It seems to me that often the truth about an issue stands somewhere in the gap between two extremes. This, I think, is particularly true when we talk about prayer.
At one extreme we have Christians who demonstrate a certain triumphal-ism about prayer. They believe that if you can “name it, you can claim it.” This approach makes God into a heavenly banker with unlimited resources made available to the people who use the right prayer formulas mixed with the purest faith.
At the other extreme are Christians who believe that God has sovereignly determined all things and that prayer—far from changing things—merely allows us to come into agreement with God’s will.
My view of prayer stands somewhere between these two extreme views. On the one hand, I believe that God—through His providence—plans and determines all things in such a way that all things work for His glory. His providence cannot be changed. On the other hand, I believe that God truly uses our prayers as a means of accomplishing great and wonderful things.
My analogy for how prayer works is to compare it to walking through a door (full disclosure: this is actually an analogy first proposed by Thomas Aquinas). Right now I am in my sun room. I can say it is now God’s will that I be in my living room; however, if I just sit here I will only be proving that I am foolish. To get to my living room I must stand up and walk across the floor and through the door to my living room. My walking through the door to the living room is the human “means” of accomplishing God’s will. Likewise, prayer is the human means of accomplishing much of God’s will in the world spiritually. This is a long way of saying prayer actually accomplishes things.
I believe the right attitude toward prayer is to avoid both triumphal-ism and spiritual defeatism. On the one hand we need to feel perfectly free to “boldly” come before God in prayer to seek his mercy and grace “in a time of need.” And, yet, we need to be willing to humbly submit to His will when the answer comes.
| | | |
|
|
If you look at the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:9-15), it is about humbly acknowledging God's power over everything, including our life, our sustenance and our future. Then, when you confess your sins and problems to God, you are freed of the worldly burden. You give it over to His greater power. Its an exercise in humility, faith, and trust to pray like this. Its a way to choose to allow God to express his power.
Prayer allows God to free your soul.
Did you not feel uncomfortable writing about Prayer, by sitting yourself on the fence in the middle? Your words required nothing from us in preparation for prayer and no action after prayer. Good though if your objective is to find agreement with the most in your acquaintance. I could be kneeling to Mecca and all of this would ring true.
The Church has always taught that we are to pray and to act as instruments of God's love. We are permitted to pray for what we like, but always with the caveat that God's will be done. If we truly embrace the latter, then we will be content with whatever the outcome knowing that God's will is always ultimately done. The saints describe this a holy indifference, never preferring one outcome over the other except that God's will be served.
●John, this is what I call supremely “balanced” teaching on prayer. “Holy indifference” is a great way to term our attitude toward God’s will.
●Without getting too far into predestination, I think Thomas has a very balanced view of things. He notes the following in Summa I, Q. 22, A. 3:
…there are certain intermediaries of God's providence; for He governs things inferior by superior, not on account of any defect in His power, but by reason of the abundance of His goodness; so that the dignity of causality is imparted even to creatures.
I love the phrase “dignity of causality.” I believe prayer falls under the rubric of this phrase. It is through prayer that man can join together with God in His governance of His work in the world. The amazing thing is that our free choices expressed in our prayers can work to fulfill God’s providence.
Prayer allows God to free your soul.
●Timbo, you wrote a number of interesting things in your comment, but, I thought this was exceptional. Perhaps earlier in my life I would have skimmed right over your statement about prayer allowing God to free our souls; however, the longer I have lived the more I see how important and true this is. I recently had a very powerful experience of this.
I think several have already noted this is one way for other - and I am just putting it out there straight.
ron
Thom,
Did you not feel uncomfortable writing about Prayer, by sitting yourself on the fence in the middle? Your words required nothing from us in preparation for prayer and no action after prayer. Good though if your objective is to find agreement with the most in your acquaintance. I could be kneeling to Mecca and all of this would ring true.
●No, I did not feel uncomfortable writing about prayer. Remember, one of my points it that truth is often found between two extremes. Classically, this is known as finding the “mean.” It takes the virtue of prudence (practical wisdom) to be able to ascertain the virtuous mean in the practical application of moral teachings. The mean is not the muddled middle. The mean is the proper and virtuous thing to do in a situation and a deviation from the mean toward either extreme is a mistake.
