Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:It's unclear YOU are called to do what you do.Unclear to you, but clear to me. And I would know, wouldn't I? 1
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Pahoran,What you or I personally believe about Paul is irrelevant. If you have exegetical arguments to refute my statements about Paul's teaching, bring them forward if you like.I do not have a "counter-cult obsession" with false religion. My "obsession" is Jesus Christ as he is revealed in the Bible. I am so obsessed with the Bible's teaching about Christ that I oppose any religion that distorts that teaching.How you can, at the same time, condemn us as "sub-Christian," imply that we are a cult, and compare us to pagans while finding fault with us for criticizing LDS doctrine and claims is hard to fathom. But people are often inconsistent.You wrote:Telling Christians not to lower themselves to worldly standards of behaviour is not the same as "exposing" or attacking someone else's religion in order to "tear them down" so that they will be emotionally dependent upon the attacker to provide something to fill the void -- a technique I have heard described as "cult recruitment." Paul never lowered himself to such nefarious tactics as the various counter-cult gangs use; and I rather suspect that you know that.I must vehemently object to this slanderous misrepresentation of what we do. We do not tear down people. What Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10:5, and what I said I agreed with in that verse, is "tearing down" falsehood, not people. You are right to object to the manipulative practice of making people emotionally dependent on one's group or religion in order to recruit them into that group, but that is not what we do.
Log Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:Unclear to you, but clear to me. And I would know, wouldn't I?It could be sheer arrogance and effrontery on your part, and for all we can tell, it actually is arrogance and effrontery. When the inquiry was put to Paul, he answered frankly and gave an account. You, on the other hand, have not. 2
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Bob,I don't disagree with anything you said. I do not favor insulting people, or being rude to people, or mocking them. And if you will notice, in this forum I am generally on the receiving end of such behavior, not on the giving end. This very thread contains some examples.That having been said, sometimes the truth offends people even when presented in a fair-minded way. Paul was treated civilly in Athens, but in many places he received quite a different treatment. The same chapter reports that the Thessalonian Jews treated Paul and Silas very badly (Acts 17:1-9) and even followed him to Berea to agitate people there against him (17:13). Obviously, Paul's message deeply offended those Jews.I guess I did miss the part where Paul insults the Athenians in Acts 17 so bad that they escort him out of their presence because of his rudeness, and tell him never to come back. Whatever he does, it doesn't offend, as near as I can tell. No shock value. He even let's them understand Jesus to be an intermediate messenger god between God and man, since that is what they categorized his relationship toMaybe Rob would enlighten us on where Paul uses insulting phrases to goad the Greeks. It is reported they say they would "like to hear" what he had to say. Maybe he runs a distributorship where they can pick up anti-Pagan tracts, I guess I did miss that.Telling them they are too superstitious is hardly on a level with mocking sacred vestments and attacking other believers. Were he to do so, the usually tolerant Romans would have thrown him in jail, like the Silversmiths in Ephesus tried. There was no evidence of a crime then, nor of a verbal assault on Mars Hill. It was a philosophical exchange which was welcomed enough that they wanted to invite Paul back.
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:It could be sheer arrogance and effrontery on your part, and for all we can tell, it actually is arrogance and effrontery. When the inquiry was put to Paul, he answered frankly and gave an account. You, on the other hand, have not.I really have no patience for this sort of attack against me from individuals hiding behind pseudonyms like "Log" while demanding that I give an account to them of what I am doing in a way that will satisfy them -- which is clearly not possible. I have answered quite frankly the questions that have been asked me about what I do. You either missed the answers or just don't like them.
Log Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) I have answered ... the questions that have been asked me about what I do.Except my questions were not about what you do, and you have not answered my questions. Masterful non-response, by the way. Edited November 4, 2011 by Log
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,Excuse me. What are the questions you say I have not answered?Except my questions were not about what you do, and you have not answered my questions. Masterful non-response, by the way.
Log Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Log,Excuse me. What are the questions you say I have not answered?I asked "how shall we know that you have authority from God to make disciples for yourself?" among others, such as "how do you know you have authority" and "how can you [Rob Bowman] have the spirit of prophecy [as you claim] without being able to bring forth inspired words from God" and the like. Edited November 4, 2011 by Log
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:I asked "how shall we know that you have authority from God to make disciples for yourself?" among others, such as "how do you know you have authority" and "how can you [Rob Bowman] have the spirit of prophecy [as you claim] without being able to bring forth inspired words from God" and the like.I've explained these things. Here are some quick answers.1. You can't know, because you reject my understanding of the basis for such authority. I see the authority to make disciples to come from Jesus Christ directly to each disciple, not mediated through a human priesthood order.2. Because I am a disciple, and one of the things a disciple does is seek to lead others to become disciples. And I know that I am a disciple because I have done what a disciple must do: repent of my sins, believe in Jesus Christ, be baptized, and join with other disciples in living according to Christ's teachings.3. I differentiate between having the spirit of prophecy and being a prophet. Anyone who has the Spirit of God dwelling in him has the Spirit of prophecy. However, only some believers are called to prophesy.
