Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) I think you got it wrong. Ron Beron, LDS, has a brief conversation with a professional and her default reaction is to assume she's being attacked? While there certainly are EVs (and others) who attack different faiths I disagree that there is a tendency to do so. I think you would be hard-pressed to provide any kind of data to support the notion that this is a generally accepted or majority tendency.In my experience, it is common, though not very common face to face, to be told by Evangelicals (not others) that I am not a Christian because I am of the LDS faith.Depending on where she lived and the kind of people she hung out with and encountered in her professional (though that shouldn't involved religious discussions, some might ask her) and social life, it might be relatively common for her as well. So it wouldn't be so much of a "default" position, but one created out of experience.Now, you and me might not view that as an attack (for me, it depends on what else is said in conjunction with that), but I suspect most LDS would interpret it differently, especially if they haven't been involved in extended interfaith discussions. Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Show me a list of prominent Evangelical priests, teachers, preachers, ministers, activists, members etc. who have publicly disavowed such statements, and distanced themselves from them (with the exception of one of two isolated individuals like Richard Mouw, and a couple of others).Silence does not equate to acceptance.add-on: I see Ron has issued a statement indicating this side of the conversation is off topic so I will stop commenting now. Edited July 4, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Hi Ron.I'm back for a few days anyway.Your comment was in response to my admission that the Latter-day Catholic Church today looks a lot different than the Former-day Catholic Church of the 1st Century. Obviously, if there is a discontinuity, then they are two different churches and "today's Catholic Church" would be apostate. I suggested that it would be like trying to identify an adult by baby pictures. I can't decide which is the true church on the basis of how the church appears in the Bible alone, even though that needs to be considered. But just as I can provide other evidence to convince someone that a baby picture is me, so the true church needs to be able to make a similar case that it was once that first century church.3DOPThis makes me think of those computer programs that can age or regress a face so one can see how a child will look like years older or an adult probably looked like in his youth. I think scholarship attempts to create an analogous 'program' for religions.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) Yes, I agree. Not having faith in Scholarship or in Revelation is also a choice available to you. Hard way to go though.Again, a judgment call.....how do you know it's a hard way to go? A blanket statement that can differ with different folks...... yes, we as Mormons are told this......but is it accurate? Only a TON of analysis would help us come to any sort of understanding. Otherwise we are just guessing, yes? Your assumption against scholarship is misguided as Joseph Smith clearly gave us examples, as did Brigham Young on its serious value for our learning. Today's church rants against the philosophers, but there has never been anything like a Joseph Smith or Brigham Young since their day....... their approach is the most accurate and Godly so far as I can tell. IF God's glory IS intelligence, then emulating that with EVERYTHING we have is the ONLY way to go, whether it be in LDS circles or not. Edited July 4, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 If you will notice, I was referring to when there is a choice presented because of conflict. Its a choice.It's never black and white or 50/50. The choice could be both.
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 From my studies I have found Paul to be generally a false apostle. Yet Joseph Smith says he was an Apostle and a Prophet who was visited by angels to learn the truth. One of you is wrong.
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Again, a judgment call.....how do you know it's a hard way to go?Going without faith is a very hard way to go.
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 It's never black and white or 50/50. The choice could be both.Its an either or situation. If you think you can reconcile the two views -- 1 that the Apostles told the people to stop saving, stop marring, stop reasonable economic activity because Jesus is coming soon vs 2 the view that the Apostles said such stories were wrong and should not be followed... why don't you give it a try?
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Only a TON of analysis would help us come to any sort of understanding. Or a teensy tiny bit of the Holy Ghost.
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 Its an either or situation. If you think you can reconcile the two views -- 1 that the Apostles told the people to stop saving, stop marring, stop reasonable economic activity because Jesus is coming soon vs 2 the view that the Apostles said such stories were wrong and should not be followed... why don't you give it a try?Only one so-called apostle said so and you got the interpretation incorrect.
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Only one so-called apostle said so and you got the interpretation incorrect.Only one apostle said anything on the matter but he spoke in the first person plural and I got the interpretation correct -- the same as most other people who study such things.
zerinus Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 From my studies I have found Paul to be generally a false apostle. First, he acquiesces in the death of disciples, possible even James. Secondly, he seeks the destruction of fledgling Jesus Movement which is only aborted when on the way to Damascus to inquire further into the movement is "blindsided" by his call. Fourth, he attempted to assume authority over the Jerusalem Church and James. Fifth, he altered both the message and person of Jesus by denying the law and marginalizing the physical Jesus in favor of a cosmic Christ. Other than that I have no problem with him.That is completely and utterly counter to everything that Mormonism believes, teaches, and accepts. It has no support whatsoever in any aspect of Mormonism. Paul was a persecutor of the Church prior to his conversion, and afterwards became a valiant defender to his death. Following his conversion the word of the Lord concerning him was, "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15); and he carried out that charge faithfully to the end of his life, and finally gave his life as a martyr to the cause of the gospel. There is nothing either in the Bible, LDS scripture, the teachings of Joseph Smith, or the teachings of the Church that supports your views. I am left to wonder with Paul, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (Galatians 1:6).
zerinus Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 You need to give specific examples. I find nearly all of his teachings to have been inspired, including political and, to the extent that he made them, scientific comments. Did you have any particular comments in mind, either on science or politics?Not the time nor place. Different thread.I am not very hopeful.
