|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:49 am
This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while...
Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false?
What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:35 pm
Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Well, I think it's because when someone comes from a Protestant perspective it's considered more true because the movement was started by a man who wanted to follow the Bible more closely. Fundamentalism is good. When someone comes from a Mormon perspective it's not necessarily taken as seriously because the Mormon's prophet added to the Bible, and according to the Bible, that is extremely wrong. That's also partly why many don't consider Mormons to be Christians. Protestant theologist are aren't taken that way because they are just giving their opinion on the Word, and they admit they could be off. Plus some of them (like CS Lewis) the majority of the church respect, so that gives their words more power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:22 am
Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Because CS Lewis' quotes tend to be based on religious fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:40 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Well, I think it's because when someone comes from a Protestant perspective it's considered more true because the movement was started by a man who wanted to follow the Bible more closely. Fundamentalism is good. When someone comes from a Mormon perspective it's not necessarily taken as seriously because the Mormon's prophet added to the Bible, and according to the Bible, that is extremely wrong. That's also partly why many don't consider Mormons to be Christians. Protestant theologist are aren't taken that way because they are just giving their opinion on the Word, and they admit they could be off. Plus some of them (like CS Lewis) the majority of the church respect, so that gives their words more power. Proof! That they the man who started protestantism follows the Bible more closely than Joseph Smith did. Also, all the prophets in the LDS religion have flaws and they openly admit it. Go read some of their works and you will notice that they openly admit their flaws. Also, no, none of the LDS prophets have added to the bible. And it's not wrong to add to the bible. I will give you proof.And don't cite the verse in Revelations to me because I have proof that will shoot that theory down any day. If you are going to fingers at the LDS prophets for supposedly adding to the Bible then you need to go through time and tell every one else who have added to the Bible or taken away from it that they did wrong too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 12:42 pm
Phanari Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Because CS Lewis' quotes tend to be based on religious fact. And you have proof to back that claim? Because to me it looks like he is just giving opinions, not facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:09 pm
Shadows-shine xxEternallyBluexx Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Well, I think it's because when someone comes from a Protestant perspective it's considered more true because the movement was started by a man who wanted to follow the Bible more closely. Fundamentalism is good. When someone comes from a Mormon perspective it's not necessarily taken as seriously because the Mormon's prophet added to the Bible, and according to the Bible, that is extremely wrong. That's also partly why many don't consider Mormons to be Christians. Protestant theologist are aren't taken that way because they are just giving their opinion on the Word, and they admit they could be off. Plus some of them (like CS Lewis) the majority of the church respect, so that gives their words more power. Proof! That they the man who started protestantism follows the Bible more closely than Joseph Smith did. Also, all the prophets in the LDS religion have flaws and they openly admit it. Go read some of their works and you will notice that they openly admit their flaws. Also, no, none of the LDS prophets have added to the bible. And it's not wrong to add to the bible. I will give you proof.And don't cite the verse in Revelations to me because I have proof that will shoot that theory down any day. If you are going to fingers at the LDS prophets for supposedly adding to the Bible then you need to go through time and tell every one else who have added to the Bible or taken away from it that they did wrong too. Martin Luther, who started the Reformation (though not on purpose) did it by nailing his thesis to the door about what the Catholic church was doing wrong. They were doing things that weren't supported in the Bible, and that's what his thesis was about. Said thesis sparked the Reformation and the Protestant denomination (whose name came from 'protest. They protested the Catholic church's inaccuracies). And i'm not gonna read their books. I don't even have access to them. First, if you didn't think it was wrong to add to the Bible, then you wouldn't be protesting that your prophets hadn't done so. And please present your case against the verse in Revelations. And everyone who added stuff after Revelation was wrong. Anyone who writes something based off stuff added to the Bible is wrong. Anyone writing a theological book based around the Bible and their opinion, is not wrong. Theological books are not necessary reading, they're simply helpful. The Bible is the only necessary book. Are any books written by your prophets considered necessary to the Mormon religion, or part of the Bible? Because if so, that's off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:15 pm
@ Eternally-here is proof that it's not wrong to add to the Bible.
*Revelation 22:18-19 is often cited as a proof that there is no more revelation and believe that the LDS have added to scripture with their additional scriptures.
-Consider the following-
1.If further revelation was prohibted in the verses (Rev. 22:18-19) then the Saints of John's day and for than 1000 years after misunderstood that scripture. The book of Revelation was a separate document for hundreds of years before it was put in the scriptural writings that we call the Bible. The word "Bible" comes from the Greek word "ta biblia" which means "the books". John was only referring to the book of Revelation. He was concerned men would alter and destroy the truths it contained.