Log Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:I've explained these things. Here are some quick answers.1. You can't know, because you reject my understanding of the basis for such authority. I see the authority to make disciples to come from Jesus Christ directly to each disciple, not mediated through a human priesthood order.When this question was asked of Paul, he recounted his vision. When this question was asked of Joseph Smith, he recounted his vision. You gave no answer. Ok. That you admit you have no authority that can be known is sufficient for me.2. Because I am a disciple, and one of the things a disciple does is seek to lead others to become disciples. And I know that I am a disciple because I have done what a disciple must do: repent of my sins, believe in Jesus Christ, be baptized, and join with other disciples in living according to Christ's teachings.Anyone who thinks they follow Christ because they repent, believe in Christ, and are baptized automatically has authority to make disciples? That's enlightening. The LDS are authorized to make disciples for Christ, by your own standard.3. I differentiate between having the spirit of prophecy and being a prophet. Anyone who has the Spirit of God dwelling in him has the Spirit of prophecy. However, only some believers are called to prophesy.I would ask your basis for this, as it is not to be found in the Bible, and seems rather convenient, but undoubtedly I would be referred back to your answer for question 1.Thank you for answering. 1
KevinG Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 DaddyG,I've heard that joke before. It's very funny. It doesn't have anything to do with what I said, but it is funny.O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie usTo see oursels as others see usIt wad frae monie a blunder free usAn' foolish notionWhat airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e usAn' ev'n Devotion-Robert Burns 1
KevinG Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:I really have no patience for this sort of attack against me from individuals hiding behind pseudonyms like "Log" while demanding that I give an account to them of what I am doing in a way that will satisfy them -- which is clearly not possible. I have answered quite frankly the questions that have been asked me about what I do. You either missed the answers or just don't like them.I've heard this statement a few times from you. I would like to make very clear that I use a pseudonym here because anti-mormons and so called evangelical Christians used my name on-line to mock me, mock my family, mock the number of children I had, mock my beliefs and threaten to blackmail me with an employer. I hae done my best to clear my religious discussion activities using my real name from the web because I was not willing to risk my personal safety and the safety of my family.But my opinions are honest and my discussions are straightforward. I account for myself when asked for a reference or opinion. 1
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:When this question was asked of Paul, he recounted his vision. When this question was asked of Joseph Smith, he recounted his vision. You gave no answer. Ok. That you admit you have no authority that can be known is sufficient for me.Would you like to recount your vision?You wrote:Anyone who thinks they follow Christ because they repent, believe in Christ, and are baptized automatically has authority to make disciples? That's enlightening. The LDS are authorized to make disciples for Christ, by your own standard.No. Your qualification changes my meaning. Only those who have really repented, believed in Christ, and been baptized are authorized to make disciples. To do these things, one must do what the Bible means by them, and do them in obedience to God's word in the Bible. I agree that someone may think he has done these things and be mistaken or deceived.Regarding my answer to your third question, I see no distinction in the Bible between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of prophecy. Do you?
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 DaddyG,You wrote:I've heard this statement a few times from you. I would like to make very clear that I use a pseudonym here because anti-mormons and so called evangelical Christians used my name on-line to mock me, mock my family, mock the number of children I had, mock my beliefs and threaten to blackmail me with an employer. I hae done my best to clear my religious discussion activities using my real name from the web because I was not willing to risk my personal safety and the safety of my family.But my opinions are honest and my discussions are straightforward. I account for myself when asked for a reference or opinion.I assume you are saying that someone did all these things merely because you are a Mormon? Anyone who did those things you describe would be a disgrace. I would disown anyone who did those things and refuse to regard them as a brother in Christ.At the same time, surely you can understand my irritation at the many insulting things that have been said about me by people who refuse to use their own names. If they wish to be anonymous, that's their right, but it is cowardly and hypocritical for someone (I do not mean you) who is exercising that right to attack the intentions, motivations, sincerity, and integrity of an individual brave enough to use his own name in a hostile forum. I would say the same thing if the situation were reversed and a Mormon scholar was receiving such treatment on a predominantly evangelical forum.
