Titanic: now you've really got me worried; what about ONE cup o joe in the AM, then switch to tea.....? Show me some mercy with SOME caffeine in it.....PLEASE.
ISSAC;s point, and others have made it, seems to be inconsistent to me, here's how:
on the one hand, a person is to recieve greater glory and exaltation based on obedience to eternal principles and commandments, just as GOD Himself has (so the story goes). So, the greater the obedience= the higher the position. Not saying I agree with that, but I think I 'get it'.
THEN, Isaac says essentially, my father, grand-father, etc. are greater than me BECAUSE THEY PRECECED ME. The LDS seem to favor earthly analogies in this : what if my earthly father is the Unibomber, orthe BTK killer ?? Is he still greater than I , even if I extend to him the honor due to a father ?
As for feeling uncomfortable, well you should, becoming a god is idolatry. You have something of a conscience. GERmIT
Well, I like your post but here is the deal: history is replete with people who claim that their experiences/epiphanies are a whole lot like Moses, Abraham, Paul, etc. This list of "God came to me and told me...." is long. So how would we know that YOUR claim is legit, and Mary Baker Eddy's , or Warren Jeff's is not so legit?? Do I depend on God visiting me bodily, as He supposedly did JS numerous times ?? Or do I just take someone's word for it (and they ALL claim to be special servants/prophets/apostles.
You reference the "power of God through revelation"....but you aren't telling me what that is, tho I get the idea of God somehow meeting (spiritually ??) with you as HE did the ancients. Can you add to that ?
DOF: those are good points but for me, it comes down to this: do I want to trust the Mormon 'take' on what constitutes the word of God, or the early church fathers. I know VOOK, among others is very convinced that early church history leans your way, but I think/believe that the same God who had the words penned was able to preserve them for future use thru the councils and have the basic truths re-stated for church-wide unity as (hold your nose........) the creeds. It doesn't matter to me that the authors themselves did not know what they penned was "scripture" or "Gods word" AT THE TIME. Shoot, not all of the D & C was written like that, am I wrong about that ?? It's been re-stated MANY times, but let me throw in: the councils did NOT decide what WAS Scripture, they RATIFIED what was ALREADY SEEN and USED as authoratative throughout the church universal, More later. GERMIT
DOF: I knew someone smarter than I would pipe up: read Gundek's comments about the Bible below. I know it may seem "circular" , but the Bible testifies to the Bibles ability to be that benchmark.. I think that's GOD Himself at work how things are.
And of course, it (the Bible) has not lost its lustre in 2000 yrs of careful scrutiny.....that counts for something as well.
Good job GUNDY. GERMIT
Amanda: you wrote
text is verified by the Holy Ghost, not the other way around
I have a guess and a hunch what you are talking about, but I'd prefer you put this (verification process) in your own words. I realize we are talking about dealing with a Loving Personality (God Himself) so I'm not trying to make this 'ultra-rational', but I would like to understand what it is you (and DOF, perhaps, since he liked your post) are talking about.
DOF: I appreciate your comments. I used myself as a target of concern to underline the fact that as ev christians we are NOT singling out the LDS in advocating for an OBJECTIVE benchmark. There are a zillion privatized 'words from the Lord" out there, I'm sure you've been exposed to a few dozen , or more, yourself. Hence the caution. Hopefully CAUTION does not morph into : God is done speaking, or worse yet, "God never spoke". I'm not directing that possibility to you, if anything, that might be more of an ev. christian liability (potentially).
I believe that JS is basically responsible for (not the word for word AUTHOR of) both the BofM and D&C. IF he was not a true prophet of God......well, connect the dots.
I believe the bible to be COMPLETE, not in the sense that it contains the whole mind of God (all of God's thoughts), but in the sense that it is the only book He has or will give us that rises to the level of scripture. I'll have to think on how to explain that.........or maybe stall and whine and let Lautensack do it......just kidding......sort of.
The Jews (and others in the NT: Luke, for instance) had no idea AT THE TIME, that what they were writing was to become scripture, even when they were sure that the LORD's voice and will was being spoken or written. God knew, and had HIS hand on that, just as HE had HIS hand in the councils that ratified canonicity.
The best way , or at least ONE way, to convince a Jew that the NT is his/her business is to point out how marvelously the OT points to Jesus Christ. IF they can begin to accept that fact, the rest will follow.
Ralph: if the corredt , God intended scenario is that all are to be married and have kids, what is Jesus talking about in
Matt 19:12; For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mothers womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are ALSO eunuchs who MADE THEMSELVES eunuchs FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." Comments???
Actually, I'd say most of us are not so concerned about OUR testimony being discounted as much as God's testimony, given in HIS book:
AARON wrote above:
Christians would rather receive God's testimony about himself rather than receive any man's personal testimony (including our own) about God.
note the phrase, 'including their own'. I am as nervous about MY OWN personal testimony being potentially off base as I am of yours. Hence the need for a reliable benchmark (the Bible) to test everything against.
Ralph: have you considered the possibility that God wanted to express the FREEDOM that believers have in being married, or NOT, and therefore the fact that Paul says "I have no commandment...." is another way of GOD saying "I, GOD, have no commandment on this as well.." this does not have to contradict being fruitfull and multiplying: that was stated as God's overarching goal for man, not as what EVERY individual has to do physically; if it were such, Paul is very WRONG in not re-stating that "commandment". Is that your view, that not only was this Paul's opinion, but that he is going against "be fruitful and multiply"....or maybe Paul's understanding was weak and flawed ..???