General Religious discussion

[mtbikemom]

Since mtbikemom keeps harping on the Blood of the Prophets book, I decided to look it up and see what it's about. The subtitle told me all I needed to know

Since Ms. origami-san (or is it -sama?) hasn't read the book in question and relies on an Amazon review for her opinions, I think that's all I really need to know.  We all know how important it is to choose an Amazon review that agrees with our biases as a sign of good scholarship. 

This has been my unfortunate experience so far with the sweet-but-lazy Mormon friends I have mentioned.  I thought that some of you might be different, but not so far.  Restore my faith, most noble Jade Knight!  Someone read the first half at least before commenting!  I don't even recommend reading the nitty gritty part; it is too graphic by far.

[mtlhddoc2]

  All religions do not teach equality of women in the afterlife, faith-based salvation (most of them require works of various kinds to achieve Nirvana, etc . . . ) or substitutionary sacrifice for sin.  Lumping all religions into a neat box that you can then reject out of hand is probably satisfying, but not very scholarly.  Not to mention dangerous if one of them turns out to be true!

Actually, no religion "teaches" equality. The bible specifically states that women are lesser beings than men in a variety of places. every major religion, outside of Hindi, is a derivative of ancient Judaism, since even the Muslims count the Torah and the New Testament as part of their religious texts. They do also share a trait with Mormons in the fact that they both believe there was a new prophet after Jesus. The main difference is that they believe that Jesus was a prophet, and that him being the "son of God" was an analogy towards his prophet status, much as Moses was called a "son of God" as well in some of the old testament, as well as Abraham and Noah. (have to start a new post, as this one is acting funky)

[mtlhddoc2]

As for the archaelogical stuff. That site is about as non-partisan as Nancy Pelosi. I read it, and had a good laugh. The article is filled with half-truths and misnomers. give me just ONE biblical site which is not widely believed to exist, (and a statement from someone who has said "that does not exist!" and have his statement widely accepted).

Seriously, the bible itself contains many references to THINGS noone has found, but not places. Everyone knows where Babylon is, where Canaan is etc. I have studied Roman and Greek history extensively and have yet to find a city in the bible which "does not exist".

Seriously. Haing religious discussion is all fine and such, but blatant grandstanding and attibuting "doubt" where it does not exist is ridiculous. I can even point out that most of the happenings in the bible did in fact happen. the difference between you and I in this respect is that I think the parts where the charachters speak to "god" are pure fantasy and you do not. Lets stick to things like that. Quantifiable fact is just that and cannot be challenged by either of us. Jerusalem existed, rome existed, Atlantis, as portrayed in legend, did not. We know these things and we do not challenge them. And I have not heard anyone challenge the existence of cities in my middling lifetime.

[sortitus]

Eh, more like we believe the waterfall spoke to us and offered a chance to avoid it, because someone labored for years building a bridge and eventually died finishing it, but was later resurrected. And with that, the metaphor officially fails haha

I was going with the meaning in which the waterfall represented guaranteed physical death and preparation because of inspiration determined whether you would go to hell or not. The problem is that everyone thinks differently. PLUS: Communication through text alone is hard! I'm fabulous at talking, but text is difficult for me. Such is life.

Now I have to know what you are!  You can't mention your religion and then not disclose it!

That's not true! *evil grin*

Two guesses: the Great Pumpkin or Chuck Norris.

I may be a minnow, but I ain't no plankton.

...not the silly names (meaning "of the sky", "of earth", and "of far away") or strict definitions of what they contain.

Oh, dang. I was thinking that it was graded by relative light levels. "Telestial" not being a word doesn't help either.

{post ending in}And there is rarely time for last-minute repentance.

The Bible was written a very long time ago, so of course the people who wrote it would know about current geography. Just because some archeologists have dug up twenty-something layers of Megiddo does not mean that your religion is correct. According to my religion, we couldn't debate like this if my religion was false. We can all take convenient little pieces of doctrine to try to convince others that we are right.

Maybe we say, "I'm on a boat!" If I'm on a boat at all, it's on the ocean. You can yell about the dangers of sailing too close to the edge of the world all you like. I'm not listening, as I've got GPS. ("Turn left at the next wave.")

Does what characterize my life?

So, my religion has become my idol. I'm like you, except that I don't rely on metaphors to comprehend what I believe. To make a strong metaphor, you have to choose each word carefully and mean every meaning of it.

You're annoying me, and annoyance very easily leads to anger. For me, it first leads to one-line ripostes. I said that I wasn't here to convert anyone or be converted by anyone. Respect comes before caring. Therefore if you do not respect me, you do not care for me. And don't fence a lefty unless you have practice. Anyway, I guess I was too subtle last post. Here I go more plainly: Do not try to convert me. Please. You're dong me a disservice to think that I haven't considered my options carefully. To dispute this is to insult me.

