LDS Joseph Smith's Claim of an Apostasy is a Lie

[ArmenianJohn]

.

 

[tickingclocker]

One of my weaknesses is loving my enemies. Sue me

All you are doing is reinforcing my premise.

 

[fatboys]

All you are doing is reinforcing my premise.

There is nothing anyon could say, not even Jesus himself that would change your mind.

 

[tickingclocker]

There is nothing anyon could say, not even Jesus himself that would change your mind.

Don't you think its arrogant to think you can speak for Jesus, the Son of God, and that you would be the correct one? You've got more nerve than I do in your touff.

 

[fatboys]

Don't you think its arrogant to think you can speak for Jesus, the Son of God, and that you would be the correct one? You've got more nerve than I do in your touff.

What else can you so interpret sooooo wrong. I find it totally arrogance to tell Mormons that your right and we are wrong. That you can think that you interpret gods word correctly. That is arrogance. What is arrogance is your thinking that you can tell me who Joseph Smith was from information put out by the critics. What is arrogance is saying that your research has not included websites or books put out by critics who had made a life of luxury for themselves from their slanted conclusions that those who want to hate something can now focus on the poor dumb cultist Mormons. I get that you hate Joseph Smith and the restoration he brought about. I get it. But think about your feelings of hate. Our current leaders are either just as big a con as JS was or they are the biggest fools born. What would it take for any of you here who hate the church to hope someone murders our leaders? What would it take for you guys here that hate the church to participate in mobs? Some here already support those who go to our events and try to disrupt them. Do you think that it would take much to harm or even kill with that type of mentality.
There are times that wish there was something that I could do that would cause them to just leave us alone. My great uncle J Golden kimball was a mission president in the south where there was still a lot of persecution. They were in the process of holding a baptism near a small pond. Word got out that the Mormons were going to have this baptism at this pond and went there and we're making threats and throwing rocks from the other side of the pond which was holding up the meeting. J Golden stood on the bank and faced him. He yelled out you thugs are disrupting this baptism. If you don't stop the horns you believe we have are going to come in handy because I'm going to come over there and gore the hell out of you. I have been to events where I could see that might have been an effective statement to the rabble because after kimball said it the didn't say another word. Lol

 

[tickingclocker]

What else can you so interpret sooooo wrong. I find it totally arrogance to tell Mormons that your right and we are wrong. That you can think that you interpret gods word correctly. That is arrogance. What is arrogance is your thinking that you can tell me who Joseph Smith was from information put out by the critics. What is arrogance is saying that your research has not included websites or books put out by critics who had made a life of luxury for themselves from their slanted conclusions that those who want to hate something can now focus on the poor dumb cultist Mormons. I get that you hate Joseph Smith and the restoration he brought about. I get it. But think about your feelings of hate. Our current leaders are either just as big a con as JS was or they are the biggest fools born. What would it take for any of you here who hate the church to hope someone murders our leaders? What would it take for you guys here that hate the church to participate in mobs? Some here already support those who go to our events and try to disrupt them. Do you think that it would take much to harm or even kill with that type of mentality.
There are times that wish there was something that I could do that would cause them to just leave us alone. My great uncle J Golden kimball was a mission president in the south where there was still a lot of persecution. They were in the process of holding a baptism near a small pond. Word got out that the Mormons were going to have this baptism at this pond and went there and we're making threats and throwing rocks from the other side of the pond which was holding up the meeting. J Golden stood on the bank and faced him. He yelled out you thugs are disrupting this baptism. If you don't stop the horns you believe we have are going to come in handy because I'm going to come over there and gore the hell out of you. I have been to events where I could see that might have been an effective statement to the rabble because after kimball said it the didn't say another word. Lol

Well, at least its two non-divine, fallible humans telling each other what's what then. You can no more speak for Jesus Christ about me and my heart than I can about you and your heart for Him. So say so. Okay? No humiliation in admitting it [even for a guy].

Sounds like you really don't like being shown your religious leanings have some very human flaws. What makes your religion any different than anyone else's? Nothing. Because yours is just as heavily influenced by humanity as much as any other religion. Therefore, you can tell me or anyone else all the second-hand embellished stories you wish to about JS--or any other Mormon leader! You were not there to prove they happened the way your church tells you they did, so admit it--you choose to believe all the "good" stories and none of the bad. Ever dared ask yourself... WHY?