2. The injunction specifies that only "man" shouldn't add to or take away from the revealed words (Revelation 22:18-19). God can add and will add to His word as He wants. Modern LDS scripture was written "by way of commandment" from the Lord and given "by the gift and power of God"
3. The same prohibition is found in Deuteronomy 4:2 and Deuteronomy 12:32. Does this make all scriptures given after the Pentateuch (the first five books of Moses of the OT) bad? All will agree that it doesn't. So why then should the similiar statement in the NT book of Revelation invalidate all modern scripture?
4.Evidence shows that John wrote additional scripture after the Book of Revelation. Bible scholars agree that John recorded Revelation about 95 or 96AD on the Isle of Patmos. The Gospel of John is dated 96 to 104AD and thought to have been written by Ephesus. The three Epistles were thought to have been written at the same time as the Gospel of John (96 to 104AD). So the book of Revelation wasn't meant to be the end of all revealed scripture, but a warning of future events.
5.The Bible itselfs talks of additional scripture coming forth (see Isaiah 29 & Ezekiel 37) and it also speaks of future revelation (see Matthew 17:11; Luke 10:22; John 16:12-15; Acts 2:17-18; James 1:5). Even Revelation alludes to future prophets and revelations from Heaven (Revelation 11:3; 14:6).
*The Bible states that Revelation is part of the true Church (Amos 3:7; 1 Corinthians 14:29-33, 37-39) and many Churches today teach that there is no more revelation. Some even condemn those who beleive in modern revelation.
*Hugh Nibley said that anti mormon literature generally shows a "singular lack of variety and imagination in accusations, all of which can be readily reduced to one standard indictment, monotaneously repeated and mechanically transmitted from the writer to the next: the crime of believing in continuous revelation. Claims to the possession of prophetic powers, to exclusive knowledge of the true gospel and the priesthood that goes with it and to all the other charismatic gifts, are simply corollories of the basic proposition that God still speaks to man"
*Nibley also pointed out that one Non-Mormon scholar said "If one dares claim revelation, it follows...that one must claim to have the only true church, since revelation is necessarily the truth."
*Edouard Meyer had singled out the LDS Church as one the original religions of the world. He said that "most other churches and sects are really only episodes in the history of a going concern, variations on an accepted theme, reforms or innovations under taken by men who thought they may have felt aware of a special calling or a special talent for the job, were simply doing what other men did. But three religions- primitive Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism- actually claim to have been founded not by men, but by direct revelation from Heaven".
*Without revelation (direct and continuing) a Church is no longer directed by God and can't claim Christ as its head.
*Churches in which claim the Bible as their standard are like ships with fixed rudders. Their course may appear straight at first, but with time it will diverge from the true heading. Paul used similar imagry in Ephesians 4:11-15.
*Without modern revelation it's impossible to arrive at proper understanding of ancient writings since even inspired writings may be understood.
*Scriptures tells us to "despise not prophesyings" (1 Thessalonians 5:20). Seek "that ye may prophesy" (1 Corinthians 14:1) look to God that He "may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation" (Ephesians 1:17)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:17 pm
I found all of stuff in my previous post from reading the book "Answering Challenging Mormon Questions" by Michael W. Hickenbotham and also by simply researching around the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:21 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Shadows-shine xxEternallyBluexx Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Well, I think it's because when someone comes from a Protestant perspective it's considered more true because the movement was started by a man who wanted to follow the Bible more closely. Fundamentalism is good. When someone comes from a Mormon perspective it's not necessarily taken as seriously because the Mormon's prophet added to the Bible, and according to the Bible, that is extremely wrong. That's also partly why many don't consider Mormons to be Christians. Protestant theologist are aren't taken that way because they are just giving their opinion on the Word, and they admit they could be off. Plus some of them (like CS Lewis) the majority of the church respect, so that gives their words more power. Proof! That they the man who started protestantism follows the Bible more closely than Joseph Smith did. Also, all the prophets in the LDS religion have flaws and they openly admit it. Go read some of their works and you will notice that they openly admit their flaws. Also, no, none of the LDS prophets have added to the bible. And it's not wrong to add to the bible. I will give you proof.And don't cite the verse in Revelations to me because I have proof that will shoot that theory down any day. If you are going to fingers at the LDS prophets for supposedly