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 Only one apostle said anything on the matter but he spoke in the first person plural and I got the interpretation correct -- the same as most other people who study such things.No you didn't. The passage stated,2:1 Now regarding the arrival1 of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to be with him,2 we ask you, brothers and sisters,3 2:2 not to be easily4 shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us,5 to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. 2:3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes6 and the man of lawlessness7 is revealed, the son of destruction.8In the Interpreter's Bible it explains the passage...Attention is now focused upon the disturbance of mind in the Thessalonian church because at least some of its members have been led to believe that the day of the Lord has come. The KJV reads is at hand; but the Greek word is found six other times in the N.T. and always with the idea of "present." Here it means "has set in." Along with the excitement about the "coming of the Lord" is included also what is involved with it--our assembling to meet him. This is something of special interest to both the apostles and the disciples, and something of which the apostles had already spoken (vs. 5), and written (I Thess. 4:17; 5:10). It is closely related to the idea reported by Matthew 24:31 and Mark 13:27 as included in the teaching of Jesus.It never mentions what the deception is, but it involves the parousia, possibly like today people who profess to know the exact day. All Paul could state was that it was imminent and be preparedWhen is this to take place? Under what circumstances? What do they need to get prepared? Should they acquire wealth? Engage in normal everyday activities such as marriage and raising families? This was for all of them the last days. Jesus would soon appear again, "Like a thief in the night."
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 (edited) That is completely and utterly counter to everything that Mormonism believes, teaches, and accepts. It has no support whatsoever in any aspect of Mormonism. Paul was a persecutor of the Church prior to his conversion, and afterwards became a valiant defender to his death. Following his conversion the word of the Lord concerning him was, "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel" (Acts 9:15); and he carried out that charge faithfully to the end of his life, and finally gave his life as a martyr to the cause of the gospel. There is nothing either in the Bible, LDS scripture, the teachings of Joseph Smith, or the teachings of the Church that supports your views. I am left to wonder with Paul, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (Galatians 1:6).Certainly, it is counter to the LDS beliefs regarding Paul, but yet I believe he was one of the causes of the apostasy. The LDS scriptures state Paul was an apostle and he certainly was, but not on the same level as those who walked with Jesus. In fact, there was little trust in Paul by the other apostles who found him a bit of a nuisance. The DC only refers to Paul as akin to Oliver Cowderey who also fought against JS. While Paul certainly revolutionized the teachings of Christianity he also marginalized the teachings of Jesus and the other Apostles. Paul constantly fought against the First Presidency of the time, persecuted the saints perhaps culminating in the murder of some, and spoke against the Mosaic Law. I am surprised that JS liked the guy. Having said that I wonder if Christianity could have survived without him. Edited July 4, 2012 by Ron Beron
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 I am not very hopeful.Start a new thread. The above is not germane to the subject.
zerinus Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Silence does not equate to acceptance.Silence does equate to acceptance, especially when serious moral issues are involved. During the persecution of the Jews in Germany, most Germans knew what was going on, but chose to keep quiet about it. Before he rose to power, Hitler wrote a book called Mein Kampf in which he outlined exactly what he was going to do if he gained power; and afterwards he kept his promise, and went and did it. Silence in the face of injustice, especially by prominent members and leaders of a community, does indeed amount to acquiescence.add-on: I see Ron has issued a statement indicating this side of the conversation is off topic so I will stop commenting now.Too bad. It is a bit rich to post messages, and when the reply gets tough, to declare the subject "off topic".
zerinus Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Certainly, it is counter to the LDS beliefs regarding Paul, but yet I believe he was one of the causes of the apostasy. Paul constantly fought against the First Presidency of the time, persecuted the saints perhaps culminating in the murder of some, and speaking against the Mosaic Law. I am surprised that JS liked the guy. I don't.You are welcome to your views, obviously; but don't expect any sympathy for them from me.
Ron Beron Posted July 4, 2012 Author Posted July 4, 2012 You are welcome to your views, obviously; but don't expect any sympathy for them from me.I edited my above a bit and I realize that my views run counter to that of the vast majority of the church, but facts are what they are. Paul was an opportunist and probably encouraged the destruction of the Jerusalem Church by his words, deeds, and actions. If you find it hard to find sympathy for me how can you have sympathy for one possible man who began the apostasy?
zerinus Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I edited my above a bit and I realize that my views run counter to that of the vast majority of the church, but facts are what they are. Paul was an opportunist and probably encouraged the destruction of the Jerusalem Church by his words, deeds, and actions. If you find it hard to find sympathy for me how can you have sympathy for one possible man who began the apostasy?I have sympathy for you but not for your views. You have obviously been led far astray, no idea by whom or how. But what you are saying is not correct. And if you can get something like this so badly wrong, I wonder who or what will be next.Another comment like this and you will be out of the thread.
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 No you didn't. And yet, I note, you did not quote a source that says otherwise.
Kerry A. Shirts Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 Going without faith is a very hard way to go.I am more than happy going with knowledge......
CASteinman Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I am more than happy going with knowledge......If only....
Nevo Posted July 4, 2012 Posted July 4, 2012 I have sympathy for you but not for your views. You have obviously been led far astray, no idea by whom or how.As I recall, Ron's views on Paul have been strongly influenced by Hyam Maccoby's The Mythmaker, Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus, and Barrie Wilson's How Jesus Became Christian. I consider that a foundation of sand, but to each their own. 1
Recommended Posts