Do Apostles opine? Are they allowed to err?

[Bloodnut]

I decided to separate this theme from the other discussions because I believe it deserves its own thread. I think most, if not all criticisms against LDS apostles are due to an erroneous conception of who and what they are. Being void of apostles and prophets in modern-day Christianity, Christians tend to deify these men. But a careful reading of the New Testament demonstrates that LDS apostles are clearly held to a higher standard than those Evangelicals consider inspired. This is a double-standard.

== I apologize for my ignorance of the different grades of your documents, what is official and what isn’t, however if nothing was ever rejected and it was believed Smith’s or Young’s words were the words of God why would you assume that anything of what they said as revelation wouldn’t have come from God.

"Line upon line, precept upon precept." That is how revelation is received in the Mormon paradigm. I don't see the need to categorize everything a Prophet says as either "God's words" or opinion that must be "officially rejected." Some things have been taught according to a revelation received, to which a prophet doesn't himself fully understand. Once it is fully understood, after complete knowledge has been received "line upon line, precept upon precept," it is then presented as official doctrine/revelation of the Church.

I know our critics have problems with this because they tend to think prophets are struck down with instant knowledge on any given revelation. But the Bible indicates that revelation from God is oftentimes difficult to understand what one has heard or experienced. What are we to make of biblical instances where inspired leaders were less than certain on spiritual matters?

"For our knowledge is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect), and our prophecy (our teaching) is fragmentary (incomplete and imperfect). But when the complete and perfect (total) comes, the incomplete and imperfect will vanish away (become antiquated, void, and superseded). When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; now that I have become a man, I am done with childish ways and have put them aside. For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma], but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then I shall know and understand fully and clearly, even in the same manner as I have been fully and clearly known and understood ."(1 Corinthians 13:9-12 Amplified Bible)

"About the ninth hour (about 3:00 p.m.) of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God entering and saying to him, Cornelius!...Now Peter was still inwardly perplexed and doubted as to what the vision which he had seen could mean, when [just then] behold the messengers that were sent by Cornelius, who had made inquiry for Simon's house, stopped and stood before the gate." (Acts 10:3, 17)

"I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth)." (2 Cor. 12:2-3.)

Paul revealed some very profound truths in these passages. Truths that all anti-Mormon Christians would do well to learn and memorize before attacking modern-day Prophets. An uncertainty about the significance of a spiritual experience, doesn't negate the reality of that experience, nor the authority of the recipient.

It appears that Paul was forewarning us that his own comments were little more than opinion of his own. And indeed, Paul has come under fire in the same manner as Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. For instance, Paul's highly opinionated stance that marriage (1 Cor 7:28-35) would cause "tribulation" and that it was better to avoid the holy union instead of experiencing the pain and agony which comes with it, has been long considered his own personal opinion. One must now wonder if our critics who profess devotion to the NT are married, and if so, why then have they forsaken the inspired words and counsel "of their own apostle"? Furthermore, if Christian wives go to Church without their heads covered (1 Corinthians 11:13), and if they dare make an utterance (1 Tim 2:11-12) they are also going against the inspired advice from one "of their own apostles." Call it Paul's opinion if you want, but this opinion is placed in what all Evangelicals consider to be inerrant "God-breathed" scripture. So what gives?

The question remains: Is it acceptable for God's chosen prophets and apostles to make mistakes? Are they allowed to share their own opinion without having it confused with divine law? According to David Aune,


"Paul's statements in 1 Cor. 7:10, 12, 25 and 40 have been used to demonstrate that the apostle was able to distinguish between a tradition which stemmed from the earthly Jesus (1 Cor. 7:10 reflecting Matt. 5:32; Mark 10:11-12 and parallels) [b]and his own opinions (1 Cor. 7:12, 25) even though he may well have regarded the latter as inspired (1 Cor. 7:40)." (Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World by David E. Aune, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1983).

The Interpreter's Bible has this to add,

"The passage contains the frankest expression of an interim ethic anywhere in the N.T. The apostle's opinion is given in view of the impending distress (vs. 26) and because the appointed time has become very short (vs. 29) and the form of this world is passing away (vs. 31). Since the ground for this advice has not materialized in nineteen centuries, it is difficult to see how anyone can ascribe normative significance to the words. Paul admits that it is not a command of the Lord. We may believe that the apostle is trustworthy and yet in this particular regard unfortunately mistaken." (Interpreter's Bible, commentary on 1 Cor. 7:25-35)
Given the nature of prophetic fallibility among even the NT apostles, we can certainly understand why early church father, Origen, declared Paul's letters secondary to the gospels:


"Consider on this point the language of St. Paul. When he declares that Every Scripture is inspired of God and profitable, does he include his own writings? Or does he not include his dictum, 'I say, and not the Lord,' and 'So I ordain in all the churches,' and 'What things I suffered at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra,' and similar things which he writes in virtue of his own authority, and which do not quite possess the character of words flowing from divine inspiration." (Origen, Commentary on John 1:5 )
Furthermore, what do our critics make of Paul's mistake in assuming the end of the world would happen in his lifetime? "In view of the idea that it was the last generation, Paul may have had in mind that there was no need of having children. If the world was coming to an end, procreation in marriage was futile." (Anchor Bible, Vol. 32, pp. 220-221)

