Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 zerinus,I didn't say that Jesus' teachings (e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount) are obsolete. I said that they don't tell us everything we as Christians need to know. That's why we have 27 books of the New Testament instead of just four!You didn't answer my question to you: Have any LDS prophets or apostles explained that praying to Jesus may be appropriate in private prayers but not in public prayers?
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Bernard,You asked:Are you as forgiving of Joseph's and Brigham's supposed indiscretions? Did the way they may have handled situations bear on their theology?Calvin's bad handling of the Servetus affair was understandable (though still wrong) given the nature of church-state relations in Europe for the thousand years preceding his day. Calvin made no attempt to hide what he was doing; he acted as almost any man in his position might have acted in that situation. Despite that one dark blemish, in general Calvin's teaching and practice moved Christianity forward in a better direction even in that area of the relations of church and state. In large measure, paradoxically, we have Calvin to thank for the fact that Christianity eventually abandoned the church-state relation that led to Servetus's execution. By contrast, Joseph Smith's doctrine and practice of plural marriage (for example) was a huge step backwards morally from where Christianity was in the early nineteenth century. Joseph covered up his actions, lied to his own people about it (even lying about it in LDS scripture), and made the practice the basis of a doctrine of marriage that remains a key element of LDS doctrine today. Making this sort of comparison turns out very badly for the LDS prophets.
zerinus Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I didn't say that Jesus' teachings (e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount) are obsolete. I said that they don't tell us everything we as Christians need to know. That's why we have 27 books of the New Testament instead of just four!To me the Lord's Prayer establishes a norm for addressing the Father in prayer, which none of the other scriptural references overrides. You haven't provided evidence to the contrary.You didn't answer my question to you: Have any LDS prophets or apostles explained that praying to Jesus may be appropriate in private prayers but not in public prayers?The distinction is not between public vs. private prayer; the distinction is between what is the norm, and what is permissible but not the norm. But as to the question of whether it is permissible to pray to Jesus, the answer yes:2 Nephi 25:29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.D&C 29:1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I AM, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;2 Who will gather his people even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, even as many as will hearken to my voice and humble themselves before me, and call upon me in mighty prayer.
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 zerinus,You wrote:To me the Lord's Prayer establishes a norm for addressing the Father in prayer, which none of the other scriptural references overrides. You haven't provided evidence to the contrary.A "norm" that allows an unspecifiable number of exceptions for unspecifiable reasons is not a norm. I can't and needn't provide evidence against a "norm" that is not a norm.You wrote:The distinction is not between public vs. private prayer; the distinction is between what is the norm, and what is permissible but not the norm. But as to the question of whether it is permissible to pray to Jesus, the answer yes:It's curious that some Mormons, like Steve, vigorously deny that it is permissible to pray to Jesus. Why do you suppose that is? Should not all Mormons be able to agree on such a fundamental question, given the supposed clarity of your modern revelations?
