Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Miyabi on April 13, 2009, 06:39:13 PM
-
Just because we keep dropping in and out of this discussion I made a topic for us to move to when we hit that point.
-
A necessary evil fro mankind... only because we can not find hope with in ourselves so we look for it as an outside force in other words we know we are ****** so we look for good news!!! Personally i find my own bs as hope!!!
-
I find it just as hard to disbelieve as I find it to believe.
Therefore I choose to not believe or disbelieve in the absolutes. I believe in possibility instead. That way, when something miraculous does happen I attribute it to where it belongs and try to keep my vision from being clouded by over zealousness or by determination to not believe.
-
I find it just as hard to disbelieve as I find it to believe.
Therefore I choose to not believe or disbelieve in the absolutes. I believe in possibility instead. That way, when something miraculous does happen I attribute it to where it belongs and try to keep my vision from being clouded by over zealousness or by determination to not believe.
Agnostic, i take it?
-
Ohh don't get me wrong i believe in a supreme deity i just think that what man worships is himself or the ideal of himself... if that makes any sense... i just think we have got it wrong so far and that we may never know the real answer(s)...
-
I find it just as hard to disbelieve as I find it to believe.
Therefore I choose to not believe or disbelieve in the absolutes. I believe in possibility instead. That way, when something miraculous does happen I attribute it to where it belongs and try to keep my vision from being clouded by over zealousness or by determination to not believe.
Agnostic, i take it?
More like curio-gnostic. (Yay for making up words). I want to learn. I want to know the truth. I just don't think anyone truly knows. If I can see the truth and that truth can fully push away all doubt, I will accept it. I want to know about things and the way they work. I want to see what isn't seen. Where agnostics just don't care to know necessarily, I truly do want to know.
I understand Kaz. Basically similar to what I think you just worded it differently and it confused me to thinking you were completely close minded.
-
I want to learn. I want to know the truth. I just don't think anyone truly knows. If I can see the truth and that truth can fully push away all doubt, I will accept it. I want to know about things and the way they work. I want to see what isn't seen.
That's an interesting way to look at things. I hope you don't hold science to that same standard, as it's essentially based on the idea that we must doubt all truths.
In my experience, simply knowing the truth is not enough to fully push away all doubt. Only faith can do that. I believe that we can receive direct confirmation of truth from God through sincere prayer and the exercise of faith, and that only this confirmation is strong enough to enable a person to say that they know the truth beyond all doubt.
-
Gnosto-curious?
Do yourself a favor avoid gnosticism, its a dead end. In time when you get tired of experimentation, if you are serious about exploring a Christian faith that has some teeth to it send me a pm.
I know you were assuming certain things about my own background because there are a number of LDS members on this forum. For the record, Mormons aren't the only faith represented here.
That's as much as I'll say on that subject. :P
*** WoT spoiler follows ***
*****************************************
Something that does seem to fit this thread is the parallels to real world faith's found in WoT. Frankly I found that Rigney used elements from various faiths and yet it's interesting that the faith in the Dark One that the dark-friends embrace has elements that he borrowed from "Christian" traditions. While his faith in the creator mingled bits of Buddhism, Christianity and WICCA.
I find this odd given his own background. It also struck me as odd that everyone you encounter believes in the Creator and the Dark One. But there is no organized religion. Even the Whitecloaks have a philosophy and an ethical guide but no identifiable religious practice or worship. Masema, confuses me most of all. How can you have a prophet with no ritual? It was the one piece of WoT that failed to hang together for me.
-
Oh I hardly believe in science either. I mean. I believe that we have PART of it figured out, but there has to be something we aren't seeing. No matter how long you study something, you can't know everything there is to know about it.
For instance. You look at a page from a book. Think of all you can learn from just that!
The words:
Who wrote them.
That persons history and all the events that caused him/her to think in the way the did to write what they did. (Learning just that could take way more than anyone would be willing to put effort for)
The ink they were written in. Where it was made. How it was made. Where all of the materials came from. How those materials got there.
The paper:
The way it was manufactured.