●You complain that my words require nothing of you in regard to preparation for prayer or action after prayer. Okay, Gecko, please pray that God the Holy Spirit will illuminate your mind as to the truth of Christianity that you might renounce the delusion of Mormonism.
●You also complain that you could be kneeling to Mecca and apply the ideas in my post regarding prayer. I guess that may be true; however, I am doubtful of this for a number of reasons. One is that Muslims are quite a bit more deterministic than what is described in my post. Another reason is that it is implied in my post that one is to pray as a Christian in the name of Jesus. Muslims would certainly not do such a thing. Finally, I suspect your complaint is generated by the LDS’s woefully deficient view of God’s providence over both necessary and contingent beings.
This got me to thinking about what God expects of us in prayer, and I realized that the act of prayer is really an act of obedience to God. Consider anointing with oil for example. In James we are told to bring the sick before the elders of the church and anoint them with oil. There is nothing special about the oil, or the elders. The powerful thing is when we leave our comfort zone, both as the sick and the "elder," and obey. The act of obedience is the special part of prayer.
Oh, and one more little story. Last night there was a time of prayer at the altar for the sick. I saw one woman praying by herself and so I asked my wife to get some of the girls from the youth group to go and pray with her. Two of the girls didn't want to go. That's fine, but the best part is, after the service there was more time at the altar and one of those two girls went up to pray with someone on her own. That was pretty moving for me.
I would be interested in reading a description of your experience if you don't mind sharing it.
You did not mention Christ as fundamental to prayer. You did not mention Him at all. But that was a part of your classical mean truth. You must diminish the material nature of God. For a God that is formless and immaterial there is no room for the Jesus Christ who walked among us. The material Christ is an extreme discarded....in spite of the preponderence of passages describing God in anthropomorphic terms, you faithfully make the Bible's truth into the game of "Trivial Pursuit" where all those passages are seen as extreme where fabricated truth is found in a piece of relative trivia: John 4:24 "God is a Spirit" (As if the word "only" could be inserted.)
● “Never becoming attached to our own efforts as an end in themselves”—as you state, this has to be one of the most difficult things imaginable for those who are in ministry. The hard part is that sincere people want to do their best for the Lord, so if it all comes “to naught in the end” the disappointment tends to be doubly difficult to deal with.
● Regarding mentioning Christ as “fundamental to prayer”—the post is about Christians and their prayers. Even you can figure out that Christians pray in a Christian way. You may want to notice that the word “Christian” in the post has the etymology of “Christ.”
●Christians don’t “diminish the material nature of God” because God is not material. This can be proved in several different ways beginning with the direct and clear statements of Jesus. Suffice it to say that a material god—inherent to its nature –must be bound by time and space. This would make it impossible for such a deity to be omnipresent, omniscient, the Creator, and infinite. Of course, the LDS deity lacks all of these things; therefore, he must be material and not God.
●As usual, you demonstrate the typical Mormon inability to grasp even the simplest doctrine of the Incarnation. Christ, of course, had a “material” human nature. Therefore, Christians do not discard Christ’s human nature because it is essential to our understanding of our religion.
●Christ’s statement in John 4:24 is unequivocal.
Where is the verse you reference?
St. Francis de Sales gave an example of an earlier saint's meek resignation after having expended much effort in founding a religious order only to later find out someone else had plowed that ground. The opposite can be seen in leaders clinging to power long after their time is up. Sometime God allows our good efforts to come to naught so that we might learn to detach ourselves from them. Holy indifference knows, loves and trusts that God's will has been served in whatever has happened, no matter how ill it may appear.
But Thom, for you He could not have had a physical nature and have it simple doctrine at all.
Thom, there is nothing simple about your doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Two of the most fundamental teachings of the New Testament are that Christ is genuinely God and that he is at the same time genuinely corporeal, both in his incarnation and in his bodily resurrection. Since the trinitarian God must include the person of the Son-who is a physically resurrected being-the statement "God is a Spirit" cannot be understood, even from a Nicene perspective, as limiting God in all contexts to noncorporeality.