Modern apostles have a tremendous amount of faith in the power of prayer, and they are not hesitant or afraid to use it. The modern method of revealing new apostles is the vote amongst the presiding leadership immediately after prayer, while the method in the New Testament was to simply "cast lots," which is similar to "drawing straws."(Acts 1:26) Could you imagine the criticism that would fall on the LDS Church if its method of choosing the next apostle was as haphazard as drawing straws or spin the bottle? Could you imagine the insecurity that would be assumed if two LDS apostles got into a public skirmish as Paul had with Peter (Gal 2:11-14; 2 Pet 3:15-16) and Barnabas (Acts 13:2; 15:36-39)? Could you imagine the grief the Latter-day Saints would be bombarded with if one of our leaders said, "Happy and blessed shall he be who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!"(Ps 137:9) Or could you imagine an LDS apostle or prophet being caught naked (Is 20:1-6; 2 Sa 6:20-22; Mic 1:8) or drunk (Genesis 9:21) in public? Or even worse, if Gordon B. Hinckley had cursed a small group of children who were ridiculing his bald head?(2 Kings 2:23-25)

Suffice it to say that the NT apostles were not shy in being vocal in their opinions. Why then, should Latter-day apostles feel obligated to speak for the Lord, infallibly no less, in every breath? Why should they be held to a standard that hardly any biblical prophet or apostle could measure up to? Why are Christians not expected to obey every word uttered by "their own leaders" who speak through a text that is supposed to be considered inerrant and "God-breathed?"

This is the dilemma and double-standard they have created for themselves if they choose to judge LDS apostles by these unrealistic standards, while turning a blind eye to their own leaders' inability to measure up. Of course, in reality, infallibility was not expected of God, with neither the biblical or latter-day prophets. If the LDS prophets are to be analyzed and scrutinized for what they say outside LDS scripture, then how much more should their own apostles be held accountable for what they say in what they affirm as the only scripture, the Bible? Evangelicals can't have it both ways, and they must decide which side to defend if they insist on pursuing this inflammatory and pretentious polemic against the LDS faith. In the end they have created a major obstcale for their argument to hurdle. Now they must harmonize their flawed understanding of apostolic authority with an even more flawed doctrine of "inerrancy of scripture."

While Brigham Young's words are recorded outside LDS scripture, which we do not believe to be inerrant, Paul's words are recorded within their own scripture, which is. If the Bible is inerrant and inspired in everything it teaches, then how can our authors refuse to abide by the erroneous counsels from the apostle Paul? If it is ok for him to offer his opinion freely, make mistakes in his understanding of spiritual events and remain a bona fide apostle of the Lord, then we should apply the same standard across the board to the modern apostles.

[Bloodnut]

Good grief, this is one of the most important posts I think I've ever posted. It truly cuts to the heart of the matter, where our differences in perspectives collide over what we mean by "apostles."

No response??

A shame.

[Krusader]

[QUOTE=Bloodnut]Good grief, this is one of the most important posts I think I've ever posted. It truly cuts to the heart of the matter, where our differences in perspectives collide over what we mean by "apostles."

No response??



You know, Bloodnut, if you weren't so long-winded you might get more responses. Is this your fulltime job?

You state that the Christian Church is devoid of prophets, to use your word. Well, my friend, you and the LDS are living back in the Old Testament days when the Holy Spirit was not yet given!

2 Peter 1:19 tells this Christian Church that "we have a more sure word of prophecy," while the writer of Hebrews states that it was in former times that God spake to us by prophets, but has now spoken to us by His Son.

The Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church at Pentecost, and God's gifts are not revocable - see Romans 11:29. The gifts of the Holy Spirit include prophecy, discernment, knowledge, healing, etc. These gifts have remained with believers to the present day.

Every Christian can potentially be a prophet if God chooses to use him or her as such. But, not every Mormon can be a prophet - and therein is your curse! You rely on man rather than on God!

[Bloodnut]

OK guys, please tell me there is an intelligent response out there which deals with at least SOMETHING I said.

I think we should leave certain discussions for the adults to handle.

[Conductor42]

I would like to see the Christian response to Bloodnut's writing. It is inapplicable to me, since I do not accept the NT, and the Torah sets a higher standard than Bloodnut has for prophets - but I am still intersted in the Christian response.

[Krusader]

Yosh, Blood-Nut's theology comes from the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Christians are taught that each believer is given the Holy Spirit, sealed upon him when he places his faith in Christ. In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit came upon certain individuals, some of them prophets. Some, such as Saul, received the Spirit but it was taken from them.

Each Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit of God, the Comforter and Teacher, promised by Christ, and given to the Church at Pentecost. The Holy Spirit dispenses gifts to each believer to edify the entire Body of Christ. Certain people seem to have "specialities," for lack of a better term. Some may have a ministry of healing, some of knowledge, some of prophecy. However, each believer technically has access to all the gifts of the Spirit, and can be used in any capacity the Spirit chooses.

The Church of Christ was built on the foundation of the teachings of the prophets (Old Testament) and the apostles (New testament). As a Church, we build upon this foundation as guided by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. We test all things by the Word of God (which is why Christians reject Mormonism), but we do not need special prophets or apostles today.

The New Testament definition of a prophet is any person that proclaims God's Word (1 Cor. 14:3, 24-25), in the sense that he is forthtelling what God has said - basically it means to preach God's Word.

