Posted on 08/15/2010 2:44:17 PM PDT by greyfoxx39
One of the noteworthy examples of the Latter-day Saint commitment to treasure up true principles and cultivate affirmative gratitude is the admiration that Church leaders have expressed over the years for the spiritual contributions of Muhammad.
As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.” 9
Latter-day Saint appreciation of Muhammad’s role in history can also be found in the 1978 First Presidency statement regarding God’s love for all mankind. This declaration specifically mentions Muhammad as one of “the great religious leaders of the world” who received “a portion of God’s light” and affirms that “moral truths were given to [these leaders] by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” 10
In recent years, respect for the spiritual legacy of Muhammad and for the religious values of the Islamic community has led to increasing contact and cooperation between Latter-day Saints and Muslims around the world. This is due in part to the presence of Latter-day Saint congregations in areas such as the Levant, North Africa, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia. The Church has sought to respect Islamic laws and traditions that prohibit conversion of Muslims to other faiths by adopting a policy of nonproselyting in Islamic countries of the Middle East. Yet examples of dialogue and cooperation abound, including visits of Muslim dignitaries at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City; Muslim use of Church canning facilities to produce halal (ritually clean) food products; Church humanitarian aid and disaster relief sent to predominantly Muslim areas including Jordan, Kosovo, and Turkey; academic agreements between Brigham Young University and various educational and governmental institutions in the Islamic world; the existence of the Muslim Student Association at BYU; and expanding collaboration between the Church and Islamic organizations to safeguard traditional family values worldwide. 11 The recent initiation of the Islamic Translation Series, cosponsored by BYU and the Church, has resulted in several significant exchanges between Muslim officials and Latter-day Saint Church leaders. A Muslim ambassador to the United Nations predicted that this translation series “will play a positive role in the West’s quest for a better understanding of Islam.” 12
A cabinet minister in Egypt, aware of the common ground shared by Muslims and Latter-day Saints, once remarked to Elder Howard W. Hunter of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that “if a bridge is ever built between Christianity and Islam it must be built by the Mormon Church.” 13 The examples of Latter-day Saint–Muslim interaction mentioned above, together with the Church’s establishment in 1989 of two major centers for educational and cultural exchange in the Middle East (Jerusalem and Amman), reflect the traditional attitude of respect for Islam that Church leaders have exhibited from earliest times. These activities represent tangible evidence of Latter-day Saint commitment to promote greater understanding of the Muslim world and witness an emerging role for the Church in helping to bridge the gap that has existed historically between Muslims and Christians.
Not in the Military were you...
Jonesies is the name of a gift shop and a recipe site. I wasn’t trying to insult you. Nothing seemed especially masculine about your handle. No harm intended.
I’ve called women men on other threads. It seems a solid majority of FReepers are men except on the anti-Mormon threads. Those seem to be dominated by women.
Hence my mistake. Sorry again. Take it easy.
1010
It’s a 50-50 split at least.
Still deosn’t answer my question...
Too easy isn’t it...
Fish in a barrel...
So interpret the greek 10 (crickets)
Yes, ejonesie22 seemed feminine to me. I don’t know why you’re making such a big deal out of it.
To my mind it sounded like “E” - Elaine, Elizabeth, Erin or something, Jones feminized by adding the “zee” sound at the end Jonesie and I took 22 to be your age or some other important event in your life. Hence EJonesie22.
It wasn’t an intentional attempt to insult and there’s really no way to know who is male or female just by their handle.
BTW what do you make of Romans 12:2?
Thank you. What shall we discuss next?
begging the question 10 - the fv is not supported by the NT, because you've never established for starters WHICH version of the fv we are talking about - the one where he is 14, 15 or 17?, in the forest or bedroom, where he saw an angel, angels, spirits, unidentified personage, vision of jesus, etc; where he had his treasure seeking addressed. UNTIL you establish which version of the fv, you are just blowing smoke otherwise.
Let’s move on to the LDS position on theosis, often ridiculed, but never refuted. Interestingly the Eastern Orthodox also believe in theosis and that we are full heirs with and through Christ. Are there verses to support this? Yes.
Never rebuked - can't tell things honestly can you 10. It is called intentional deceit. Definitionally challenged too - being an 'heir' is not the same as becoming a god 10. Provide a definition of theosis 10 and we'll see just how close it comes to mormon Apotheosis
Jesus himself experiences theosis please note the following verses
Contextually challenged as well, every can see. He grew and became strong - after the temple event where he was about 12 yrs old - physically growing up, filled with wisdom - the man Jesus learned more, increased in favor of God and man - I certainly hope so.
You know 10, you are digging yourself into a hole with your lame explanations here. Jesus throughout this period was already God - and didn't need to 'become' a god. Are there verses to support this - yes.
John 1:1* ¶ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3* All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The above verses establish several things: 1. Obedience is critical to salvation.
The above do not say word one about salvation 10, with the exception of one - John 7:38-39 - where belief in Jesus would result in new and renewing life. You should really READ the verses you post sometime 10, it only goes to show how poorly your presentations are.
In Luke 2:40 we see the young man Jesus practicing wisdom, wisdom being the righteous application of knowledge. His actions are critical and the results clear in Luke 2:52: to “grow” in wisdom is to practice obedience to the Divine Will.
