General Religious discussion

[Comfortable Madness]

Belief and knowledge are to entirely different things now that doesn't mean that you are not right it just means that you have no undeniable proof...and saying his influence is is BS because that is subject to interpretation... and i am not agnostic because i do not accept the possibility of atheism as it lacks substance

You have one thing correct you are definately not agnostic. Agnostic's are those who believe that the very idea of God is too much for the human mind to comprehend. They believe that there quite possibly could be a God or an afterlife but they won't know for sure until they get there. They pretty much play Switzwerland in any religious debate. You on the other hand seem to be pretty angry at the whole idea of Christianity. This, I believe, comes from your bad experiences, with those close to you, where the Chrisitans you knew were intolerant zealots. Thats only your own personal experience. Grant it there is plenty of history of Christians doing very bad things in the name of Christ ie the Crusades. This however should not tarnish the religion in any way. It is not the religion that demanded that these things be done. Yes, it was those who were "high" up in the church that demanded them to be done but that is not nearly the same thing. They simply misinterpreted or mislead to push for something to be done in God's name. My point is that you shouldn't try to burn down a religion or call those whom believe in it crazy simply because there are those who have simply misrepresented what Christianity is.

[mtlhddoc2]

and i am not agnostic because i do not accept the possibility of atheism as it lacks substance

Agnosticism and atheism have nothing to do with each other. You do not have to accept the possibility of a lack of superior being to be an agnostic.  But an atheist holds fast to a belief that there is no higher power. Period. But most rational atheists belive that the possibility exists, but there is no definitive proof.

I certainly believe in the possibility, although i find it highly unlikely. I view time travel in the same manner.

[Frog]

I hesitate to endorse this link, since I have heard that Mormons are not supposed to read anything written by ex-Mormons, but what the heck . . . This proves that leaving Mormonism is not easy (not a born-again Christian website)  http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm

That really shouldn’t surprise you. Most of my church friends count their membership as one of the best things in their lives (as I do). Of course it would be hard to leave. Why would we want to?

It isn’t that we aren’t allowed to read anti-Mormon literature.  I have never heard anyone forbid it. In fact, many of us do for various reasons. But the thing is, if we already have a testimony of our doctrine, wouldn’t our time be better spent studying the things we have been given and trying to apply it to our lives? Why focus on the negative and the bitter when there is so much good things around? Do you read every piece of literature that is anti-Christian and anti-god?

But no one has yet denied to me that a single, childless  woman, according to the LDS church, cannot achieve the highest levels of heavenly joy and purpose.

Neither can a single, childless man.
 
You know, Sort, I am really starting to sympathize with you and your missionary woes. The more I see MBM advertise Blood of the Prophets as the one and only source of wisdom and knowledge in regards to our understanding of history and the merits of our former prophet, while disregarding any proof to the contrary, the more I want to obtain that book simply so I can have my own private bonfire.

MBM, all joking aside, I am not sure what all your intentions are in insulting most every member of this conversation by claiming higher intelligence, but I will attempt to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you are a good Christian woman who wishes only to enlighten and edify us with the religious truths you have found. But the fact is, no one is likely to be converted by seeing their own viewpoint constantly attacked. If I ever had doubts about my own religion and was interested in exploring another, I would not read all the literature written with the sole purpose of attacking the religion I was investigating. I would go to the primary sources and cannons of that religion to see if what it had to offer was better or rang truer than what I currently had. In fact, merely for curiosity sake, I have done this several times and I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask that others show us the same courtesy. Quite frankly, I was disappointed to see you claim yourself to be such an authority in Mormonism while you have not yet read its standard works, which I would see as some of the most important of the ’fruit ’ our religion has to offer.

In my own experience, discussing religion and sowing seeds of possible conversation works best when you show what you have and then invite others to find the truth of it for themselves, while embracing your common ground. It has to be them seeking their own individual answers directly from the Lord; not having ‘facts’ forced on them. Pseudo-intellectual discussions and mincing with details through obscure doctrine is only going to make you a lot of enemies. Most of the time you are going to have to agree to disagree.