Just as God is not limited to being light and nothing else by 1 Jn. 1:5, or to being love and nothing else by 1 Jn. 4:8, so he is not limited to being spirit and nothing else by John 4:24. That God is spirit does not limit him to being a spirit anymore than his being worshipped in spirit (John 4:24) requires worshippers to first jettison their physical bodies.
Your God and a corporeal Christ do not abide. That explains your affiniity in setting this changing God aside.
On the incarnation of Christ, Origen said "On this head we shall present our suspicions rather than any manifest affirmations." And having done so he says, "If anyone can find out anything better, or confirm by more evident proofs the assertions he makes concerning the Holy Scriptures, let such conclusions be accepted in preference to these." Well, Origen and anyone elsed that might be listening, we have some additional Holy Scriptures.
Given the true character of God, we know very well that the condescension of God was that of the Son, meaning Christ. Jehovah-the father of heaven and of earth, the creator of all things from the beginning, the great I AM and God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob-would come to earth, leave his divine throne, take a body of flesh and bones, submit himself to the frailties of the flesh and the vile and vicious dispositions of humanity, and work out his own salvation as a mortal man; such is the doctrine of "the condescension of God," the true doctrine of the Incarnation, the message that Jesus is not only the Christ but also the Eternal God (Book of Mormon, Title Page; 2 Nephi 26:12).
Please make sense to me in light of an unchanging God,... how can Christ have a corporeal nature, yet God does not?
My bible indicates that these men worshiped one God. I don't understand how the same guy who wrote the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, wrote that and also said this:
"In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it." Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, pg 5.
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9602&REC=6
I cannot see any way to harmonize these statements. Before we get into the incarnation or the trinity, perhaps we should decide which Mormon version of God or Gods Gecko wants to use?
The Lord's Prayer is one of the best for guiding one's actions.
I thought the discussion was about prayer not about the Trinity.
I have been here for about 18 months and seen many people answer your question, I choose not to get sidetracked by your question.
ron
I draw your attention logically to Genesis chapter 1:26
And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
The CAPS are mine. Did you see it? OK? That's how they did it.
I'm struggling with the contradiction too. How can the "Father", who is also the son of another "Father" ad infinitum, be the great I AM creator of all?? If he were creator of all, he'd have to be his own "Father"...or is he not the creator of all, just one of an infinite number of past and future reorganizers of preexisting matter? If you take the contribution of most current Father and divide by the sum total contributions of an infinite number of prior Fathers, don't you end up with a zero? The LDS Father looks to me like a total zero compared to the real God.
Curious isn't it that a bunch of men can get together naked in a sweat house after smoking paote and know they are getting answers to prayer. Do you have a suspicion that these kinds of prayers are not getting dependable answers from God?
As Thom says, if we pray for something in the middle of two extremes, that idea will be close enough to the truth that God will be approving. Unfortunately, if I were Saul prior to the road to Demascus and feel earnest in prayer to God, asking is it OK to having these insurrection-loving Christians murdered or should I leave this government job and love the Christians? Thom's classic formula suggests Saul keep his job and merely send the Christians to Jail instead. given such an answer is classical and brings a warm feeling to Saul's heart because of his new found mercy in not killing anymore. One does not find God in prayer by formula, nor by praying to someone else. If by faith we are committed to prayer, then likewise we are equally committed to ACTION, because faith is nothing without action.
We have discussed the act of prayer many times before, in tiny little circles we've traveled. But you might want to get around to figuring out to what is authentic.
The CAPS are mine. Did you see it? OK? That's how they did it."
"They" is not a bunch of independent gods at council, but a human description of the interaction of the three persons in one God put in metaphorical terms suited to our experience. You might view it as God consulting with Himself, but that idea is still far from correct, since it implies a decision made in time, which is our constraint, not His. In reality, the divine interaction of the Trinity is infinitely beyond our grasp. It is utterly simple and unchangeable. It just IS.
"So, who do you pray to AZron, Mama Cass? Yet if she were Catholic, we can count on someone having prayed to her. Certainly prayer takes on an added significance if the one on their knees knows the God they pray to cares about them (Thom says your God doesn't and could care less about you). You might as well pray to a Saint....you'll have greater influence, get to the inner circle, if Catholic. That has been my sense of it, but I don't go for it personally. Then you could be in the largest Assembly of God Church in the world (South Korea) and climb Prayer Mountain in the Chapel and pray to your Ancestors. obviously those prayers are answered for them!.
