Why Are We Such Brittle Christians?

[ERayR]

 I also don't believe LDS know how to employ reason. That is my own experience and observation.

 

 

Funny I was just remarking to myself at how ridiculously unreasonable that saemo was.

[ERayR]

I have tried both approaches here and have not found successful dialogue with either. The only thing Mormons will accept here is syncreticism, pluralism and relativism. The only commonality I see between us is faith, but then that faith is in different things. But you should understand, I prefer the commonality of having faith to not, so it is not a small commonality to my view.

 

For dialog to occur you really must understand that you just might be wrong about some things and that others may have a different opinion.

[saemo]

For dialog to occur you really must understand that you just might be wrong about some things and that others may have a different opinion.

Of course. But dialogue with any LDS necessitates forgoing conviction, on the part of the non LDS party. Yet LDS holding to convictions is viewed as sacrificing immediate good will between parties, for the greater good.

[saemo]

Funny I was just remarking to myself at how ridiculously unreasonable that saemo was.

Ha!

LDS here have had ample opportunity to show me otherwise. An example: reason woul dictate that a prophet is not a prophet when their prophecies fail, but to LDS failed prophecies do not indicate whether or not a person is actually a prophet. A prophet is a prophet based on what feels good. Is that reasonable faith? Or is it fideism?

[ERayR]

Of course. But dialogue with any LDS necessitates forgoing conviction, on the part of the non LDS party. Yet LDS holding to convictions is viewed as sacrificing immediate good will between parties, for the greater good.

 

I think you mistake vigorous argument for demand for capitulation.  I can name two or three on this board who may be as you describe and they treat LDS and non-LDS the same way but the vast majority are not that way.  Vigorously holding their position and requiring you to back up your arguments. 

[ERayR]

Ha!

LDS here have had ample opportunity to show me otherwise. An example: reason woul dictate that a prophet is not a prophet when their prophecies fail, but to LDS failed prophecies do not indicate whether or not a person is actually a prophet. A prophet is a prophet based on what feels good. Is that reasonable faith? Or is it fideism?

 

Aha I see your problem.  You think that because they do not capitulate to your well reasoned arguments they are exhibiting a sacrifice of good will.  Let me assure you that most of the LDS I know hold you no ill will if you do not agree with them.  On the other hand if you were to find points of agreement they celebrate your shared convictions.

[saemo]

Aha I see your problem.  You think that because they do not capitulate to your well reasoned arguments they are exhibiting a sacrifice of good will.  Let me assure you that most of the LDS I know hold you no ill will if you do not agree with them.  On the other hand if you were to find points of agreement they celebrate your shared convictions.

Viewing a prophet as actually able to prophecy, as something to debate, or capitulate to, is kind of amusing. But ok for you. But you can't blame me for seeing this as lacking an ability or even desire, to reason.

[ERayR]

Viewing a prophet as actually able to prophecy, as something to debate, or capitulate to, is kind of amusing. But ok for you. But you can't blame me for seeing this as lacking an ability or even desire, to reason.

 

It might be that your debate opponent sees you as "lacking an ability or even desire, to reason".  They could reasonably see your refusal to consider what they post as "lacking an ability or even desire, to reason".   It all depends on ones interpretation of the data and what data one accepts.  I seldom agree with you but I do understand the experiences that lead you to your position are different than the ones that have led me to my position.

[saemo]

It might be that your debate opponent sees you as "lacking an ability or even desire, to reason".  They could reasonably see your refusal to consider what they post as "lacking an ability or even desire, to reason".   It all depends on ones interpretation of the data and what data one accepts.  I seldom agree with you but I do understand the experiences that lead you to your position are different than the ones that have led me to my position.

Shrug from me, at a circular rationalization. Either a prophet prophecies, or does not. That is pretty straightforward if you ask me and requires no interpretation. I don't even know what you would interpret? Would you redefine the words prophet and prophecy to mean something new? Is that a rational approach or is it rationalizing?

[ERayR]

Shrug from me, at a circular rationalization. Either a prophet prophecies, or does not. That is pretty straightforward if you ask me and requires no interpretation. I don't even know what you would interpret? Would you redefine the words prophet and prophecy to mean something new? Is that a rational approach or is it rationalizing?