Since Ms. origami-san (or is it -sama?) hasn't read the book in question and relies on an Amazon review for her opinions, I think that's all I really need to know.  We all know how important it is to choose an Amazon review that agrees with our biases as a sign of good scholarship.

Ms Ms origami, huh? Or is it Ms Lady origami? Yes it is important to choose sources that agree with your views. How about this: I will promise to read this book and ponder it well if you promise to read the Book of Mormon with an open mind and pray earnestly about it. I bet that most people here would agree to that arrangement, on our individual honors. Please cut the crap about Mormonism, especially if all you're going to talk about is past leaders' mistakes. If you'd like to argue doctrinal issues, go right ahead.

Yes, Brigham Young did some things that we would question now. He was merely human, and keeping the Mormon religion together in the wake of Joseph Smith's death was hard enough. In fact, I'd say that most of the wrong decisions he made were because he was trying to preserve what he believed in. An admirable reason to do what he did, even if it included killing people. Isn't this what the standard tale of the young farmer turned hero is all about? Who's to say that the young boy was killing bandits, and not just well protected travelers? Brigham Young may have been misinformed as to the intentions of those passing through Mountain Meadows. He may or may not have ordered the party killed. Let's keep that issue between Brigham Young and his God.

Every major religion, outside of mainland Asia, is a derivative of ancient Judaism, since even the Muslims count the Torah and the New Testament as part of their religious texts.

IFYPFY.

[mtbikemom]

give me just ONE biblical site which is not widely believed to exist, (and a statement from someone who has said "that does not exist!" and have his statement widely accepted).

There are several sites and events that the Bible mentions which have been used (early 20th century) as examples of why the biblical record cannot be trusted.  They were later excavated and the critics just grumbled about something else.  Remind you of anyone?

I may choose to document these for you, but grow tired of your careless lack of referencing in your opinions.  I doubt you will read it, but Michael Behe in his excellent book Darwin's Black Box lists these.   My copy is currently on loan.  And partisan is not necessarily wrong.  Unless it is Nancy Pelosi.

[mtlhddoc2]

Several sites which mention cities you refuse to mention that are in the bible but people dont think they exist...   like Beruit, Damascus, Tripoli? Seriously. You offer vague references to what you perceive as slights from WEBSITES which you also dont mention. The more vagueness you offer, the less credibility you have.

I am not debating your faith, whatever it may be. That is not the point though. you directly insult people with different points of view and then trumpet as proof accomplishments which you wont mention. And seriously, you call yourself a Christian? Honesty is one of the basic tenets of the Bible. Thanks for playing, come again.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

mtbikemom, Jade Knight said he already read the book.

origamikaren (my wife) says the subtitle told her what she needed to know, i.e. that it was about the Mountain Meadows Massacre and what about Brigham Young you (mtbikemom) thought was objectionable. She quoted the review to show that there are legitimate questions about the author's scholarship, not only from the people in this forum.

Meanwhile did you even read the rest of her post?

[The Jade Knight]

I personally believe that any Mormon who counts Jesus death as payment for their sin and has repented in their heart is going to the same place as me.

Then you believe good Latter-day Saints will be going to your heaven, and good Latter-day Saints believe that you will be going to your heaven.  So what's the problem?

[The Jade Knight]

All religions do not teach equality of women in the afterlife, faith-based salvation (most of them require works of various kinds to achieve Nirvana, etc . . . )

You know, Christianity implies the requirement of Works (James is quite clear on this).  Of course, it's not the works that save, but the works are a necessary part of the faith.  Muslims believe as much.

[The Jade Knight]

...since even the Muslims count the Torah and the New Testament as part of their religious texts.

Well, no.  They count the Qur'an as holy scripture, and it parellels the Torah and New Testament in several places.  But they believe these are downright corrupted, and no good as scripture, and that the Qur'an is the only true scripture.

[The Jade Knight]

Now I have to know what you are!  You can't mention your religion and then not disclose it!

That's not true! *evil grin*

How evil!  Repent!

...not the silly names (meaning "of the sky", "of earth", and "of far away") or strict definitions of what they contain.

Oh, dang. I was thinking that it was graded by relative light levels. "Telestial" not being a word doesn't help either.

1.  They do make comparisons to celestial bodies when describing these, but it has nothing to do with the meanings of the words themselves.  2.  "Telestial" is obviously a word, even if it's not in common usage elsewhere.  But it's latinate roots are obvious: Celes + tial, Terres + tial, Teles + tial.

Please. You're dong me a disservice to think that I haven't considered my options carefully. To dispute this is to insult me.

There's some truth to this: if your goal is to convert intelligent people, you're implying they don't understand their own situation as well as you do.  This is a sort of an insult to their intelligence.