I DO NOT HAVE TO in order to keep Jesus Christ as MY SAVIOR. I no more revere the Apostles or any other spiritual person than I do any other Christian martyr or missionary since them. JESUS CHRIST remains the reason and focus of Him being my Savior and Lord. No historical characters or anyone else. Would they all wholeheartedly agree with that mindset?

But God forbid that I should boast except in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Gal 6:14)

If you lost respect for JS and/or the LDS, what would happen to your faith in God? Would it crumble, or would it remain standing? Only you know. THAT is what so many Mormons fear facing above all. WHY, if their faith is so 'real'? I have faced both, in Mormonism as well as Christianity. My faith remained--in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and nothing else. Everything else was burned away as the dross it is.

 

[fatboys]

Well, at least its two non-divine, fallible humans telling each other what's what then. You can no more speak for Jesus Christ about me and my heart than I can about you and your heart for Him. So say so. Okay? No humiliation in admitting it [even for a guy].

Sounds like you really don't like being shown your religious leanings have some very human flaws. What makes your religion any different than anyone else's? Nothing. Because yours is just as heavily influenced by humanity as much as any other religion. Therefore, you can tell me or anyone else all the second-hand embellished stories you wish to about JS--or any other Mormon leader! You were not there to prove they happened the way your church tells you they did, so admit it--you choose to believe all the "good" stories and none of the bad. Ever dared ask yourself... WHY?

I DO NOT HAVE TO in order to keep Jesus Christ as MY SAVIOR. I no more revere the Apostles or any other spiritual person than I do any other Christian martyr or missionary since them. JESUS CHRIST remains the reason and focus of Him being my Savior and Lord. No historical characters or anyone else. Would they all wholeheartedly agree with that mindset?

But God forbid that I should boast except in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. (Gal 6:14)

If you lost respect for JS and/or the LDS, what would happen to your faith in God? Would it crumble, or would it remain standing? Only you know. THAT is what so many Mormons fear facing above all. WHY, if their faith is so 'real'? I have faced both, in Mormonism as well as Christianity. My faith remained--in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, and nothing else. Everything else was burned away as the dross it is.

There is not a organization that is not plagued with human flaws. I have never said Joseph asking was perfect. He was flawed and had weaknesses. The same is true for each and every prophet that has ever lived. If you don't believe that ask Moses or job. To think that I believe that our past present or future leaders at infallible or perfect is far from the truth. As for me losing respect for Joseph Smith would I stop believing in God? Maybe. If the church is not the restoration it claims then the complete picture of who God is and what he has done or the reasons for what he has done. There is no other religion that can explain these things. Another is what our purpose is for mortality. You can't answer these questions.

 

[mmksparbud]

That is the proof that this is not of God!! Remove the teachings of this man, and the believe even in God almighty is compromised. God doesn't give us the answers to EVERYTHING. Some things are to be taken on faith, it develops the faith. If you take away any other prophet that a church has and the church doesn't become a bunch of unbelieving atheists, there is something still real there. I've said it before---remove the Pope--you still will have Christianity, you still have the bible, their church will not fall apart completely, remove Martin Luther, the gospel still stands, remove EGW--the church still stands, Christianity is not rejected, the bible still stands. Remove any church leader, the church gets another one and goes on, as when these high profile leaders have fallen. Remove JS, most Mormons end up unbelievers. Remove the bible---Christianity falls. That is what Satan and Mormonism do---remove the authenticity of the bible and it leaves people with faith in nothing. When there are questions you are still asking God for the answers, when everything is supposedly answered by man, you look to the man---Science supposedly answers the questions man has, so now science is God. It's in the interpretation of the questions. Creationists look to God, science looks to man's theories. Mormons place their faith in JS, they say they believe in the bible, but not really, it is JS they believe, it is his answers to their questions they believe.

 

[tickingclocker]

There is not a organization that is not plagued with human flaws. I have never said Joseph asking was perfect. He was flawed and had weaknesses. The same is true for each and every prophet that has ever lived. If you don't believe that ask Moses or job. To think that I believe that our past present or future leaders at infallible or perfect is far from the truth. As for me losing respect for Joseph Smith would I stop believing in God? Maybe. If the church is not the restoration it claims then the complete picture of who God is and what he has done or the reasons for what he has done. There is no other religion that can explain these things. Another is what our purpose is for mortality. You can't answer these questions.