Curious isn't it that a bunch of men can get together naked in a sweat house after smoking paote and know they are getting answers to prayer. Do you have a suspicion that these kinds of prayers are not getting dependable answers from God?"
I pray the way Jesus taught us to pray by his example:
(John 11:41-42):
41So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."
So I pray to the Father as Jesus taught me to pray.
And I have the promise of Jesus: John 14:13-15
13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
So, Gecko, I pray to the Father in the name of Jesus.
Also, Gecko, I am insulted by your comments above and am offended by them.
Anyways, since the lies and hate speach has started flowing in this game of Gecko ball already I think I'll go ahead and take a time out for now.
To those that wish to listed to the lies and hate spewing from the mouth of a lizard good luck.
Gecko wrote: So, who do you pray to AZron, Mama Cass? Yet if she were Catholic, we can count on someone having prayed to her.
●It seems you are particularly peeved since you have been so roundly rebuffed with clear-thinking responses. Tough, isn’t it?
●Ron, obviously, is Protestant—you knew that.
●All Christians pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Catholics have a strong view of the communion of the saints that includes the saint’s participation in a larger circle of prayer beyond only living Christians.
●Mamma Cass is not considered a Catholic saint—but, you knew that.
Gecko wrote: Certainly prayer takes on an added significance if the one on their knees knows the God they pray to cares about them (Thom says your God doesn't and could care less about you).
●Perhaps of all the gross misrepresentations of the things I have written, this takes the trophy for the biggest whopper. This adds to the already recognized reputation of LDS mendacity.
●I take you are still frustrated over the notorious problem of an LDS deity with bodily passions such as bitterness, lust and hatred. Sorry, it comes with the territory of a corporeal deity living on Kolob.
●Hmmm…I wonder how many times I have written about the infinite love, kindness, goodness and mercy of God? I’m going to guess somewhere between 50 and 100.
Gecko wrote: Then you could be in the largest Assembly of God Church in the world (South Korea) and climb Prayer Mountain in the Chapel and pray to your Ancestors. obviously those prayers are answered for them!.
●I take it that you are bitter over Puri’s knowledge of LDS theology and his ability to identify your red herrings.
●By the way, I have personally met Rev. Cho and know him to be a completely orthodox Christian pastor. His church does not teach or affirm ancestor worship. Puri has pointed this out to you before.
Gecko wrote: Curious isn't it that a bunch of men can get together naked in a sweat house after smoking paote and know they are getting answers to prayer. Do you have a suspicion that these kinds of prayers are not getting dependable answers from God?
●The Bible clearly teaches that Satan, through his human instruments and fallen angels, is capable of performing what appears to be miracles.
Gecko wrote: As Thom says, if we pray for something in the middle of two extremes, that idea will be close enough to the truth that God will be approving. Unfortunately, if I were Saul prior to the road to Demascus and feel earnest in prayer to God, asking is it OK to having these insurrection-loving Christians murdered or should I leave this government job and love the Christians? Thom's classic formula suggests Saul keep his job and merely send the Christians to Jail instead. given such an answer is classical and brings a warm feeling to Saul's heart because of his new found mercy in not killing anymore.
●I take it that because you cannot think of anything intelligent to say in regard to my post; therefore, you revert to your usual mendacity and snide remarks. This is a credit to your religion.
●I dare you to prove that my position on prayer is not biblical. I won’t hold my breath.
●Again, the concept of the virtuous mean is not the ridiculous notion of a muddled middle or a compromise between to alternatives.
Gecko wrote: One does not find God in prayer by formula,
●Oh, yeah…explain the following:
Matthew 6: 9-13 In this manner, therefore, pray: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. 10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. 13 And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one.
Gecko wrote: If by faith we are committed to prayer, then likewise we are equally committed to ACTION, because faith is nothing without action.
●Actually, prayer is an act. However, the fact is that sometimes in prayer we are instructed by God to not participate in action; hence, “be still and know that I am God.” There are scores of examples in the Scripture of God instructing people to not act.