The tree it came from.
Where that tree was harvested and how it came to grow in that place.
The page:
How it was bound.
Where it was published.
How many former drafts it had.
How the book before and after affects it.
I just scratch the surface and there is already more than a dozen lifetimes worth of knowledge to look for for simply one page in a book.
@Renoard - I don't necessarily want a Christian 'faith' or any faith for that matter. I want a truth. Knowledge and truth are the things that are how I view religion and science and the reality of the world.
-
For the record I want to second what Ry said in his last post.
@miyabi I know. But if that changes I'm here.
-
Thanks. That is oddly comforting. "]
-
I was raised as a christian bought into for the majority of my life was baptised ect. ect. i know the arguments on that side far to well, better than the arguments against it, and despite all the prayer and other BS that i followed excessively (i know the bible better than most practising Christian's and i haven't touched it in 3 years which is sad on their part) i never reached a point beyond doubt i never had some divine revelation... how can what people profess be true if that was my experience it is only wishful thinking and ignorance that removes doubt and doubt is perhaps the greatest achievement of man...
-
Kaz, this is meant to be a discussion topic not a flaming thread. If you want to flame, please go elsewhere.
-
For the record, Renoard, I don't think anybody actually mentioned Gnosticism, as in the Nag Hammadi library and its books, or gnostic religion (sometimes referred to as "gnosticism")--esoteric religious practices--or stereotypical Gnosticism, the dualistic, misinterpreted "new" Gnosticism of the 20th Century as old and lost bible books were put together. The term "curio-gnostic" was a play on "agnostic," completely different from what is actually called g(G)nosticism.
And, besides, I don't think that Gnosticism is inherently a dead end. A lot of people find Gnosticism and decide the teachings of those books really hold a lot of truth in their eyes or that the Nag Hammadi library is a good compliment to those books which were not destroyed by the orthodox rulers of Christianity, who took what served their purposes and destroyed or removed what didn't.
-
Gnosticism means knowing. There is a section of Christianity that are Gnostics who want to know everything about the religion.
I simply want to be Gnostic. I want to know things. But I don't know many things so I can't be Gnostic. Therefore I tried curio-gnostic as a term to convey that point.
-
There is a specific religious movement referred to as Gnosticism which is an esoteric branching of Christianity and biblical books which were lost from the New Testament. The word "gnosis" refers to hidden knowledge and is rooted in words like "agnostic" or "diagnose", but when you use the word "Gnosticism," especially when using it capitalized, you are (whether you know it or not) referring to a specific religious practice. Look up the word "Gnosticism" or "Gnostic" at Merriam-Webster (m-w.com) or Dictionary.com if you don't believe me.
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
When you say you want to be Gnostic, you should not capitalize it. In not capitalizing it, you are inferring that you have the desire to learn hidden and esoteric knowledge but not that you want to become part of the specific movement of Gnosticism, which has seen somewhat of a resurgence amongst secret societies and esoteric religious traditions since its rediscovery. Generally, gnostic (little g) is used to describe trends in religion which are based around mysticism, such as alchemy, astrology, secret messiahs, etc. or magic which is handed down from teacher to disciple. You know, things which share qualities with Gnosticism (big G) but don't specifically follow the course of the religion itself.
But, yeah, curio-gnostic was fine (I read it as a play on words of agnostic--not taking a stance, but curious); I was actually meaning to comment on Renoard's statement, which I believe was referring to Gnosticism in the correct sense of the word, which you obviously were not referencing.
-
My bad. I always tend to capitalize words I find important . . . even if it's a silly word. It's a bad habit I have I guess.
-
Oh I hardly believe in science either. I mean. I believe that we have PART of it figured out, but there has to be something we aren't seeing. No matter how long you study something, you can't know everything there is to know about it.
See, I think that's missing the point. If we already knew everything there was to know, there would be no point to further scientific inquiry. However, we've found many things that work and are worth knowing, using, and yes, even believing, despite the imperfection inherent in any work of men.