Log Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,Would you like to recount your vision?I have, before. Whenever someone asks me in person, I do. Do you have one to recount?No. Your qualification changes my meaning. Only those who have really repented, believed in Christ, and been baptized are authorized to make disciples. To do these things, one must do what the Bible means by them, and do them in obedience to God's word in the Bible. I agree that someone may think he has done these things and be mistaken or deceived.Precisely. I am gratified you see my point. The LDS are authorized by the standard you outline here.Regarding my answer to your third question, I see no distinction in the Bible between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of prophecy. Do you?I don't see in the Bible how one possesses the spirit of prophecy and yet fails to be a prophet.
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:I have, before. Whenever someone asks me in person, I do. Do you have one to recount?No. But then, I don't base my living as a disciple of Jesus Christ on my having a vision.You wrote:Precisely. I am gratified you see my point. The LDS are authorized by the standard you outline here.We'll have to agree to disagree on that.I don't see in the Bible how one possesses the spirit of prophecy and yet fails to be a prophet.You didn't answer my question.
Log Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Log,You didn't answer my question.I don't see in the Bible where the spirit of prophecy is equated with the spirit of God. I don't see in the Bible where the spirit of prophecy is rendered unequal with the spirit of God. Hence, I have no answer for your question.But I would also request an answer to my question: how can one possess the spirit of prophecy and yet fail to be a prophet?Especially in light of 2 Peter 1:21, which rather trends away from your position. Edited November 4, 2011 by Log
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:I don't see in the Bible where the spirit of prophecy is equated with the spirit of God. I don't see in the Bible where the spirit of prophecy is rendered unequal with the spirit of God. Hence, I have no answer for your question.Too bad.You wrote:But I would also request an answer to my question: how can one possess the spirit of prophecy and yet fail to be a prophet?One can possess the Spirit of God and not be God. One can have the Spirit of prophecy and not be a prophet. The genitive construction has all sorts of usages; context is determinative. The Book of Revelation uses the term "the Spirit of prophecy" in the context of affirming that the Spirit who inspires true prophecy does so in testimony to Jesus. That is, the Spirit's ministry of revelation is focused on revealing Jesus. Anyone who has the Spirit truly dwelling in him or her has a faith that is focused on Jesus, that honors Jesus according to the truth that the Spirit has revealed. I can have that Spirit of prophecy dwelling in me, illuminating my mind to believe in and honor Jesus according to the revelation of the Spirit in Scripture, without me being a prophet.You wrote:Especially in light of 2 Peter 1:21, which rather trends away from your position.I don't see how.
Log Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) One can have the Spirit of prophecy and not be a prophet. That's a textbook case of "begging the question."I don't see how.Too bad. Edited November 4, 2011 by Log
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Log,You wrote:That's a textbook case of "begging the question."Better review the textbook. What you are doing here is quoting a statement and ignoring the entirety of the paragraph in which that statement appears and which presents arguments and explanations supporting the statement. You then conclude that I am begging the question! Unbelievable.
Log Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Log,You wrote:Better review the textbook. What you are doing here is quoting a statement and ignoring the entirety of the paragraph in which that statement appears and which presents arguments and explanations supporting the statement. You then conclude that I am begging the question! Unbelievable.The paragraph did not constitute a proof of the proposition in question. That you believe what you believe is not support of the proposition, neither are explanations of your belief. Assertions of what you believe do not support the truth of the proposition either. Hence, again, what you wrote is a textbook case of "begging the question." Edited November 4, 2011 by Log
Log Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Something else bugs me about the condescension revealed in this response of yours.Log,I don't base my living as a disciple of Jesus Christ on my having a vision.Who does? In many, if not all, cases, the vision of God follows them who show themselves to be true disciples of God. It is perhaps curious that you haven't had one. In any event, I think will depart. Edited November 4, 2011 by Log