[mtbikemom]

mtbikemom, Jade Knight said he already read the book.

origamikaren (my wife) says the subtitle told her what she needed to know, i.e. that it was about the Mountain Meadows Massacre and what about Brigham Young you (mtbikemom) thought was objectionable. She quoted the review to show that there are legitimate questions about the author's scholarship, not only from the people in this forum.

Meanwhile did you even read the rest of her post?

Unless I missed something, Jade Knight did not say he read the book, he said that I don't know if he did or did not, which is true.  I am not yet omniscient, darn it all.  And, yes, to further exploit the contrast between our approach to literary content, I read every word of Mrs. Ookla's post.  Reaves did a nice job commenting on certain items in the body of her post, so I did not feel the need to add anything.  Plus, one of my kids is a bit sick and I'm having a hard time keeping up with all of you. 

I would so love to discuss some of the points that Mr. Bagley supports with primary sources from the LDS temple archives and personal interviews that had not been available to Mrs. Juanita Brooks.  His is the most impartial and well-researched account of the events that led up to and, most notably, the cover-up of the details of the massacre, as far as I can tell.  Refusing to read this book is akin to a Catholic refusing to believe that there have been problems with child molestation in the priesthood, despite all the evidence.  If I discovered that my church had lied in any point in their history, I would want to know and I would look elsewhere for spiritual authority if I decided it was true. 

That is much easier for me to say, having actually been in that situation and having once rebelled against my mostly-Catholic family partly because of things I saw in our local diocese years ago.  My family was not as religious, not as tightly-knit and not as likely to be really devastated with my declaration of anti-religious sentiment (I called myself an atheist then) as many of yours probably are.  It's the reason my current Mormon friends have so far taken the same tack as your lovely Karen.  They would rather be ignorant than be educated and risk rocking  the boat (there I go again with my word picture) with their Mormon relatives.  We are still friends and they even seem grateful that I care enough for them to challenge them, but they will not engage with me intellectually. 

I hesitate to foment any strife between married people, but if I had been stopped after reading certain Amazon reviews of Brandon's books, I would have  denied myself much that has been delightful and satisfying and I would never have found a place to waste my time as productively as this! 

[mtbikemom]

I personally believe that any Mormon who counts Jesus death as payment for their sin and has repented in their heart is going to the same place as me.

Then you believe good Latter-day Saints will be going to your heaven, and good Latter-day Saints believe that you will be going to your heaven.  So what's the problem?

The answer to this lies in things we will discuss apart from this forum, as you have requested.

[mtbikemom]

How about this: I will promise to read this book and ponder it well if you promise to read the Book of Mormon with an open mind and pray earnestly about it. I bet that most people here would agree to that arrangement, on our individual honors.

You're on!  I have already read about a quarter of it, but I will get a copy and read more of it accompanied by sincere prayer.  I only ask that you do the same and, if possible, don't comment until you have finished the whole thing.  If you are near Salt Lake City, you can even look up some of his documentation for yourself!  With my daughter's current series of illnesses, I am home-bound much more than expected this summer.  I covet your prayers.  Fortunately, there is some great singletrack just minutes from my house. 

[mtbikemom]

All religions do not teach equality of women in the afterlife, faith-based salvation (most of them require works of various kinds to achieve Nirvana, etc . . . )

You know, Christianity implies the requirement of Works (James is quite clear on this).  Of course, it's not the works that save, but the works are a necessary part of the faith.  Muslims believe as much.

James says that "faith without works is dead" but not that a redeemed life devoid of works necessarily separates one from the "true vine."  Sometimes good works are so hidden that only God knows of them, like the agoraphobic who prays constantly and quietly.  "Man sees the outward things, God sees the heart."  Please pardon my paraphrase.

The same non-denominational theological system that taught me OSAS, which doctrine i now reject, also taught that works are not necessary for salvation (a careful reading of the book of Romans brought Martin Luther to a similar conclusion) and I have not yet rejected that interpretation.  I could be wrong, though.  A true lack of good works, I believe, is a signal that true repentance has not occurred and that said pew-warmer may need to be evangelized, even though he is a member in good standing.  That is a tough thing to do, even more difficult than diving into this thread with all my humble opinions.

Although the man who buried his talents was "cast into the outer darkness (hell, I believe).  There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 25:30  This seems to support your view, that good works are necessary for salvation (did I misunderstand you?), at least for the best kind of salvation, but it could still also mean that this man was never saved and showed that by his lack of productivity.  Problem is, my way of thinking often leads to spiritual laziness, but I still believe that spiritual deadness does not keeps a person from all the fullness of heaven if they have truly repented.  They will just go with less treasure, which we are told we can build up while on the earth.

BTW, no one has answered my question about how exactly one gets to the higher levels of heaven that you have described.   I am not baiting you here, I truly do not know.  And are women given the same eternal inheritance, according to your Mormon scriptures, as men?  Co-inheritors?