Praying of the Rosary Is NOT Bible-Based Teaching

The Disciplers ^ | 2011 | Ptr. Vince

[Iscool]

Do you affirm Mary is the mother of Immanuel ?

I've been looking for years and I still can't find a reference to God's mother...

[StormPrepper]

And in how many of those have you dismissed it as nothing?

Every single one. You forgot to criticize the fact there's no eating utensils on the table in Joseph Smith's home. I think he was actually wearing a blue shirt most of the time too. Maybe you could work that in ....

But throwing a hissy fit because an artist didn't put every detail in a concept painting....really? However, How many sheep do you think Jesus actually walked around carrying wearing a sparkling clean robe?

My care meter over your hissy fit just ain't there...

[NoCmpromiz]

Thanks for your clarification. I was sure that’s what you meant but the wording could have implied another rendering.

Glad to see you really weren’t trying to pawn off some twisted theology from the present proponents of the heresy of Arius..

[NoCmpromiz]

But then again, you do realize that Jesus told His disciples, especially Thomas, to ‘touch Him’ because a ghost does not have ‘flesh and bone’ as He did..

I do hope you recognize that. If you spiritualize it too much we no longer have a resurrection...

[StormPrepper]

Please tell us: Where's your scrutiny to be leveled across the board (aimed equally to the Book of Mormon)?

The difference is that the Book of Mormon was compiled by a prophet with specific instruction from God as to what it should contain.

The abridgement of the Book of Mormon contained everything the Lord wanted it to contain. And the prophet Joseph Smith was promised that eventually, in the due time of the Lord, the sealed portion of the plates would be made available to us.

Those that threw out the old world scripture like the Prophecy Ahijah, were not prophets and had no direct communication from God...ever.

God knows all. He knew what men would do, but His wisdom is beyond all. Therefore, He prepared the Book of Mormon to fill the gaps that were lost in the Great Apostasy.

One of it's most important messages is what it represents. God speaking to all men all over the world and leading them by the same means with the same doctrine. Another testament of Jesus Christ.

[NoCmpromiz]

You know, I’ve been pondering the content of this post and it occurs to me that IF there really was a battle of Ether-ial proportions leaving untold millions of corpses lying on the ground in one place, surely someone would have dug up some evidence.

Unless of course, the battle WAS etherial..

[Vermont Lt]

Funny story. I was talking to my wife, who is catholic, about this tonight. When I suggested that The Creator does not have a mother, she laughed. She told me that they used to question the nuns about this stuff, and it always ended up with, “it’s a mystery. You cannot question a mystery.”

If eighth graders can get the sisters mixed up...I wonder how much sense the rest of it makes.

As I said earlier, the whole chanting and repetition is right out of meditation training. There is nothing new under the sun.

I also thinks it comes from the need to teach the Un educated masses of people by rote and memorization.

It doesn’t explain the veneration of Mary, but does explain the method.

[af_vet_1981]

Do you affirm Mary is the mother of Immanuel ?

I've been looking for years and I still can't find a reference to God's mother...

Given that answer, It seems clear to me that you have denied Mary is the mother of Immanuel prophesied in Isaiah and confirmed in Matthew.

[Colofornian]

Cite all of 3 Nephi?? You didn't even cite whole versus. That's called selective editing.

Sure I did. In post #341, I quoted ALL of 3 Nephi 19:26 -- or doesn't this Mormon know his Book of Mormon?

You claim to be responding to post #532, when I quoted 10 WHOLE verses from 3 Nephi 19 (verses 17-26); I guess we'll have to assume that you "jumped the gun" on your response to spread less-than-accurate gossip about me...not very becoming for a public Mormon ethical display, IMA.

Furthermore, you bash me for not citing ALL of 3 Nephi 19, yet on this post I'm responding to you ONLY cited verses 6 and 7...and the post #532 that I'm responding to of yours -- post #370 -- only cited 3 Nephi 6-8, 22.

So, we see you selectively edited prior to and after v. 22. (So that doesn't fit your defs of either "cherry-picking" or avoiding passages that "hurts your cause").

So, tell us, StormPrepper: Which is worse: Before this post, I cited 30% of 3 Nephi 19; You? 11%.

And, BTW, THAT's what truly hilarious here! Here we have me the Evangelical citing 11 whole verses of the Book of Mormon in two posts...and you the Mormon doing what comes across as cartwheels to avoid citing 10 of those BoM verses.

Utter irony! (But that's OK, StormPrepper...the last half of 3 Nephi 19 isn't a "boogie man" that's going to bite you...but it will cause you to question the theological integrity of your leaders who have instructed you while ignoring those passages)

3 Nephi shows that these people had great faith in Jesus. It also shows that He had great love and mercy for them. I suspect it was because they were simple people and Jesus had just taught them how to pray. They didn't get it right the first time, or maybe for the their level of understanding it was good enough at that time. Over time I'm sure they figured it out.