There is no other religion that believes JS's stories, that's why. If JS was eliminated from mormonism, it would EVAPORATE into thin air. What does that tell and show you?

JS couldn't answer them either. Not according to God, that is. Because exactly where does it ever say that we have the right to know God's ultimate reason for our mortality? Where is the faith in God in that? You must have all your questions answered? Even with lies... just so you have an "answer"?

When you admit such a thing, that you place trust in JS BEFORE God as the basis for your faith, you would not believe---God? Shouldn't that be a warning flag in what you should consider as "faith" IN GOD ALONE, which God demands? (First Commandment -- "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.") Who really is your god here, anyway? Only you can answer that, before HIM. You might want to have an honest, heart to heart talk with HIM about this hopefulness in lies. ASAP. He's waiting.

Eve accepted a lie in order to eat the forbidden fruit. She didn't have to, but she did. Now the stain goes throughout all humanity, this urge to believe in lies in order to justify self.

 

[fatboys]

There is no other religion that believes JS's stories, that's why. If JS was eliminated from mormonism, it would EVAPORATE into thin air. What does that tell and show you?

JS couldn't answer them either. Not according to God, that is. Because exactly where does it ever say that we have the right to know God's ultimate reason for our mortality? Where is the faith in God in that? You must have all your questions answered? Even with lies... just so you have an "answer"?

When you admit such a thing, that you place trust in JS BEFORE God as the basis for your faith, you would not believe---God? Shouldn't that be a warning flag in what you should consider as "faith" IN GOD ALONE, which God demands? (First Commandment -- "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.") Who really is your god here, anyway? Only you can answer that, before HIM. You might want to have an honest, heart to heart talk with HIM about this hopefulness in lies. ASAP. He's waiting.

Eve accepted a lie in order to eat the forbidden fruit. She didn't have to, but she did. Now the stain goes throughout all humanity, this urge to believe in lies in order to justify self.

Back at the time of JS the mobbers thought the same thing when they murdered him. So I have to ask is your hate for JS that great that you would fit in with that kind of group? Do you really think that my faith is in Joseph Smith and not a restoration? People find the church without ever hearing of Joseph Smith. If fact a gal that I was able to teach over the Internet and she eventually joined the church after I sent the missionaries to her was baptized without ever believing Joseph Smith was a prophet. I taught her straight from the bible the doctrines of the church before the missionaries ever taught her. The only reason I found out that she didn't know if Joseph Smith was a prophet was because she was being prepared to go though the temple and they asked her if she had a testimony that Joseph Smith saw God the father and his Son Jesus Christ. She told them she didn't know she wasn't there. She called me in tears telling me she didn't know what to do. I started to laugh and she asked what is so funny. I asked her if she believed the Book of Mormon was one of the books that contained Gods words. She said of course I do. You know that I know that. I said how did you come to know that it is a true book. She said I read it wanting to know if it was his book. And I said what else she said that she thought about what she had read and then she prayed about it. Then she said that God answered her prayers. I asked how. She said that a strong feeling came over her and touched her and she knew it was of divine origin. I started to laugh again. She asks now why are you laughing. I did t answer her just let her think over the phone. And then she said oh. That is all she said before she hung up. Two days later she was crying again. I said you got your answer didn't you. She said it was as strong a feeling as she has ever felt. She knew the Holy Ghost once again had touch her heart.
My testimony of the restored gospel does not rely on Joseph Smith. My faith is based on Jesus Christ. Don't care if you think it is the wrong one. I KNOW what I believe is the right path for me.

 

[dzheremi]

Sounds heavily based on a very calculated and elevated emotionalism. What of those who wonder and pray and look into their hearts and all this and don't receive some kind of miraculous feeling of being touched by God as to the truth of Mormonism/the BOM/Joseph Smith? If feelings validate what is holy now, then why would they not also validate what is not?

