LDS What caused eternal matter to exist?

[Peter1000]

And you ignore Scripture, the very thing you claim to hold in high regard:

Hebrew 1:1-2
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

No more need for prophets. We are in the last days. The Son (Jesus Christ) has sent the Spirit to guide us (Acts 1 and 2). It is a HUGE and false assumption of the lds church that prophets are still needed as they were in the OT times.

You really don't want to say what you said. For if you really believe this, then you would need to take all of the words of the apostles and throw them out of the bible.

All that you could concern yourself with would be the words of Jesus. Stack his words together and you would have about 1 gospel about the size of Mark.
That's it. So good luck with that.

And remember the foundation of the church of Jesus Christ is made of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. Not just Jesus.

Paul is talking about prophets in NT times, not just OT times.

 

[Peter1000]

What if the Holy Spirit tells me your holy Spirit is wrong?

I could ask you the very same question? So where does that leave us?

 

[Jane_Doe]

How does that reply answer Ignatius the Kiwi's question, Jane? He didn't ask how can you trust God.

No person besides Christ is my keeper and Savior. I listen the His Spirit alone to testify of Truth.

No man has the right to come between me and God to say "hey Jane, but listen to the Spirt and listen to me instead!". If I were to abandon listening to the Spirit for another human, such would be tragic and sinful.

(This of course applies to every other human being on the planet, not just me).

 

[dzheremi]

I could ask you the very same question? So where does that leave us?

That's the point. That's why what you are describing doesn't work.

 

[BigDaddy4]

You really don't want to say what you said. For if you really believe this, then you would need to take all of the words of the apostles and throw them out of the bible.

All that you could concern yourself with would be the words of Jesus. Stack his words together and you would have about 1 gospel about the size of Mark.
That's it. So good luck with that.

And remember the foundation of the church of Jesus Christ is made of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone. Not just Jesus.

Paul is talking about prophets in NT times, not just OT times.

Either you have no idea what you are talking about or you are not expressing yourself clearly.

 

[Jane_Doe]

That's the point. That's why what you are describing doesn't work.

And the idea that we all should abandon listening to the Spirit in favor of listening to men is utterly sinful and set fro destruction.

 

[BigDaddy4]

No person besides Christ is my keeper and Savior. I listen the His Spirit alone to testify of Truth.

No man has the right to come between me and God to say "hey Jane, but listen to the Spirt and listen to me instead!". If I were to abandon listening to the Spirit for another human, such would be tragic and sinful.

(This of course applies to every other human being on the planet, not just me).

But you are doing that anyway - listening to another human being. You have chosen to believe the lds version of the truth vs. what is actually written in the Bible. The Bible does not teach Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, existance of a heavenly mother, a second chance gospel in the afterlife, etc. In order to believe those things, God had to lie.

 

[dzheremi]

No person besides Christ is my keeper and Savior. I listen the His Spirit alone to testify of Truth.

So again, what happens when you are listening to 'the Spirit', and another person is doing the same, and you two are lead to different, contradictory answers?

Does the Holy Spirit lead some to Catholicism, others to Orthodoxy, and others to Mormonism? Or, even better, does He lead some Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.? Whose 'Spirit' is to be believed and followed, in these cases?

No man has the right to come between me and God to say "hey Jane, but listen to the Spirt and listen to me instead!". If I were to abandon listening to the Spirit for another human, such would be tragic and sinful.

Except that's not what's actually happening (just like it wasn't last time you tried this non-answer). What's actually happening is that you are being asked a question about how your epistemology is supposed to work, and you are not answering it. Again.

(This of course applies to every other human being on the planet, not just me).

Yeah, that's true. Everyone should listen to the Holy Spirit. Your method of doing that, however, does not correspond to what the early Church did. As I believe I have posted before, the early Church answered and continues to answer self-proclaimed prophets by actually comparing the content of their messages with what we have already been given by Jesus Christ and his apostles and their disciples. As St. Jerome wrote to Marcella in 385 AD, after the Montanists had appeared in Rome and began troubling the local Christians there, the response of the Church to any such new group and its messages is this: "we tell them that we do not so much reject prophecy—for this is attested by the passion of the Lord—as refuse to receive prophets whose utterances fail to accord with the Scriptures old and new" (source).

This method may not be palatable for Mormons (after all, your religion is rejected on these same grounds), given the suspicion with which you view the early Church/your doctrine of the 'Great Apostasy', but it nevertheless provides a yardstick by which whatever new thing that appears may be measured and found to either be acceptable or not. And it is very, very different than the entirely subjective idea that each person listens to 'the Spirit' and follows it wherever they may feel it is leading them. That is subject to manipulation and/or prelest in ways that the above simply isn't.

 

[Jane_Doe]

But you are doing that anyway - listening to another human being. You have chosen to believe the lds version of the truth vs. what is actually written in the Bible. The Bible does not teach Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers, existance of a heavenly mother, a second chance gospel in the afterlife, etc. In order to believe those things, God had to lie.

Incorrect statements all around.