adding to the Bible then you need to go through time and tell every one else who have added to the Bible or taken away from it that they did wrong too. Martin Luther, who started the Reformation (though not on purpose) did it by nailing his thesis to the door about what the Catholic church was doing wrong. They were doing things that weren't supported in the Bible, and that's what his thesis was about. Said thesis sparked the Reformation and the Protestant denomination (whose name came from 'protest. They protested the Catholic church's inaccuracies). And i'm not gonna read their books. I don't even have access to them. First, if you didn't think it was wrong to add to the Bible, then you wouldn't be protesting that your prophets hadn't done so. And please present your case against the verse in Revelations. And everyone who added stuff after Revelation was wrong. Anyone who writes something based off stuff added to the Bible is wrong. Anyone writing a theological book based around the Bible and their opinion, is not wrong. Theological books are not necessary reading, they're simply helpful. The Bible is the only necessary book. Are any books written by your prophets considered necessary to the Mormon religion, or part of the Bible? Because if so, that's off. No me protesting that the prophets have not added to the Bible is not me admitting that it's wrong. It's me actually doing my homework and researching into what the leaders of my Church have done in their lives. The books that have been written by the prophets are just useful tools, like the ones in protestantism to help us understand the scriptures. They are not considered part of the Bible if that's what you mean. And you don't have to have access to their books to find out what their works are like or even to read their sermon. I will give a website where you can find them all. Or go read the topic that someoneiknow posted called Joseph Smith the Prophet and listen to one of the apostles talk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:51 pm
Shadows-shine Phanari Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Because CS Lewis' quotes tend to be based on religious fact. And you have proof to back that claim? Because to me it looks like he is just giving opinions, not facts. More like evidence. I'm too lazy to look up the proof right now, so do it yourself. A lot of the Mormon "prophets" will have conflicting "Scriptures" yet Mormons don't seem to care because they're the Mormon "prophet" so their words must have "not YET come to pass" even it the date they set has passed already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:56 pm
Phanari Shadows-shine Phanari Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Because CS Lewis' quotes tend to be based on religious fact. And you have proof to back that claim? Because to me it looks like he is just giving opinions, not facts. More like evidence. I'm too lazy to look up the proof right now, so do it yourself. A lot of the Mormon "prophets" will have conflicting "Scriptures" yet Mormons don't seem to care because they're the Mormon "prophet" so their words must have "not YET come to pass" even it the date they set has passed already. No I'm not researching into the claims you have made. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers at the LDS prophets and the "conflicting scriptures" as you called it because I have found a whole list of scriptures just from the Bible itself that contradict one another and are conflicting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:00 pm
Shadows-shine Phanari Shadows-shine Phanari Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Because CS Lewis' quotes tend to be based on religious fact. And you have proof to back that claim? Because to me it looks like he is just giving opinions, not facts. More like evidence. I'm too lazy to look up the proof right now, so do it yourself. A lot of the Mormon "prophets" will have conflicting "Scriptures" yet Mormons don't seem to care because they're the Mormon "prophet" so their words must have "not YET come to pass" even it the date they set has passed already. No I'm not researching into the claims you have made. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers at the LDS prophets and the "conflicting scriptures" as you called it because I have found a whole list of scriptures just from the Bible itself that contradict one another and are conflicting. Where does the God contradict Himself in the Bible? Generally, when you think something in there is contradicting, it means you didn't analyze God's Word correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:20 pm