Gecko wrote: We have discussed the act of prayer many times before, in tiny little circles we've traveled. But you might want to get around to figuring out to what is authentic.
●I take it that you are frustrated by the orthodox Christian belief that prayer is the means of communicating to the “authentic” and living God and not to a plethora of mini-deities that started their careers as mortals.
After what you had read I would have thought your pronouns here would have been "They" and that "They just are"
In that you would be true.
Further, if the LDS had a prayer mountain and we prayed to ancestors in that chapel, and our Pres approved of it, where's the problem for me? There would be none because knowing it to be occurring, and likewise knowing what is happening at O. Roberts U, I am a member none the less, standing approved of all of it. So don't fain too much upset. It doesn't need to be your denominationation Puri.
As for feeling insulted Azron, you need to be specific so I may ask for your forgiveness with meaning.
Now some real clarity. EVERYTHING I WROTE I KNOW TO BE TRUE. If there are particulars that you question. Go right ahead. If you have certain difficulties looking into the eyes of death and apostasy and error then you might consider a more meaningful Christian existance.
As for the discussion on prayer, meaningful questions should be asked. Where Azron believes the average Christian does not live substantially differently than his nonChristian neighbor, let me propose that has a whole lot to do with the soft peddling that comes from the minister in orthodoxy who talk about prayer as Thom just did. Using the empty term "God" in the absence of Christ and without the confirming influence of the Spirit in finding Truth. Instead what we get is more of the same nonbiblical philosophies of the Aristotle's Golden Mean to know truth.
Should I ever become frustrated, it would have to be over a truth that I did not have the courage to admit to. The LDS pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Virtually all oour prayers are given by the spirit. As a people we are so blessed by the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost.
Should you ever frustrate me, I'll probably just venture out in these 83 degree temperatures and plunge into the surf midweek in addition to the regularity of the weekends.
You said you enjoyed the Kona coast of the Big Island the best. Agreeing I suggest both north and south of Kona, on that side of the island. We swim mostly north being closer to our home.
I have shown you through multiple sources that Pastor Cho does not teach ancestral prayer and that it is not encouraged in any way through his church. This is something which you are aware of and yet you claim to know these things. What you "know" is lies. This has been proven time and time again, and yet here you sit bearing false witness once again.
I once again call you a liar and once again I say that you willingness to spread lies is evidence of the lies at the heart of the LDS gospel. You accept the first lie as your hope for salvation and so everything in you is built upon one lie after another.
Cultists all say they know everything they say is "TRUE". It is a deception to say that Mormonism is Christian at all. The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (that there is only one God, Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically, the gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus), Mormonism denies three of them: how many gods there are, the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.
Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is "a" god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5). This doesn't even touch on the infinite regression of Father/Gods begotten forever.
Call it what you want...just don't call it Christian. It isn't. Those are particulars I question. You chose not to answer tough questions though.
So, while you end up gloating about living in a nice place, I take comfort in the following:
"Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing." 1 Corinthians 4:1-3
you wrote, "As for feeling insulted Azron, you need to be specific so I may ask for your forgiveness with meaning."
Please go back and read what you wrote to me - You start with my moniker and go on to use 'you' through the whole paragraph, suggesting that this is directed to me.
There you are - is that specific enough?
ron
There's as self-deluded a statement as I've ever saw one. If you had the truth in you, you would be able to respond powerfully and meaningfully to show that the many contradictions repeatedly pointed out to you are but illusions. Since you can't, because they aren't, you instead ignore them consistently choosing self-imposed blindness and then lash out spewing lies, misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, false accusations and diversions.
Some of my friends do more "binding" and "loosing" in an hour than I can imagine St. Peter would have done so lightly. I will use the analogy you've articulated here from St. Thomas the next time I'm in discussion with them. Thanks!
(Your response) Should I ever become frustrated, it would have to be over a truth that I did not have the courage to admit to. The LDS pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Virtually all oour prayers are given by the spirit. As a people we are so blessed by the abiding presence of the Holy Ghost.
2Timothy 3: 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power.