Besides all that, here are my contributions to the discussion. They are well documented as far as I can tell, but they are from LDS scholars/sources so feel free to disregard them if that bothers you.

Matt 22:30/eternal families:
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/EternalMarriage.pdf
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
http://scriptures.lds.org/tg/f/28
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/m/41

Blood of the Prophets/Massacre:
http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=15&num=2&id=509
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mountain_Meadows_Massacre

There are dozens more, but I simply didn’t want to spend a lot of time here. I think have had enough dinner conversations about the event in question to last a lifetime. My sister married a Lee (yes, those Lees) and they all like to talk about it. Many of them have read such books (and, yes, they are still ‘good’ Mormons). As far as I can tell in my research, this particular one isn’t looked on highly even in the purely academic world as Mr Bagley seemed to have a set agenda and just doesn’t seem to have the credentials/life experience of a man I want to put my trust in.

But if you have some of your own standards that explains your positions without having the primary agenda of attacking my current beliefs (such as the Bible that I already read frequently), I would certainly be interested in that.

Kingdoms in Heaven/ judging based on works:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Three_degrees_of_glory_not_biblical
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76

…And several more D&C scriptures. The thing to keep in mind here is that we don’t see it as contradiction to expand doctrine as laid out in the Bible. If God were to touch on a doctrine in the Bible and expand it more fully and with more detail someplace else it is not a contradiction, it is a progression. Principles never change but depending on the time and people, details of application sometimes do. 

Christ’s Divinity:
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=c3c8e257075fb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=024644f8f206c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
http://scriptures.lds.org/tg/j/62

Others:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Deification_of_man
http://en.fairmormon.org/Polytheism

…and lots more at fairlds.org.

Sorry, but I feel that I have spent enough time on this for today, but rather than continuing to pull out bits and pieces of doctrine for speculation (an easy way to take things out of context and create misunderstandings IMO) I would again recommend that anyone interested get the complete story all at once by reviewing our standard works (Bible, BOM, D&C, Pearl of Great Price) as available at lds.org at no charge. Additional doctrinal and cultural explanations are also available at mormon.org and more intellectual type proofs at fairlds.org.

I would personally ask MBM, respectively, not to ask any more loaded questions on here until she gains a bit more knowledge from creditable sources. If you continue, you are only going to stir up more hurt feelings and rightly so. I love to answer honest questions, but no one likes to be judged so harshly and so unfairly. At the very least, PMing interested parties works a little better.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I'm going to echo Frog here, mtbikemom, though not in the same terms.

When you, mtbikemom, say pretty much anything about what Mormons believe, you're simply wrong. You have learned about LDS doctrine from all the wrong sources. We've provided answers to your "questions" time and time again, but you are not interested in the answers—you ignore them completely and declare something else about what Mormons believe that is equally wrong.

You are trying to convince the LDS here that they are wrong. Stop. It's not working, and it's only causing contention.

Most everyone else in the thread is not taking your tack, mtbikemom. Reaves, for example, when he asks a question it's because he wants to know the answer, and he doesn't ignore the answer when it is given. He's not planning to change religions or anything like that, but his questions are genuine. mtbikemom, your questions are not genuine, and because they are not genuine there is no point trying to answer them as you have proven time and time again. Your stated purpose is to rescue people who are going to fall over a waterfall because they are in the LDS church. That is not acceptable as a purpose in this forum. This forum is not a place for evangelizing, no matter what religion you belong to and no matter what religion the people you want to evangelize to belong to.

If you actually want to know what Mormons believe—and I do not believe you do, mtbikemom, since everything you've said here has shown that you do not want to know—you should listen instead of preaching and trying to convince them they are wrong.

