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.
Show where Jesus was begotten as a spirit child by heavenly father and a heavenly mother - Bible only please since that is your claim fundamentalist christian. Show us from the bible where Jesus some how became a god before his earthly trials and testings. Show us from the bible where Jesus was married in a temple. Show us where in the bible Jesus received the other ordinaces? Show us where in the Bible it talks about heavenly father's father as well as heavenly father's savior. Well, fundamentalist christian we await the answer
Proves once and for all that 1010 is Mormon.
Nah, they would never do that...
Nice try. However it would be really helpful to those lurking that you actually respond to the questions/statements posed rather than having answers to only partial questions and statements.
Really clever, will have to give you that.
Theosis ("deification," "divinization") is the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía ("missing the mark"), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. For Orthodox Christians, Théōsis (see 2 Pet. 1:4) is salvation. Théōsis assumes that humans from the beginning are made to share in the Life or Nature of the all-Holy Trinity. Therefore, an infant or an adult worshiper is saved from the state of unholiness (hamartía — which is not to be confused with hamártēma “sin”) for participation in the Life (zōé, not simply bíos) of the Trinity — which is everlasting.
This is not to be confused with the heretical (apothéōsis) - "Deification in God’s Essence", which is imparticipable.
Now they don't explain here why it is imparticipable (Greek philosophy - Platonic thought ala Proclus, et. al.- look it up), because Ireneaus doesn't speak in regards to the Trinity, but calls Jesus and the Holy Spirit God's hands.
Hunt around the site for all the doctrines presented there by the Eastern Orthodox. They are really worth exploring and you can see that as the church ages past the 2nd into the 3rd century the doctrine regarding the Godhead begins to change and the Trinitarian formulation begins.
More than Catholics, the EO have kept closer union to the teachings of the early Christian Church.
Here you can read about the EO opinions on the teachings of Ireneaus.
The statement by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, "The Son of God became man, that we might become god", [the second g is always lowercase since man can never become a God] indicates the concept beautifully.
II Peter 1:4 says that we have become " . . . partakers of divine nature." Athanasius amplifies the meaning of this verse when he says theosis is "becoming by grace what God is by nature" (De Incarnatione, I).
What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate.
Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.
Through theoria, the knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, human beings come to know and experience what it means to be fully human (the created image of God); through their communion with Jesus Christ God shares Himself with the human race, in order to conform them to all that God is in knowledge, righteousness and holiness.
Theosis also asserts the complete restoration of all people (and of the entire creation), in principle.
This is built upon the understanding of the atonement put forward by Irenaeus of Lyons, called "recapitulation."
For many fathers, theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in his person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time.
Some Orthodox theologians go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.
Spend some time digesting this, then we'll revisit Theosis.
Simple, straight forward answer: who is Jesus?
Sometimes when people change diapers they get poop under their nails.
So don’t bite your nails.
Why can one who is seeking to impress us with their absolute knowledge of the headiest of theological concepts not answer a simple question?
What is there to hide?
Why can you not be honest and stop the coy games? Why all the obfuscation?
Just answer the question...
I know the Bible is true but I want you to prove the Bible is true.
Show us how you would share it with someone who is not of your faith?
you need to read more on the development of the Trinity as well as Ireneaus, rather than relying your dubious, unnamed sources. Trinitarian formulation is present in the creeds of the NT and can be followed through the 1st century. still striking out christian fundamentalist
Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.
BTW 1010 you have your own Gorilla to deal with...
Answer my question...
Here junior, you need to chew on this as well. Athanasius himself clarified this very thing in his third treatise against the Arians: “To become as the Father is impossible for us creatures.” (http://www.archive.org/stream/selecttreatises00newmuoft/selecttreatises00newmuoft_djvu.txt)
Spend some time being able to DEFINE the words used based upon the author’s use - not your bubble gum pop.
However there was a reason that I as a young Methodist, sat there in a Orthodox Church 20 plus years ago and felt at home especially when reciting the Nicene Creed.
They are not really different. To paraphrase Patton, the Orthodox and the Protestants are peoples of the same faith essentially separated by different languages...
There fixed it for you.
Agreed it is a specific definition meant to distinguish full from partial theosis.
The first takeaway is that the concept alone of theosis in not unBiblical, nor is it unChristian. It is normal and expected across even modern Christian groups as previously stated by one of you (it's like stepping on a wasp nest, can't tell who stung last - LOL).
It is not the imposition of the Trinity but the overwhelming statement from the Bible that there is and ever shall be only one be one True God in any existence.
