If your argument once again demands one just accept your claim God exists, it isn't taking it as I will. It's as one must. It's just another way to frame your favorite pastime of demanding folks accept something contra the evidence.
I do couch my remarks/comments within the parameters of God’s existence. And I know I cannot prove that to you.
Regards,
MG
So your point is if the God of Mormonism exists and reality is as the LDS church claims it is, then our relationship to the creator and ultimate architect of everything is of supreme importance.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but the premise of your OP demands accepting the foundational claim of your argument without debate. That's a silly concession to ask of folks.
Why would there be a requirement for a mortal middleman, to create a ‘valid’ covenant?
It would seem strange that God would just figure on making all of humanity wait several thousand years until deciding to let Joseph Smith start a church, so that any covenants could then be processed through said Church and deemed valid.
How would you know what these covenants are and how they are administered without an earthly conduit?
Covenants in one form or another have existed throughout Judaeo-Christian history. God reveals to mankind that which hey are able to bear.
Again, without God revealing covenants how would you know what said covenants are?
Regards,
MG
MG, In the way covenants are important to Christian faith explanation and reflection of such would be expected to be there to read of in the founding documents. Reading these one finds multiple references and reflection on this.
//////
I have not been through the temple, my belief ended prior to my 18th bd. I do not know details but am aware people make specific promises. I have reservations about whether that is a good and proper thing to do.
I find myself not knowing how masonic rite and LDS rites compare in terms of covenants and promises. It is well known that they are formally related.
I do couch my remarks/comments within the parameters of God’s existence. And I know I cannot prove that to you.
Regards,
MG
So your point is if the God of Mormonism exists and reality is as the LDS church claims it is, then our relationship to the creator and ultimate architect of everything is of supreme importance.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but the premise of your OP demands accepting the foundational claim of your argument without debate. That's a silly concession to ask of folks.
But it’s also a silly concession to ask that believers take it as an axiom that a creator God doesn’t exist and start from there.
How would you know what these covenants are and how they are administered without an earthly conduit?
Covenants in one form or another have existed throughout Judaeo-Christian history. God reveals to mankind that which hey are able to bear.
Again, without God revealing covenants how would you know what said covenants are?
Regards,
MG
MG, In the way covenants are important to Christian faith explanation and reflection of such would be expected to be there to read of in the founding documents. Reading these one finds multiple references and reflection on this.
//////
I have not been through the temple, my belief ended prior to my 18th bd. I do not know details but am aware people make specific promises. I have reservations about whether that is a good and proper thing to do.
I find myself not knowing how masonic rite and LDS rites compare in terms of covenants and promises. It is well known that they are formally related.
I know it might be asking a lot, but I would recommend that you pick up Muhlestein’s book, God Will Prevail. Many of your questions would be answered. This guy is an academic. He’s not writing a ‘fluff’ piece.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but the premise of your OP demands accepting the foundational claim of your argument without debate. That's a silly concession to ask of folks.
But it’s also a silly concession to ask that believers take it as an axiom that a creator God doesn’t exist and start from there.
Regards,
MG
You're not being asked to assume without cause there is no God. In that other thread about the priesthood ban it was asked of you in order to identify if the ban was more difficult or easier to explain once one stopped trying to square the ban with a belief the folks behind it were doing God's will. And I think that issue demonstrated removing God from the discussion made it pretty clear.
Here, the entire premise begins with both God AND the Church's authority being assumed. It's not a case of your presenting the content of the book. It's a case of you saying the book illuminated your view of an LDS-defined system which the philistines here are missing out on due to having abandoned their covenants.
The response again gets a, "Cool story." You want to set up your argument better? By all means, I welcome that. Want to describe the content of the book to present a discussion point rather than proselytize damnation? There's a first time for everything...
Last edited by honorentheos on Wed Feb 22, 2023 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but the premise of your OP demands accepting the foundational claim of your argument without debate. That's a silly concession to ask of folks.
But it’s also a silly concession to ask that believers take it as an axiom that a creator God doesn’t exist and start from there.
Regards,
MG
If, out of nowhere, someone were to state that "a creator God doesn’t exist", you might have a point.
But when someone states that a creator God does exist, and presents little or no evidence, then a normal starting point is to say that, in the absence of convincing evidence, the statement is rejected - that is sensible, not silly.
I assume that you don't accept, without debate and convincing evidence, the foundational claims of other belief systems. That would be silly, would it not?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
What makes Kerry Muhlestein’s opinion about covenants valid?
I suppose it’s the academic flavor he gives in providing an underlying and historical foundation for covenantal relationships between God and man within the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the direct parallels to the covenants made as members in the Lord’s church.