●Paul, in this scripture, notes that people can appear to have all the accoutrements of godliness while actually denying the genuine substance. This is what the LDS does with its verbiage about prayer. While, as you say, the LDS prays to the “Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ” the only thing that relates to Christianity is the spelling of the words—NOT the content of the words. What is meant by the terms “Heavenly Father” and “name of Jesus Christ” are literally polar opposites from biblical Christianity. Specifically, the “Heavenly Father” in LDS theology is one of an infinite regress of mortal beings that have progressed to deity. Therefore, my comment that you quoted is precisely accurate. In praying to the “Heavenly Father,” Mormons are praying to a deity in a pantheon of mini-deities. This is called henotheism. In fact, Mormons actually believe that the “Heavenly Father” had his own “Father.” As I have stated umpteen times, Christians pray to the one and only true and living God.
●As usual, I noticed that you completely ignored another one of my “dares.” I dared you to prove that anything I have written in this post is not biblical. Now I double-dog dare you. Again, I won’t hold my breath.
●I, unfortunately, have had to help people who have been deeply and profoundly hurt by this sort of Christian triumphal-ism. TV evangelists are pretty much free to spout this stuff; but, local pastors have to deal with the families of loved ones that die after they sent large donations for “prayer cloths” and other assurances that God was going to heal. Yet, I believe God wants us to offer expectant prayer. The key, as I see it, is to have the humility to accept what God provides.
Not long ago I had the opportunity—by God’s grace—to minister some encouragement to other pastors. This was a very positive and significant thing in my life. However, not long afterwards I was awakened in the middle of the night to be plagued by some of the blackest and most negative thoughts I’ve ever had. This experience continued for over an hour while I begged God to provide mental and spiritual relief. It did not come. Finally, I uttered to myself that “evil must be more powerful than God.” Right at that moment—when I was too exhausted to even pray—I sensed that God spoke to me simple words of peace and assurance. Literally and instantly the black thoughts disappeared. I cannot convey to you the sudden and radical change that took place. For me, it was a spiritual miracle. Within five minutes I was sound asleep resting calmly. Prayer—as communication with (and from) God—freed my soul.
Repeating as well, http://www.religioustolerance.com is the only unbiased source that has discussed the subject. The sources you previously have identified each has had a stake in the subject. Call them liars as well, if it helps.
So that we can begin on equal ground and both of us IN ACTION "renounce secret and shameful ways", please identify your approximate age, the state you live in, the church where you are a member (at least the denomination) and your responsibility in your denomination. That way your deception is brought to a minimum without compromising perhaps a sexual predatory status or perhaps your truly immortal state.
You are not Catholic, You are not Assembly of God, You are not a member of the American Indian Movement, and finally you are not Thom. Nevertheless, I apologize if what I wrote insulted you personally.
Details John, that is what I need. Otherwise my opinions have equal merit as your own for me to express.
Then there would be some of science, even philoophy, who would attest that it was all caused my shellfish from the lunch that previous afternoon.
So long ago St. Francis of Assisi wrote a prayer containing all of these elements:
Lord, make me an instrument of Thy Peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy.
Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood, as to understand; to be loved, as to love; for it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
The "need of some deep confirming help…from above" is expressed in these lines:
Father, in Thy mysterious presence kneeling,
Fain would our souls feel all Thy kindling love;
For we are weak, and need some deep revealing
Of trust and strength and calmness from above.
Of course, from the LDS point of view, if the prayer comes from the heart it should not be someone elses words, simply repeated.
Please point me to the article you are refering to sinc eI have been searching religioustollerance.org for quite some time without finding it. I have found a good article on wik, which doesn't have a vested inrest either, and this is what it says.If you actually read ths it makes it clear that this claim of ancestral worship is based on a single written statement which was retracted because it was false.
Anyways, Gecko, I have shown you all of this before as well. I know you can search teh web and find anything, btu the statements against Cho are full of motive. These same people were against the Brownsville revival and made up a great number of lies about it.
Still I have no bit of suprise that you would jump on these lies and "know them to be true" since you jumped on teh very first lie ever told and "know it to be true."
Well, aside from being not relevant, I must say I am somewhat reluctant since I have seen the personal jabs directed at other posters based on whatever personal info you have about them.
I will say this, just to assuage your fears that I am immortal or a sexual predator, or both!