Vookman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) Bob,I don't disagree with anything you said. I do not favor insulting people, or being rude to people, or mocking them. And if you will notice, in this forum I am generally on the receiving end of such behavior, not on the giving end. This very thread contains some examples.That having been said, sometimes the truth offends people even when presented in a fair-minded way. Paul was treated civilly in Athens, but in many places he received quite a different treatment. The same chapter reports that the Thessalonian Jews treated Paul and Silas very badly (Acts 17:1-9) and even followed him to Berea to agitate people there against him (17:13). Obviously, Paul's message deeply offended those Jews.Rob,I have noticed you get some snide remarks thrown at you, and you do seem to try to answer questions in a straightforward manner, at least to the extent I have seen, though not necessarily as directly as we would always like. I am sure you feel similarly about the LDS responses. It is the nature of debate.In noting the persecution heaped on Paul by the Thessalonian Jews, the reason for the persecution is Paul was teaching that Jesus was the Messiah, their Messiah. At this time they were still one big family of Old Testament Bible believing followers, and Paul was teaching Jesus.This is analogous to Bruce R. McConkie laying the smack-down on people teaching the Adam God Doctrine.But based on the assertion that Mormons have a different Jesus than the rest of Traditional Christianity, and the routine statement that Mormons are not Christian, and insulting, ad hominem attacks by non-believers (i.e., non-LDS Christians who don't share LDS beliefs, thus by definition "non-believers of Mormonism"), I would expect a valid Biblical parallel justifying MRM's activities to look like Paul holding idol melting contests outside the pagan temples, or him printing fake Roman coins that the emperor is a false god.Speaking the truth of your beliefs is not necessarily offensive. People may, and often do feel insulted because the pride of their lives takes disagreements with their closely held beliefs as an insult to their integrity. Thus Paul bears witness of what he knows is true, and people are receptive or not. But it is not essentially an attack on other people's beliefs to express your closely held belief.Bill has no idea exactly how much the plates weigh, if Jesus sent Elijah to restore sealing keys, or if there was a First Vision. It is hard to understand how a "negative testimony" of such things could possibly have informed his testimony of Jesus. I believe he is afraid to promote his "Biblical" ideas in the marketplace of ideas against the LDS faith. If his Biblical arguments were stronger than his attacks on Mormon history and doctrine, that would be the logical way to engage non-Christians or prevent converts to Mormonism. Unless he does not care about converting people to his idea of Christ.What would Paul preach? Edited November 4, 2011 by Vookman 2
Rob Bowman Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 Bob,You appear to have conceded my point that the apostle Paul sometimes did offend people, not because he set out to offend them but because they took offense at the truth. Now you are focusing merely on strategy or the methods used in proclaiming the truth. You suggest that Paul would not have held "idol melting contests outside the pagan temples," a not so veiled allusion to what some people do outside LDS temples. But in fact Paul's preaching led to some behaviors analogous to the activities of "anti-Mormons" that offend you and other Mormons. Many new believers in Ephesus publicly spoke about the practices of their pagan religion that previously as pagans they had regarded as sacred (Acts 19:18). The context makes it clear that this included disclosures about the practices that took place in the pagan temple of the goddess Artemis (19:27). Many of the new believers in Christ conducted a public burning in the city of Ephesus of their occult books (19:19). Those who had a vested interest in the Ephesian temple complained that Paul's teaching was leading people to despise the temple (19:27).By no means am I arguing that every practice of every anti-Mormon protester outside LDS temples is acceptable. There are some "street preachers" who wave LDS garments in the air, carry signs with rude and inflammatory statements, etc., and whose behavior seems intended to do nothing but offend Mormons. I disapprove of such tactics. You don't like Bill McKeever's style, and you disagree with his position and arguments. Fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I am simply sharing my opinion, trying to explain my perspective on these things, and in particular trying to show my I believe that that the teaching and example of Paul are more supportive of what Bill and others are doing, at least in terms of broad principles, than you had claimed.
Jesterss Posted November 4, 2011 Posted November 4, 2011 (edited) The paragraph did not constitute a proof of the proposition in question. That you believe what you believe is not support of the proposition, neither are explanations of your belief. Assertions of what you believe do not support the truth of the proposition either. Hence, again, what you wrote is a textbook case of "begging the question."Where are you lost? Are you just arguing just to argue and ignoring what he actually says?The Book of Revelation uses the term "the Spirit of prophecy" in the context of affirming that the Spirit who inspires true prophecy does so in testimony to Jesus. That is, the Spirit's ministry of revelation is focused on revealing Jesus. Anyone who has the Spirit truly dwelling in him or her has a faith that is focused on Jesus, that honors Jesus according to the truth that the Spirit has revealed. I can have that Spirit of prophecy dwelling in me, illuminating my mind to believe in and honor Jesus according to the revelation of the Spirit in Scripture, without me being a prophet.Just because you have differing beliefs, does not make it so that he hasn't provided a logical answer to your question, because indeed he has. The fact that you refuse to accept it is one thing, but to say he didn't answer your question is a bogus assertion, and begs the question to if you really are trying to have a discussion or just say that Rob must be wrong because he's not LDS and shares the same view as you? Edited November 4, 2011 by Jesterss
Recommended Posts