Oddly enough, my former family member who was Mormon for a little while became interested in the LDS as a result of talking with the contractor who was working on my father's house at the time, who was Mormon and very nice and friendly and all the other adjectives that usually describe Mormons. She figured that if he was such a happy guy, maybe there's something to that religion that makes him that way. So that had nothing to do with Joseph Smith in particular, either (though I don't doubt that she came to believe the LDS narrative in the course of joining the LDS). I guess she left when the temporary feelings of happiness went away and she realized that there should probably be something more than transitory feelings to ones experience of a religion. Hmmm.

I also have to wonder how you can claim to have faith in Christ while also having faith in the notion of a restoration which by its very nature means that you must believe that the church which Christ founded fell into worldwide apostasy at some point, to the degree that such a 'restoration' was necessary. Mormons must have a very low view of Christ's words in verses like Matthew 16:18 or Matthew 28:20.

So you've got faith that Jesus Christ is your savior and the savior of the whole world, but not that the apostle's confession of faith is the rock upon which the Church over which the gates of hell will not triumph is built, or that Christ is truly with us always? Jesus just says this stuff, and then through the passage of time it somehow stops applying to His followers until Joseph Smith 'restores' them and the church that Jesus was talking about via his visions and the new gospel which he produces? That doesn't seem like faith in Christ at all.

All restorationist movements must have such faith in their messengers, since by virtue of their stance towards the religions that came before them they cannot trust whatever came before as reliable, which leaves them with only whatever their messenger(s) says as truth. Hence Mormons believe in the necessity of their restoration due to a supposed 'corruption' of every other church in the world, just like Muslims believe in the necessity of their religion's 'call to return to God' due to their belief that the previous religions that they do recognize as starting off correctly ended up in such a state of decay by the time of Muhammad that the world needed to be given Islam in order to get them back on the 'right path'. The reasons for these beliefs may differ slightly (or not...from what I can tell, both LDS and Muslims believe in some form of scriptural corruption, to at least some degree), the overall message is the same: God somehow did not preserve what had been given to the people before the coming of prophet X, but now He totally will, because the new religion of prophet X is His favorite/actual one...He just waited ~600/1820 years to get around to establishing in on earth...because...reasons.

Meanwhile, the historical sources regarding how actual Christians of the early Church viewed themselves in relation to other religions reveal a different approach. Most famously St. Justin Martyr (d. 165 AD) gave us the idea of the 'seeds of the Word' (that is, Jesus Christ) in preexisting religious philosophies, whereby they can be seen as precursors which pointed to the full revelation of Christ the Lord which would come in time in Christianity. And this is how it actually worked out in the case of every apostolic church. In the case of my own, if you talk to some Copts about the beginning of our church, they will likely at some point tell you with much pride that one of the reasons why their forefathers took so readily to Christianity upon being preached to by St. Mark the Apostle was that they saw his message foreshadowed in their own preexisting native religion and its symbols, e.g., the famous ankh/crux ansata which was the Egyptian symbol of eternal life. So it would have made no sense of St. Mark to come to Egypt and simply start telling the people that they've got it all wrong, they've fallen away somehow from the true message of God, etc. as restorationists must say. Similarly, while the apostles and their disciples had great disagreements with the Jews who would not recognize Christ as the messiah, I don't recall anywhere where it is unambiguously claimed that the Christ-denying Jews actually corrupted their scriptures (though I have heard some modern commentators argue for such an understanding of particular verses). That would have made no sense to claim, either, since the apostles heavily quoted and alluded to those very same scriptures in arguing for Christ to those very same Jews, since the apostles were also themselves Jews.

So no restorationist can credibly claim to be restoring the early Church or the faith to 'what God wanted'. Restorationism is an inherently anti-God concept, as it presupposes that God didn't know what He was doing when He founded the Church in the first place. Even those verses in the Bible which speak of coming heresies don't claim that they will require a complete tear-down of the Church and its restoration by _____ (Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Sun Myung Moon, Felix Manalo, etc.), as that's not the 'point' behind God's allowing division among believers in the first place. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:19 states: "For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." (And not, "for there must also be factions among you, so that in approximately 1800 years a farm boy in upstate NY involved in treasure hunting and serial wife-marrying can set you all straight regarding what we mean and don't mean.")

 

[fatboys]

Sounds heavily based on a very calculated and elevated emotionalism. What of those who wonder and pray and look into their hearts and all this and don't receive some kind of miraculous feeling of being touched by God as to the truth of Mormonism/the BOM/Joseph Smith? If feelings validate what is holy now, then why would they not also validate what is not?

