Snow Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Lattelady, I am waiting for you to meet your burden of proof on the following explicit or implicit claims you have made: 1. Paul was not a prophet. 2. Apostles cannot be prophets - or likewise be teachers, or heal the sick or work miracles or speak in tongues. 3. Prophets are not prophets unless they call themselves prophets. 4. Prophets must be explicitly called prophets in scripture or they are not prophets.
Gatorman Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Fine - let it be on the record that you do not believe that apostles are prophets, seers and revelators. I stand corrected.There you go making your assumptions. And, making a....well, I think we all know what happens when one makes assumptions. So, how about you quit being like this and act like a reasonable person.
Snow Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) There you go making your assumptions. And, making a....well, I think we all know what happens when one makes assumptions. So, how about you quit being like this and act like a reasonable person.So you protested out of theoretical proxy objection, not because you yourself object and because I didn't know you yourself agreed with me, you now you call me names. Fine. Thanks for the clarification. You do believe that apostles are prophet's seers and revelators. Everything is ever so much clearer now.Good thing you objected and now agree. Edited September 20, 2009 by Snow
Gatorman Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 So you protested out of theoretical proxy objection, not because you yourself object and now you are calling me names. Fine. Thanks for the clarification. You do believe that apostles are prophet's seers and revelators. Everything is ever so much clearer now.Good thing you objected but now agree.And, again, you make assumptions. I have not stated my position in either direction. Yet, you seem perfectly capable of creating your own reality to support your position, draw conclusions only based on your assumptions, and assume that your personal interpretation of events is the way the world believes. Perhaps, if you started listening, instead of always trying to make a point, you may begin to understand. Until then, continue to be mistaken. And, I did not call you any names.
Snow Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 And, again, you make assumptions. I have not stated my position in either direction. Yet, you seem perfectly capable of creating your own reality to support your position, draw conclusions only based on your assumptions, and assume that your personal interpretation of events is the way the world believes. Perhaps, if you started listening, instead of always trying to make a point, you may begin to understand. Until then, continue to be mistaken. And, I did not call you any names.Fine Gatorman. You have no opinion one way or the other but desperately want to make it known that you object or theoretically object by way of proxy on behalf of those that you think might have disagreed.Thanks a real important point - albeit completely irrelevant - and thankfully now the discussion can continue.
Gatorman Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Fine Gatorman. You have no opinion one way or the other but desperately want to make it known that you object or theoretically object by way of proxy on behalf of those that you think might have disagreed.Thanks a real important point - albeit completely irrelevant - and thankfully now the discussion can continue.*shakes head.
Justice Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Snow, in all honesty, this is another thread I was enjoying and you have ruined by your argumentative, sarcastic, and rude style of posting. Even if you're right, the "means" you present does not justify the end. I'm not asking you to conform to anything, just to be polite so I can read the threads I'm interested in without seeing all the nonsense.
lattelady Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Snow, I didn't ask for Snow's "reasoning" on the subject. You keep asking me when I'm going to rebut your reasoning, and the answer is never. When you can give me what I asked for, which is what you repeatedly ask from other posters (back up your claims with real proof), then we'll have a logical discussion. So far, my posts include a question: "Where do you find proof, scripturally, that Paul was a prophet?" Apparently, your own scriptures conclude that he was an apostle. And thus far, your posts continue to include (by your own admission) your own reasoning, "mathmatical equations", extensive quotes that I won't read, and definitions of a prophet. I have yet to see tangible proof that he was given the job prophet, that he calls himself repeatedly a prophet (even though he does call himself repeatedly an apostle), or that anyone else calls himself Prophet Paul. When you show that to me, I will concede that you are correct, and we can put these posts to bed. Don't keep expecting a rebuttal to your "reasoning", though. A rebuttal isn't coming. Show me biblical proof.
