BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Monster, I would say her his post deals quite adequately with your response - your response has no support behind it. You should probably fix that.Much better and thank you.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 What if I were to question the spiritual experience of say, Joseph Smith, in regards to him marring a 14 year-old girl? Glass house, rocks.Since I believe that Joseph Smith was a monogamist who strictly opposed the teaching of plural marriage/polygamy/spiritual wifery...http://restorationbo.../jsfp-index.htmyour "glass house" accusations holds no validity for me. And you failed to answer the actual question, anyhoo.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 How do you know he wasn't having a valid religious experience?Mohammed was instructed by Allah to marry a 6 year old girl. He consummated this marriage when she was 9. Are we to believe his religious experience was invalid? Or was he just making up an excuse to marry a young girl?Joseph Smith was instructed to marry something like 48 women. While we are not allowed to discuss the details of their level intimacy here, one may make the same conclusion about him that many people make about Mohammed, or Warren Jeffs.These types of spiritual revelations... regarding marriage... are not uncommon throughout the world. These are merely 3 examples from a plethora of religious experiences that led to revelations about marriage. How do we know who is right and who is wrong? How do we know who was following God's instructions and who was not?Muhammed was a false prophet and his marriage to Aisha (or whatever here name was) in just one evidence of that.Joseph Smith neither taught nor practiced polygamy...http://restorationbookstore.org/jsfp-index.htm
Kiviuq Posted February 1, 2011 Author Posted February 1, 2011 How do you know he wasn't having a valid religious experience?Mohammed was instructed by Allah to marry a 6 year old girl. He consummated this marriage when she was 9. Are we to believe his religious experience was invalid? Or was he just making up an excuse to marry a young girl?Joseph Smith was instructed to marry something like 48 women. While we are not allowed to discuss the details of their level intimacy here, one may make the same conclusion about him that many people make about Mohammed, or Warren Jeffs.These types of spiritual revelations... regarding marriage... are not uncommon throughout the world. These are merely 3 examples from a plethora of religious experiences that led to revelations about marriage. How do we know who is right and who is wrong? How do we know who was following God's instructions and who was not?Comparing Joseph Smith and Mohammed can be a very delicate subject, but very valid in my opinion.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 If a spiritual entity teaches false doctrine we can chalk that experience as "not from God". It is really that simple.
Kiviuq Posted February 1, 2011 Author Posted February 1, 2011 If a spiritual entity teaches false doctrine we can chalk that experience as "not from God". It is really that simple.Either religion simply saying
Kiviuq Posted February 1, 2011 Author Posted February 1, 2011 People have been telling the prophets and people of God, "How dare you!" throughout history, so it would be nothing new.You
Kiviuq Posted February 1, 2011 Author Posted February 1, 2011 Actually, I'm not trying. I have found arguing with anti-Book of Mormonites and Atheists rather tedious, so I just post the truth without any expectation of change on the part of the other party. Your reactions are no surprise to me and don't cause me any amount of distress.Your reaction to my suggestion to not use circular arguments is no surprise to me. Unfortunately, that leaves us with the original question unanswered with little new light or insights on the subject.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Your reaction to my suggestion to not use circular arguments is no surprise to me. Unfortunately, that leaves us with the original question unanswered with little new light or insights on the subject.The question has been answered multiple times, you just don't like the answer.
Walden Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Since I believe that Joseph Smith was a monogamist who strictly opposed the teaching of plural marriage/polygamy/spiritual wifery...http://restorationbo.../jsfp-index.htmyour "glass house" accusations holds no validity for me. And you failed to answer the actual question, anyhoo.A question unrelated to the original post......if you think that Smith was a monogamist, then who are all those women that are shown in his lineage on LDS.org as his wives?
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 A question unrelated to the original post......if you think that Smith was a monogamist, then who are all those women that are shown in his lineage on LDS.org as his wives?Read the article a linked to both in my post and in my signature and find out. I'm not going to do your research for you.
Kiviuq Posted February 1, 2011 Author Posted February 1, 2011 Someone with a genuine experience is not intent on proving others' experiences wrong, but in creating common ground to allow the genuine experience to be shared.Thank you for all your thoughtful comments.
maupayman Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Hmmm... seems no one wants to answer my question.The answer to your question is that all spiritual experiences and claims are unreliable. I guarantee that there are followers of Jeffs who recieved confirmation that he was called of God etc. The point is that mormons can easily see this in regards to other's, but suddenly become very trusting in experiences that confirm their own beliefs. By the way, your arrogance in response to Catholic claims is appalling. And mormons wonder why most other Christians can't stand them.