 

Example to my point:  You pay no attention to what I posted but are fixated on your prophet thing which I did not even address.

 

Oh and You really should get a better understanding of a prophet.

Edited December 28, 2014 by ERayR

[saemo]

You really should get a better understanding of a prophet.

Lol!

I do like you ERayR.

[saemo]

Example to my point:  You pay no attention to what I posted but are fixated on your prophet thing which I did not even address.

 

There is a subject that I brought up as an example. I would assume you were addressing that as the subject? If you've made the subject something else you should let me know.

[ERayR]

There is a subject that I brought up as an example. I would assume you were addressing that as the subject? If you've made the subject something else you should let me know.

 

 

The subject of our discussion was your post # 199.  I have tried both approaches here and have not found successful dialogue with either. The only thing Mormons will accept here is syncreticism, pluralism and relativism. The only commonality I see between us is faith, but then that faith is in different things. But you should understand, I prefer the commonality of having faith to not, so it is not a small commonality to my view.

 

That also posses a problem when all parties to a debate are debating different topics. 

[Calm]

Shrug from me, at a circular rationalization. Either a prophet prophecies, or does not. That is pretty straightforward if you ask me and requires no interpretation. I don't even know what you would interpret? Would you redefine the words prophet and prophecy to mean something new? Is that a rational approach or is it rationalizing?

Using the Bible to define what a prophet is more reasonable in a theological discussion than using Webster's. See here for an example of such:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

[saemo]

Using the Bible to define what a prophet is more reasonable in a theological discussion than using Webster's. See here for an example of such:http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

First, I read of your Father's passing and would rather express my sympathies in your time of sorrow than debate with you. You should not have an additional burden, especially from one who is not of your own faith, May God grant your father eternal rest, and peace.

It is an interesting article that you post, but doesn't address how the role of prophets and prophecy changes after the advent of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In this Christian era, all prophecy must align to the Lord's teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. Innovations should be rejected as a sign of a false prophet.

[saemo]

The subject of our discussion was your post # 199.  I have tried both approaches here and have not found successful dialogue with either. The only thing Mormons will accept here is syncreticism, pluralism and relativism. The only commonality I see between us is faith, but then that faith is in different things. But you should understand, I prefer the commonality of having faith to not, so it is not a small commonality to my view.

 

That also posses a problem when all parties to a debate are debating different topics.

I used the example of prophets as part of this subject. So, I don't know what it is you are objecting to.

[Robert F. Smith]

Shrug from me, at a circular rationalization. Either a prophet prophecies, or does not. That is pretty straightforward if you ask me and requires no interpretation. I don't even know what you would interpret? Would you redefine the words prophet and prophecy to mean something new? Is that a rational approach or is it rationalizing?

A Jewish biblical scholar studied the role of prophets in the OT, and concluded the following:

 

According to Yohanan Muffs, a prophet is actually an “agent of the Lord.”  However, Muffs continues, a “prophet has another function: He is also an independent advocate to the heavenly court,” but he is both “the messenger of the divine court to the defendant,” and also “the agent of the defendant, attempting to mitigate the severity of the divine decree.”  In Genesis 18:17-25, for example, “God’s hands are tied until Abraham, a human being, makes a request–that is, until a prophet intercedes.”  So too, Moses argues with God that, deserving or not, God is obligated to clear His own name and reputation by redeeming His people – “even though they do not deserve” it.  Moreover, Heaven forbid that God might breach His own unconditional covenant!! (cf. Ex 32:7-13, Num 14:15-16; Deut 9:26-29)  Prophets might actually carry out divinely ordered executions, as in the case of Samuel slaying Agag, King of the Amaleqites (I Sam 15:33), or of Nephi slaying Laban, a Captain of Fifty in Jerusalem (I Ne 3:29-4:3,7-18).

 

“The usual definition of a prophet–someone whose prophecies come true–is really quite superficial,” Muffs points out.  “The first function of a prophet is to announce the Lord’s punishment and to call on the people to repent,” i.e., as “the messenger of the Lord.”  The second “function of the prophet is . . . to go into the breach, to build a protective wall and to prepare for the battle against the Lord.  The prophet is like a mighty warrior, but his only strength is his eloquence, the strength of his prayer, which may deflect the Lord from destroying his people.”