Vance Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) The fact is that each person interprets the modern Prophet's statements. You listen to the Prophet, and you understand him to be saying something. Your understanding may not be exactly the same as another Mormon's understanding. You are both interpreting him. Again, interpretation is inevitable.The same is true when said about the Bible.The fact is that each person interprets the Bible statements. You read the Bible, and you understand it to be saying something. Your understanding may not be exactly the same as another Christian's understanding. You are both interpreting it. Again, interpretation is inevitable.So, what makes your interpretation of the Bible any more valid than anyone else's? Edited October 31, 2011 by Vance 1
CV75 Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 CV75,You wrote:I think that divine revelation (of the sort that would include the production of new scripture) ceased when the apostles of the first century passed away, around AD 100 or so. And so do you. The only difference between us, in a sense, is that you believe this cessation of new revelation lasted for about 1700 years and I think it has lasted for about 1900 years (so far).My position is not that God is unable to inspire new revelations. He could do so at any time of his choosing. I don't happen to think that we have any basis for expecting new scriptures prior to the Second Coming, but I'm not precluding the possibility a priori. I also am convinced that God has not inspired any new scriptures since about AD 100, and that all of the purported long-lost scriptures various persons have claimed to find are fraudulent. Alleged new scriptures produced after the passing of the NT apostles include the Qur'an, Science and Health, Doctrine & Covenants, Oahspe, and A Course in Miracles. Alleged rediscovered ancient scriptures include the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, the Life of Issa, the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ, the Archko Volume, the Book of Jasher, and the Secret Gospel of Mark. I view all of these books as belonging in the same category: they are all false scriptures. I don't make that statement on the basis of blind dogmatism that refuses to consider evidence supporting such writings, although I do place the burden of proof on those who defend these books as scriptures. Rather, as I examine each of these texts, I find evidence that convinces me that they are not what they claim to be. I also see some patterns, including the fact that there has been a veritable flood of new and supposedly rediscovered ancient scriptures in the past two centuries (all of the above mentioned texts, except the Qur'an and the Book of Jasher, appeared since 1800). I am not embarrassed by the fact that I view such texts as false revelations. Nor will it work to characterize me as being unwilling to hear anything new God might choose to reveal; after all, you would not accept most of these supposed revelations as being from God, either. It is simply my sincere belief and conviction that none of them is really from God.That’s what I thought---thank you for confirming your belief.It seems to me that the Book of Mormon acknowledges and provides its burden of proof with the invitation to read, ponder and pray to God about it. It asserts the primacy of divine revelation in confirming any correct conclusions about the scriptures that arise from reason.Of course not everyone accepts this invitation as valid, or else first requires some proof that this invitation is from God. Thus the ongoing arguments over what else might qualify as proof that the Restored Gospel and its associated scriptures are the result of divine revelation. There is a kind of testimony to be provided in lieu of a witness from the Holy Ghost, but this is up to the Lord to provide in His due time.
thesometimesaint Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Rob Bowman:With some 40,.000 differing Christian religions in the US alone. I'm glad to see that we have ALL come to a unity of the faith, and become perfect like Jesus.
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Huh?Rob Bowman:With some 40,.000 differing Christian religions in the US alone. I'm glad to see that we have ALL come to a unity of the faith, and become perfect like Jesus.
Skylla Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Vance: Don't alter the quotes of others.Skylla
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 thesometimesaint,You wrote:See Ephesians 4:11-14I've seen it many times. What is your point?
altersteve Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 It's curious that some Mormons, like Steve, vigorously deny that it is permissible to pray to Jesus. Why do you suppose that is? Should not all Mormons be able to agree on such a fundamental question, given the supposed clarity of your modern revelations?Well, I admit it, I was wrong. I must have read that verse in the D&C about a dozen times, but never noticed what it really said... I don't know.I apologize.
Vance Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Vance: Don't alter the quotes of others.SkyllaThere, I fixed it.But the question remains.So, what makes your (Bowman's) interpretation of the Bible any more valid than anyone else's?It can't be authority, because we have already established that Bowman has no more authority than the average LDSaint, based on Bowman's own criteria.So what is it? Edited October 31, 2011 by Vance
Vance Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 The Calvinist doctrine of "irresistible grace" simply cannot be refuted by citing texts in which people in various contexts resist God's will, purpose, love, gospel, etc.In other words, it is not falsifiable. The doctrine simply means that in one very specific context, that of God bringing individuals from darkness to light, from death to life, what he does to effect that change succeeds.And if it didn't succeed then it wasn't "irresistible grace".So, it is only "irresistible grace" when it succeeds. When it fails, it is NOT "irresistible grace". :crazy:
shalamabobbi Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 I've seen it many times. What is your point?Logical deduction is not RB's strong suit..
thesometimesaint Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Rob Bowman:With as many differing Christian religions it is hard to see much unity of the faith, let alone us becoming perfect.