I don't necessarily want a Christian 'faith' or any faith for that matter. I want a truth. Knowledge and truth are the things that are how I view religion and science and the reality of the world.
That's fine, but you also seem to be butting up against what I like to call Pilate's Dilemma: What is truth? Your truth and your knowledge are only as good as their source, and in my experience the only source of absolute truth available to man is God. Also, the god that I know works through faith to confirm the truth of things. If you want truth without doubt but reject the necessary role of faith, I fear you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
-
@ Gorgon, this thread was a continuation of a convo that started elsewhere. The Nag Hamadi texts cam up there and do color the context.
Essentially A-gnostic and Gnostic are converse terms... Like A-theist and Theist. :P
So you can't be both an agnostic and a gnostic. That's why I was picking at the idea that curio-gnostic derived from agnostic in your discussion with Kaz. :)
-
since we're talking about religion, i would just like to mention that the *ONLY* problem i have with religion (as a whole) is hardcore religious zealotry. I'm talking about people who condemn others for not being their faith, and won't listen to any arguments against their faith, always alluding to the fact that they're right simply just because, etc. It's one thing to be stead-fast in your religion, it's another when you feel that people shouldn't be allowed to be anything other than your religion, and attempt to push this off onto them and generally allow hate to fester against them.
And now, on a tangent, I, personally, think religion should be viewed more as a guide book for how to live your life, than a hard set of codes and laws, and things that actually happened in the past. Everyone is, naturally, allowed to believe and disbelieve anything they desire, and i, personally, see no way that any bible, holy document, etc. of any religion can possibly be a verbatim list of happenings, because of the length of time between the happenings to today, and that there surely has been some form of exaggeration and/or "filling in the blanks" along the way. Sort of like an aeon-spanning game of telephone. Surely things have gotten fantasiced and/or lost in translation somewhere. This, however, does NOT mean they should be discredited. In a similar manner to aesop's fables, most of the fables/stories/legends/myths/truths/happenings/whatever you want to call them/etc. have some form of deeper meaning and example to set as to how one should live and conduct oneself in piety.
-
And now, on a tangent, I, personally, think religion should be viewed more as a guide book for how to live your life, than a hard set of codes and laws, and things that actually happened in the past. Everyone is, naturally, allowed to believe and disbelieve anything they desire, and i, personally, see no way that any bible, holy document, etc. of any religion can possibly be a verbatim list of happenings, because of the length of time between the happenings to today, and that there surely has been some form of exaggeration and/or "filling in the blanks" along the way. Sort of like an aeon-spanning game of telephone. Surely things have gotten fantasiced and/or lost in translation somewhere. This, however, does NOT mean they should be discredited. In a similar manner to aesop's fables, most of the fables/stories/legends/myths/truths/happenings/whatever you want to call them/etc. have some form of deeper meaning and example to set as to how one should live and conduct oneself in piety.
Bear in mind that this is your statement of faith. Conversely you can't say definitively that the records in the Bible are not factual as far as they go. Even the assumption that they are mythopoeaic or fabulous is a choice of belief rather than evidence. Just a thought.
corrallary to Howard: Cities make men less tolerable and more monstrous.
-
And now, on a tangent, I, personally, think religion should be viewed more as a guide book for how to live your life, than a hard set of codes and laws, and things that actually happened in the past. Everyone is, naturally, allowed to believe and disbelieve anything they desire, and i, personally, see no way that any bible, holy document, etc. of any religion can possibly be a verbatim list of happenings, because of the length of time between the happenings to today, and that there surely has been some form of exaggeration and/or "filling in the blanks" along the way. Sort of like an aeon-spanning game of telephone. Surely things have gotten fantasiced and/or lost in translation somewhere. This, however, does NOT mean they should be discredited. In a similar manner to aesop's fables, most of the fables/stories/legends/myths/truths/happenings/whatever you want to call them/etc. have some form of deeper meaning and example to set as to how one should live and conduct oneself in piety.