Prophets were needed in Old Testament Israel because God's Word was not complete and God used special individuals to warn the Israelites of danger, judgement, war, etc. Today, we have all those warnings for our learning (1 Cor. 10:11, Heb. 8:5), and prophets inthe Old Testament sense are not needed since we have the full revelation of God:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by who also he made the worlds." (Heb. 1:1-2)

Also, the Scriptures teach us that the prophets and the law prophesied UNTIL John, (Matthew 11:13-14). Who came after the last prophet, John the Baptist?- it was Jesus! This is in line with what Heb. 1:1-2 teaches.

Those in the New Covenant of Christ are taught that "We have also a MORE SURE WORD of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed." That more sure word is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which has been revealed by Christ to the Church, and which He commissioned believers to preach.

In the Book of Jude we, Christians, are taught that the faith has once and for all been delivered to the Church - those that claim to bring additional revelations are false prophets, and the Scripture is full of warnings about those who would add additonal burdens on Christ's body and bring in destructive heresies.

Joseph Smith was an classic example of a false prophet, and those who pretend to succeed him in his "office," are false prophets as well. Haven't you ever wondered why these so-called Mormon prophets never prophesy?

So, Yosh, to sum up, each Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit and has access to all the gifts of the Holy Spirit, prophecy included. Those who claim to be special "prophets" today are claiming something contrary to Scripture, and their false doctrines are the fruit of their evil claims!

[PaulT]

Folks,

I think the issue that has been raised is whether or not the Bible is God's revealed Word in total. It seems to me the question Bloodnut and Yosh raise is how does the Christian know the NT is apart of God's revelation and will God give any additional revelation beyond the NT. Bloodnut, Yosh, please let me know if I have accurately protrayed the issue.

Bloodnut, while this is an interesting topic, and one I will attempt to discuss after I work through the other thread, however, I don't see the answer to my question.

Paul

[Dee Dee Warren]

The majority of B-N's post has to do with Paul being mistaken about the timing of certain events. He wasn't. Thus there is no need to respond to something that is untrue. Amazing that this was used to justify such things as saying Adam was God and Eve was a goddess, and that God has actual wives and has actual intercourse with them to produce "spirit children" and on and on.

The time was short. The tribulation did come upon that generation, and in light of what was to happen, it was better not to marry. No "error" or opinion of Paul there. Amazing also that B-N is willing to sell inerrancy down the pike to support nonChristian theology.

So there you have your answer. Your post was based almost entirely on a false premise.

[Conductor42]

Hi Paul,

I wasn't arguing either point (since I am not a Christian) - I was just interested in an "orthodox" (little "o") Christian response.


Folks,

I think the issue that has been raised is whether or not the Bible is God's revealed Word in total. It seems to me the question Bloodnut and Yosh raise is how does the Christian know the NT is apart of God's revelation and will God give any additional revelation beyond the NT. Bloodnut, Yosh, please let me know if I have accurately protrayed the issue.

Bloodnut, while this is an interesting topic, and one I will attempt to discuss after I work through the other thread, however, I don't see the answer to my question.

Paul

[Conductor42]

Hi DDW,

I hope this doesn't derail the thread. What, in your opinion, did your apostle paul mean by "lest they burn"?


The majority of B-N's post has to do with Paul being mistaken about the timing of certain events. He wasn't. Thus there is no need to respond to something that is untrue. Amazing that this was used to justify such things as saying Adam was God and Eve was a goddess, and that God has actual wives and has actual intercourse with them to produce "spirit children" and on and on.

The time was short. The tribulation did come upon that generation, and in light of what was to happen, it was better not to marry. No "error" or opinion of Paul there. Amazing also that B-N is willing to sell inerrancy down the pike to support nonChristian theology.

So there you have your answer. Your post was based almost entirely on a false premise.

[Dee Dee Warren]

What verse Yosh?

[Bloodnut]

== The majority of B-N's post has to do with Paul being mistaken about the timing of certain events. He wasn't.

Talk about your all-time comprehensional blunders. This seems to be of epidemic here. While Crusader excuses herself from responding to pertinent issues explicated in a thorough, cogent manner, simply because she finds them "long-winded," Dee Dee rationalizes that my entire 1800 word post can pretty much be encapsulated in one measly comment towards the tail-end of the post. That's right. One measely sentence that asked a simply question, followed by a scholarly reference as support (Anchor Bible), is what Dee Dee understands to be the "majority" of my post.

Simply amazing.

Which is why I say, if you're not interested in discussing the issues point-by-point in an intelligent, reciprocating manner, please spare us the pollution of pithy commentary that is geared to obfuscate by adding minority views (preterism), while proclaiming a premature sense of victory over something, that, in reality, you haven't even begun to touch with a ten-foot pole.

And the reason there are more examples regarding Paul has more to do with the fact that the NT contains more writings from him than any other apostle.

== Thus there is no need to respond to something that is untrue.

There you have it. Dee Dee is a preterist, which means the majority of Christians are simply wrong; including the Bible scholars who reject this premise. And her say-so thwarts the Anchor Bible hands down, apparentlty. Or so she thinks. Of course the innovative position of Preterism is a topic that deserves its own thread, and is an issue I'm less inclined to discuss. This is all a side-bar that is realy beside the point. Dee Dee hasn't even begun to scrape the surface of the Evangelical dilemma I've outlined in the first post. How can they criticize those who claim to be apostles when they have no clue what standard apostles are supposed to follow?

