not LDS style.

Oddly, we are criticised for being "emotional" with our testimonies etc. But this guy, with his firey delivery seems far more bent on stirring emotion than anything LDS I have seen. Our guys just stand at the pulpit and make your heart melt, even speaking in a monotone. This guy with all his prancing around and theatrical intonation just really seemed fake to me.

I doubt anyone cares, but I thought I would voice my further opinion after contributing a full 10 minutes of my life to listening to this guy.

Edited February 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[followerofemmanuel]

OK OK I listen to about 5 minutes more of section 2 because Orion mentioned the "bootstraps" thing.

That was enough.

Nothing wrong except he sounds like any TV Evangelist. Because of the accent and his look, Benny Hinn comes readily to mind. The wandering around away from the pulpit is definitely not LDS style.

Oddly, we are criticised for being "emotional" with our testimonies etc. But this guy, with his firey delivery seems far more bent on stirring emotion than anything LDS I have seen. Our guys just stand at the pulpit and make your heart melt, even speaking in a monotone. This guy with all his prancing around and theatrical intonation just really seemed fake to me.

I doubt anyone cares, but I thought I would voice my further opinion after contributing a full 10 minutes of my life to listening to this guy.

Thanks for sharing your opion. I was really hoping for honest dialouge...and you came forward, thank you. I invested 70 mins as I watched the whole series. I felt it was a great step towards understanding one another and I was impressed by the LDS church for inviting him. Ravi gently points out there are differences but also points out the we share the centrality of Christ.

Edited February 14, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[followerofemmanuel]

Whenever I speak to an LDS missionary and he mentions that we worship the same

Heavenly Father, I correct him by mentioning that evangelicals do not worship an

exalted man. In this sense I am bring something "new" to him because the junior

missionary has never heard of Mr. Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father became

a God.

It doesn't help matters when the LDS Church removes this teaching from its current

Gospel Principles manual but fortunately the previous version (plus other older writings)

are still accessible.

Indeed, he was critized for not making his point stronger but I believe he prayed for direction and shared with care and sensitivity, desiring to keep the discussion going. If someone came to my Churh and said, "you are following a different Christ, different from what we believe the Bible to share and we belive your doctrines are false", I would not want them back to the pulpit and the conversation may end there. LDS already know there are many differences with the Evangelicals and I think a better forum for tougher discussions would be through organzied debates or meetings with leadership. I do appreciate people's thoughts though and people have been very passionate about their views about this event, which I greatly respect.

Edited February 14, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[Pahoran]

Whenever I speak to an LDS missionary and he mentions that we worship the same Heavenly Father, I correct him by mentioning that evangelicals do not worship an exalted man. In this sense I am bring something "new" to him because the junior missionary has never heard of Mr. Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father became a God.

How wonderfully patronising of you. Passing over the fact that you clearly haven't gotten Rob Bowman's memo about how EV's never try to tell Latter-day Saints what we believe, may I point out to you that if your alleged missionary really has "never heard of" that teaching (there's a Tui billboard moment) then that missionary isn't worshipping "an exalted man."

In any event, now that you've presumed to tell us what we believe, I'll tell you: Latter-day Saints do not worship "an exalted man." We worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Our thoughts about His pre-history do not in any way alter who He is.

It doesn't help matters when the LDS Church removes this teaching from its current Gospel Principles manual but fortunately the previous version (plus other older writings) are still accessible.

Do you have anything to say that isn't absolutely boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda of the Ed Decker variety?

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

Whenever I speak to an LDS missionary and he mentions that we worship the same

Heavenly Father, I correct him by mentioning that evangelicals do not worship an

exalted man. In this sense I am bring something "new" to him because the junior

missionary has never heard of Mr. Smith's teaching that Heavenly Father became

a God.

It doesn't help matters when the LDS Church removes this teaching from its current

Gospel Principles manual but fortunately the previous version (plus other older writings)

are still accessible.

Indeed, he was critized for not making his point stronger but I believe he prayed for direction and shared with care and sensitivity, desiring to keep the discussion going. If someone came to my Churh and said, "you are following a different Christ, different from what we believe the Bible to share and we belive your doctrines are false", I would not want them back to the pulpit and the conversation may end there. LDS already know there are many differences with the Evangelicals and I think a better forum for tougher discussions would be through organzied debates or meetings with leadership. I do appreciate people's thoughts though and people have been very passionate about their views about this event, which I greatly respect.

Whenever I talk to Evangelicals and they tell me that they worship a different God, I tell them that I worship the God of the Bible, I don't know what God they worship. I always seem to win that line of argument.

[followerofemmanuel]

Whenever I talk to Evangelicals and they tell me that they worship a different God, I tell them that I worship the God of the Bible, I don't know what God they worship. I always seem to win that line of argument.