Bear in mind that this is your statement of faith. Conversely you can't say definitively that the records in the Bible are not factual as far as they go. Even the assumption that they are mythopoeaic or fabulous is a choice of belief rather than evidence. Just a thought.
corrallary to Howard: Cities make men less tolerable and more monstrous.
yup, that is my personal opinion, that's why I said it was off on a tangent, and what i personally believe.
And naturally I can't prove they aren't factual (if I somehow could, i would be pretty darn famous at the moment :P ), I just can't fathom them being purely 100% given the amount of persecutions, burnings, time, etc. that have elapsed since their original creation.
And naturally, this has no bearing on anyone else's beliefs, as if someone would be swayed by such a simple argument, chances are they were all ready believing in that ballpark anyways :P (i.e. i'm not trying to tell everyone this is how it is, just that this is what *I* believe)
-
Eerongal - And that principle is one of the reasons people argue over whether or not Buddhism is a religion. It is set and taught as a guideline to be interpreted by the practitioner.
-
since we're talking about religion, i would just like to mention that the *ONLY* problem i have with religion (as a whole) is hardcore religious zealotry. I'm talking about people who condemn others for not being their faith, and won't listen to any arguments against their faith, always alluding to the fact that they're right simply just because, etc. It's one thing to be stead-fast in your religion, it's another when you feel that people shouldn't be allowed to be anything other than your religion, and attempt to push this off onto them and generally allow hate to fester against them.
Some Atheists are equally as zealous in their Atheism. For one obvious example, look at the Khmer Rouge: If you persisted in believing in God, they killed you. Or for a milder example, listen to Richard Dawkin's diatribes against religion.
Miyabi: You are what would be classified as a "Strong Agnostic". I was one of these, once. I consider it an intellectually superior position to Atheism, personally.
-
I recently wrote this short thought:
"'No amount of failure in the attempt to subject the world of sensible experience to a thorough-going system of conceptions, and to bring all happenings back to cases of immutably valid law, is able to shake our faith in the rightness of our principles. We hold fast to our demand that even the greatest apparent confusion must sooner or later solve itself in transparent formulas. We begin the work ever afresh; and, refusing to believe that nature will permanently withhold the reward of our exertions, think rather that we have hitherto only failed to push them in the right direction. And all this pertinacity flows from a conviction that we have no right to renounce the fulfilment of our task. What, in short[,] sustains the courage of investigators is the force of obligation of an ethical idea.' (Sigwart: Logik, bd. ii., p. 23.)
This is a true account of the spirit of science. Does it essentially differ from the spirit of religion? And is any one entitled to say in advance, that, while the one form of faith shall be crowned with success, the other is certainly doomed to fail?"
—William James, "Reflex Action and Theism" (quoting Christoph von Sigwart, Logik.)
Sigwart, a Logician, is here pointing out the faith felt that the universe can be ordered (and expressed in "transparent formulas"). As Sigwart points out, this faith perserveres despite any amount of failure, and the ethical obligation that drives it is more powerful than any evidence to the contrary. James then points out that this is not so different from the faith faith expressed by the religious. Indeed, a believer in Scientific Progress is not so different than a believer in Religion: both cling to the faith that reality is such-and-such a way, and that the Truth of this can be known by man (to some degree, at least). Can not one, then, have faith in both? Must this be so irrational or irreligious?
For those that don't know, James was a Biological Psychologist, Physiologist, and Philosopher at Harvard. He is famous for his contributions to Psychology and Philosophy.
-
Zealots can be crazy. I once counter protested a group from Topeka, Kansas(I think that's where they are from.) Here (http://www.godhatesfags.com) and here (http://www.gothatesamerca.com) are just two of their sites.
-
Yes YOU CAN say AND CORRECTLY that the bible is not an 100% accurate account of the events depicted i was raised as a literalist (believing that everything in the bible is fact UNLESS its in red print meaning Jesus is speaking) if nothing had been elaborated then how do you explain Goliaths height in the Dead Sea scrolls in which the conversion of spans equates to 6ft tall and the modern bible that equates his height to be 9ft tall!!!