Oh, that figures. Jesus saw they were praying to the "wrong" god...and, Him, knowing it would be recorded forever in the "sacred" plates & eventual Book of Mormon, wanted to go on eternal record sanctioning them praying to the wrong god! No wonder He reinforced it by commending them for it in 3 Nephi 19:25:

24 And it came to pass that when Jesus had thus prayed unto the Father, he came unto his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him; and they did not multiply many words, for it was given unto them what they should pray, and they were filled with desire.
25 And it came to pass thatJesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them, and the light of his countenance did shine upon them, and behold they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness, yea, even there could be nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof.

(Yup...nothing like a "spiritual parent" figure doling out reinforcement for negative behavior that these days -- according to your post #333 -- gets people kicked out of God's very eternal presence)

Whatever the semantics are of calling upon Jesus when He's standing right in front of you is called...

(Well, on the one hand that's a little bit what I thought when we were discussing Stephen and Acts 7:59...I mean here ya got a man being stoned to death...and in perhaps the last utterance of his life...his spirit is leaving his body and calling upon Jesus when Jesus is -- any second now -- standing right in front of him...But, no, you would seemingly have NONE of it...So apparently you give the Nephite disciples kudos of linking praying/calling upon Jesus in His presence in supposed around 34 A.D. 3 Nephi 19:18...and for "praying unto Him" referenced five times in that chapter...but a few years later in Stephen's case, that was somehow a "no no"...such consistency...Wow!)

Secondly, so before (post #333) you were so convinced that this was a clearly enunciated absolute law, but now you seem to indicate something along the lines of ,'Well, some 'semantical' differences are allowed for figuring what is -- or isn't 'prayer.'"

Listen, FIVE times these disciples' communication in 3 Nephi 19 is labeled "prayer." The Nephite "prophet" here could have EASILY substituted the word "pray" with conversed, told, asked, addressed, communicated, expressed...and any HUNDREDS of words. But, nope. He chose "pray."

If this is some sudden Mormon-centric semantical "beef" with that word -- as if it's somehow "different" when Jesus is with the prayerer -- then, hey, take it up with Nephite or Joseph Smith who made it all up. (May I suggest you stop taking it out on me for simply pointing out all of these inconsistencies?).

Wrestle with the text. Wrestle with the "prophet." (Not me)

There is no contradiction. These people where talking directly to Jesus, who is also part of the God head, so Nephi described their talking directly with deity as a "prayer".

OK, suddenly you come to the end of your post...and it almost seems to me like -- just perhaps -- you realized how utterly weak these lame arguments are that you submitted in this post...so for the FIRST time...you try a DIFFERENT tact:

Jesus is part of the Godhead. Any prayers to him is a prayer to the Godhead. So they are praying to the Father.

OK...of EVERYTHING you've uttered on this thread, I have to be honest with you:

This comment ALONE makes you look like THE most inconsistent apologist I've seen in a while...because you can't even agree with yourself here!

Above, you just got done writing about these Nephite disciples:

"I suspect it was because they were simple people and Jesus had just taught them how to pray. They didn't get it right the first time, or maybe for the their level of understanding it was good enough at that time."

So FIRST you say they "didn't get it right"; Now "talking directly with a deity" apparently IS (right).

Which is it? Not right? Right? (Could you conference yourself & send us a "final" answer?)

Beyond that, Man! When a Mormon suddenly wants to get a wee bit "trinitarian" on you, well, hey, there's always that "fallback" retreat position of citing the Godhead! (Non-LDS: When Mormonism has to explain Biblical and Book of Mormon trinitarianism, the "Godhead" becomes a convenient pseudo-trinitarianism!)

But worse than that, sorry, it's not like we began discussing this topic in a generic topical manner. It was based upon an initial claim of yours in post #333 (below). You didn't add any "Godhead" or "Trinitarian" caveats to your statement below. It was a very black-and-white statement:

The laws of God are not arbitrary. Prayers are to God the Father in the name of Jesus only. So says Jesus Christ, whom will condemn you and cast you out at the last day for praying to anyone but His and our Father in Heaven.

So now I guess you gotta amend your statement to read: "Prayers are to God the Father OR to Jesus if he is acting as 'the godhead'...only."

I suspect a few weasel words runnin' round these threads...the clue was this seeming VERY late qualification you seemed to toss into this thread:

I do know that to defy the instructions of Jesus without repentance is to invite damnation.

Wow! Very slippery. (Kinda like nailing green jello to a tree!)

[Colofornian]

The abridgement of the Book of Mormon contained everything the Lord wanted it to contain.

Who says? (Chapter & verse of a specific standard work, please -- even a Mormon one)

And the prophet Joseph Smith was promised that eventually, in the due time of the Lord, the sealed portion of the plates would be made available to us.

I have to admit re: this one that as I washed my air right after I posted #620 & #626, I thought to myself: "OK, how might StormPrepper respond to these posts?"

And I guessed a very similar response...that you would indeed appeal to the future...some day...Some Latter day...not this "latter" day, mind you, but some LATER "latter" day...as in...eventually.

