Why Would God Reveal Himself To Only A Select People?

rathi said:

Assuming that the Abrahamic god exists as a given, what gives you confidence that Mormonism is the accurately recorded version? Of the four holy texts, the Torah, the Bible, the Quran and the book of Mormon, what criteria can you use to assess their individual validity? If you think Islam has been distorted from the original words of a true prophet, how can you be sure the Mormonism hasn't suffered the same fate?

Click to expand...

Mohammed was illiterate, as were his contemporary followers. For many generations, his words were simply passed around by word of mouth, which is a notoriously unreliable way to preserve knowledge. This continued until someone was finally able to write it all down. There's really not much reason to assume that what was written down was a very good account of what Mohammed said in the first place.

The records of the prophets in the Old Testament/Torah have been copied and recopied, translated from language to language, edited, compiled, and otherwise manipulated by mortal men. The New Testament also, to a somewhat lesser degree. More reliable than the word-of-mouth method of Mohammed's teachings, but still prone to error.

With the modern prophets of Mormonism, we have direct accounts of their teachings, written by their own hand, or recorded using more modern technology. Very little opportunity is there for their teachings to have been lost or distorted. I don't have time to get into it right now, but the manner in which the Book of Mormon was preserved and brought forth also gives it much less opportunity to have had its contents lost or distorted.

Geoist said:

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, God revealed himself to the people of the Old Testament and the New Testament (through Jesus). If He wanted to be worshiped and save humanity from its sins, then why did He not reveal Himself to the Americans, Africans, Europeans, or the rest of Asia? Instead of planting one seed, would it not have been more efficient/effective to have planted several seeds instead of relying on a tiny section of the world to spread the faith?

Click to expand...

As a Baha'i, I believe God revealed himself to many people all around the world. Explicitly mentioned are the "independent prophets" Abraham, Krishna, Zarathustra, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, the Bab (who founded the Babi faith in 19th century Persia as a precursor to the Baha'i religion) and Baha'u'llah (who founded the Baha'i faith 19 years later). All of them and the religions they founded stem from the same God.

Additionally, there are many more "dependent" or "lesser prophets", as for example the many OT prophets, John the Baptist, Confucius in China and many more who are not explicitly mentioned in the Baha'i scripture.

The next independent prophet is expected to occur in ca. 850 years.

So yes, if the Baha'i faith is correct, God has repeatedly revealed himself to many people all around the world and continues to do so.

Geoist said:

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, God revealed himself to the people of the Old Testament and the New Testament (through Jesus). If He wanted to be worshiped and save humanity from its sins, then why did He not reveal Himself to the Americans, Africans, Europeans, or the rest of Asia? Instead of planting one seed, would it not have been more efficient/effective to have planted several seeds instead of relying on a tiny section of the world to spread the faith?

Click to expand...

Eh, when I was more heavily Christian in my belief structure, this was one of my issues with the faith and one of the things I still have issues with in terms of talking about spirituality with those of faiths more strictly adhering to a particular piece of scripture. Going off the premise that the notion of a "Judeo-Christian" god being true, I would believe the reason it SEEMED God only revealed himself to the specific people of a specific area ever would be not due to divine issues but rather the ego and short sightedness of man. You had a group of individuals in a specific area largely being the foundation for which the religion begins and as such the natural human inclination of any individual is to believe oneself to be "Special". The notion that God may've spoken with others around the world, especially those who at that time would've been thought of as "heathens", would've been an ego check that would've been unlikely to occur. I think this more in terms of your OT stuff more so than the newer, in terms of Jesus specifically, but personally even when I was more heavily Christian I didn't perscribe to the belief of some Christians that the Bible in and of itself is a literal, unquestionable, 100% accurate, divine statement from the Lord himself. I would suggest that the Lord was the clear inspiration for the writings, but ultimately those writings were still the description and interpretation of the divine message filtered through the flawed vessel of man.

That said, one could suggest that adherance to a religion largely due to a blunt smack across the face is less strong than one gained from self-arrived faith. From a divine aspect, one with such a long term view, the notion of a "chosen few" as messangers and allowing it to spread forth based on the power of it's compulsion and of the faith of those who accept it would likely create a stronger following and desire to spread the word of the faith then in a true heartfelt way than if it was simply a common day realization of all that "Oh hey, there's god"

spanky said:

Why would an all knowing, omnipresent, omniscient God have a need to be worshipped?

Click to expand...

That's a topic for another thread :2razz:

Bob Blaylock said:

Mohammed was illiterate, as were his contemporary followers. For many generations, his words were simply passed around by word of mouth, which is a notoriously unreliable way to preserve knowledge. This continued until someone was finally able to write it all down. There's really not much reason to assume that what was written down was a very good account of what Mohammed said in the first place.

