canard78 Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 41 minutes ago, Ahab said: It's not about that, usually (responding to your question). It's about trusting what the spirit (should actually be capital S Spirit) tells us, personally, vs trusting someone else telling us what the Spirit has said. Our own testimony from the Spirit vs hearsay, basically. Did the spirit teach this man truth or not: Quote One day, I was sitting under a tree, thinking deeply. I was trying to recall some Bible verses on baptism and praying about a doubt that I had. Suddenly, a miracle happened to me. It was like a light that I could not exactly figure out. It shone on me and took away the doubt in my mind. It seemed that the darkness in my mind was lifted. The doctrine on infant baptism, which I could not at first accept, suddenly became very clear me. I could then accept it with my mind and heart. Since that incident, each time I read the Bible, that former opinion to oppose and the refusal to believe and accept were gone. Today I believe that infants must be baptized in order to be saved. Source Or how about this one: Quote I put The Urantia Book down for several months, and then a devastating thing happened. My father died in a truck/train accident on May 1, 1980. After the initial shock and grief, I was angry that God would take my father at this time of his life; he hadn't even been able to retire! Then I started reading the mansion world papers. The peace I felt after reading them convinced me that the teachings in the book were genuine. They were too beautiful to be anything else. Source Or one more: Quote "I had the feeling of waking up, as if all my previous life I had been asleep. The printed words on the page of the book seemed like the surface of a vast and fathomless ocean of truth and wisdom. Whatever it was, I knew that it was completely true and infallible. Therefore the author must also be true and infallible. The small red book, which I still have, was The Hidden Words." Source Did the spirit teach them truth or not? 1
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Ahab said: It's not about that, usually (responding to your question). It's about trusting what the spirit (should actually be capital S Spirit) tells us, personally, vs trusting someone else telling us what the Spirit has said. Our own testimony from the Spirit vs hearsay, basically. If our own testimony of the Spirit is hearsay, what is the source? Listening to what Church leaders say the Spirit has told them?
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: At least he's not engaging in substance-void, drive-by jabs. You don't read Russell very carefully, do you? 1
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It goes back to my response to you in an earlier post. It's all about trustworthiness. Anointed servants of God endowed with authority and keys are more trustworthy than anonymous faultfinders on a message board. On what basis?
Ahab Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 29 minutes ago, canard78 said: Did the spirit teach this man truth or not: Source Or how about this one: Source Or one more: Source Did the spirit teach them truth or not? Infants don't need to be baptized to be saved, so no on that point, and I haven't read those books so ?... I don't know in response to those 2.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 8 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You don't read Russell very carefully, do you? I read him quite carefully. He's one of my favorite posters here, in fact.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 14, 2016 Author Posted January 14, 2016 43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It goes back to my response to you in an earlier post. It's all about trustworthiness. Anointed servants of God endowed with authority and keys are more trustworthy than anonymous faultfinders on a message board. 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: On what basis? On the basis of the divinity of their calling and the associated spiritual gifts with which they've been endowed. And their demonstrated acumen with regard to things of the Spirit. Do you really mean to imply with this question that you are more trustworthy than they? I'm flabbergasted! 2
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 3 hours ago, Gray said: What God might have to say on it is also subjective. At least until God shows up in person to speak for himself. No it really isn't subjective. It has not been objectively proven and the communication is not something you can transfer from person to person but it is either really God or not.
Ahab Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, consiglieri said: If our own testimony of the Spirit is hearsay, what is the source? Listening to what Church leaders say the Spirit has told them? I was talking about testimony directly from the Spirit to us, with no intermediaries between the Spirit and our own spirit vs Any testimony from ANYONE other than the Spirit with that person saying what (he/she is saying) the Spirit told him/her. Direct testimony from the Spirit to me vs hearsay.
Ahab Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 15 minutes ago, consiglieri said: On what basis? On the basis that they are in fact "Anointed servants of God endowed with authority and keys". Not that you would necessarily know that they are that, but the fact that they are gives them a fairly decent amount of trustibility.
Gray Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) 13 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No it really isn't subjective. It has not been objectively proven and the communication is not something you can transfer from person to person but it is either really God or not. The question of whether it is really God or not, is subjective. And since we don't have access to God in person, subjectivity is all we have. Edited January 14, 2016 by Gray 1
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: The question of whether it is really God or not, is subjective. And since we don't have access to God in person, subjectivity is all we have. Yes but I am objectively right if anyone could be objective enough to see it.
Gray Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 28 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Yes but I am objectively right if anyone could be objective enough to see it. Subjectively, I object to your subjective objective correctness.
The Nehor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: Subjectively, I object to your subjective objective correctness. I objectively reject your subjective objection to my subjective objective correctness. 1
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I read him quite carefully. He's one of my favorite posters here, in fact. Then I guess you just employ a double-standard. Not surprised.
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: On the basis of the divinity of their calling and the associated spiritual gifts with which they've been endowed. And their demonstrated acumen with regard to things of the Spirit. Do you really mean to imply with this question that you are more trustworthy than they? I'm flabbergasted! This is just one more instance of the common Mormon malady that it is more important who says something than what is said. That's all.
consiglieri Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Ahab said: On the basis that they are in fact "Anointed servants of God endowed with authority and keys". Not that you would necessarily know that they are that, but the fact that they are gives them a fairly decent amount of trustibility. This is just one more instance of the common Mormon malady that it is more important who says something than what is said. That's all.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 16 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is just one more instance of the common Mormon malady that it is more important who says something than what is said. That's all. Okay, Consig. Let's ignore the fact that you are an anonymous internet drive-by sniper, while the brethren are trustworthy men who have earned our respect by long years of faithful service. Let's just make our judgments on the content of what they say versus what you say. They still win, by a first round knockout, in straight sets, and a total whitewash. 2
Ahab Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) 28 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is just one more instance of the common Mormon malady that it is more important who says something than what is said. That's all. Who says something is important because of not only who that someone is but also what they know from experience. The "who" encompasses all of the "what" they are and know, in other words. So instead of having the attitude of "whoop-te-do it's just a man with the title of "apostle" because that's the just the title of the position he was anointed and set apart for by some other men who laid their hands on his head" you should realize that that man was qualified by the Lord to fill that position because of all that that man has experienced, including what and who he knows. It's not as if "who" someone is is not important. Not only in this world but in the next world as well "who" we know and "who" we are plays a very important part of all that we know and do. Edited January 15, 2016 by Ahab 1
Recommended Posts