10, honesty is not strong in your presentation. Jesus never PRACTICED wisdom in any of those verses - not in those passages in either the english or greek - he was already FILLED with wisdom - strike one. Wisdom He already had as God 10, and is not restricted to the 'righteous' application of knowledge - again, your definition is not found in the passages cited. Strike 2. Finally, there is absolutely nothing in LK 2:52 to support your requirement that to grow is to practice obedience to the divine will - strike 3.
Lurkers will note that this is a gross example of trying to impose ones theological interpretations upon verses taken out of context, as well as the lamest logic one has ever seen since kindergarten.
2. They reiterate the separateness of the Holy Ghost, Jesus Christ and God/Heavenly Father.
As persons within the singular Trinity - not as separate Gods.
3. They demonstrate theosis, that is the ability to grow toward godhood, through righteous living and obedience to the laws and ordinances of Heavenly Father. This growth, though is unachievable without the Grace of Jesus Christ which the Bible fully supports as well.
Epic fail - theosis is not becoming a god, and those who understand the definition will tell you otherwise. This is in essence lying about the definition of theosis and its process in the life of the believer. 10 has further failed to show just what laws and ordinances Jesus followed.
And topping on the cake is that - according to 10 - Jesus had to rely upon his own Grace to achieve it. Any one else see the stupidity of the argument?
Hey eveyone, look how 10 continues to try to dance around definitions of words - even digging back to old definitions.
NT Greek - blasphemeo - 1) to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, blaspheme 2) to be evil spoken of, reviled, railed at
Very specific definition not corrupted by progressives
OT Hebrew - barak - 1) to bless, kneel 1a) (Qal)
1a1) to kneel
1a2) to bless
1b) (Niphal) to be blessed, bless oneself
1c) (Piel) to bless
1d) (Pual) to be blessed, be adored
1e) (Hiphil) to cause to kneel
1f) (Hithpael) to bless oneself
2) (TWOT) to praise, salute, curse
also na'ats- 1) to spurn, contemn, despise, abhor
1a) (Qal) to spurn, contemn
1b) (Piel)
1b1) to spurn
1b2) to cause to contemn
1c) (Hiphil) to spurn
1d) (Hithpolel) to be contemned
Again, specific definitions
NT False Prophet - pseudoprophetes - 1) one who, acting the part of a divinely inspired prophet, utters falsehoods under the name of divine prophecies 2) a false prophet
Again - specific definitions for specific offenses. Being accused of blaspheme does not equate one to being charged of false prophecy
******* Nothing could be more blasphemous than pretending to be a messenger/prophet of God. Clearly the Devil appearing as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14) is both false and blasphemous. False prophecy is blasphemy by definition.
Great definition of smith.
Because that is the form the whole of scripture indicates.
2. Why can’t God have a physical body?
Jesus said God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must do so in spirit and in Truth. God also said He is not a man.
3. Why can’t God speak in our day by way of prophets?
Never said He can't - however those who claim such inspiration MUST be held accountable to the definition of Deuteronomy.
4. Why isn’t there one united Church of Jesus Christ (see Ephesians 4)?
There is a body of Christ - unified in our common faith in Jesus, yet diverse as the parts of a body. BTW, the mormon church is no more unified by YOUR definition than Christianity.
The LDS claim that they rest on continuing revelation, but as shown their beliefs are solidly Biblical and not beyond the apprehension of those willing to read with their own minds and understand.
You have failed epically to show that their beliefs are 'solidly biblical' - on the contrary they are solidly anti-biblical.
To pretend that LDS belief is unBiblical is a lie.
There, fixed it for you.
If that were so then the LDS were/are the Church of Jesus Christ as Paul is talking to the faithful of Ephesus:
"savage wolves will come in among you" In order to come IN one must first be OUTSIDE. Reading comprehension is not that hard 10.
So if Acts 20 is referring to the true church and the LDS it is a warning to the LDS to beware of those whose pride/blasphemy will lead the flock astray.
Like smith who claimed to have done more than even Jesus Himself - gotcha.
If the LDS are not the true church then Paul’s reference is not to them at all, but to and against the members of the true church. Which is it?
Paul's reference are to those OUTSIDE who come IN later. Please stop embarrassing yourself by such lame interpretations.
Clearly because 10's arguments will not hold water against one with orthodox background and knowledge of the issue of theosis.
Flawed translation 10, you can't even read a lexicon or parallel correctly. The concept of to "begin" is not found in the definition "we may work". Further just what is this WORK 10, that Jesus reveals - come on 10, even you can figure it out if you try
29. Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."
And from what does this spring from - FAITH first. Jesus never said there would be need for temples, ordinances, WoW, etc.
Some one's been drinking too much koolaid.
By what authority is a valid question. How do you prove that God gave someone the authority to speak or act in His Name?
The passage is speaking specifically of Jesus here, not to smith. But any words must be in accordance with the Bible. All prophecy must come to pass. - smith still left on the outside wanting in (Ac 20:29)
start with my replies kiddo.
Oh and please do sharpen your pencil better - your shoddy work is beginning to bore me.
It’s not his work. It is boilerplate LDS/JW think.
But being a major concept to the Orthodox, well...
Hard to hide from one Methodist Orthodox.
I may not have been at the head of the catechism class, but I remember a few things...
he may try to talk the talk, but is unable to actually walk the walk. Even an old pentecostal like me knows better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.