Phanari Shadows-shine Phanari Shadows-shine Phanari Shadows-shine This is just some thing I have been pondering for a while... Why is it okay for some one to quote from CS Lewis or some other noted protestant theoligan in a debate about belief systems, etc. and their words are supposed to accepted as truth because of whatever reason...but when say Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or some one who isn't protestant is quoted every one closes their eyes and ears automatically assumes it's false? What makes CS Lewis' words more credible than Thomas S. Monson's words? Because CS Lewis' quotes tend to be based on religious fact. And you have proof to back that claim? Because to me it looks like he is just giving opinions, not facts. More like evidence. I'm too lazy to look up the proof right now, so do it yourself. A lot of the Mormon "prophets" will have conflicting "Scriptures" yet Mormons don't seem to care because they're the Mormon "prophet" so their words must have "not YET come to pass" even it the date they set has passed already. No I'm not researching into the claims you have made. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers at the LDS prophets and the "conflicting scriptures" as you called it because I have found a whole list of scriptures just from the Bible itself that contradict one another and are conflicting. Where does the God contradict Himself in the Bible? Generally, when you think something in there is contradicting, it means you didn't analyze God's Word correctly. Not necessarily. Take these scriptures for example. 1. Killing- a.Forbidden- Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:17 b.Condoned- Exodus 32:26-28; Deut. 7:2; Jos. 6:17, 21; 1 Samuel 15:2-3, 33;1 Kings 18:40; Eccl. 3:3 2.Animal sacrifices- a.A statute forever- Lev. 7:34; 16:33-34 b.Done away- Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 26, 28 3. The Sabbath- a.A perpetual covenant- Ex. 3:13, 16 b.To cease- Lam. 2:6: Hos. 2:11 c.Strictly practiced- Ex. 20:10; Num. 15:32-36; Jer. 17:21-22; Ez. 20:20-21 d.Liberally practiced- Matt. 12:1-13; Luke 13:11-17; John 5:10-18; Col. 2:16 4.The Priesthood- a.An everlasting responsibility-Ex. 40:15; Leviticus 7:35-36 b.Changed- Hebrews 7:12 5.The Passover- a.A memorial ordinance forever- Ex.12:14, 24-27; Lev. 16:34 b.Changed- 1 Cor. 5:7-8 6.Circumcsion- a.An everlasting covenant-Gen. 17:9-14 b.Discontinued-Act 15:1-9; Rom. 2:25-26; Gal. 6:15 7.Proselyting- a.Not to the Gentiles- Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24 b.To all nations including the Gentiles Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Acts 13:46 8.Paid Ministry- a.Prohibited- Micah 3:11; Acts 20:33-34; 1 Cor. 9:18; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Peter 5:2 b.Allowed- Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 5:18 9.Marriage- a.Not necessary-1 Cor. 7:7-9 b.Necessary- 1 Cor. 11:11 10.Divorce- a. Prohibited- Luke 16:18 b. Allowed at times- Matthew 19:7-9 I can keep going...if you'd like...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:41 pm
I'll throw in my 2 cents .. i use historians mainly like Josephus philo .. etc
my main reference is the Bible and the Bible only i detest using Ellen White, C S Lewis or any of that effect because to me the only words that matter are in the book of life.. this is actually why i have problems with my own denomination. I have no problem with anyone using quotes from anyone unless the forum does not permit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 3:03 pm
Shadows-shine Phanari Shadows-shine Phanari Shadows-shine And you have proof to back that claim? Because to me it looks like he is just giving opinions, not facts. More like evidence. I'm too lazy to look up the proof right now, so do it yourself. A lot of the Mormon "prophets" will have conflicting "Scriptures" yet Mormons don't seem to care because they're the Mormon "prophet" so their words must have "not YET come to pass" even it the date they set has passed already. No I'm not researching into the claims you have made. I wouldn't be so quick to point fingers at the LDS prophets and the "conflicting scriptures" as you called it because I have found a whole list of scriptures just from the Bible itself that contradict one another and are conflicting. Where does the God contradict Himself in the Bible? Generally, when you think something in there is contradicting, it means you didn't analyze God's Word correctly. Not necessarily. Take these scriptures for example. 1. Killing- a.Forbidden- Exodus 20:12; Deut. 5:17 b.Condoned- Exodus 32:26-28; Deut. 7:2; Jos. 6:17, 21; 1 Samuel 15:2-3, 33;1 Kings 18:40; Eccl. 3:3 2.Animal sacrifices- a.A statute forever- Lev. 7:34; 16:33-34 b.Done away- Hebrews 7:27; 9:12, 26, 28 3. The Sabbath- a.A perpetual covenant- Ex. 3:13, 16 b.To cease- Lam. 2:6: Hos. 2:11 c.Strictly practiced- Ex. 20:10; Num. 15:32-36; Jer. 17:21-22; Ez. 20:20-21 d.Liberally practiced- Matt. 12:1-13; Luke 13:11-17; John 5:10-18; Col. 2:16 4.The Priesthood- a.An everlasting responsibility-Ex. 40:15; Leviticus 7:35-36 b.Changed- Hebrews 7:12 5.The Passover- a.A memorial ordinance forever- Ex.12:14, 24-27; Lev. 16:34 b.Changed- 1 Cor. 5:7-8 6.Circumcsion- a.An everlasting covenant-Gen. 17:9-14 b.Discontinued-Act 15:1-9; Rom. 2:25-26; Gal. 6:15 7.Proselyting- a.Not to the Gentiles- Matt. 10:5-6; 15:24 b.To all nations including the Gentiles Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Acts 13:46 8.Paid Ministry- a.Prohibited- Micah 3:11; Acts 20:33-34; 1 Cor. 9:18; 2 Cor. 11:7; 1 Peter 5:2 b.Allowed- Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 5:18 9.Marriage- a.Not necessary-1 Cor. 7:7-9 b.Necessary- 1 Cor. 11:11 10.Divorce- a. Prohibited- Luke 16:18 b. Allowed at times- Matthew 19:7-9 I can keep going...if you'd like... If you read them CORRECTLY like anyone who calls themselves a Christian SHOULD, you'll find that you just misunderstood the context in them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