Here's the first fault. It is only by the imposition of the Trinity that theosis need be limited. You have to recognize that the world of the learned and scholarly had been utterly Hellenized. The early Church faced attacks, very strong attacks not only from Judaism, but from Greek Philosophy. Greek Philosophy dominated in a way socialist thinking dominated pre-Internet during the 20th century.
The Trinity is the reaction to these two-fold attacks. The Jews were right - their God was one God. How do you reconcile Jesus (his Messiahship is very different from past and current Jewish expectation) and Jesus' own statements about himself and God to that?
Take a look here to get a flavor of how the issue had to be viewed: Transfiguration of Christ
Think about who is there and why Jesus had to be transfigured?
One sees that within the definition of Theosis that man does not become a 'true' God any more that a woman's dog becomes a woman when it inherits the woman's estate (as has happened in some cases).
Now, no dog is made in man's image and likeness. Yet, when God created human beings, he made them to be like himself.
We are also expected to be full heirs not partial heirs.Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
NB: we are listed as both heirs of God & co-heirs with Christ. Why list both if they are one and the same?
This is in contrast to the Mormon Apotheosis where the Mormon plans to become a 'true' god as Mormon teaching is that they are the same species as Heavenly Father, Jesus, etc.
There's the rub - it is the Bible that tells us we are the same species as Heavenly Father & Jesus.
Then God said, "Let us make human beings in our image, to be like us."
Now, this doctrine was offensive to the Jewish mind. They'd been steeped in Pharisaical doctrines to such a degree that they missed the Messiah as he passed right through their very lives. This doctrine was also offensive to the learned Greeks, logicians and philosophers all. It cost many Christian lives to believe these things. Hunters of apostate-Jews like Saul testify of this in the New Testament.
The point is that LDS doctrine is right when it counts - it matches the clear teachings of the Bible. It doesn't appeal to the modern scholar groomed in Trinitarian doctrine. The parallels are striking.
Now, that's enough for tonight. I don't have Outlook Express and I have to type this all out by hand. I am a slow typist, you outnumber me by 10 to 1, and you weary me with post after post.
Anointings?...part of the time Lds leaders make the same mistake as JWs in describing the Holy Ghost behind anointings as an "it" -- and yet you think they get it right?
Works? Sorry, but "boomerang works" (works done to accrue godhood destroy whatever outwardly "good" there might be in them)
Faith? Faith is transferring trust to someone else...whereas Lds are not to transfer to God's grace until "AFTER ALL they can do" (2 Nephi 25:23)
The Godhead? The underlying KJV Greek words for the few times it was used just means divine being. Beyond that, it's just "Mormonism" for "Trinity wannabes" without having to subscribe to the Trinity.
Ordered church structure...that's biblical?
You are utterly hilarious, and ignorant all simultaneously!
Where are the Mormon pastors of Ephesians 4? Plus, Deborah, Anna, Huldah, and Philip's daughters were all "prophetesses" in the Bible. Where do Mormons have prophetesses tucked away? Also, Lds claim Jesus had a dozen original disciples in the Middle East and another dozen in America. My math tells me that's 24. Why does the Lds Church have only a "Quorum of the 12" then? Shouldn't they have a "Quorum of the 24?"
Also, please provide your biblical references for stake presidents, stakes, high councilors, unmarried 12 yo deacons, general authorities, presidents, or wards in the Bible?
Let me guess? You won't answer me yet again -- and go about 0 for the
And then you added the expectation of wide-spread apostasy are all there in the Bible.
Note, the "non-Mormon" like description of the apostasy that 1010RD provided. "Wide-spread."
You're funny. Lds leaders galore are on the hook for a complete, total, universal apostasy. (Just a tad, wee bit more than your "wide-spread"...Tell you what 1010RD, next time you hear journalists noting "wide-spread" power outages, please, do us a favor, and note how that's distinct from "a power outage" that would cover the entire earth!)
Oh, and BTW if John the apostle is still alive roaming the earth somewhere, as Mormons claim in their "scriptures," why isn't he listed as an Lds "general authority?" Why, therefore, has the Lds church stripped him of his apostolic authority?
And what about those 3 Nephite disciples also supposed to still be alive? Same Q?
And please tell us how Lds can speak both sides of their mouth and say these 4 didn't apostatize -- but the apostasy was total?
People who try to be "crafty" in "crafting arguments" falling outside of what's reality is quite sickening, 1010RD. (Not a very spiritually healthy habit)
("Devil's advocate" is more than just a loosely tossed about phrase)
Amazing...
How are we supposed to view the validity of your detailed arguments when you are being less than honest and straightforward about the most basic of questions?
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that questionable at best...
Oh, and why are you using an email program (outlook express) to post on free republic which is a web site?
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.