BookofMormonLuvr Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 The answer to your question is that all spiritual experiences and claims are unreliable. I guarantee that there are followers of Jeffs who recieved confirmation that he was called of God etc. The point is that mormons can easily see this in regards to other's, but suddenly become very trusting in experiences that confirm their own beliefs. By the way, your arrogance in response to Catholic claims is appalling. And mormons wonder why most other Christians can't stand them.I'm not LDS I am Restoration RLDS (NOT Community of Christ) and I make no apologies for proclaiming the truth. Immaculate Conception and the Rosary are two examples of false Catholic doctrine that proves those apparitions are not from God, if you don't like it, lump it.
Walden Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 Read the article a linked to both in my post and in my signature and find out. I'm not going to do your research for you.I did read your articles, though they provided little insight into how the LDS church got it so wrong.It was not until later on this thread when I discovered that you are not LDS that it made sense.Thanks
3DOP Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I'm not LDS I am Restoration RLDS (NOT Community of Christ) and I make no apologies for proclaiming the truth. Immaculate Conception and the Rosary are two examples of false Catholic doctrine that proves those apparitions are not from God, if you don't like it, lump it.
3DOP Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I'm not LDS I am Restoration RLDS (NOT Community of Christ) and I make no apologies for proclaiming the truth. Immaculate Conception and the Rosary are two examples of false Catholic doctrine that proves those apparitions are not from God, if you don't like it, lump it.In your apparent zeal to dismiss the Catholic spiritual experience, you have not dealt with the fact that Mormons believe in the Immaculate Conception, that is, unless you are willing to say that Mary was born with original sin. The Rosary is not a doctrine. Psalm 135 (136) is an example of repetitious prayer. Here it is in your translation:1 O give thanks unto the LORD; for [he is] good: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.2 O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.3 O give thanks to the Lord of lords: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.4 To him who alone doeth great wonders: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.5 To him that by wisdom made the heavens: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.6 To him that stretched out the earth above the waters: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.7 To him that made great lights: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:8 The sun to rule by day: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:9 The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.10 To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:11 And brought out Israel from among them: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:12 With a strong hand, and with a stretched out arm: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.13 To him which divided the Red sea into parts: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:14 And made Israel to pass through the midst of it: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:15 But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.16 To him which led his people through the wilderness: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.17 To him which smote great kings: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:18 And slew famous kings: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:19 Sihon king of the Amorites: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:20 And Og the king of Bashan: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:21 And gave their land for an heritage: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:22 [Even] an heritage unto Israel his servant: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.23 Who remembered us in our low estate: for his mercy [endureth] for ever:24 And hath redeemed us from our enemies: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.25 Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.26 O give thanks unto the God of heaven: for his mercy [endureth] for ever.To recite this repetitious Psalm of praise, as the Jews and Christians have both in public and private is a practice that seems difficult to consider as heathen. Of course to recite or sing other psalms, prayers or hymns without meditating on the meaning is certainly vain. Likewise, it would be vain to recite Aves without reflection on either the mystery, or the words the Angel and Elizabeth spoke unto our Blessed Mother. There is the distinct possibility that we can fall into the trap of saying our prayers in a vain manner. Of course. No Catholic thinks they can just absent-mindedly repeat a bunch of prayers and please God or gain any benefit for themselves or anyone else. The Rosary is like any other prayer, a conversation with God wherein we meditate on truths of the faith, give thanks and praise, examine our consciences, and resolve to conform our wills to the revealed will of God and the inspirations with which we are blessed in our prayers. But Christ never prohibited repetition in our vocal prayers. He warned, and rightly so, that if we think there is some merit in mere unattentive recitation, we are as deceived as the heathen. Non-Catholics who are uninstructed in the proper methods of praying the Rosary, who are only aware of beads and words, and who haven't any idea of the beauty and profundity of Our Lady's Psalter, are not in any position to criticize it as it is properly practised.
thesometimesaint Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 3DOP:The LDS do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, and do not believe in Original Sin. From the Articles of Faith #2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
3DOP Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 3DOP:The LDS do not believe in the Immaculate Conception, and do not believe in Original Sin. From the Articles of Faith #2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.Hey sometime. I hope you are well. I appreciate the correction buuuuuuuut...Just think about this.I understand that you do not believe in original sin for anyone. Therefore, according to what the words mean, you believe in "immaculate conceptions". Right? The expression means to not have original sin. So according to what the expression means, we are agreed regarding one person, the Mother of Jesus. You disagree with us about every single person, EXCEPT the Virgin Mary. We are agreed that she is immaculately conceived. Immaculate equals clean, pure, without stain. We are wrong from your perspective, not because we believe in one immaculate conception, but because we believe in only one, whereas for you the concept (pun intended) is universal!3
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.