 

[dzheremi]

How it is incorrect? Do you not listen to Joseph Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Jeffrey Holland, and other people who are or have been recognized as leaders of your religion? Or is Mormonism just whatever you claim it to be because you 'listened to the Spirit' about it?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

And the idea that we all should abandon listening to the Spirit in favor of listening to men is utterly sinful and set fro destruction.

I could ask you the very same question? So where does that leave us?

So the point of my question was to get you to see the absurdity of a position that accepts only personal experience of what we perceive to be "the Spirit" and the ability to confront others. If Jane's perspective is true, that to trust a man over inward feeling is wrong and leads to destruction then consider the following. Let's suppose Mormonism is true. Let's suppose a non Mormon is convinced by their own experience and their feeling of the spirit that their particular non Mormon religion is true. Jane now no longer has any recourse or ability to actively correct the non Mormon. She must submit that a person's personal experience is greater than her ability to testify to the truth. Do you see the problem with this viewpoint? It effectively prohibits dialogue and engagement in ideas.

Obviously we disagree, hence the need to discuss it. I would suggest that the Spirit is not limited to one way of working but that he works through others within the Church to correct us. Mormons believe this of their own prophets and Christians of their own Pastors/Theologians from now and ages past. If Jane is utterly sinful (like the rest of us are) and she is correcting my perception of the "the Spirit" how is she doing anything wrong? Likewise how I am doing anything wrong when we reverse the assumptions?

 

[Jane_Doe]

So again, what happens when you are listening to 'the Spirit', and another person is doing the same, and you two are lead to different, contradictory answers?

Dzheremi, if the Spirit of God tells you to do something, you need to quit looking at other sinners and just go do what the Lord commands. It's that simple.

Except that's not what's actually happening (just like it wasn't last time you tried this non-answer).

That's exactly what Ignatius is proposing! To reference his post #316: "What if the Holy Spirit tells [Ignatius] [Jane's] holy Spirit is wrong?". Such a question has him stepping directly between me and Christ- that rather me listening to the Spirit directly I should listen to Ignatius instead. No thank you.

What's actually happening is that you are being asked a question about how your epistemology is supposed to work, and you are not answering it. Again.

Again: it is super simple: dzheremi you listen directly to the Holy Spirit to confirm Truth. No one else. Same with me and everyone else. Let the Lord be your Shepard.

Everyone should listen to the Holy Spirit.

Then quit telling me to listen to sinners instead!

 

[Jane_Doe]

How it is incorrect? Do you not listen to Joseph Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, Jeffrey Holland, and other people who are or have been recognized as leaders of your religion?

Do I blindly listen to them? No. Of recuse not.
For starters, the role in Christ's church must be discerned: do you believe this person is a prophet? Ask the Lord directly. When that prophet gives counsel, ask the Lord for confirmation. Then ask the Lord for guidance in application. Continue learning about the faith myself (with the Lord), continue studying the scriptures with the Lord. Constantly daily prayer.

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi, if the Spirit of God tells you to do something, you need to quit looking at other sinners and just go do what the Lord commands. It's that simple.

Except that it isn't, because, again, people who claim to be doing just that may reach opposite conclusions with the same basis as their justification for following a particular prophet or religion or not following it/them. So, as you rightly asked Ignatius, where does that leave us? Unable to trust this 'just listen to the spirit' methodology as any kind of measure of what is actually true. It doesn't work. It simply doesn't work.

That's exactly what Ignatius is proposing! To reference his post #316: "What if the Holy Spirit tells [Ignatius] [Jane's] holy Spirit is wrong?". Such a question has him stepping directly between me and Christ- that rather me listening to the Spirit directly I should listen to Ignatius instead. No thank you.

No, that's not what it's saying. It's asking you to consider the implications of what you are putting forth as an epistemological method for knowing who/what to follow.

Again: it is super simple: dzheremi you listen directly to the Holy Spirit to confirm Truth. No one else. Same with me and everyone else. Let the Lord be your Shepard.

Again: Does the Holy Spirit tell you to be a Mormon, but me and ArmenianJohn to be Oriental Orthodox Christians, and Ignatius the Kiwi to be an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and NYCGuy to be a Catholic, and so forth? If that's the case, then why do Mormons ever send missionaries anywhere? Why do you dare to try to overturn what the Holy Spirit has established for us in our respective Christian traditions? In fact, in that case, why is there a Mormon religion to begin with? The Holy Spirit certainly does not testify to the Church having gone into 'apostasy' at any time in any of the traditions listed above (which combined make up the lion's share of all Christianity that exists and has ever existed), which is Mormonism's entire reason for being. Hence the modus operandi of your religion is completely nullified by the very epistemology you are advancing.

Do you still not see obvious pitfalls in what you are suggesting?

Then quit telling me to listen to sinners instead!

I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm pointing out how what you are advocating is at variance with how the Church has historically (and currently) dealt with the question of new prophets/prophecy.

 

[Jane_Doe]

Except that it isn't, because, again, people who claim to be doing just that may reach opposite conclusions with the same basis as their justification for following a particular prophet or religion or not following it/them.