== Amazing that this was used to justify such things as saying Adam was God and Eve was a goddess, and that God has actual wives and has actual intercourse with them to produce "spirit children" and on and on.

Dee Dee cannot abide by simple standards of logic. My post was thorough. It was very clear. It explaned the double-standard that exists in the counter-cult industry. Dee Dee has merely cherry picked one comment out of dozens mentioned, described it as representing the "majority" of my post, dismissed it with hand waving, and declared me to be wrong on her own authority.

== The time was short. The tribulation did come upon that generation, and in light of what was to happen, it was better not to marry. No "error" or opinion of Paul there.

Of course none of this is explicated in the NT. This is apologetic manuevering. Merely interpretation by those who like to base interpretations on what the Bible doesn't say, and then expect us to take it for granted. But even if this is true, the fact that it was cannonized makes it Christian doctrine. Period. According to the standard foisted upon LDS apostles, Paul is not allowed to opine on such matters in the "God breathed" dept. Paul is not allowed to say women should shut up and always wear a hat unless of course it is "God's Word." After all, it is in the Bible right? Well, is it "God's breath" or isn't it? Further, Paul is not allowed to have spiritual experiences and then share a vague, abstract or ambiguous understanding of what he experienced. A truly inspired person would have no problems conveying such a spiritual experience. Right? He is not permitted to lack understanding, which is what Paul claimed.

== So there you have your answer. Your post was based almost entirely on a false premise.

This is no answer at all. It is essentialy one of the worst dodges I've ever seen. But I'm not one to sit by and watch someone try to recreate my argument for me. You should know that by now. Please try to deal with the arguments presented, stop boring us with these claims of victory or sit back and let someone else have a go.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Talk about your all-time comprehensional blunders. This seems to be of epidemic here. While Crusader excuses herself from responding to pertinent issues explicated in a thorough, cogent manner, simply because she finds them "long-winded," Dee Dee rationalizes that my entire 1800 word post can pretty much be encapsulated in one measly comment towards the tail-end of the post.

Actually no, your comments that I focused on were towards the beginning and you kept up on that theme.



That's right. One measely sentence that asked a simply question, followed by a scholarly reference as support (Anchor Bible), is what Dee Dee understands to be the "majority" of my post.

It was a major buttress of your point, and one that I am equipped to speak on.



Which is why I say, if you're not interested in discussing the issues point-by-point in an intelligent, reciprocating manner, please spare us the pollution of pithy commentary that is geared to obfuscate by adding minority views (preterism), while proclaiming a premature sense of victory over something, that, in reality, you haven't even begun to touch with a ten-foot pole.

Oh the irony considering that you didn't answer my post but stuck your fingers in your ears and said "OHHHH SO THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!! IT IS A MINORITY VIEW." Hmm, if you find that argument compelling BN you are in the sorry state about your theology that wasn't believed until Smith's vision. My view may be minority (though there were times when it was near a majority) but your is nonexistent in history.



There you have it. Dee Dee is a preterist, which means the majority of Christians are simply wrong; including the Bible scholars who reject this premise.

Oh the drama! Get out the violins! You think the majority of Christians today are wrong too don't you? Your balogna has a first name, it's h-y-p-o.....

Are you daring to say that the Bible Scholars (would you like me to name them, they include the great Jonathan Edwards) who agree with me are wrong?

Don't like that argument thrown back at you eh?



And her say-so thwarts the Anchor Bible hands down, apparentlty.

Out comes the balogna launcher again. You sure love to use things when they suit you. So in any case where the Anchor Bible disagrees with YOU may I throw that elephant back at you?



Or so she thinks. Of course the innovative position of Preterism is a topic that deserves its own thread, and is an issue I'm less inclined to discuss. This is all a side-bar that is realy beside the point.

Funny a Mormon calling a theology that has early support "innovative"

However YOU are the one that brought up the issue that Paul was wrong on the timing of the tribulation and Christ's "coming." YOU opened the door, thus this is completely on topic. If you are to put a disclaimer on your words that those particular passages present no difficulty for a preterist, then that would be fair and would acknowledge a historic position.



Dee Dee hasn't even begun to scrape the surface of the Evangelical dilemma I've outlined in the first post. How can they criticize those who claim to be apostles when they have no clue what standard apostles are supposed to follow?

I dealt with a major chunk. You should simply concede that such verses are not an issue for preterists on that basis.




Dee Dee cannot abide by simple standards of logic. My post was thorough. It was very clear. It explaned the double-standard that exists in the counter-cult industry. Dee Dee has merely cherry picked one comment out of dozens mentioned, described it as representing the "majority" of my post, dismissed it with hand waving, and declared me to be wrong on her own authority.

As you were declaring me wrong. I picked one major theme from your post and responded to it. Thus, that portion is dealt with.



Of course none of this is explicated in the NT. This is apologetic manuevering.

Like suggesting that Smith didn't have sex with any of his other wives? And this is in fact explicated in the NT. You whinge about people being uneducated in Mormonism, I would suggest you get a bit more educated about preterism and its support before making an ignorant comment.



Merely interpretation by those who like to base interpretations on what the Bible doesn't say, and then expect us to take it for granted.