[Patriotic Kaz]

I have no anger toward the Christan faith just the cults that spawn from it and every other religion... i in some ways envy those with faith but the very concept i for some reason or another can no longer accept i need to know belief was enough for most of my life...but now it isn't... and this will probably surprise you i intend to bring my children up as Christians and i will not teach them the old testament...i don't believe an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth (unless you talk about criminal law and then i do because the crime rate drops)... i will teach them the 4 gospels because hope is a powerful thing and it is something all people need (mine is for the individual and if i have any faith it is in the individual also and yes they let you down more times than not) and mercy is perhaps the salvation of man if only we could understand that and get over ourselves..myself included

[The Jade Knight]

I have no anger toward the Christan faith just the cults that spawn from it and every other religion... i in some ways envy those with faith but the very concept i for some reason or another can no longer accept i need to know belief was enough for most of my life...but now it isn't... and this will probably surprise you i intend to bring my children up as Christians and i will not teach them the old testament...i don't believe an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth (unless you talk about criminal law and then i do because the crime rate drops)... i will teach them the 4 gospels because hope is a powerful thing and it is something all people need (mine is for the individual and if i have any faith it is in the individual also and yes they let you down more times than not) and mercy is perhaps the salvation of man if only we could understand that and get over ourselves..myself included

This was actually the very thing that caused me to "test out" Christianity, and what led me to faith (which I did not know was faith, because it was based on logic and reason), and, eventually knowledge.

You may one day find yourself in the know, Kaz, if you're not careful.

[Epistemological]

I have no anger toward the Christan faith just the cults that spawn from it and every other religion... i in some ways envy those with faith but the very concept i for some reason or another can no longer accept i need to know belief was enough for most of my life...but now it isn't... and this will probably surprise you i intend to bring my children up as Christians and i will not teach them the old testament...i don't believe an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth (unless you talk about criminal law and then i do because the crime rate drops)... i will teach them the 4 gospels because hope is a powerful thing and it is something all people need (mine is for the individual and if i have any faith it is in the individual also and yes they let you down more times than not) and mercy is perhaps the salvation of man if only we could understand that and get over ourselves..myself included

This was actually the very thing that caused me to "test out" Christianity, and what led me to faith (which I did not know was faith, because it was based on logic and reason), and, eventually knowledge.

You may one day find yourself in the know, Kaz, if you're not careful.

Ditto.

[Renoard]

In Deuteronomy we have the foundational statement that all of what has been called the "Yawistic" faiths derive:
שׁמה ישׂראל יהוה אלוהינוּ יהוה אחד
Sh'ma Yiroel! YHVH is your "god".  YHVH is one.

This discussion has resolved into a lot of dogmas (not doctrines as that word has been misused) being asserted as insurmountable facts.  It's good and appropriate to believe your own dogmatic theology, as long as you are intellectually honest enough to realize that they are dogma and not scripture.

The Hebrew in Genesis (brshiit 1:1 Brshiit barah Elohim et Hashmayin v'et Ha'aretz) and in Deuteronomy is subtle but essentially it says didactically that the God of the old testament is the creator of our universe, The God of the Jews, and the supreme being above whom there is no other.  It's subtle and spread out, but it is not equivocal or a weak implication.  Further, it is so thoroughly spread throughout the Torah and frankly the Tanakh at large that there is absolutely no chance that it was inserted later or the product of alteration.  Redaction would have long since pointed that out.  Further, the Qumran scrolls have done nothing but support the textus receptus as being accurate.  And, as I've pointed out elsewhere, It is ludicrous to assert that God is big enough to create; concerned enough to communicate; and simple minded, ineffectual or indifferent enough to fail to protect that communication.

If you claim to accept the Tanakh, the "old" testament as scripture then you have to accept this fundamental, because it is didactic text not "doctrine".  If you can't even get to that point of agreement then this thread will continue to be a venue for drawing out people who dissent against the majority view, then hack at them for stirring up trouble, when they start making valid points that hurt.

[mtbikemom]

Grant it there is plenty of history of Christians doing very bad things in the name of Christ ie the Crusades. This however should not tarnish the religion in any way. It is not the religion that demanded that these things be done. Yes, it was those who were "high" up in the church that demanded them to be done but that is not nearly the same thing. They simply misinterpreted or mislead to push for something to be done in God's name. My point is that you shouldn't try to burn down a religion or call those whom believe in it crazy simply because there are those who have simply misrepresented what Christianity is.

(replying to Kaz)

Amen to that, CM!  Well said.