 

“The breach that the prophet must protect is the breach of sin.  The enemy is not the army of the gentiles that is placing a siege around Jerusalem.  The Lord himself is the enemy, the warrior who is setting his face against Jerusalem to destroy it,” and this was as true for Lehi as it was for Jeremiah.  “Prophecy does not annihilate the personal independence of the prophet; it demands such autonomy as a prerequisite for the prophetic role.  Only boundless spiritual bravery allows the prophet to suffer the great loneliness of one who stands in the breach, calling on people who do not listen and a God who just might.”  Whatever one might conclude from this about a prophet like Spencer W. Kimball in 1978, all of this rests on a solid biblical foundation.

 

See Y. Muffs, “Agent of the Lord, Warrior for the People: The Prophet’s Paradox,” Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):21-27.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

.........................................................................................................

...........................................Growing up in the church, if I had been taught what Catholics and Orthodox Christians really believe, what Saemo describes in her post, I probably would have avoided my long journey through atheism and hedonism.

I understand, partly because I have met so many fine and knowledgeable Roman Catholics, and partly because of what I know of many Catholic saints.  Then too, I appreciate the sincerety of so many Catholic priests and members of holy orders.  I have no problem at all with your being Roman Catholic.  I think that your heart is in the right place now.  We'll just have to see how this all shakes out over on the other side some day, brother.  Just let God be true.

[Calm]

"It is an interesting article that you post, but doesn't address how the role of prophets and prophecy changes after the advent of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In this Christian era, all prophecy must align to the Lord's teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. Innovations should be rejected as a sign of a false prophet. "

I would be very interested in reading the reasoning and scriptural support for this position.

[ERayR]

I used the example of prophets as part of this subject. So, I don't know what it is you are objecting to.

 

What I am objecting to is starting with one discussion then suddenly find you have changed topics in mid-stream by simply using it as an example.  Talk about trying to nail jello to a wall.

[why me]

Ha!

LDS here have had ample opportunity to show me otherwise. An example: reason woul dictate that a prophet is not a prophet when their prophecies fail, but to LDS failed prophecies do not indicate whether or not a person is actually a prophet. A prophet is a prophet based on what feels good. Is that reasonable faith? Or is it fideism?

As I understand it, the bible has some failed prophecies. For one, Paul was wrong when he said that christ would soon come. He didn't. He needed to change his prophecy. I think that there are other failed prophecies too. We need to understand that prophecy is based on many things. For example, on the faithfulness of people who may be involved or changed circumstances based on wrongful living.

[why me]

Of course. But dialogue with any LDS necessitates forgoing conviction, on the part of the non LDS party. Yet LDS holding to convictions is viewed as sacrificing immediate good will between parties, for the greater good.

This is rather strange coming from you. I do enjoy your lectures here. However, I also know how you post on a different board. I have seen no dialogue there when I was posting there. Mormons were usually aggressively attacked and I do believe that you remained silent when this was happening. Dialogue with mormons are not allowed without attacking them. However, on this board, I have seen many posters attempting to have a dialogue with you. But, to no avail. To be fair, some of the more aggressive posters may post less now on the other board. I do see more attempts at understanding. But the old guard who I would consider antimormon by their posts and tone can't seem to do it.

 

We need to be honest saemo. I know you too well.

[why me]

For dialog to occur you really must understand that you just might be wrong about some things and that others may have a different opinion.

This is very difficult. For dialogue to occur both people would need to have an empty blackboard so that they can begin to learn from the other. The socratic method is a good starting point for any dialogue. Usually, however, the internet is not a dialogue but two people playing the slam dunk game.

[saemo]

What I am objecting to is starting with one discussion then suddenly find you have changed topics in mid-stream by simply using it as an example. Talk about trying to nail jello to a wall.

I gave an example, in an effort to make what I said less of an abstraction. I apologize if the connection was not made as clear as it was to me.

Edited December 30, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

"It is an interesting article that you post, but doesn't address how the role of prophets and prophecy changes after the advent of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In this Christian era, all prophecy must align to the Lord's teaching through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations. Innovations should be rejected as a sign of a false prophet. "

I would be very interested in reading the reasoning and scriptural support for this position.

Galatians 1:8