The records of the prophets in the Old Testament/Torah have been copied and recopied, translated from language to language, edited, compiled, and otherwise manipulated by mortal men. The New Testament also, to a somewhat lesser degree. More reliable than the word-of-mouth method of Mohammed's teachings, but still prone to error.

With the modern prophets of Mormonism, we have direct accounts of their teachings, written by their own hand, or recorded using more modern technology. Very little opportunity is there for their teachings to have been lost or distorted. I don't have time to get into it right now, but the manner in which the Book of Mormon was preserved and brought forth also gives it much less opportunity to have had its contents lost or distorted.

Click to expand...

Actually, the accounts of Jesus life as recorded in the Gospels were written years after the fact, too. The details are highly suspect, therefore.
If Christianity (definition: the belief that Christ was the son of god who died for the sins of mankind) is correct, then Mormonism must be correct also, as it is the only Christian religion that does not rely on ancient writings as its only source of information.

If there were prophets in ancient times, then there must be prophets today as well, don't you think?

spanky said:

That is an ignorant condition since a response of "God doesn't exist" is a legitimate answer to your question.

Click to expand...

It is not a legitimate answer because it is detracting from the original topic of this thread. I am asking Judeo-Christians (and others if they want to contribute to such a discussion) why they think God would reveal himself only to a select few people.

If we want to talk about the existence/non-existence of God then we can do that in the hundreds of other threads on that very topic.

If you wanted this to be a discussion among the saved and devout only, you should have said so up front.

Click to expand...

I don't want to exclude others from the topic.

Bob Blaylock said:

With the modern prophets of Mormonism, we have direct accounts of their teachings, written by their own hand, or recorded using more modern technology. Very little opportunity is there for their teachings to have been lost or distorted. I don't have time to get into it right now, but the manner in which the Book of Mormon was preserved and brought forth also gives it much less opportunity to have had its contents lost or distorted.

Click to expand...

Except, Joseph Smith was a man, and men are fallible, so it is possible he screwed up in the translation.

spud_meister said:

Except, Joseph Smith was a man, and men are fallible, so it is possible he screwed up in the translation.

Click to expand...

Which somewhat represents the purpose/importance of faith in religion. There's no more real reason to believe that Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet or was but screwed up translations than there is to believe the same thing of the OT and NT prophets and writers. It comes down to an individuals faith regarding the potential touch of divinity upon the individual.

Geoist said:

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, God revealed himself to the people of the Old Testament and the New Testament (through Jesus).

Click to expand...

I personally think that God reveals itself to every single person, in one manner or another.

So do I, Lizzie.

Geoist said:

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, God revealed himself to the people of the Old Testament and the New Testament (through Jesus). If He wanted to be worshiped and save humanity from its sins, then why did He not reveal Himself to the Americans, Africans, Europeans, or the rest of Asia? Instead of planting one seed, would it not have been more efficient/effective to have planted several seeds instead of relying on a tiny section of the world to spread the faith?

Click to expand...

Especially when those "chosen" in the US and reported God spoke to them get TV shows, Crystal palaces, and bilk hundreds of thousands of dollars from little old ladies.

Geoist said:

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, God revealed himself to the people of the Old Testament and the New Testament (through Jesus). If He wanted to be worshiped and save humanity from its sins, then why did He not reveal Himself to the Americans, Africans, Europeans, or the rest of Asia? Instead of planting one seed, would it not have been more efficient/effective to have planted several seeds instead of relying on a tiny section of the world to spread the faith?

Click to expand...

There are various accounts of a Christ like being in almost all cultures. Each culture's belief system favors that particular culture. Not necessarily all members of that culture, women in the middle east for one example, but the culture as a whole. Wouldn't it be kind of a dumb belief system for any particular culture if their belief system didn't favor it? After all, a belief system that favors your own culture gives you the right to use that belief system to gain access to resources whatever they may be for your own. That's why they've been fighting 2000 years in the middle east - two belief systems, both of which say 'God gave this land to ME.'

Geoist said:

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, God revealed himself to the people of the Old Testament and the New Testament (through Jesus). If He wanted to be worshiped and save humanity from its sins, then why did He not reveal Himself to the Americans, Africans, Europeans, or the rest of Asia? Instead of planting one seed, would it not have been more efficient/effective to have planted several seeds instead of relying on a tiny section of the world to spread the faith?

Click to expand...

So this is an attack against Christianity, right?

Maybe God doesn't want to save everyone. God may not want those people, just like God supposedly doesn't save animals for immortality either.

Why doesn't the OP invite every person he mets to come live at his house?

I hadn't thought of it that way. Very interesting point.

But this reminded me of the song "Table of Grace" and these lyrics:

"At the table of grace the cup's never empty.
The plate's always full and it's never too late.
To come and be filled with love never ending
You're always welcome at the table of grace."