Justice Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 (edited) lattelady, what you seek is not there. I hope you understand by now that much of what we believe, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, has been revealed through what we believe to be modern prophets and apostles, and through modern scripture. We use this modern revealtion to interpret older revelation. We know that the office of Apostle in the Priesthood comes with the title of "prophet, seeer, and revelator." We can see the evidence of this, also, in Paul's day. It cannot be proven by what is in the Bible, but through the eyes of modern revelation, we can see the Bible more clearly. Your comments about "teachers and prophets" are a perfect example of what I'm saying. The men named afterward can be one or the other, or both. Through modern revealtion, we see Paul (Saul) being named as a prophet, and perhaps a teacher also. My question to you is if Paul is not the prophet in the list of men named afterward, which was the prophet in that list? There is no proof to suggest any of them are one or the other, just that those men were "prophets and teachers." Modern revealtion paints a clearer picture for us in such instances. So, again, it goes back to is the Book of Mormon true, and was Joseph Smith a prophet, and not what does the Bible mean in this particular verse. I know it's difficult debating with us when we throw the "modern revealtion" card all the time. But, the point is, one day you will have to learn for yourself. I hope you do. I hope you open your heart and suppose that the Lord can speak to men in modern times just as He did to men in ancient times. Once you realize this, you can open you heart and mind to the message of modern scripture, and then you can read it and come to know for yourself. I wish you all the best, and blessings from heaven, to aid you in your search for truth. It seems to be an honest one. Edited September 20, 2009 by Justice
BenRaines Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Ok back to the original topic or this thread will be closed. Personal attacks, subtle or not will stop or infractions will be given. You have all been warned. Ben Raines
Snow Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Snow, I didn't ask for Snow's "reasoning" on the subject. You keep asking me when I'm going to rebut your reasoning, and the answer is never. When you can give me what I asked for, which is what you repeatedly ask from other posters (back up your claims with real proof), then we'll have a logical discussion. So far, my posts include a question: "Where do you find proof, scripturally, that Paul was a prophet?" Apparently, your own scriptures conclude that he was an apostle. And thus far, your posts continue to include (by your own admission) your own reasoning, "mathmatical equations", extensive quotes that I won't read, and definitions of a prophet. I have yet to see tangible proof that he was given the job prophet, that he calls himself repeatedly a prophet (even though he does call himself repeatedly an apostle), or that anyone else calls himself Prophet Paul. When you show that to me, I will concede that you are correct, and we can put these posts to bed. Don't keep expecting a rebuttal to your "reasoning", though. A rebuttal isn't coming. Show me biblical proof.Let's review:On the lattelady side:-Has made several claims. -Has repeatedly refused to provide support for her claims. -Most of the claims are made up and have no basis in anything by her imagination.-Repeatedly refuses to interact or rebut facts and assertions that are posted.On the Snow side:-Gave numerous definitions of a prophet.-Showed how Paul met each of those definitions.-Provided extensive biblical criteria and fulfillment of criteria for Paul's prophetic call - the exact biblical proof that was asked for-Provided numerous scholarly opinions and findings that Paul was a prophet-Rebutted each of the unsubstantiated claims made by lattelady.The only conclusion is that you are not a genuine poster on this topic and refuse to interact responsibly and deal with YOUR required burden of proof nor interact with the extensive biblical information that has presented. There is no point in continuing a conversation with someone who can't and won't intellectually engage.
Moksha Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Just out of curiosity in keeping with the topic, has everyone switched to either button down or tabbed collars for their white shirts, as per instruction?
BenRaines Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Mine are button down. Always have been. Ben Raines
Snow Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Ok back to the original topic or this thread will be closed. Personal attacks, subtle or not will stop or infractions will be given.You have all been warned.Ben RainesSorry - I forgot what the thread was about as I have been posting about lately is apostles and prophets.Let me say this about micromanaging the saints - two of the most powerful ways to control people are by controlling their sexual practices and by controlling their diet.nuff said.
BenRaines Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Snow, so you say I am being micromanaged by my wife? I see now how it is. Ben Raines
Snow Posted September 20, 2009 Report Posted September 20, 2009 Snow, so you say I am being micromanaged by my wife? I see now how it is.Ben RainesPrecisely the point I was trying to make.
lilered Posted September 21, 2009 Report Posted September 21, 2009 I want to set the record straight for all you girlie men, that are afraid of your wife. I personally love wearing the pants, that my wife picks out for me.
kpatrey Posted September 21, 2009 Report Posted September 21, 2009 What i don't understand is the need to start them? I suppose for the the new member they want to do it "right". But I think it is important to let them know there is Mormon Doctrine,(I. E. The God head is 3 separate personages) , Mormon culture,(I.E. A clean shaven face is "the right way to look", Heard a HP spreading that one:eek:) and the 2 are not always the same.So to all the "newbies" who want clarification on a rule or custom i say ask God.I would assume the more in tune you are by asking about the smaller stuff, the more prepared you would be for the larger stuff. In all honesty we might be doing them a disfavor by telling them "this is how it should been done" instead allowing them that opportunity to receive revelation.Ouch, I am guilty of starting a few of those threads. Yes, as an adult convert to the church there was many things I was not sure of and "praying about it" was not something that came easily to me and my husband. I had no idea of "Mormon Culture." I thought everything I heard was a rule...written in stone and that has not been the case. Perfect example is the "sabbath day posting" I put up today. I just don't know and wanted to get some thoughts. So, for those that are long-time church members please be patient with us "newbies" try to understand where we are coming from.