I'd imagine that both LDS and Evangelicals would have the same argument, yet there are some differences in beliefs. That's why I believe having honest, sincere, respectful coversation has great value for LDS and Evangelicals alike as we should all persue truth earnestly. Thanks for your comment.

Edited February 14, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[zerinus]

I'd imagine that both LDS and Evangelicals would have the same argument, yet there are some differences in beliefs. That's why I believe having honest, sincere, respectful coversation has great value for LDS and Evangelicals alike as we should all persue truth earnestly. Thanks for your comment.

Well, we didn't start by telling them that they worship a different God. They started by telling us that we worship a different God. My answer to it is very simple, I worship the God of the Bible. So they must be worshipping a God who is not the God of the Bible. What is wrong with that?

[followerofemmanuel]

Well, we didn't start by telling them that they worship a different God. They started by telling us that we worship a different God. My answer to it is very simple, I worship the God of the Bible. So they must be worshipping a God who is not the God of the Bible. What is wrong with that?

Everyone has truths they hold to and often times they may conflict with other people's beliefs. Ultimately, we have a choice of what we are to believe about God, who Christ is, salvation etc. The challenge is, both LDS and Evangelicals (among others) share a calling to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", (Mathew 28:19) Obvoiously there are varied opinions about who people claim Christ, or God the Father to be and we know that everyone can not be right. So how do we love one another through these differences, how do we create safe space to work through these eternal matters together? I sincerly would like to know.

[zerinus]

Everyone has truths they hold to and often times they may conflict with other people's beliefs. Ultimately, we have a choice of what we are to believe about God, who Christ is, salvation etc. The challenge is, both LDS and Evangelicals (among others) share a calling to "go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", (Mathew 28:19)

I don't think that they have such a calling at all. That scripture was not addressed to them.

Obvoiously there are varied opinions about who people claim Christ, or God the Father to be and we know that everyone can not be right. So how do we love one another through these differences, how do we create safe space to work through these eternal matters together? I sincerly would like to know.

What is your answer to that question?

Edited February 14, 2012 by zerinus

[followerofemmanuel]

I don't think that they have such a calling at all. That scripture was not addressed to them.

I am not sure is who the "they" that you are referring to.

Obvoiously there are varied opinions about who people claim Christ, or God the Father to be and we know that everyone can not be right. So how do we love one another through these differences, how do we create safe space to work through these eternal matters together? I sincerly would like to know.

What is your answer to that question?

I am still working that out. I am here, to learn and to discuss. I think the forum is intended to be a safe space, so time will tell. I have seen some honest dialouge and I am learning a lot but I have also seen some mud pies being thrown around, which in my opinion never acoomplishes any good.

Edited February 14, 2012 by followerofemmanuel

[zerinus]

I am still working that out. I am here, to learn and to discuss. I think the forum is intended to be a safe space, so time will tell. I have seen some honest dialouge and I am learning a lot but I have also seen some mud pies being thrown around, which in my opinion never acoomplishes any good.

I think that the answer to that question is a lot simpler though. When they stop telling us that we are not Christians, or that we worship a different God, then we can have a serious dialogue. You cannot be seriously interested in a dialogue when you start from that starting-point. That is the starting-point of confrontation, not dialogue; and the best answer to it is the one I gave; unless a fundamental shift in direction is observed from the other side.

[followerofemmanuel]

I think that the answer to that question is a lot simpler though. When they stop telling us that we are not Christians, or that we worship a different God, then we can have a serious dialogue. You cannot be seriously interested in a dialogue when you start from that starting-point. That is the starting-point of confrontation, not dialogue; and the best answer to it is the one I gave; unless a fundamental shift in direction is observed from the other side.

I agree, that is not a good place to start a conversation and I have seen opion shared from both sides. I saw this in another post, "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7)

Perhaps this is a better place to start. What do you think? Thanks

[zerinus]

I agree, that is not a good place to start a conversation and I have seen opion shared from both sides. I saw this in another post, "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7)

Perhaps this is a better place to start. What do you think? Thanks

That is my starting point, but expressed in different words. That is the God of the Bible that Hinckley is describing. When they tell us that we worship a different God or a different Christ, the answer is yes, we worship the God and Jesus of the Bible; the one Who appeared to the ancient Biblical prophets; and the same one Who appeared to the prophet of the latter days. It is the same God Who appeared to Moses, to Peter, and to Joseph Smith. If they are not worshipping that God, then they are worshipping a God who is not the God of the Bible. We prefer to stick to worshipping the God of the Bible. They can come and join us when they start worshipping the same God.

Edited February 14, 2012 by zerinus