I went through a period of time believing the bible was more of a parable and a guideline of how to live, and while i agree with the vast majority of christian morals i no longer believe Jesus to be god or for that matter Yahweh. I choose to look at Jesus in a light similar to Thomas Jefferson in the Jefferson Bible in which all miraculous works are removed and he is more or less an ancient Gandhi.
-
How about Zealots who bycicle in dress slacks and wear name tags. . .
Naw I'm just kidding. Look, inflammatory signs like the ones that group uses are counter-productive because they give zealotry a bad name. The Rush Limbaugh approach, never works in favor of the position being asserted.
But I'm proud to be a zealot. Without zeal and true-belief hence (hence true believer) nothing has value. I'd like to see a football stadium full of fans that are as un-zealous as the media and toxic psychobabble would have us believe religion should espouse. Hear the crickets? Passionless (dispassionate) anything is valueless. If I'm not allowed to worship with the same zeal I'm told to root for a sport team then my right to the free exercise of religion is ended and the constitution has been abrogated to the point of no importance. And no one has any freedom.
-
Personally i don't see the difference between a bible-beater and a member of a Jihad... you may not be causing death but you are definitely intruding on the first amendment by doing so...
This statement makes me a hypocrite..but hell I'm a reformed bible-beater for that i thank my current family unit consiting of my step-mother and my biological father...
-
Zealots can be crazy. I once counter protested a group from Topeka, Kansas(I think that's where they are from.) Here (http://www.godhatesfags.com) and here (http://www.gothatesamerca.com) are just two of their sites.
Yes, Fred Phelps is a nut, and most of us who live in Topeka are ashamed that he does too. His protests aren't very logical, either. I once saw his people protesting outside of a large church (Topeka Bible Church) that is morally conservative - for example, that very Sunday, among the announcements made in the church service was for a talk they were hosting later that week by a recovered homosexual from Exodus International. So I confronted one of the Westboro Baptist protesters about the fact that the church they were protesting essentially agrees with them that homosexual practice is a sin, though they certainly disagree about the proper Christian response to the issue. The lady's response was, "Well, are there any divorced people in the church? The Bible says that's wrong too." I might have found this a valid point if the question of divorce had been the one dominating their posterboards. It was this incident that persuaded me that Fred Phelps does not choose his protest targets with regard to the issues, but with the goal of maximum publicity and exposure. Their hatred is universal, unlimited, and indiscriminate - just as they believe God's is.
-
You can say the bible is not 100% accurate as far as it's limited scope goes. But you'd have no credibility if you did. The Qumran texts support rather than dispute the texts we've used in the interim. As for how tall Goliath was, I'm surprised you're willing to take his existence on faith. No record claims Goliath was 6 feet. The measures are in cubits and there were a minimum of 6 different cubits in use at the time the scripture was written. The Goliath was probably around 7 feet tall (think Kareem Jabbar or Vladi Divacz), at a time when the average commoner was about 5'4". Royal families in most middle eastern tribes averaged closer to 6'. So we had a royal cubit which was nearly 24" and a common cubit that was about 15". The wise merchant bought on the Royal cubit and sold on the common cubit. :)
This introduces the confusion about Goliath's height. Were the writers citing the Akkadi cubit or the Egyptian cubit, or Assyrian cubit. The other question is whether it was the royal or common cubit. All six were of differing lengths. What's important is that a shrimpy little tween about 4'5" was not intimidated and faced off against an armed and armored professional soldier over 7" in height and won.
If you really want to be a skeptic with genuine critical reason, you need to study Biblical Hebrew and Hellenistic Greek well enough to work your way through the original text (with liberal use of a dictionary). It will enhance your credibility. And you might at least appreciate the poetry of Breshiit/Genesis.
-
Oooh, I would have loved to bicycle during my nametag days. Alas, in Nicaragua it's deemed too dangerous (bad roads + crazy drivers + your bike would get stolen), so I walked everywhere for two years. I came home in the best shape of my life.
As you may be aware, Mormons do not regard the Bible as wholly correct in every point, speaking not of its historical but its doctrinal content. I've met many Evangelical Christians who think the Bible is a perfect book left fully formed on the earth by God. The reality is far messier, and considering the book's long and storied history, it's literally a miracle that so much truth survived the tarnishing of the ages.