This is really rich since the Bible says absolutely nothing about Adam being God or God having wives that He has sexual relations with.





This is no answer at all. It is essentialy one of the worst dodges I've ever seen. But I'm not one to sit by and watch someone try to recreate my argument for me. You should know that by now. Please try to deal with the arguments presented, stop boring us with these claims of victory or sit back and let someone else have a go.

Your continual crying of no one answering you and attempting to bully people into silence shall not work. I answered one portion of your post that was very important. That is all I intended to do. You did raise other issues and if you are looking for my admission that I did not address those, you have it. I saw something that was not an issue that you were making one out of and I addressed it. While a minority my view is increasingly becoming more known and when you make this argument, in fairness (as you like to say "counter-cultists" don't give you), then you should note that in your argument that there are some doctrinal systems for which those particular comments would not be a problem.

[Bloodnut]

== Actually no, your comments that I focused on were towards the beginning and you kept up on that theme.

Uh, the statement you responded to made itself manifest after two thirds of my post was typed. What is your definition of "beginning" anyway? It appeared in the last third of my post which means it was hardly the most important point in the post, and it was hardly found "at the beginning."

The "theme" of my post is expressed in the title. By what standards do we judge apostles? You skipped over a ton of refuting evidence in order to comment on what you believe to be your area of expertise: preterism.

== It was a major buttress of your point

Yes it was, which means the "point" was something different. Something you conveniently ignored, yet felt inclined to pick your little battle and declare victory in the war.

== and one that I am equipped to speak on.

If you insist. I know you think you're the queen of preterism. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

== Oh the irony considering that you didn't answer my post but stuck your fingers in your ears and said "OHHHH SO THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!! IT IS A MINORITY VIEW." Hmm, if you find that argument compelling BN you are in the sorry state about your theology that wasn't believed until Smith's vision. My view may be minority (though there were times when it was near a majority) but your is nonexistent in history.

Does everyone here have ADHD when it comes to polemics? When on earth have I ever claimed to represent the majority Christian view? Since you are the one proposing to setup a "Mormon vs. Christian" scenario, then it is disingenuous for you to start falling back on minority concepts (preterism); similarly, you fall back on Jezz who probably considers you very much a "heretic" as well. And your mentors, the talking heads in counter-cult America, most likely think the same of him.

== Oh the drama! Get out the violins!

Rhetoric that doesn't change the fact that you have ignored almost 100% of my post and pretended to have won the debate. There never was a debate. You only offer the banal platitudes of victory never earned.

== You think the majority of Christians today are wrong too don't you? Your balogna has a first name, it's h-y-p-o.....

No hypocrisy at all. I'm not the one running a bigotry forum, which arbitrarily picks and chooses what heresies are severe enough to exclude someone from the realm of "Christianity."

== Are you daring to say that the Bible Scholars (would you like me to name them, they include the great Jonathan Edwards) who agree with me are wrong?

I'm saying they are in the minority. I think I made that clear. But most rational scholars don't feel obligated to make excuses for the erroneous opinions of the apostles. Only a strict inerrantist would feel the need to do so. So they come up with desperate apologetic material like Preterism! You can make an excuse for anything if you try hard enough. But the hypocrisy is in the polemic against Mormonism. If we simply explain our doctrine in a way that proves you had a misconception of it, we're called spin-doctors of our own religion. Which is funny coming from preterists. You can't afford to be proven wrong by a Mormon, so you accuse the Mormons of changing their belief. You can't afford to have an apostle be in error, so you come up with notions like preterism to give the strict inerrancy doctrine some wiggle room.

== Out comes the balogna launcher again. You sure love to use things when they suit you. So in any case where the Anchor Bible disagrees with YOU may I throw that elephant back at you?

Yes. Like the Apostle Paul, when he disproves your ridiculous ranting against LDS apostles. He proves you operate on a double-standard. You wouldn't dare hold Paul to the same standard you hold LDS apostles. Your faith couldn't afford it.

== However YOU are the one that brought up the issue that Paul was wrong on the timing of the tribulation and Christ's "coming."

Yes, after I brought up a dozen other points which you ignored.

== YOU opened the door, thus this is completely on topic.

Off topic? Even if I were to go ahead and grant you that example, what are you going to do with the rest of them? Keep ignoring them? That seems to be your only recourse. Nobody else here has demonstrated the moxy to respond.

== I dealt with a major chunk. You should simply concede that such verses are not an issue for preterists on that basis

By no stretch of the imagination could one measley sentence out of an 1800 word post be considered a "major chunk." I guess that shows us just how imaginative you truly are.

== As you were declaring me wrong. I picked one major theme from your post and responded to it. Thus, that portion is dealt with.

Argument via bald assertion is not having "dealt with" anything.

== Like suggesting that Smith didn't have sex with any of his other wives? And this is in fact explicated in the NT.

Your comments are so ludicrous as to be incoherent. You're really foaming at the mouth aren't you?

== This is really rich since the Bible says absolutely nothing about Adam being God or God having wives that He has sexual relations with.

Earth to Dee Dee, even if this were official LDS doctrine, the LDS Church has never EVER claimed all its doctrines are biblically based. So you're beating a dead horse out of your own frustrations for an inability to respond to the numerous points I raised.

== Your continual crying of no one answering you and attempting to bully people into silence shall not work.

