67 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0
Another example of a mispresentation of our beliefs. No one would say God is done talking to us, you do know that, right? So do YOU understand OUR beliefs?
The idea of a testimony is entirely subjective, because there is no way that I can, or anyone here, can deny how you view your experience. I do not know what you have felt, but nor do you know what I have felt, right? You'll probably say that I have not truly experienced God because I am not a Mormon, or something along those lines. Even though you say all can experience God in their own way, unless they accept the Mormon view, they haven't gone all the way (accurate enough?). But the experience is something you cannot know from my view point, because it is not you experience it. Right? So, when I have an experience contrary to yours, how do we resolve the discrepency of what the experience speaks to?
I know you say you have put effort into understanding our view, but I don't think you get it. You can view it differently, but a pet peeve of mine is when Mormons get so bent out of shape when we "misconstrue" your faith and so quickly and readilly "misconstrue" ours. And again, you paint a very large brush without specifics. Do you care to explain why ours is a cheap gospel? Please do so while accurately portraying our view. It can be done while disagreeing, too.
"That is the verse that Matthew was commanded to leave out of his gospel, because the world was not ready for deeper doctrine. You know, milk before meat."
What a comment! I am not sure to take it seriously or not. And I am not trying to be mean. What you are saying here is that the Bible is unequivocably not sufficient because God left stuff out that we might not understand. I hope you know that we disagree 100%.
While I accept that as the Mormon view on how it affects godhood, and for that I thank you for your explanation. I think you might expect me to have some problems with the thinking. The trouble with it is not too far from the first in that marriage was not written for baptism. That substitution is changing what was written. It also does not negate Paul's writing in 1 Cor 7. I think it is more difficult to arrive at that conclusion without your last comment, that Matt was commanded to leave stuff out, a claim without any historical, or theological, basis.
How do we test the spirits? What does the Bible say about scritpture?
Take the discussion of marriage going on at the other post, for instance. The question is what Paul's addition to scriptute in 1 Cor 7 has to do with your 'commandment' of marriage. Seeing as 1 Cor 7 is scripture, are we to discount it because it is someones mere opinion? If this is the case, then the Bible lies when it says all scripture is valuable. Or is it not scripture to begin with? If its not scripture, then how do we determine what is scripture? Based on the spirit? The same spirit that we are told test? By that route, You end up with a conclusion that really is only guided by the spirit, and anything written cannot be taken seriously.
BTW, you like to say that we misprepresent your faith. Fair enough, but consider this alternative view: we interpret your faith differently. No, we are not saying what it is you think you believe. While what you think you believe is important, we simply reach different conclusions. Its also necessary to say that Mormons all too often conclude differently on our beliefs. Thus it is important try to understand the others view point, and fairly try to present it. You don't have to like what we say, but give specific examples where we are completely off base. OK?
I know you believe something different, but this conclusion is perfectly legitimate. I hope you understand the thought process here, that works as a requirement negate the effects of faith as shown above. I hope this also puts the idea that we ought not to put our faith in works so that we might boast. Our faith is to be in Christ, and Christ alone. Does this make sense?
As I have stated, Paul seems to be saying that it was not rule, like you are assuming.
I know you will see that as misrepresenting your faith, but is the logic there to reach this conclusion?
But the biggest thing missing from your response is that the mere suggestion Paul gives, opinion or not, is that marriage was not a requirement. You seem to flippantly disregard this suggestion, which really gets at a major point of Mormonism-- that it restored the early church. But here we see a requirement in your church under the restoration theory that was not in existence in the early church. Rather, Paul suggests that it is better not to be married. Again whether or not it was his opinion does not matter to the suggestion that it negates it as a requirement of the early church. Do you have any thoughts on this observation?