TAO Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Rob, bluebelll, I think you two are both saying the same thing in different words... yes, prayer formulation has nothing to do with sincerity of heart... which is what really matters.Now... where will the discussion go next? Sincerity of question be important, so rather than worry what question is asked, why not worry on the faith of the asker, or what God desires for the asker?
bluebell Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 bluebell,You wrote:No. How could I be implying that when I explicitly denied it?You wrote:Apparently. I just replied to your earlier post, so perhaps that will help.I know you denied it, but like i said, your earlier point seems to say exactly that. That seems to suggest that your initial post which started this line of conversation isn't as well worded as you would like it to be. No one seems to understand exactly what you are saying when we try to understand it in conjunction with your other posts on the topic.
bluebell Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 bluebell,You wrote:That's okay; I don't believe you speak for Him on the subject, either. Now, where has such pronouncements gotten us?As i'm guessing you are aware, that pronouncement alone get's us nowhere. Now, where has my saying that gotten us? At different turns in your response, you agreed with me, disagreed with me, and claimed that what I said made no sense. But I was making one point: we should pray, but not in such a way as to dictate to God what answer we get or how we get it.I disagreed about what constituted 'praying in a way that would dictate to God what answer we get or how we get it'.I agree with the concept, but not your rules about how to apply it. The last question is a gratuitous and rhetorical swipe at my sincerity. I don't appreciate it.No, it was a sincere attempt to try to understand whether or not you felt your rules for learning divine truth would be beneficial for those trying to find the truth of your believes as well as mine. To answer your first question, I would counsel people who want to know if Jesus really existed and was the divine Savior to read the Gospels for themselves. If they want to know what evidence supports the Gospels, I will happily provide it to them. If they want to know if the NT agrees with the OT, I will show them that it does.So, you would want to be there to direct their search to the sources that you felt were beneficial. Would you want them to look at what atheists have to say on the subject?I would not duck any of these questions by counseling people that they just need to pray and ask God for a private revelation that the NT is true.Is that because you have no faith that God would or could answer them or because you doubt their ability to recognize His answers?Instead I would tell them, if they believe in God, to ask God to guide them in their search for the truth about Jesus, for the honesty and integrity to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.So you would counsel them to pray for guidance, but not answers. Is that a good description of what you are saying?The NT writers themselves urged people to accept the gospel on the basis of the evidence. They appealed to the facts of the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection appearances to validate Jesus' resurrection. They appealed to the OT and explained how Jesus fulfilled OT prophetic expectations and hopes. No true prophet, apostle, or teacher in the Bible is ever afraid of honest inquiry into the facts. None ever counsels against such honest inquiry. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" is not in the Bible.You are overstating what they were urging people to do. Those apostles and writers urged people to believe their testimony of the empty tomb, and their interpretation of what the OT was saying. They did not urge people to accept based on evidence at all-they had no evidence to show them, they urged people to accept based on the Spirit telling them what they were hearing was true. Peter himself even declared that the presence of the Spirit proved God's will in allowing certain people to be baptized. They never left the truth in the hands of what the evidence showed. They bore testimony, they taught, and then they left it in the hands of the Holy Ghost.Just as the LDS church does today.
USU78 Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Since I didn't tell anyone how to formulate their prayers, and even said that God looks on the heart and not our exact wording, you are knocking down a straw man.Except you kind of did:I think that praying "God, is the Book of Mormon your word? Does it teach truth?" presupposes that God must enable you to know the answer to this question by providing some sort of direct, private revelation to you. Such a prayer may reflect an unwillingness to receive the answer through other means (e.g., investigation of the origins of the Book of Mormon, comparing its teachings to that of the Bible, examining Joseph Smith's track record as an inspired translator, etc.).
Vance Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Or are you of the mindframe that anything that keeps someone from believing in the Book of Mormon is good, regardless of how it might be harmful in other situations?It does seem the Bowman likes to mark the boundaries at the very edge that minimizes any damage to what he thinks is "Christianity", but still keeps Mormonism, and anything that might promote or benefit it, proscribed.The contortions and distortions that result are indeed are oft times ironical.
Rob Bowman Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 USU78,In response to my statement that "I didn't tell anyone how to formulate their prayers," you commented:Except you kind of did:The qualification "kind of" betrays the fact that I really did nothing of the sort. Here is what you quoted from me, with my emphasis added:I think that praying "God, is the Book of Mormon your word? Does it teach truth?" presupposes that God must enable you to know the answer to this question by providing some sort of direct, private revelation to you. Such a prayer may reflect an unwillingness to receive the answer through other means (e.g., investigation of the origins of the Book of Mormon, comparing its teachings to that of the Bible, examining Joseph Smith's track record as an inspired translator, etc.).Further debate about what I said or meant is pointless. I'm sure you would not put up with it if several non-Mormons repeatedly claimed that you meant or "kind of" said something you didn't and that you repeatedly deny meaning. Let's move on to the position I am clearly taking as my responses in the flow of the conversation have further clarified.