Bullying? If the topic were God having sex with a monkey on Kolob, I get a dozen rabid Evangelicals on my case demanding answers on how Adam can be God and have sex with Mary, without Eve getting jealous, bla bla bla. Yet, if I set aside a post that provides the final nail in the coffin to your anti-apostle arguments, and expect at least ONE intelligent response, and I am called a bully?

Revealing.

== I answered one portion of your post that was very important. That is all I intended to do.

Uh, not according to your last statement which proudly announced this "portion" proved my entire "post" was "based on a false premise."

This is rhetorical maneuvering. Crusader is a master at this. Being completely incapable of intelligent debate on the issue, you should offer pithy little comments filled with claims of having won something, and then change the subject. ANd by all means, ignore all points you cannot refute. That is how you get away with the impression that you've actually refuted something here. It is a smoke and mirror job; nothing less.

[PaulT]

Bloodnut,



I’m hurt,



DD: YOU opened the door, thus this is completely on topic.
Bloodnut: Off topic? Even if I were to go ahead and grant you that example, what are you going to do with the rest of them? Keep ignoring them? That seems to be your only recourse. Nobody else here has demonstrated the moxy to respond.



I responded, granted I haven’t gone into detail to answer you inquiries, but I have yet failed to live up to what I said. You’ve given me much to think about, in addition to the other responsibilities. I will get to your questions, just give me time.

In fact as I recall I asked you to clarify your overall theme, which I have yet to see a response to. I just want to make sure I headed down the right path before formulating my response.

Come on buddy, give me a break, just because I'm commenting on your Pop Warner team, you don't need to suggest I don't have any moxy.

Paul

[PaulT]

Bloodnut,



Frankly I’m a bit perplexed on where to begin. Without going into too much discussion around the doctrines of the inerrancy of Scripture, it seems to me the conservative evangelicals are defined by how they view, 1 Tim 3:16, and what they define as Scripture limited to the 66 books of the Bible.

You seem to be suggesting evangelicals believe the Apostles of the NT to be perfect, I’m unaware of this, heck I don’t even think all the Apostles writings are in the book. Frankly you could have pointed out that Paul corrected Peter in his understanding of the issues. If Paul is correcting Peter, then it means Peter couldn’t have been inerrant.

However, in my opinion, conservative evangelicals believe new revelation from God ceased with those Apostles, based on the understanding of 1 Cor 13:9, the 66 books of the Bible record God’s complete revelation of Himself, at least until the 2nd Advent..

It does seem you’ve mischaracterized many of the passages used to bolster your argument. Nowhere in 1 Cor 7 does Paul say not to get married, nor was Paul confused if his vision recorded in 2 Cor 2:12 was from God, his confusion was whether or not the vision occurred in a dream or if he actually went to the location. Actually, in my church women don’t preach, or teach, so I happen to believe Paul is correct, be it in vogue politically or not.

You’re correct, the Apostles did select Judas replacement via lots, but this wasn’t the method Christ used to call Paul. Paul was called directly just like the other 11. Also, you left out the fact the Apostle selected by lots was never heard from again. I don’t believe any of his writings make up the canon of Scripture. It seems to me the standard used by Christ when selecting the Apostles was that he personally appeared and selected them, at least the ones whose teachings we use to define doctrine.

I believe DD has hit it on the head regarding the Interpreters Bible commentary, but she has been too modest. I think if you check church history, you will find most of her interpretations of given texts are in the majority of opinion in conservative evangelical circles up until about 1900. Again, I don’t want to go down a rabbit path, but with regard to this issue in the thread I do believe she is standing on solid ground. Paul wasn’t wrong about the end soon coming, many evangelicals have been wrong about how they interpreted what he said.

Getting back to the double standard, the issue seems to me to be how the major doctrines of historic Christianity shake out. All the major doctrines are backed up by more than just 1 passage or text from any single book of the Bible, those doctrines of God, the Bible, who Christ is, His creation, who Man is, the issues of sin and God’s plan of restoration. While down through the ages they have been disputes as to how certain doctrines ought to be viewed, these were resolved and agreed to by majority opinion, a similar approach used for the development of the canon. However, it seems to me, based on the brief exchanges we have had Mormonism is a vast departure from these historic understandings.

Again, as you will recall, since meeting you, I've asked what the Mormons view as official doctrine. Even contained within this thread is my question as to how Mormons define what is official and what isn’t. I been attempting to try and understand what your teachings are because I believe in the base teachings there is significant difference of opinion, as indicated by the discussion of the properties and attributes of God. As discussed in Isaiah 8:18-20, I'm attempting to understand if the Mormon doctrines/teachings uphold the Scripture or not.

Paul

[rangerbob]

is paul and cru back at it again?

[Krusader]

I think Titus 3:10 supplies the guideline Christians should follow pertaining to Blood-Nut. He's already had more than his alloted "two" admonitions.

Paul, to answer your question of "what the Mormons view as official doctrine," - Mormon doctrine is always in flux. It depends, mainly on who is the current "prophet," and what is expedient.

For instance, Brigham taught that even one drop of African-American blook would exclude one from the priesthood. Today that has changed - it was "expedient" for the Mormons to change that doctrine, since African-Americans were threatening to no longer engage in sports activities with BYU. Also, since the missionaries were making many converts in Brazil (where many are of Portuguese/African-American bloodlines), it fit nicely into their proselytizing efforts. Convenient revelation.

