Jason Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 So Hoops, were you going to answer those other questions or not?EDIT: Never mind, I see you did make an attempt.
Mars Posted July 14, 2009 Posted July 14, 2009 I heard it all the time. Isn't it the basis for sola scriptura? That a correct understanding of the Bible gives you authority to declare it?As for the autographs, we don't know where they are, or even if they still exist.
David T Posted July 14, 2009 Author Posted July 14, 2009 First, present the statement that has God saying that he'll preserve His word,Done.First, who is purported to have been the messenger that delivered this message?God.I was referring to the prophet who delivered the message from God, because I was pretty sure none of the records you cited have God Himself personally writing down these messages and distributing the writings that contain them to the general body of Israel (Even in the cases of the tablets of stone given to Moses 'written by the finger of the LORD', Moses was the one who delivered the message to the General Assembly). But I'll let this one pass.How do we know he recieved this message?It was written downSo to be clear, writing down a purported personal revelation or personal divine visitation one receives counts as evidence for you? Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.Were witnesses to the reception of this message stated as being present?SometimesSo, to be clear, witnesses are not always necessary evidence that you require for a divine communication to be acceptable? Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.If so, what is the evidence that they were really there?The written record.So, to be clear, a written record of a revelation saying that witnesses were present to witness that revelation is sufficient evidence to you to accept that witnesses were indeed there for that revelation? Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.Is the messenger purported to have written the account himself?Sometimes.So, to be clear, a firsthand testimony of the revelation having been recorded by the individual who received it is not necessary evidence that you need to accept that that individual received that revelation, and that it was recorded correctly. Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.If so, how do you know he really wrote it?I don't.So, to be clear, even if a document is purported to be written by the revelator, you do not need evidence that this truly came from that source to accept it as being true. Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.If not, how do you know this is an accurate recording of that messenger and message?If I can trust the Bible in other things it's reasonable to trust it in others.So, to be clear, if a writing is compiled with several other documents that are separated by centuries that contain things within them that are trustworthy, that is evidence enough for you that one message from God, or a divine communication, purported to be delivered in one of those many compiled documents is an accurate and trustworthy record, given to the historical individual whom the document claims to have written it? Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.
DrW Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 I agree. I think OMGs and WTFs are unacceptable for any LDS person who posts here.I think that the term "WTF" should be banned from this board without exception.
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 First, who is purported to have been the messenger that delivered this message?God.I was referring to the prophet who delivered the message from God, because I was pretty sure none of the records you cited have God Himself personally writing down these messages and distributing the writings that contain them to the general body of Israel (Even in the cases of the tablets of stone given to Moses 'written by the finger of the LORD', Moses was the one who delivered the message to the General Assembly). But I'll let this one pass.Without pointsSo to be clear, writing down a purported personal revelation or personal divine visitation one receives counts as evidence for you? Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.I addressed the question you asked. But, yes, a written record is evidence.So, to be clear, witnesses are not always necessary evidence that you require for a divine communication to be acceptable? Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.Of course not.So, to be clear, a written record of a revelation saying that witnesses were present to witness that revelation is sufficient evidence to you to accept that witnesses were indeed there for that revelation? Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.It is evidence to be sure.So, to be clear, a firsthand testimony of the revelation having been recorded by the individual who received it is not necessary evidence that you need to accept that that individual received that revelation, and that it was recorded correctly. Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.I gotta understand the question first.So, to be clear, even if a document is purported to be written by the revelator, you do not need evidence that this truly came from that source to accept it as being true. Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.No.So, to be clear, if a writing is compiled with several other documents that are separated by centuries that contain things within them that are trustworthy, that is evidence enough for you that one message from God, or a divine communication, purported to be delivered in one of those many compiled documents is an accurate and trustworthy record, given to the historical individual whom the document claims to have written it? Yes or no. If no, please explain what I misunderstood.No. That, in and of itself, is not enough.
