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.
They (lds) have no argument, discussion or debate just feelings. I always think I should start singing “feeling ooohhha feelings”.
OK, I didn’t go to bed yet. I think everyone else is asleep, so I will reveal a little about myself, but just to you. OK?
I have patience, endurance, perseverance, aggressiveness, and a high degree of self-discipline in abundance. At the same time I am meek; Makrothumeo is my maiden name (not really).
Goodnight for now, FRiend.
Huh?
ignore the Huh?
I use OE to format MY stuff I post on FR, because I can cut/paste the source code it generates.
You forgot to add really really humble.
Why is this such a hard question to answer...
Why the games?
Intresting...
Mormons and Moslems holding hands and singing Kumbyah BUMP
Agree, I’m more comfortable with the concept of sanctification, which as far as I can see, is a more western version of theosis in that it is similar in concept.
zing! (thanks for the link)
Wrong again buckwheat, it is not agreed. Go back to your definitions and read them a little more slowly. Define 'partial theosis' (I'm afraid orthodoxwiki won't be of any help since it doesn't recognize the term). Apotheosis is clearly and specifically rejected by Orthodox as well as the rest of Christianity.
Here's the first fault. It is only by the imposition of the Trinity that theosis need be limited.
Haven't shapened your pencils fundamentalist christian, nor have your reading comprehension skills improved. The limiting factor is God is One, setting an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: as it is not possible for any created being to become God ontologically, or even a necessary part of God. Had you read your material, this conclusion should have jumped out at you. So in reality, your is the first fault - failure to understand the definitions of the doctrine you are so poorly weilding.
You have to recognize that the world of the learned and scholarly had been utterly Hellenized.
So christian fundamentalist, defending a mormon doctrine from those very same greek philosophies. Your train just slipped off the tracks.
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?
They are correct in so far as God's nature had been revealed to them. Jesus' own statements were that He was God as well are reflected in the writings and teachings of the Apostles. His messiahship was not different as you claim (absent only your say-so), but that he was very self aware of his earthly role as messiah.
Take a look here to get a flavor of how the issue had to be viewed: Transfiguration of Christ
Do you even bother to read the article you cite. For instance - "This event shows forth the divinity of Christ,. . . , is fully reconciles the singularity of God within the Trinitarian context, as being a second 'god' would not only be foreign to Christ, but blasphemous as well.
Now, no dog is made in man's image and likeness. Yet, when God created human beings, he made them to be like himself.
Wrong, Jesus taught that God is Spirit - so we should be spirit, but we have flesh and blood. Is God transgendered - since He made both male and female? God is said to have formed us from the dirt - is God a pile of dirt? No, look at the verse and the use of the words 'image' and 'likness'. Nor can we create worlds of our own. We are an image, a statue, not the real thing.
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.
And just who become heirs 10? For starters, only those who believe on Christ can claim sonship as adopted. However, you need to define just what this heir inherits from the bible, which you have failed to do so. Again, the dog example is more than correct in this situation. In no place does the term imply that the heir BECOMES ontologically the individual from which the inheritance is received from. I don't become howard hughes. So you better sharpen your pencil again and show from the bible that being an heir makes one a god.
NB: we are listed as both heirs of God & co-heirs with Christ. Why list both if they are one and the same?
Jesus was the God-man our inheritance is founded upon salvation brought to us through His sacrifice. Otherwise we wouldn't even be an heir of God to begin with. Jesus chose to identify Himself with us - that is the point being emphasized.
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.
Yes, Saul persecuted the Christians - before he became one. But the closer truth that you miss is that (with the exception of the sadduccies), the Jewish people BELIEVED in a bodily resurrection. So was it offensive to the Jews - no. The Greeks were the ones that had difficultiy with the concept.
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.
You haven't even posted lds doctrine correctly sonny. The clear teachings of the Bible refute it every time. Its polytheism is refuted by the OT scriptures without need to call upon the Trinity as an arguement and any parallels are founded upon flawed and very loose definitions.
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.
Want a piece of cheese?
This may be of interest to some of you.
I think about you every time you post this drivel.
Who are you really?
In the WESLEYAN tradition; 'sanctification' is described as the act of giving a persons life totally over to GOD for HIS purposes; NOT becoming more godlike ourselves.
only 50 to go!
47
The most significant thing to note is that no Christian Theosis implies becoming a god. The relationship between the Methodist and Orthodox traditions is particularly interesting. An interesting read... http://books.google.com/books?id=q-vhwjamOioC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=Orthodox+Verses+Methodist+theosis&source=bl&ots=hrCqroTzCS&sig=jlY816WH04IVcrEy6L8VqVuTNQ8&hl=en&ei=VdiHTJegOJCgsQPi0di2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Orthodox%20Verses%20Methodist%20theosis&f=false
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.