  I always go back to 1 Cor. 1:26-29 which I paraphrase to say, essentially: Why haven't you called the noble ones, the easy-to-get-along-with, the wise to be your ambassadors?  Answer: "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty . . . that no flesh should glory in his presence."  This helps me deal with some really difficult people that I have had the privilege to fellowship with/butt heads with over the years.

   It breaks my heart to see people like Kaz who have been badly treated by religious folk, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, no matter how much of a scar that scalding water left.  The truth is still the truth and will still set one free.  Kaz does not strike me as someone who has found peace.  I speak as someone who has . . . because of the person and provision of Christ alone.  I do not need a church for this, but a good one helps keep me on target.  Problem with going to church: it is full of flawed human beings who say the wrong things and are downright awful sometimes.  Not me, of course.    

[mtbikemom]

I'm going to echo Frog here, mtbikemom, though not in the same terms.

When you, mtbikemom, say pretty much anything about what Mormons believe, you're simply wrong. You have learned about LDS doctrine from all the wrong sources. We've provided answers to your "questions" time and time again, but you are not interested in the answers—you ignore them completely and declare something else about what Mormons believe that is equally wrong.

Ookla and Frog and others, you have apparently missed much of what I have posted.  I ignore them completely?  Far from it!  I accuse all Mormons of ignorance?  No, just certain ones who post opinions about things they will not read.  Please re-read carefully before accusing me further.  This is getting tedious.

  I apologized and explained from where I got my info---that women are expected to stay married and pregnant in the afterlife while men rule and reign over their celestial kingdoms (her exact words).  She got this from her mother and grandmother who stressed the importance of marriage in a temple and how that would be the only way for her to be truly happy for eternity.  I already said that I stand corrected about the "eternal pregnancy" thing, though apparently it is true that the LDS church teaches a lower heavenly place for any unmarried and/or childless person.  What?

    Others have already adequately pointed out the flaw in that interpretation from a purely biblical standpoint, which you all claim is in perfect harmony with Mormon scripture.  BTW, when I say "deity" I mean what it should imply, equality with God the Father.  No beginning and no end.  I still ask: how can a being who is not fully God, who is a lesser being than the Alpha and Omega, be able to forgive sins since the Bible clearly states that only God can take away my sin?  (Mark 2:7)  One answer I got either misunderstands Mormon belief about Jesus or re-interprets "deity" as it applies to the creator of the universe.  I'm not telling you that you are all wrong and I am right, I am just asking someone to explain this contradiction without attacking me without cause.  You do not know me as a person here, you are just seeing the exercise of my gift and it is proving to be "a rock of offense and a stumbling stone."   Hmmmm . . . where have I heard that before?

   I do not consider myself a religious person, but one of my spiritual gifts is evangelism and I am simply exercising my rights of freedom of speech in order to plant some seeds of truth here as I discern them.  I may ask a ridiculous question or two, but if you re-read some of my posts with a calm and open heart, you may start to see that I am being as inquisitive as I am correcting certain erroneous statements. If  I have caused consternation, I rejoice.  How else can I get your attention and help you avoid the plunge over the waterfall?

   JUST READ THE BOOK!  Or refrain from attacking it based on what others have said who do not want you to see what's inside.  Better yet, read the Gospel of John/Matthew/Book of Romans with an open heart to what it really says.  The New Testament reveals the intent of the Old without changing anything.  The new covenant fulfills the old, but does not re-interpret. 

I will say this one more time:  I am about to launch into a study of Mormon teaching from the source, which I have said several times already.  I asked early-on if maybe some of you Mormons, being young and eager readers, could read this one book (and I have already explained why I recommend this over hundreds of others from both sides) and only Sortitus said he would do so.  I don't believe he is a Mormon, but I could be wrong about that.  I asked Jade Knight if he thought that Mormons who love Brandon and post to this site were intellectually curious and open (paraphrase) and he assured me that they were.  Prove it . . . I'm still waiting.

[mtbikemom]

I hesitate to endorse this link, since I have heard that Mormons are not supposed to read anything written by ex-Mormons, but what the heck . . . This proves that leaving Mormonism is not easy (not a born-again Christian website)  http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm

That really shouldn’t surprise you. Most of my church friends count their membership as one of the best things in their lives (as I do). Of course it would be hard to leave. Why would we want to?