SteveO Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 God.Without pointsI addressed the question you asked. But, yes, a written record is evidence.Of course not.It is evidence to be sure.I gotta understand the question first.No.No. That, in and of itself, is not enough.Somebody please explain why Hoops gets as much attention as he does. These three word answers are getting ridiculous.
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Somebody please explain why Hoops gets as much attention as he does. These three word answers are getting ridiculous.Is there something you wish I would amplify?One thing I've learned around here is to answer the question as it is asked, and answer only that. Cuts down on the misrepresentations that are sure to follow - though doesn't cut them down nearly enough.Somebody please explain why Hoops gets as much attention as he does.Probably my charm. That's what my Mom told me.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 SomebodyWhatpleaseAreexplainYouwhyTalkingHoopsAbout?getsHoopsasIsmuchAlwaysattentionSoasClearheAnddoes. NeverTheseObtusethreeInwordHisanswersResponsesareOngettingThisridiculous.Board.
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 WhatAreYouTalkingAbout?HoopsIsAlwaysSoClearAnd NeverObtuseInHisResponsesOnThisBoard.That was funny!!
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 That was funny!! I figured you would get a kick out of it. At least you and I can still get a joke out once in a while.
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 I figured you would get a kick out of it. At least you and I can still get a joke out once in a while.Except now I feel persecuted.
David T Posted July 15, 2009 Author Posted July 15, 2009 Alright then. Hoops, would you explain for us, in as much detail as you can so there will be no misunderstanding, the evidence you personally would require to accept an individual claim (ancient or modern) of a divine revelation to the degree that you'd be willing to act on it?In addition, based on what you have said and how you have responded to other posts, it appears that you don't consider personal inspiration/revelation from God to an enquirer of truth in response to prayer something that is trustworthy enough to act upon in faith. Could you clarify if this an accurate assessment of your current standpoint?You often make short 'soundbite' statements without explaining your logic, and then appear to get flustered and defensive when individuals try to make sense of what you've said. It appears that you feel that anyone who disagrees with you either is 'taking what you said out of contex't, 'putting words in your mouth', or is 'just ignorant'. Whether or not this is how you feel, I want you to know that this is how you are appearing.This thread is an opportunity to clear the air, and make clear what has been very, very muddy, and has caused much frustration and contention. Something unnecessary for individuals with the same goal of helping others understand and better follow True Christianity.
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Sure.Alright then. Hoops, would you explain for us, in as much detail as you can so there will be no misunderstanding, the evidence you personally would require to accept an individual claim (ancient or modern) of a divine revelation to the degree that you'd be willing to act on it?I think we need to delineate between revelation and the stories that have been described in this thread. The stories here may or may not be promptings from the Spirit. But with nothing to go on other than a favorable outcome from a decision that would normally be happenstance, we can't really tell.Revelation from God is communication from Him to His people (Israel and/or His catholic church) that reveals who He is, His character, His deity, His desires, or His creation, etc. Therefor, general revelation can be tested against previous revelation - that is, it should remain consistent. That is one instance of evidence. Additionally, I would expect revelation to not disagree with what we know to be true - that is, the Bible seems to be generally historically accurate - there are places we know about and can study, scientifically accurate where appropriate, and theologically consistent - God does not change.Now I know that evolution is the big bugaboo. But we also know that a literal reading of Gen is possible.In addition, based on what you have said and how you have responded to other posts, it appears that you don't consider personal inspiration/revelation from God to an enquirer of truth in response to prayer something that is trustworthy enough to act upon in faith. Could you clarify if this an accurate assessment of your current standpoint?This is accurate. "The heart is deceitful above all things." I wouldn't trust myself to interpret "promptings" nor my ability to recognize it's source. I wouldn't trust anyone else either. You often make short 'soundbite' statements without explaining your logic, and then appear to get flustered and defensive when individuals try to make sense of what you've said.Actually, I would welcome an honest attempt to understand what I'm writing. And will willingly clarify where my writing is lacking.It appears that you feel that anyone who disagrees with you either is 'taking what you said out of contex't, 'putting words in your mouth', or is 'just ignorant'. Whether or not this is how you feel, I want you to know that this is how you are appearing.I dont' recall ever claiming "out of context", perhaps I have, but I don't remember. I do not recall calling anyone ignorant and do not think anyone is (as I think you mean it).This thread is an opportunity to clear the air, and make clear what has been very, very muddy, and has caused much frustration and contention. Something unnecessary for individuals with the same goal of helping others understand and better follow True Christianity.Really? I didin't think this was particularly contentious.