USU78 Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 USU78,In response to my statement that "I didn't tell anyone how to formulate their prayers," you commented:The qualification "kind of" betrays the fact that I really did nothing of the sort. Here is what you quoted from me, with my emphasis added:Further debate about what I said or meant is pointless. I'm sure you would not put up with it if several non-Mormons repeatedly claimed that you meant or "kind of" said something you didn't and that you repeatedly deny meaning. Let's move on to the position I am clearly taking as my responses in the flow of the conversation have further clarified.Interesting hairsplitting . . . preserves the right to dismiss all Mormons everywhere as the deluded Satanic cultists that we surely are [since we approach prayer all wrong, all of us, every time], while at the same time ensuring that True prayer remains efficacious.Well played.
BCSpace Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Yet more examples of books being found, read, and the truth being petitioned from the Lord about what was written:Killer. It's quite specious for a Bible believing (ostensibly) christian to declare that one cannot and/or should not pray to God to know the truth (or untruth).
Rob Bowman Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 USU78,Ridiculous. You couldn't get away with continuing the same caricature of my position, so you make up another one.Interesting hairsplitting . . . preserves the right to dismiss all Mormons everywhere as the deluded Satanic cultists that we surely are [since we approach prayer all wrong, all of us, every time], while at the same time ensuring that True
Rob Bowman Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 BCSpace,My position continues to be ignored. I dare say that's because it is difficult to refute without resorting to caricature and outright misrepresentation.Killer. It's quite specious for a Bible believing (ostensibly) christian to declare that one cannot and/or should not pray to God to know the truth (or untruth).
bluebell Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Killer. It's quite specious for a Bible believing (ostensibly) christian to declare that one cannot and/or should not pray to God to know the truth (or untruth).I think you have a valid point. It really is odd that bible believing Christians would find fault with a different church teaching someone to pray to God to find out if the doctrines they are teaching are true.It reminds me of the teaching in the BOM which says-"For if ye would hearken unto the Spirit which teacheth a man to pray, ye would know that ye must pray; for the evil spirit teacheth not a man to pray, but teacheth him that he must not pray."
bluebell Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 BCSpace,My position continues to be ignored. I dare say that's because it is difficult to refute without resorting to caricature and outright misrepresentation.If your position hasn't been refuted it's because no one has any idea what you are trying to say.Maybe you should try to say it again in a different way.
Rob Bowman Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 bluebell,I think I've been quite clear. If no one (among the LDS) has any idea what I am trying to say, it might be because what I am saying does not fit the LDS paradigm.If your position hasn't been refuted it's because no one has any idea what you are trying to say.Maybe you should try to say it again in a different way.
Vance Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 bluebell,I think I've been quite clear. If no one (among the LDS) has any idea what I am trying to say, it might be because what I am saying does not fit the LDS paradigm.Or the scriptural paradigm.Any one who would deny that approaching God with a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ could be effective in finding truth is certainly exhibiting lack of faith and trust in the true and living God.
bluebell Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 bluebell,I think I've been quite clear. If no one (among the LDS) has any idea what I am trying to say, it might be because what I am saying does not fit the LDS paradigm.No, it just doesn't make sense the way you have worded it.
Vance Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Vance,Perhaps you are afraid that if your fellow Mormons prayed about the Book of Mormon in the way that I have suggested, they might learn something new.I already pointed out some of the flaws with your approach.
Vance Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 My view is that if someone really seeks the truth about the Bible, they will find it.The same is true for the Book of Mormon, and in the same way. Bowman, the funny thing is that if you approached the Bible with the exact same critical eye with which you approached the Book of Mormon, you would end up denying that the Bible was true. You will of course deny this, but it is rather obvious to us that it is true. Atheist scholars of the Bible who claim they became atheists after investigating the evidence are not really being honest.You have no way of knowing this. I think it is quite possible for a Bible believing inerrantist to lose his faith when confronted with the overwhelming evidence that the Bible is not inerrant. Once their faith has been shaken by that false doctrine I can see them losing their faith all together. Surely, as a Mormon, you would agree with me on that!Not at all. As stated above I think an honest inerrantist scholar could very easily loose faith when confronted with the evidence against the false doctrine of inerrancy. The evidence clearly shows that God exists.That is what the Book of Mormon says, but that doesn't stop people from disbelieving. Atheists discount that evidence for philosophical reasons, not because there isn't good evidence.Just like you discount the truth of the Book of Mormon.
TAO Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Rob, I can show by proof that it is possible for the universe to exist without God. Evidence isn't for him. Nor is it against him. It's leaning neither way. In the same way, evidence tends to lead neither here nor there for the Book of Mormon, overall. Both require faith.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.