"You don't need a weatherman to tell which way the winds blowing," - just look at Mormon doctrine, and you'll note the trends.

[PaulT]

Am I back off the fairway delaying play, sorry, but sometimes that little white ball just doesn't go where you want it. I'll pick-up and move onto the next hole.

[PaulT]

Cru,

Come on, help me out, I’ve attempted to stay out of the fray between Bloodnut, you, John Sparks trout and the like. Jezz pointed out that some of us haven’t operated in the best form. Not that I’m taking a holier than thou attitude, I’m just attempting to establish what is and isn’t official doctrine and then work through the understanding of those doctrines and associated implications.

On another thread Aug just backed up what Bloodnut has been saying all along. Frankly, I believe we loose credibility when we misstate the facts of the case. Bloodnut can be tough, but so far in my exchanges I haven’t experienced it. When I uncovered what appeared to be a mistake, he admitted it. He has been reasonably forthcoming in stating his case is not universally accepted.

Bloodnut has brought up some good points, although I do believe he has a tendency to mix apples and oranges and gets a little verbose, something I’m certainly guilty of at times. While you don’t have to agree with him, you have to admire the fact he reasons well. It should be apparent to anyone who has read through my posts what I believe, but I’m attempting to reason and contend for the faith that I believe to be the truth.

Jezz made a good point, our faith isn’t based on a fairy tale so we should not be afraid to argue the facts. I believe any position that is not based on the doctrine of God as defined in the Bible is illogical. Hopefully, I showed that in working through the paper by Ostler who admitted the Mormon view, if followed to the logical conclusion would require an entity pre-God to assembly the unorganized spiritual mass into the organized spiritual intelligence the Mormons call Elohim. However, as RangerBob has pointed out, I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I would like to explore the guts of the Mormon teachings with Bloodnut until at least he either proves to be the bad guy you make him out to be or I cry uncle, because I can’t provide a reasonable argument. I believe in doing so I become a better servant of the King

In Christ,

Paul

[rangerbob]

why thank U paul, tis mighty nice of you. good luck me boy

[PaulT]

Does this mean I'm back in the fairway, I'm worried about holding up play.

[Krusader]

Paul, Frankly I've always thought that my purpose was to present the truth of the Gospel to any who may be reading these postings. I have no intention of attempting to convert anyone to my own beliefs. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. However, when error is couched in terms that are confusing to those not biblically educated, it is important to clarify what is being said, or to expose error. I don't post here to win brownie points, or to pretend that I'm more intellectual than anybody else, or that I can win the most arguments - etc. We should be careful, however, that we do not stumble a weaker brother! This week-end, check out some of the advice the Scriptures give when dealing with false doctrines. You'll be amazed at what you find. Have a good week-end!

PS: Bloodnut's not a "bad guy," just deceived - as were we all before we found grace and hope in Jesus Christ.

[PaulT]

Cru,

You too, have a great weekend, I can't disagree with a word you said. Thank you for the advice.

In Christ

Paul

[Conductor42]

What verse Yosh?

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

That one.

[PaulT]

Yosh,

Not that DD needs any assistance with this verse, but it seems to me Paul is talking about the natural desire of men to procreate. Some even today call it a burning desire.

Paul

[Dee Dee Warren]

Paul is correct. The NIV captures it well:

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Uh, the statement you responded to made itself manifest after two thirds of my post was typed. What is your definition of "beginning" anyway? It appeared in the last third of my post which means it was hardly the most important point in the post, and it was hardly found "at the beginning."

My mistake I had thought you referenced it earlier. It appears prominent becuase you set off some citations in quote marks. In my estimation it was the most important example that you gave - if you did not think it was, that is your perception. Some of the issues you brought up were relatively trivial. However, with the issue of the world ending, to me that is a big oops, not only because of Paul, but because Jesus said the same thing. Are you claiming BN that Jesus was wrong? Why wasn't that example used? As I found it the most important example you gave, for if true, it would be a huge problem.



The "theme" of my post is expressed in the title. By what standards do we judge apostles? You skipped over a ton of refuting evidence in order to comment on what you believe to be your area of expertise: preterism.

And you gave as an example of an error Paul being wrong on the end of the world. That is a big one. I am not obligated to go through each of your examples - I focused on the one that was not only the biggest one IMHO, but the one for which I am qualified to answer. Though now you will say that I am simply calling you long-winded, but I cannot devote so much time to responding to you that answering every issue would require. I answered the one - others may answer the others.




Yes it was, which means the "point" was something different. Something you conveniently ignored, yet felt inclined to pick your little battle and declare victory in the war.

It was the only one I felt relevant, as I said,I think your other examples were pretty petty and straining at gnats. This one,however, was a big one.



If you insist. I know you think you're the queen of preterism. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Do you think I am unqualified to speak on the subject? Or did you just have to sneak in a piece of nastiness when you had the chance? Please prove that I am unqualified to speak on the issue of preterism. I await your support.

Now I have been avoiding requoting myself, but this time it is necessary.


Oh the irony considering that you didn't answer my post but stuck your fingers in your ears and said "OHHHH SO THE MAJORITY OF CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!! IT IS A MINORITY VIEW." Hmm, if you find that argument compelling BN you are in the sorry state about your theology that wasn't believed until Smith's vision. My view may be minority (though there were times when it was near a majority) but your is nonexistent in history.