And I had to smile widely at that point. Why? Well, I think you can see this one coming based upon my last graph:

Because here you claim to be part of a movement that's already almost 200 years into the so-called "Latter-days"...
...your very identity is locked up as representing the "Latter days..."
...and yet, NOW you're telling us something similar to...

"Oh. I guess the Book of Mormon isn't fully 'Latter-day' enough."

"Eventually" (you promise)...
"In due time" (you assure)...
...we'll be Latter-day Saints 2.0...
...who will "restore" the Latter-day Saints 1.0...
...with a newer "fulness of the everlasting gospel").

Ya know, when you have to render the olde "everlasting" version as in need of a revelational upgrade, it does tend to cast doubt upon having the authentic one to begin with!

If this was all scripted for a movie, the perfect title might be: Latter-day Saints: The Post-Latter-day Sequel!

Gotta break the news to you, StormPrepper: It's kinda hard to chronologically move past "Latter-dayism" into "Post-Latter-dayism" without literally shaking heaven & earth!

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

The difference is that the Book of Mormon was compiled by a prophet with specific instruction from God as to what it should contain.

First, there is no reason to believe your Prophet when he lies to his own congregation regarding the number of his wives. At the time of this following quote, Smith had at least a dozen wives, acknowledged by your own religion:

"...What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers." (History of the Church, vol 6, p. 411)

Next, but more importantly, as this alone proves your prophet to be a liar: your prophet openly contradicts the holy scripture by creating many gods when there is only one:

"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isa 44:8).

Your prophet also denies salvation sola fide, sola gracia, asserting that salvation is given as a result of our merits, when this also is explicitly ruled out by the scripture:

Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Can you explain why we should believe your Prophet when he is a liar, a polytheist, and a teacher of works-righteousness?

[rwa265]

Mary became pregnant...She conceived a baby...The question is: what did Mary contribute to the conception of THAT baby, or any baby???

The bible says we all have a body, a soul, and a spirit...

The question is: how much of your existance did your mother contribute to your conception...

---

Actually, the question we are dealing with here is what is the relationship between the persons. What is the relationship between Mary and the baby she conceived? What is the relationship between the woman who contributed to my conception and myself? You said it yourself. She is my mother. Not to just the part of me that came from her, but to my whole person, body, soul, and spirit. This does not mean my soul belongs to my mother, it belongs to God. I am nevertheless obligated to observe the commandment to obey my mother. The same is true with Mary and the baby she conceived. She was mother to His whole person, body, soul, and spirit. The mother of Jesus in His humanity and divinity, the mother of God incarnate. But just as my soul belongs to God, so does Mary’s soul belong to God. Even so, as shown in Luke 2:51, Jesus in his humanity and divinity observed the commandment to be obedient to His mother.

[rwa265]

Supporting the concept STILL doesn’t place the PHRASE: Mother of GOD into the Scriptures.

---

That is true. The phrase “Mother of God” in the Scriptures. The absence of a specific phrase does not make the concept any less true. More importantly, is the concept or the essential truth of Mary as Mother of God found in Scripture? Does Scripture contradict the teaching that Mary is the Mother of God?

[rwa265]

Logic 102?

---

No, Sola Scriptura. You know, that where does it say in Scripture thing? I have shown many verses that support the concept of Mary as mother of God incarnate in the person of Jesus, true God and true man. There has been nothing posted that directly contradicts any one of those verses.

[Iscool]

She was mother to His whole person, body, soul, and spirit.

Mary was the mother to Jesus' human body which contained Jesus' soul and spirit...She was not the mother of his divinity...

If Mary was the mother of God, that would make her God's mother...And that is flat out ridiculous...God's divinity wasn't even manifest in Jesus til he was 30 years old...

Other than recognizing that Mary was blessed because God chose her to be the mother of Jesus there's not a single thing in the scriptures that leads us to believe that Mary had any role in the ministry of Jesus other than providing a body for Jesus to grow in and be born from...

You guys have turned Mary into a goddes which is proven by all the statues you have made of her...You make 'altars' to this goddess and place her statues on top of the altars and bow down and worship (pray to) her...

Mary is not God's mother...

[DungeonMaster]

HOW does your name get WRITTEN in that book to begin with?

Foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified.

[DungeonMaster]

How does God manage to use me much at all is the real question!

Sometimes it takes a lot of creativity to imagine one being of any service to the Lord.

[DungeonMaster]

Forgive me but:

Hedley Lamarr: My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought, cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives...

Taggart: God darnit Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.

[Elsie]

You didn't even cite whole versus. That's called selective editing.

Nah; it's separating the wheat from the chaff.

[Elsie]

MRM is a professional anti-mormon site. They make money bashing me. I don’t give them any clicks.

I guess that's a reason to IGNORE the data it has shown; FACTS from actual MORMON sources.

Classic example of shoot the messenger on your part.

I'll go get the data and present it for you to ignore again.I'm a freelancer, so you'll need another reason to avoid non-faithbuilding facts about Mormonism.