Jason Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 I think Hoops has now made it clear that he/she operates on a double standard. In Hoops' view, the witnesses of the spirit illustrated in the Bible are true simply because they are in the Bible - there are no other criteria necessary for Hoops to believe them. The witnesses of the spirit given to LDS leaders like Joseph Smith and members as have been spoken of on this board are false simply because they are not in the Bible - there are no other criteria necessary for Hoops to reject them. This is the length and depth of his/her position, and there is really no point in trying to explore it further.
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 I think Hoops has now made it clear that he/she operates on a double standard.Of course you wuold.In Hoops' view, the witnesses of the spirit illustrated in the Bible are true simply because they are in the Bible - there are no other criteria necessary for Hoops to believe them.If the Bible is true, it seems reasonable to me to believe what is contained therein.The witnesses of the spirit given to LDS leaders like Joseph Smith and members as have been spoken of on this board are false simply because they are not in the BibleIncorrect. There are substantial differences between accounts in the Bible, and JS, et al., accounts- there are no other criteria necessary for Hoops to reject them.False. I have given you at least one criteria. Evidence.This is the length and depth of his/her position, and there is really no point in trying to explore it further.Because you have no counter.
Jason Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 There is an easy way to prove me wrong, Hoops - tell us about a revelation that isn't in the Bible that you believe to be authentic.
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 There is an easy way to prove me wrong, Hoops - tell us about a revelation that isn't in the Bible that you believe to be authentic.Personal? Happens all the time.General? I'm aware of none.
Jason Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Personal? Happens all the time.General? I'm aware of none.Give us an example of a personal revelation that you believe was authentic, please.
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 Give us an example of a personal revelation that you believe was authentic, please.When my teacher embraced dispensationalism
Jason Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 When my teacher embraced dispensationalismMore details, please. What evidence did you have that this was authentic?
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 More details, please. What evidence did you have that this was authentic?It's coherence with the Bible.
Jason Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 More details, please. These one-line answers seem to indicate you aren't interested in having a serious conversation, only in playing.
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 More details, please. These one-line answers seem to indicate you aren't interested in having a serious conversation, only in playing.What details are you looking for? Disepensationalism is by far the best treatment of all we have in the Bible. By waaaaay far. My teacher embraced dispensationalism and has thusly taught it to me. That seems like a significant revelation of how all the parts fit together.I'm not sure whatyou're looking for.Here's another: Trinity. As you are well aware, the doctrine developed over time. REquiring continued revelation of how to reconcile seemingly difficult Biblical concepts.
Jason Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 How did your teacher receive this revelation? Did he actively seek it out or did it come unbidden? Was it just a feeling he should do it, words he received, or some other manifestation like an angel? Where there any other witnesses to the revelation? Did your teacher record the revelation to preserve it? What actions did your teacher take after having received the revelation?
Hoops22 Posted July 15, 2009 Posted July 15, 2009 How did your teacher receive this revelation?Not sure. I'm assuming, generally, the same way most people do. Did he actively seek it out or did it come unbidden?Activley sought it.Was it just a feeling he should do it, words he received, or some other manifestation like an angel?God spoke to him through His word.Where there any other witnesses to the revelation?HIs students. Who can, in turn, testify to the truthfulness of it by it's coherence with biblical truth.Did your teacher record the revelation to preserve it?Yes. What actions did your teacher take after having received the revelation?Taught it to us.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.