I am a 47 year old sinner who attends a church regularly. The church believes the Nicene Creed. I live in a state of Grace. From that perspective, I suppose I am immortal, since I know I will spend eternity with God, though my body could die first. I have had numerous jobs/functions in my church but as to my mission:
It isn't a formal ministry per se. Every day, I look for ways to serve whoever crosses my path in whatever way presents itself. God provides so many opportunities every day. I am fortunate to have contact with the lowest in our society on a regular basis, so there is no shortage of chances to treat these folks on the fringe with love, respect and dignity...and try and help them.
I have recently become much more engaged in early Christianity, comparative religions, and Christian apologetics. I just started reading: "The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism" by Bernard McGinn. I recently finished "Christ the Eternal Tao" by Hieromonk Damascene and "Whats so Great About Christianity" by Dinesh D'Souza and I have been reading quite a few LDS documents too. I suppose I'm exploring Eastern/Orthodox views in contrast to contemporary western Christianity.
Oh ya, I think I have a knack for calling "bull" on stuff when need be. That should give you some ammo I would think.
What type of "details" do you want? I think I've been quite clear on many occasions in showing the contradictory and illogical consequences of LDS teaching, which you consistently ignore. Asking for more details looks like just another delaying tactic for your failures to respond. As to your opinions of my faith, I'm most concerned in correcting your misperceptions for your benefit and the benefit of others following this. It's you who come off as disingenuous in ignoring or twisting the facts.
As to your most recent comments on prayer, I actually liked them. I'm a great fan of St. Francis of Assisi. I was very surprised that you quoted him instead of a more typical Catholic clergyman smear that I've come to expect.
I think that prayer for others is a valuable way to learn and practice selflessness or self emptying. It helps focus the mind away from the grip of the world and our ego's constant desiring.
Its why the "name it and claim it" kind of prayer is so dangerous. It encourages folks to try and demand that God satisfy their worldly desires (ego). Nothing humble about it. It increases the grip of the world rather than encouraging the person to forgo worldly things for a more natural, Godly life. Its kind of the opposite of true prayer.
Apology accepted.
ron
Simply from the little you quoted Cho is a very controversial fellow. Apparently S Korean civil law can only shut the mouths of those in S Korea. Your quote identifies another website that makes points in greater detail. What makes him especially peculiar to Americans is his Buddhist past which he claims to have repudiated. But none the less Cho's doctrine of angelology is based on his theory of the "fourth dimension," a concept which ultimately leads him into occultism (shamanism). He believes that the evil fourth dimension is able to do what God does. Cho also confuses demonic influence with demonic possession, insisting that all unsaved persons are possessed or indwelt by demons. Cho also attributes all sins and sicknesses to the devil. Most significantly, Cho claims that if there is no visualization, there will be no church growth. He insists that every minister needs to have visualization, the process in a person's mind through which pictures in visions or dreams bring about miracles and powers. This is the most powerful occult technique known, having been practiced by shamans and witchdoctors for thousands of years.
Without question, Cho teaches about prayer taking the extreme that the visualization of another desired reality is sufficient. We can get what we wants by force of the imagination, moving God in the process.
http://www.letusreason.org/WF48.htm
The Prosperity Gospel through its present popularity combined with the lack of Orthodox central authority to condemn it is an American morf of the same. There are many Cho's right here in America through the Pentecostal tradition.
No. You continue to disquise yourself quite well. But then that was your blogless intent originally.
Still, I am supposed to be able to read between the lines...
You wrote: "I was very surprised that you quoted him instead of a more typical Catholic clergyman smear that I've come to expect. "
You must be referring to Aquinas where I offered a direct quote of his concerning unbaptised infants? They were his words. It is good that you appreciate St. Francis' prayer. In this case they were his words as well. Imagine a Patron Saint to honor animals and a feast to go along with it. I'm sure Thom would find inconsistencies partaking at such a feast.
There is no record of the Prayer existing prior to 1912.
Returning to the subject of this post, prayer is the release of Christ's power in our lives, so that we gain clear instruction and increased determination to do God's will — that which is right.
●I think one might more precisely say that God releases power in our lives in a response to our prayers. However, as I see it, the larger issue is that while God does conform our lives through prayer and communication with Him, there is also a place for petitioning God for our needs. I do not see that God is threatened by our needs for “daily bread.” James actually admonishes Christians for not seeking God for our needs but doing so with the right motives.