I believe many of the catholic saints may have had interactions with God in some form or another. Some would argue that God does reveal himself in miracles and mercy even if it is not a visual or auditory revelation, and certainly a lot of schizo's think God talks to them regularly.

This question hits me whenever it comes down to moral guidelines. If god gives us moral rules to follow, obviously we are meant to follow them. So why back them up in superstition. I mean superstition in the sense that the rules and their enforcement are not overwhelmingly credible. I clearly think that god does not exist, and that the bible is a bunch of horse excrement. If an omniscient god really wanted me to, for example, not have sex until I was married, then he would want to employ a more effective means to transmit that idea to me. As it stands, I do not find the bible or the words of religious people to be credible enough to make moral choices or determine my actions based on them. Obviously, if god wanted to enforce this rule, he would reveal himself and his intentions in a more effective manner. And I don't even mean like "take away free will", I mean just hold a press conference.

lizzie said:

I personally think that God reveals itself to every single person, in one manner or another.

Click to expand...

See, that's kind of insulting. It comes down to an assertion that the rest of us "aren't listening right" or something like that. You're assuming a lot of willful closed-mindedness on a lot of people. However, that theory also has a significant flaw. God is supposed to be all-knowing, right? In which case, god knows exactly what sort of revelation each person will respond to. If god reveals in such a way that won't be compelling, then god hasn't really communicated, since god knows before doing it whether or not it will be effective. Since god is supposed to be so much smarter than we are, you can't really blame the lowly humans. The responsibility to be understood falls upon the higher intellect. And communicating in a method that you know won't be effective isn't really communicating. So either a lot of people are intentionally ignoring this communication and then claiming it never happened, or a lot of people simply are never hearing it. Which seems more likely? A whole lot of malice, or just a little bit of stupidity?

I, obviously, don't think there's anyone up there to communicate with us at all, since if there were, I would expect to hear this communication. And if I were to hear it, why would I possibly choose to ignore it? Why would anyone who desires to know the truth ignore it if they had a chance to learn? Especially when it is supposedly backed up by so much force. To sum up: If god is communicating and people don't hear it, then god must know that people aren't hearing it and choosing not to alter the form of communication and thus is deciding not to communicate. So then god doesn't want us to hear. If you have an answer to this quandary, please share it.

joko104 said:

So this is an attack against Christianity, right?

Maybe God doesn't want to save everyone. God may not want those people, just like God supposedly doesn't save animals for immortality either.

Why doesn't the OP invite every person he mets to come live at his house?

Click to expand...

Oh look, Joko's persecution complex.

Fisher said:

I believe many of the catholic saints may have had interactions with God in some form or another. Some would argue that God does reveal himself in miracles and mercy even if it is not a visual or auditory revelation, and certainly a lot of schizo's think God talks to them regularly.

Click to expand...

There's an old saying that goes something like "Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous."

spanky said:

Throughout human history, faith has been the currency of liars, thiefs, charlatans and con men.

Click to expand...

Or at least something approaching a facsimile of faith. Never to be confused with the real McCoy, which has been the currency of saviours, saints and paragons.

Geoist said:

From a Judeo-Christian perspective, God revealed himself to the people of the Old Testament and the New Testament (through Jesus). If He wanted to be worshiped and save humanity from its sins, then why did He not reveal Himself to the Americans, Africans, Europeans, or the rest of Asia? Instead of planting one seed, would it not have been more efficient/effective to have planted several seeds instead of relying on a tiny section of the world to spread the faith?

Click to expand...

Define 'reveal'.

Paschendale said:

Oh look, Joko's persecution complex.

Click to expand...

You should read more carefully. It is a "in the cosmos, you likely are an irrelevant mortal creature of no more enduring relevancy than a beneign bacteria" complex.

That doesn't mean I am. I'll try to not "persecute" you in my messages. :roll:

Fisher said:

I believe many of the catholic saints may have had interactions with God in some form or another. Some would argue that God does reveal himself in miracles and mercy even if it is not a visual or auditory revelation, and certainly a lot of schizo's think God talks to them regularly.

Click to expand...

You mean President Obama, who claims he "walks with God every day."

joko104 said:

You mean President Obama, who claims he "walks with God every day."

Click to expand...

Well somebody has to caddy for him given all the rounds of golf he does......

Dittohead not! said:

If there were prophets in ancient times, then there must be prophets today as well, don't you think?

Click to expand...

I think so. But then, that's really one of the core beliefs that distinguishes my religion from other forms of Christianity—that God leads us today through a prophet, just as he did in ancient times.

spud_meister said:

Except, Joseph Smith was a man, and men are fallible, so it is possible he screwed up in the translation.

Click to expand...

Yes, it certainly is. And even if a prophet were to deliver a perfect message, without introducing any errors or biasses of his own, we fallible mortals would still introduce our own errors into our understanding thereof.