It isn’t that we aren’t allowed to read anti-Mormon literature.  I have never heard anyone forbid it. In fact, many of us do for various reasons. But the thing is, if we already have a testimony of our doctrine, wouldn’t our time be better spent studying the things we have been given and trying to apply it to our lives? Why focus on the negative and the bitter when there is so much good things around? Do you read every piece of literature that is anti-Christian and anti-god?

   I have not asked anyone to read anything anti-God.  Most of the people who wrote testimonials love God and have found peace.  I have asked you t read a historical work based on factual research, Michael Behe's excellent book Darwin's Black Box which has a section on how modern archaeology has quieted many critics as to the historical accuracy of the Bible (I think Mormons would really like this book) and the Bible itself. 

   No balanced person would seek to read everything negative about their own church hierarchy, but I have read and listened to certain things that did not agree with what I had been taught, which I have already posted about (go back and read if you care to).  These things either bolstered my faith by comparison or caused my husband and I to question the leadership over us and make a change.  We changed churches, but not our beliefs on basic truths. 

You obviously did not read any of the testimonies by your statements above, but you have formed an opinion!  There are endless stories here http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm of internet and familial harassment when one leaves the church and other stories about their lives within Mormonism.  I have already read much of what you suggested on the net.  I will read more.  Will you?

[Epistemological]

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.

This post is interesting to me for two reasons:

1) As someone else noted, you state that people go to heaven with more or less treasure based on their earthly conduct. This is a common Evangelical idea and makes me wonder why it is you have such problems with 'degrees of glory' in principle. It seems merely an elaboration on what you believe yourself.

2) I addressed this post a little ways back and I am curious what you think of my treatment of the relationship between faith and works.

[Frog]

You obviously did not read any of the testimonies by your statements above, but you have formed an opinion!  There are endless stories here http://www.exmormon.org/stories.htm of internet and familial harassment when one leaves the church and other stories about their lives within Mormonism.  I have already read much of what you suggested on the net.  I will read more.  Will you?

I had read quite a few of them. But to be honest, I found it depressing so I stopped. They were full of (like I said) angry, bitter people who were usually twisting some doctrine or another to the point where I hardly recognized it to justify their removal from the church and paint themselves as victims. And then, being surrounded by others Mormons made them feel guilty enough to paint them as despicable people I cannot recognize in my own interactions with members. Some of them still claimed Christianity, but just as many of them went to atheism, so apparently it doesn't matter which God/religion they chose to be on that site as long as it is not LDS. At least that is the impressions I got without knowing the people or full situations, just the stories they told.

Like I said, if these and other like people are the ones that you are getting your information, than they are NOT credible sources.

Now are you going to argue and tell me I did something wrong, just because I read something and got an different impression than you? Is that how this is all will continue to work? If I were to read something and not get your same insight, than I am closed minded and/or stupid? Again and again until we are both sick of each other (a point I am already reaching)?
 
I have read several books of various viewpoints and will continue to do so. I believe I am intellectual and openminded enough to satisfy me. I am not asking you to agree with me or anything that I posted. All I am asking that you stop the cycle. This spirit of hard debate and one-uping each other does not lead people to truth and it really isn't what any of the gospels are for. I am sorry that I contributed to it at all, even if I felt in the beginning that I had a good reason to do so.

Have a wonderful life!

[Renoard]

Another point that is kind of hard to get around is the following verse:
 "And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea there is a true and living God. Now, Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? And he answered, No." Alma 11:26-30

Kind of hard to have a doctrine that teaches multiple Gods and a sacred text that denies that. . .

Actually forget this post.  It's just not worth beating a dead horse.

[Frog]

Thank you so much, Renoard, for rethinking your post. I am sorry that I may have been a bit harsh to you or to MBM in my comments and hope to follow your example of restraint in the future. I really don't see so many differences between mainstream Christian and my own beliefs to the point where we still can't have a pleasant conversation. I have to admit, that after writing my last post, I read this article from one of our apostles that made me a bit ashamed of myself:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=8007a0ad4843d110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Aw well, live and learn. I'll take a break for now and see if I do a bit better next time around.