Gatorman Posted September 21, 2009 Report Posted September 21, 2009 Ouch, I am guilty of starting a few of those threads. Yes, as an adult convert to the church there was many things I was not sure of and "praying about it" was not something that came easily to me and my husband. I had no idea of "Mormon Culture." I thought everything I heard was a rule...written in stone and that has not been the case. Perfect example is the "sabbath day posting" I put up today. I just don't know and wanted to get some thoughts. So, for those that are long-time church members please be patient with us "newbies" try to understand where we are coming from. Asking the question is not wrong. It is when people refuse to accept that an answer truly can be "Pray and receive your own answer, for we are not commanded in all things".
Lorenzo Posted September 21, 2009 Report Posted September 21, 2009 Wow.Eusebius is notoriously unreliable and even dishonest or at minimum obsequious to Constantine. Moreover Augstine is way out of step with revealed theology which you point to in your other references as is the Koran.Everyone's entitled to their opinions. I would hardly call Eusebius "notoriously unreliable". You've apparently got a bone to pick with him, or don't like how he wrote or what he said or something. But he is not all that terrible, not any worse than, say, the Old Testament in its presentation of certain historical events. He did as well as he could, and used what passed for primary sources in his time as well as he could. Besides, we don't have all of his writings, nor all the writings he referred to. Overall, he's probably a better judge than he's given credit for. I don't know how you could tell he was dishonest, or at what points. Your powers of discernment of ancient mendacities are obviously greater than mine. Till I see the evidence I will trust him as much or more as I trust Isaiah, who likewise pulled some boners.In offering St. Augustine as one of my Standards I was not suggesting that he was a standard for my theology, but for history and for Christian sociology. Likewise, Eusebius is a standard I prefer for the development of the Christian canon and limited information on apostolic and presbyterian succession, not for theology, and not for detailed post-Christian history, although much he gives is useful, helpful, and true, and I will keep using him until I find a perfecdt history of the time he covers Fat chance.Nor do I used the Koran as a theological standard, but as a standard that fleshes out some legends, parables, and tales, and also provides a more heartwarming element to several Biblical stories, including most obvious the life and ministry of Jesus. Sure, I know the Koran is not the same as the Bible or Book of Mormon. But the Book of Mormon does not say that all the books from north and south and east and west will agree on every point! It says that for out of the books which shall be written the Lord will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written. So, if a man has only the Koran, then it is "according to that which is written" in that book, that he will be judged. In that sense, the Koran is also a standard for evaluating the sincerity and testimony of a Muslim.If the Book of Mormon is our standard, or the Bible, we have to ask, which edition, which year, which version, which language. By comparison, there is basically one edition, version, language of the Koran.I'm not a perfectionist. I know my personal "standard works" are not perfect, just as no prophet or apostle is perfect. We accept prophets, apostles, and standard works for the good they do and the spiritual guidance they provide, not because they are complete and perfect. If we accepted them for their perfection, we should reject them all.
hordak Posted September 21, 2009 Author Report Posted September 21, 2009 Asking the question is not wrong. It is when people refuse to accept that an answer truly can be "Pray and receive your own answer, for we are not commanded in all things".Ditto. kpatrey i wasn't trying to call the newer members out. Sorry if if felt that way.
Snow Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 Asking the question is not wrong. It is when people refuse to accept that an answer truly can be "Pray and receive your own answer, for we are not commanded in all things".When it's left up to people to pray and get their own answers, you'll get about as many different answers as the number of people asking.
Gatorman Posted September 23, 2009 Report Posted September 23, 2009 When it's left up to people to pray and get their own answers, you'll get about as many different answers as the number of people asking.Agreed. And, in many cases, all of those answers are correct. In the case of something like tithing, we are given a principle and asked to live it. It is up to each of us to come to our own understanding with Heavenly Father of what that principle means. If the church came out with a pamphlet telling us exactly how to calculate tithing, then, we would have to excercise our own faith and discernment less.
Snow Posted September 24, 2009 Report Posted September 24, 2009 Agreed. And, in many cases, all of those answers are correct. In the case of something like tithing, we are given a principle and asked to live it. It is up to each of us to come to our own understanding with Heavenly Father of what that principle means. If the church came out with a pamphlet telling us exactly how to calculate tithing, then, we would have to excercise our own faith and discernment less.Good point.
Recommended Posts