In fairness, I've also met many Mormons who think the Book of Mormon is a perfect book left fully formed on the earth by God. The reality there is that it was not written by God but by men inspired by God, men who lamented their own imperfection in that text. This is the rub of mortal religion: we worship a perfect God in an imperfect manner because we are ourselves imperfect, and we trust in the grace of that same God to make up the difference.
-
Why does this discussion always lead to man being flawed... as i am Mr. Perfect i am starting my own new and improved race miyabi and you other curious-gnostic what-nots are free to join...first order of business what do we want to name our new race??? ;D
-
Show me a good man and I'll show you the door
the last hymn is sung and the Devil cries, "More!"
Bonus points if you know what that's from.
-
first order of business what do we want to name our new race??? ;D
The Awesome-McCool race.
-
For the record not evangelical and not really wanting to stir the whose is bigger debate. :P
I implied accuracy only as far as the Bible goes. My point is that while the Bible contains the conjecture and opinion of some of the authors, those are framed in such a way as to point this out. I've met a lot of Evangelical Scholars and never once heard one of them claim that the Bible was deposited fully formed. It is the position of every Christian denomination I've encountered, barring some tiny splinter sects with all the markings of a cult, that the Bible was inspired as to content and intent but the verbiage is the work of the individual writers. In a sense, at least 50 or 60 writers acting as ghost writers for God is the accepted model. So on issues of doctrine and practice the 66 books of the canon are considered to be infallible, while, for instance, Paul's personal convictions on certain issues are considered good advice to be taken under consideration.
This allows for debate on issues of doctrine, dogma and practice. But debate is good. It's healthy. However to claim to believe that a perfect being, capable of creating an entire plenum of universes, is so incompetent that he would not be able to protect his inspired communication from substantive distortion and wholesale misunderstanding, is a logical absurdity. Faith is trust. If you trust in the Creator as a competent or omnicompetent thinking being on the basis of the Bible and biblical figures, it is faithless and anti-intellectual to then doubt the integrity of that Bible.
On the other hand the Bible never purports itself to be a history text. Things are glossed over and only referenced as they are pertinent to the central point of the writer. In prophecy, foretelling is mixed with, hymns, proverbs and didactic instructions couched in highly allusive and dense poetry. It stand to reason that it would be difficult to decipher and convey that meaning. And that some people might mistake allusion and flashbacks for chronology.
I can say I'm not ignorant of other faiths, their assumptions and forestructure, as well as their sacred works. I am a believer and a zealot because the Bible has provided me with a tool and the tool has made it possible for me to touch the mind of God. If you want to call him Allah, Brahman, Uhuru Mazda, or the Mystic Hoozis Principle of Life (Mystic Law of Existence N.M.R.K) -- what's critical in my faith is understanding that this being made a way to experience our humanity, share our life, and sacrifice himself for our imperfections. In doing so, yes, he closed off other avenues that he had held open for centuries and imposed a new standard for achieving a relationship with him.
This realization came not from indoctrination or rejection of the intellectual, but from academic study and scrupulous attention to the science of language and critical analysis. But as such study progresses, the factuality ofthe Bible is continually reaffirmed by other disciplines. An honest student can't help but be persuaded of the historicity of the Bible by the very analysis of skeptics. Archeology, linguistics, anthropology, physics they all ultimately support rather than dispute the veracity of the Bible. That does not mean that the dogma of a given faith or denomination based on the Bible is equally sound. And Kaz, I fear your bitterness arises from disappointment in the faith of your early upbringing rather than the text that it was based on.
-
I wasn't talking about scholars - I think that anyone who makes it their business to study the Bible would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was written as a series of individual works over a period of centuries and compiled sometime between 200-400 AD. I was referencing (frustrating) conversations I've had with ordinary people. :)
I agree with your assessment of the truthfulness of the Bible, one point excepted. I think the King James scholars did a marvelous job with the KJV, producing timeless, beautiful language that is unrivaled in its clarity, even by the supposedly more readable NIV. Nevertheless, I believe it a work of scholarship and not inspiration, and so some doctrinal points were not rendered quite correctly. There are also many inspired works that were lost, and passages altered by men of questionable motive and faith.