Does everyone here have ADHD when it comes to polemics?

Doing a bit of projecting are we?



When on earth have I ever claimed to represent the majority Christian view?

Please point out to me in my response quoted above where I said that you claimed that. I didn't. Before you start accusing people of disorders you might want to make sure your own ducks are in a row.



Since you are the one proposing to setup a "Mormon vs. Christian" scenario, then it is disingenuous for you to start falling back on minority concepts (preterism)...

First, in Christian theology, eschatology is an area that was not ever codified in most respects for an orthodox view with the exception of the bare basics. Second, many aspects of preterism were not a minority view for a long period of time. But that was not my point, and you are fishing for herring of the red variety. You are the one who said I must be wrong because so many people disagree with me. I said if you find that argument persuasive you have just falsified yourself, for not only does history disagree with you, it does so in toto on the many of the most basic fundamentals.


; similarly, you fall back on Jezz who probably considers you very much a "heretic" as well. And your mentors, the talking heads in counter-cult America, most likely think the same of him.


More of your cheap divide and conquer rhetoric. I don't play that game.



Rhetoric that doesn't change the fact that you have ignored almost 100% of my post and pretended to have won the debate. There never was a debate. You only offer the banal platitudes of victory never earned.

Addressed above.



No hypocrisy at all. I'm not the one running a bigotry forum, which arbitrarily picks and chooses what heresies are severe enough to exclude someone from the realm of "Christianity."[/quoe]

Hardly arbitrary and you know it but don't let me stop your rant.

[quote]
I'm saying they are in the minority. I think I made that clear. But most rational scholars don't feel obligated to make excuses for the erroneous opinions of the apostles.

Ahh, poisoning the well. All rational people agree with you. Let me give this a try.

Most intelligent and thoughtful students of the word agree with me.

That was easy.



Only a strict inerrantist would feel the need to do so. So they come up with desperate apologetic material like Preterism!

Now that is funny. How about the desparation of claiming Smith did not have sex with any of his other wives? Or excusing his emotional manipulation saying God was going to kill him if he didn't take more wives. Oral Roberts learned that lesson, "God will strike me down with cancer unless you send me money." Merely flinging your adjectives around is insufficient.



You can make an excuse for anything if you try hard enough.

As you have proven in spades.



But the hypocrisy is in the polemic against Mormonism. If we simply explain our doctrine in a way that proves you had a misconception of it, we're called spin-doctors of our own religion. Which is funny coming from preterists. You can't afford to be proven wrong by a Mormon, so you accuse the Mormons of changing their belief. You can't afford to have an apostle be in error, so you come up with notions like preterism to give the strict inerrancy doctrine some wiggle room.

I am not a "we" - and I came up with preterism? Thanks! I am brilliant!



Yes. Like the Apostle Paul, when he disproves your ridiculous ranting against LDS apostles. He proves you operate on a double-standard. You wouldn't dare hold Paul to the same standard you hold LDS apostles. Your faith couldn't afford it.

Actually I do hold the same standard, you are so cuaght up in your own polemics that you don't see it.



Off topic? Even if I were to go ahead and grant you that example, what are you going to do with the rest of them? Keep ignoring them? That seems to be your only recourse. Nobody else here has demonstrated the moxy to respond.

Answered above.



By no stretch of the imagination could one measley sentence out of an 1800 word post be considered a "major chunk." I guess that shows us just how imaginative you truly are.

I am not imaginative enough to think that Smith didn't have sex with the rest of his wives. However, it was not just one sentence, and I have already granted you that from your perspective it may have seemed minor. From mine, it was the most important charge you raised, for you also would be charging Jesus with error.



Earth to Dee Dee, even if this were official LDS doctrine, the LDS Church has never EVER claimed all its doctrines are biblically based. So you're beating a dead horse out of your own frustrations for an inability to respond to the numerous points I raised.

Actually you are confusing some paradigms here. And are you denying that it is LDS doctrine that God has at least one wife? That he and his wife begetted us?



Bullying? If the topic were God having sex with a monkey on Kolob, I get a dozen rabid Evangelicals on my case demanding answers on how Adam can be God and have sex with Mary, without Eve getting jealous, bla bla bla. Yet, if I set aside a post that provides the final nail in the coffin to your anti-apostle arguments, and expect at least ONE intelligent response, and I am called a bully?

You tend to tell people if they don't go your way they should take a hike. That is what I meant. Also the tension and winded-up-ness seeths from your posts.



Uh, not according to your last statement which proudly announced this "portion" proved my entire "post" was "based on a false premise."

Your premise was that the Apostles erred. In your examples, I found one that would have some real serious merit and dealt with it. However, I can see you think otherwise, and would have no problem restating my comment to conform to that.

Now are you willing to concede that such example is not valid to those who hold a preterist view of eschatology which has a long history in the Church? When you are trying to argue against something, it is good practice to note in your argument where some portions of your target audience may not see things the same ways as others. For instance, when I am arguing against futurism, at times I will make arguments that only apply to dispensational futurism, and I try to point out at those times something like this:

The whole idea of ethnic Israel becoming a nation again is disproved by the very parable of the fig tree that is put forth. I do recognize that this would be a non-issue for historic premillennialists,but it is a huge blow for dispensationalists.

Recognizing the diversity of views is good practice.