Oddly enough, my former family member who was Mormon for a little while became interested in the LDS as a result of talking with the contractor who was working on my father's house at the time, who was Mormon and very nice and friendly and all the other adjectives that usually describe Mormons. She figured that if he was such a happy guy, maybe there's something to that religion that makes him that way. So that had nothing to do with Joseph Smith in particular, either (though I don't doubt that she came to believe the LDS narrative in the course of joining the LDS). I guess she left when the temporary feelings of happiness went away and she realized that there should probably be something more than transitory feelings to ones experience of a religion. Hmmm.

I also have to wonder how you can claim to have faith in Christ while also having faith in the notion of a restoration which by its very nature means that you must believe that the church which Christ founded fell into worldwide apostasy at some point, to the degree that such a 'restoration' was necessary. Mormons must have a very low view of Christ's words in verses like Matthew 16:18 or Matthew 28:20.

So you've got faith that Jesus Christ is your savior and the savior of the whole world, but not that the apostle's confession of faith is the rock upon which the Church over which the gates of hell will not triumph is built, or that Christ is truly with us always? Jesus just says this stuff, and then through the passage of time it somehow stops applying to His followers until Joseph Smith 'restores' them and the church that Jesus was talking about via his visions and the new gospel which he produces? That doesn't seem like faith in Christ at all.

All restorationist movements must have such faith in their messengers, since by virtue of their stance towards the religions that came before them they cannot trust whatever came before as reliable, which leaves them with only whatever their messenger(s) says as truth. Hence Mormons believe in the necessity of their restoration due to a supposed 'corruption' of every other church in the world, just like Muslims believe in the necessity of their religion's 'call to return to God' due to their belief that the previous religions that they do recognize as starting off correctly ended up in such a state of decay by the time of Muhammad that the world needed to be given Islam in order to get them back on the 'right path'. The reasons for these beliefs may differ slightly (or not...from what I can tell, both LDS and Muslims believe in some form of scriptural corruption, to at least some degree), the overall message is the same: God somehow did not preserve what had been given to the people before the coming of prophet X, but now He totally will, because the new religion of prophet X is His favorite/actual one...He just waited ~600/1820 years to get around to establishing in on earth...because...reasons.

Meanwhile, the historical sources regarding how actual Christians of the early Church viewed themselves in relation to other religions reveal a different approach. Most famously St. Justin Martyr (d. 165 AD) gave us the idea of the 'seeds of the Word' (that is, Jesus Christ) in preexisting religious philosophies, whereby they can be seen as precursors which pointed to the full revelation of Christ the Lord which would come in time in Christianity. And this is how it actually worked out in the case of every apostolic church. In the case of my own, if you talk to some Copts about the beginning of our church, they will likely at some point tell you with much pride that one of the reasons why their forefathers took so readily to Christianity upon being preached to by St. Mark the Apostle was that they saw his message foreshadowed in their own preexisting native religion and its symbols, e.g., the famous ankh/crux ansata which was the Egyptian symbol of eternal life. So it would have made no sense of St. Mark to come to Egypt and simply start telling the people that they've got it all wrong, they've fallen away somehow from the true message of God, etc. as restorationists must say. Similarly, while the apostles and their disciples had great disagreements with the Jews who would not recognize Christ as the messiah, I don't recall anywhere where it is unambiguously claimed that the Christ-denying Jews actually corrupted their scriptures (though I have heard some modern commentators argue for such an understanding of particular verses). That would have made no sense to claim, either, since the apostles heavily quoted and alluded to those very same scriptures in arguing for Christ to those very same Jews, since the apostles were also themselves Jews.

So no restorationist can credibly claim to be restoring the early Church or the faith to 'what God wanted'. Restorationism is an inherently anti-God concept, as it presupposes that God didn't know what He was doing when He founded the Church in the first place. Even those verses in the Bible which speak of coming heresies don't claim that they will require a complete tear-down of the Church and its restoration by _____ (Joseph Smith, Muhammad, Sun Myung Moon, Felix Manalo, etc.), as that's not the 'point' behind God's allowing division among believers in the first place. For example, 1 Corinthians 11:19 states: "For there must also be factions among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you." (And not, "for there must also be factions among you, so that in approximately 1800 years a farm boy in upstate NY involved in treasure hunting and serial wife-marrying can set you all straight regarding what we mean and don't mean.")