And do you think what you do dependent on what some other person does?

No, that's not what it's saying.

Please specify how it is not saying exactly that.

Again: Does the Holy Spirit tell you to be a Mormon, but me and ArmenianJohn to be Oriental Orthodox Christians, and Ignatius the Kiwi to be an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and NYCGuy to be a Catholic, and so forth?

Then you each should do what the Spirit tells you. If you/me/whomever is incorrectly listening to the Spirit, then that is between that person and the Lord. No one else is to be the Judge.

If that's the case, then why do Mormons ever send missionaries anywhere?

To offer to teach what we believe to be greater Truths and follow the Great Commission. I applaud other groups who do likewise, even if we have different beliefs.

Why do you dare to try to overturn what the Holy Spirit has established for us in our respective Christian traditions?

If a person feels that the Spirit is telling them to stay where they are, then they should stay. If they feel the Spirit saying DS church is Christ's True Church, then they should go there. No one is force anything, all done with that individual listening to the Spirit.

Do you still not see obvious pitfalls in what you are suggesting?

No: I see Godly divine guidance of great beauty. The Spirit is a wonderful thing.

 

[Peter1000]

That's the point. That's why what you are describing doesn't work.

Are you saying that listening the the HS does not work?

 

[Peter1000]

That's the point. That's why what you are describing doesn't work.

Apparently, you do not trust in the concept of praying to the Lord for answers and receiving an answer through the HS?

Could that be a problem?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There seems to be this false dichotomy set up between listening to people and listening to God. The Mormon is critiquing a traditional Christianity which at least makes suspect to some extent the person's ability to hear and receive from God directly, confirmation concerning our problems, be it mundane or theological. Like I said before, what do Mormons do when there are two contradictory claims being made by people who claim to have the Holy Spirit? Are you really content with a subjectivism which leaves you powerless to correct anyone or do you just assume only you yourselves personally have received confirmation from the Holy Spirit that no one can correct you?

This sort of gives context to whenever we bring up traditional Mormon beliefs and Mormons just shrug it off, even if that traditional belief is being promoted by a Prophet. Does the individual Mormon have the freedom to reject what Prophets teach? Let's go beyond Prophets to the local Bishops. Are you in no way to submit yourself to your Mormon leaders? If you can grant even the possibility that your perception of the Spirit might be wrong you have no basis for your criticism of us "denying the Holy Spirit."

The Holy Spirit can work through us just as much as he can work through others to correct us. If the Holy Spirit works only through the individual to effect the individual and not others then where is there real communion? Where is the Church? This belief Mormons have in a radical subjectivity is as I said before, absurd.

 

[withwonderingawe]

Like I said before, what do Mormons do when there are two contradictory claims being made by people who claim to have the Holy Spirit?

We have the power to get down on our knees and ask for guidance of our own. What I have found is that we can tell who is teaching truth by their contention level, I know that seems strange.

" For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another." 3 Nephi 11

I was at a political meeting where an issue was being discussed, everyone there in this very small Utah community was Mormon. One man was giving his side of the argument, he was calm and polite. Then another man in the group got up and started pointing his finger and yelling, I thought he would have a stroke right there. I had been on his side but once I saw the contention he had I knew he was in the wrong.

We have in Mormonism an 'I want to be the prophet' syndrome and from time to time someone steps out and claims a special spiritual knowledge above everyone else. That's a good give away, no one can receive revelation for you. Plus we have the power of discernment, we can ask is this leading me to a better relationship with my Savior or is this leading me away from him, am I becoming contentious, is it leading me to break my covenants.

Does the individual Mormon have the freedom to reject what Prophets teach? Let's go beyond Prophets to the local Bishops. Are you in no way to submit yourself to your Mormon leaders?

First point, mmmmm Brigham Young taught a very off the wall theory called the Adam God theory. It was rejected by the vast majority of the Church and he knew it. I think it was John Taylor our third prophet who said, Well he'll have to talk to God about it. We honestly do not believe prophets speak the will of God 100% of the time, only if the Quorum of the First Presidency and then The Quorum of the 12 Apostles are in full agreement does anything become binding on the members.

Second question; You have to understand that we view our leaders differently than other churches, at least I think so. The Bishop is my servant I am not his. Jesus taught this to Peter when he said "feed my sheep". The Bishop has no right to come into my home and tell us how to raise our family and he wouldn't want to. On the other hand if I go to him with a problem then I must be willing to listen and at least consider to submitting to his advice.

If the Bishop calls us in and asks us to take a calling or position in the Church then I am obligated to say yes, if I can do it. I was recently asked to take a calling in the Relief Society and I said yes, even happy to do so because I love to cook and now I get to do it once a month. Once I was asked to take a primary class and I wanted to cry, I told the Bishop I'd been teaching primary since I was 15 and knew the manual by heart. I just wanted to go to an adult Sunday School class and be fed. He said, oh sister that's all right we can find something else for you, how about the cub scouts they meet on Wednesday. .

 

[BigDaddy4]

Incorrect statements all around.

Another baseless assertion void of any demonstration to the contrary.