Zakuska Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) Of course if Rob were a Universalist maybe irresitable grace is a true doctrine.John 12:3232 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. Edited October 31, 2011 by Zakuska
thesometimesaint Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 zakuska:I doubt Rob is a universalist. He comes across more of a Baptist, but it is a remote possibility. I believe eventually all men, except the sons of perdition, will be drawn to Jesus.
Zakuska Posted October 31, 2011 Author Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) zakuska:I doubt Rob is a universalist. He comes across more of a Baptist, but it is a remote possibility. I believe eventually all men, except the sons of perdition, will be drawn to Jesus.I as well. Every knee shall bow and every tounge confess after all. Edited October 31, 2011 by Zakuska
zerinus Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 A "norm" that allows an unspecifiable number of exceptions for unspecifiable reasons is not a norm. I can't and needn't provide evidence against a "norm" that is not a norm.Then it looks like you have got the definition of norm wrong. Here is a definition of norm from an online dictionary:A standard, model, or pattern regarded as typical: the current middle-class norm of two children per family.Thus "norm" is the typical or expected behavior; but by no means a mandatory one. The Lord's Prayer establishes that kind of norm for addressing the Father in prayer; without ruling out prayers addressed to Christ.It's curious that some Mormons, like Steve, vigorously deny that it is permissible to pray to Jesus. Why do you suppose that is? Should not all Mormons be able to agree on such a fundamental question, given the supposed clarity of your modern revelations?That is because Mormonism is not a zombie religion. People are not put in a straitjacket as to what they believe, as long as they adhere to the fundamentals (e.g. the Articles of Faith). I personally follow the norm in my personal and private prayers; but I can't deny that sometimes I find that the focus of my attention shifts from the Father to the Son; and I don't see any problem with that. My guess is that other Mormons probably do the same.
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 shalambobbi,You wrote:Logical deduction is not RB's strong suit..I can draw all sorts of logical deductions, but merely citing a biblical reference without providing some context as to what it is one intends to say thereby requires no particular logical deduction. Perhaps the person doing the citing is unable to connect the dots in a plausible way. Perhaps the citation without explanation is intended to shut me up. Who knows? One thing I do know: your comment was uncalled for and inappropriate (as well as patently false).thesometimesaint,I see that you are merely repeating your earlier statement and not offering any explanation. Of course, I know that Ephesians 4 talks about the unity of the faith. Perhaps your point is we need living apostles and prophets to do so. Never mind that the LDS movement has produced well over a hundred sects in its short history, each claiming to have its own living prophet. But it would be better if you connected the dots and made your argument instead of leaving it to me to guess.
Rob Bowman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 zerinus,Your dictionary definition of norm is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it defines norm as what is usual or common, not what is "expected." If something is "expected" in a prescriptive sense, then deviations from it are not approved. If you agree that it is by no means "mandatory" for people to follow this "norm," then what is the issue between us? We can pray to Christ as often as we like and whenever and wherever we like.
Vance Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Rob Bowman:See Ephesians 4:11-14Those with anti-Mormon blinders on don't see the obvious in those verses. Perhaps you could waste your time explaining it the those with anti-Mormon blinders on. But what would be the point. They would simply find some excuse for disbelieving what those verses plainly and clearly say.
zerinus Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Your dictionary definition of norm is descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, it defines norm as what is usual or common, not what is "expected." If something is "expected" in a prescriptive sense, then deviations from it are not approved. If you agree that it is by no means "mandatory" for people to follow this "norm," then what is the issue between us? We can pray to Christ as often as we like and whenever and wherever we like.I think you are playing a semantics game now, and I don't feel obliged to play along with that. What I have said is quite clear. The norm is to address prayers to the Father in the name of Christ; therefore in formal or public prayers it should be strictly adhered to; but if someone feels impressed to address his prayers to Jesus in his private devotions, there is no rule saying he shouldn't.
Recommended Posts