And if there is not emotion tied with any commitment to God them whT makes us do the things we do including you.

 

[mmksparbud]

F A I T H

 

[dzheremi]

And if there is not emotion tied with any commitment to God them whT makes us do the things we do including you.

Not elevated (and convenient) emotionalism as a 'testimony' to what the truth is, as in LDS 'burning in the bosom' and all that.

Orthodox Christianity is, if anything, marked by a rather ordinary persistence and sobriety when approaching spiritual matters.

 

[fatboys]

Not elevated (and convenient) emotionalism as a 'testimony' to what the truth is, as in LDS 'burning in the bosom' and all that.

Orthodox Christianity is, if anything, marked by a rather ordinary persistence and sobriety when approaching spiritual matters.

Lol

 

[dzheremi]

Laugh all you want. What you posted in post #1550 is likewise subject to derision from Christians who know better than to trust a 'burning in the bosom' in accepting another gospel, when such a thing has been rejected time and time again based on solid scriptural warnings (not to accept other gospels, not to judge things based on feelings, etc.). I would laugh, too, but I don't think there's anything funny about the fact that your friend in that story lacks discernment, and I find the idea of anyone being brought to tears over a supposed 'testimony' to the Book of Mormon to be much more sad than anything.

 

[fatboys]

Laugh all you want. What you posted in post #1550 is likewise subject to derision from Christians who know better than to trust a 'burning in the bosom' in accepting another gospel, when such a thing has been rejected time and time again based on solid scriptural warnings (not to accept other gospels, not to judge things based on feelings, etc.). I would laugh, too, but I don't think there's anything funny about the fact that your friend in that story lacks discernment, and I find the idea of anyone being brought to tears over a supposed 'testimony' to the Book of Mormon to be much more sad than anything.

Because you are afraid to find out the truth. Your saying that no one can trust their emotions and I'm saying that right now your being directed by your emotions. I'm saying that you do not believe that Jesus is the Christ without your emotions. Your feelings. That is how we work and then you jump on us because we have a burning in our bosom? A feeling in you heart? Have you ever felt something was right because you felt it in your heart? What a bunch of hypocrites. You act like your a bunch of robots with no feelings. The only acknowledgement of truth comes from the bible that you are claiming that only comes to you through cold heart. You guys can't even acknowledge your deep feelings for Christ because that would meaningless. Can't feel emotions for truth or Jesus. Thus is a lie.

 

[dzheremi]

Because you are afraid to find out the truth. Your saying that no one can trust their emotions and I'm saying that right now your being directed by your emotions. I'm saying that you do not believe that Jesus is the Christ without your emotions. Your feelings.

The problem is in conflating your feelings with what is true, not in having feelings period. That's why I chose a word like 'sober', rather than 'emotionless'. If we are carried away in emotionalism, we may embrace things that are in fact not true because of they way that they make us feel.

That is how we work and then you jump on us because we have a burning in our bosom? A feeling in you heart? Have you ever felt something was right because you felt it in your heart?

Yes, but that in itself does not make something true any more than a lack of emotional reaction to something makes it false.

What a bunch of hypocrites. You act like your a bunch of robots with no feelings.

Where did I say we have no feelings? Not being overwhelmed with emotionalism is living a balanced spiritual life, not being a robot with no feelings. When you see Pentecostals, for instance, writhing on the floor and making animal sounds, do you say "Wow...those people are really overtaken by the spirit! They must have great truth!", or do you say "Wow...that's not something healthy...these people are clearly under the influence of something, but it is not the Holy Spirit"? I would be inclined toward the latter, because again, feeling something is not a sign of truth.

I mean, seriously...look at a famous manifestation of this kind of spirituality in our time -- the so called "Toronto Blessing" began in 1994:

If something strikes you as wrong about the activity in that video (and it should), then perhaps you understand where I am coming from when I am told that something is true because you feel it is.

The only acknowledgement of truth comes from the bible that you are claiming that only comes to you through cold heart. You guys can't even acknowledge your deep feelings for Christ because that would meaningless. Can't feel emotions for truth or Jesus. Thus is a lie.