James 4:2-3 You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.
●What I am saying is that I am an advocate of both God’s conforming work through the means of prayer and His generous willingness to supply our needs in response to our petitions.
I went to religioustolerance.org and could find absolutely nothing. I said exactly that much in my comment. You chose not to read what I said instead going on a tangent ignoring your original claims and spreading the lies out.
No, I wasn't referring to Aquinas, but the many snide aspersions you've cast on Catholic clergy in general for the sins of small percentage, while displaying your own 'my LDS sh_t don't stink' attitude. I don't have a problem with you quoting Aquinas to support your position. It becomes disingenuous when you refuse to acknowledge other quotes of his or other relevant material brought forward to show that his meaning was not what you are claiming. Turn this about. We've been challenging you with Joseph Smith's words that talk about spirits being "co-equal" to God. We think he meant what he said. If you brought forward other writings of his that showed that his meaning is not what we think, it would be disingenuous of us to disregard it. Since you never do, we can only assume that we've got if right.
I've already given the Catholic perspective of our relationship with animals on an earlier post on this topic, so I won't repeat myself. I don't think Thom would have a problem with Catholics blessing the animals in the context of the feast of St. Francis, but I'll let him speak for himself.
Since this blog discusses ideas and theology, I thought a reading list would help illuminate the influences that are relevant to my participation here. I'm not going to provide grist for personal attacks by anyone, it isn't interesting. I'm interested in discussing the ideas in this forum and responding with facts to posts which err. This is why significant posts include citations. Opinions are stated as such. The words speak for themselves.
"On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." Paul
But in fact I spent a great many words showing how the Catholic church had vascilated as to where unbaptised infants go. Aquinas' words are clearly stated under the section of Hell. Should I quote them again, identify the paragraph and lines in his own text as published? Or, is that absurd? Sounds absurd to me! But I would be pleased to do it for you.
You knew what was there. It is obviously dated material. It is not difficult to imagine that since the investigation, changes occurred. He is obviously a man of unequaled influence now that he is at the top of your world church organization. He stands approved.
●I certainly do not have a problem with the blessing of animals. In fact, it makes perfect sense in relationship to my position on the immortality of the human soul. Because man is uniquely created by God with His Imago Dei to rule over the animal kingdom, man is to express God’s love, care and compassion over the created order. Conversely, I do not find any moral “ought” for man in relationship to the creation if man is essentially the same as tree-bark.
It is also possible that they removed the information because it was false. It seems that they aren't as interested in lies as you are.
The fact that they would remove the material and yet you keep promoting this lie in the fact of evidence that it is false information is telling. Once again you are caught in a lie. Now an honest man would admit a mistake and stop bringing it up. A liar, on the other hand, would switch topic and pretend that he was right only to bring it up at a later date.
Tell me Gecko, which are you?
I suggest you begin with the belief that the information was correct. That is what your Church security force believed. They claimed to the world they were investigating the man.
There is plenty of fecal matter that ReligiousTolerance.com has written about in regard to your church. Perhaps it is wrong as well. But you know, I don't care. It's your church. You remind me of Schultz.
The fact that there's been a variety of opinions expressed on a subject open to speculation is no surprise. That fact that Thomas chose to label his speculation as technically within the bounds of Hell, because he did not consider it Heaven is not under dispute either. It would be equivalent to saying that the lower LDS heavens are actually upper levels of hell. What I do take exception to is your continued characterization that these souls are eternally tormented, whereas Aquinas explicitly describes it as a state of perfect natural happiness (quotes previously supplied). Such a soul wouldn't be happier if he were asleep in his mothers arms. Now that I've addressed that AGAIN, would you kindly like to explain who in LDS theology sets up the rules for how spirits and unorganized matter relate and enforces that at every point in space and time (and any other dimension they might envision). i.e. what unites all these that allows them to interact?; who defines, creates and enforces the system of eternal progression?; and what defines the totally "exalted" state that all the LDS gods and spirits are eternally progressing to achieve?
"And God said, Let US make man in our image, after OUR likeness:"
The simple answer is what you need. The answer is God.
Beyond that I hold no fascination for it.