The only lying going on here is your lie that I'm claiming that we cannot feel deep feelings for Christ. I never wrote that and I never would. Orthodox Christianity engenders very deep and emotionally-resonant experiences in people who live it. The key is that the emotion doesn't stand in for sober, grounded spirituality and theology, so that we remember to test all things, and not be accepting of things because they are emotionally affecting. I have personally seen readers in my church cry during the Holy Week readings when we recall the crucifixion of our Lord. Those were real tears for our Lord and the passion which He underwent on our behalf. But behind the tears, the real power and glory of God is manifest through the event itself, not our reaction to it (as that is up to the individual's temperament). We would still have the same Lord and Savior even if no one cried.

A Coptic song called "O My Fathers of the Wilderness"

In case the subtitles don't turn on, the first verse goes:

"O my fathers of the wilderness, how I wish I could live the way you lived / It was a life of prayers, vigil, and tears for the Lord Jesus"

So, despite your slander and exaggeration, we very much positively affirm those tears which come to the believer, as to our fathers, the monks in the desert...only not any epistemology which places emotional reaction as paramount in the search for or confirmation of truth. Everything must have depth and solid reasons for being, not "I knew that this was true with my feelings."

 

[fatboys]

The problem is in conflating your feelings with what is true, not in having feelings period. That's why I chose a word like 'sober', rather than 'emotionless'. If we are carried away in emotionalism, we may embrace things that are in fact not true because of they way that they make us feel.



Yes, but that in itself does not make something true any more than a lack of emotional reaction to something makes it false.



Where did I say we have no feelings? Not being overwhelmed with emotionalism is living a balanced spiritual life, not being a robot with no feelings. When you see Pentecostals, for instance, writhing on the floor and making animal sounds, do you say "Wow...those people are really overtaken by the spirit! They must have great truth!", or do you say "Wow...that's not something healthy...these people are clearly under the influence of something, but it is not the Holy Spirit"? I would be inclined toward the latter, because again, feeling something is not a sign of truth.

I mean, seriously...look at a famous manifestation of this kind of spirituality in our time -- the so called "Toronto Blessing" began in 1994:

If something strikes you as wrong about the activity in that video (and it should), then perhaps you understand where I am coming from when I am told that something is true because you feel it is.



The only lying going on here is your lie that I'm claiming that we cannot feel deep feelings for Christ. I never wrote that and I never would. Orthodox Christianity engenders very deep and emotionally-resonant experiences in people who live it. The key is that the emotion doesn't stand in for sober, grounded spirituality and theology, so that we remember to test all things, and not be accepting of things because they are emotionally affecting. I have personally seen readers in my church cry during the Holy Week readings when we recall the crucifixion of our Lord. Those were real tears for our Lord and the passion which He underwent on our behalf. But behind the tears, the real power and glory of God is manifest through the event itself, not our reaction to it (as that is up to the individual's temperament). We would still have the same Lord and Savior even if no one cried.

A Coptic song called "O My Fathers of the Wilderness"

In case the subtitles don't turn on, the first verse goes:

"O my fathers of the wilderness, how I wish I could live the way you lived / It was a life of prayers, vigil, and tears for the Lord Jesus"

So, despite your slander and exaggeration, we very much positively affirm those tears which come to the believer, as to our fathers, the monks in the desert...only not any epistemology which places emotional reaction as paramount in the search for or confirmation of truth. Everything must have depth and solid reasons for being, not "I knew that this was true with my feelings."

You said not to trust your feelings. How can you have sincere focused feelings without emotions attached. There are religions that that feed on emotions but it is short lived. My experiences were step by step line upon line. Apples and oranges.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well. I have no doubt about my feelings. I prayed earnestly about the BOM and know, it id not of God. Not just from praying about it, and knowing in my heart it is wrong, just from reading the word of God and my head knowing God's truth gives you the discernment to spot a fake when you encounter it. That is how to tell. Compare a real Rembrandt with a fake and you can spot the differences that make it a fake---no burning bosom required. It can be a little difficult at times, for the fake always has truth mixed in. That is how Satan works, you mmix a little falsehood in with the truth, make it sound like all of it is truth. So, as far as I'm concerned, even if some things in the BOM were proven to be true, that doesn't mean everything in it is. So the false must be discarded. And only what agrees with the bible is true. Not what can be manipulated and forced into saying what is wanted.