I do believe that God could have protected the integrity of the Bible, and find the fact that so much of it survived, and that it has permeated so many places, a miracle. However, I also believe that he left the book in the hands of men. To argue that he would prevent avaricious and unauthorized modifications to the Bible by a corrupt Roman church is to argue that he would violate the agency of man.
Anyway, to slightly change gears, I have an honest question for you, Renoard. What do you make of the flood? I ask because it seems, to me, to be a bit of an anomaly - the God I know works by small and simple means to bring to pass great things. The teleportation of trillions of gallons of water onto and off of the earth, the miraculous fitting of every species of animal into a space far too small, the also miraculous ability of said ark to hold enough food for a year for all those animals, and the (again, highly miraculous) ability of 8 people to care for them all...yeah, that's neither small nor simple.
I really do want to know what you think, because it's a part of the scriptures that I don't really understand.
-
Well. As to malicious alteration, I don't believe that it's impossible that copies or translations can be altered. But I do believe that attempts to do this are thwarted not by direct attack on the malicious person(s) but by insuring that other copies are preserved. A perfect example is the cache of "deceased" Torah's at Qumran or the millions of copies that have been interred in cemeteries around the world.
The flood is an issue. One that will be debated till Judgement day, and I don't mean the kind in Terminator. :D I believe the Biblical account as it is written. An old man and his family loaded an Arch with mating pairs of animals that were on his list, a list we aren't given. I believe that it rained for the first time ever witnessed by the population that Noe was a member of and the rains lasted at least 960 hours, but with possible lulls.
Believing this doesn't require that I believe any significant influx of new water entered the system, especially by teleportation. One theory about the Earth is that it once had a layer of permanent cloud cover. It is possible that a period of increased seismic or volcanic activity seeding this cloud layer coupled with an sudden, short-lived increase in continental drift could result in a period of global flooding. Sea life and amphibians might not have done too baldy and we aren't told how long or how deeply the mountains were covered.
Global disaster could go a long way toward wrecking civilization, especially with so few survivors. I don't find direct intervention anomalous at all. When I think of the plagues in Egypt, the extermination of the Yevusi, the death of the prophets of Ba'al at Elijah's hand, Sampson, the Jewish hostages in Babylon, Pentecost, Ananias and Sephirah, etc. I realize that small nudges are used when needed, but they are certainly not the only tool at his disposal.
In fact the Yevusi are a direct parallel to the flood. Melchizeddek was the King of the Yevusi when he taught Abraham. So by the time the Ipiru or Egyptian Hebrews under Joshua get to Yevus they are the agents of wrath toward the unfaithful, in the same way that the Babylonians are later used against the Jews for the same purpose. And yeah, no flood, rainbows in the sky and dogleg swords as the means of judgment. ;D
Commence flames now. :P
-
I think I can also add on to Renoard's analysis of the flood and say that the transporting of the water is not all mysterious. It says in Genesis 1:6-7 that there was an expanse created between waters, above and below. Along with the volcano and seismic activity thing that Renoard brought up, the water deluged from above like Renoard stated also. As for the transportation of the water off the earth, I remember reading somewhere in Judges about this but I can't remember where exactly. There was so much water that the pressure broke open caverns deep underground (even rock can't withstand x amount of weight without somewhat collapsing). Those account for the infinitely large caverns that we are also finding underground like under Lake Tahoe or something.
The Flood can also account for other things as well such as; Pangaea (under all that water, of course dirt is going to move around!), The Grand Canyon (I remember hearing about some mountain range around there holding a lot of water as somewhat of a dam, eventually breaking in a torrent and forming the Grand Canyon), and... I'll think of more...
And contrary to whatever anyone may tell you... Chuck Norris did not roundhouse the flood into action... though many will disagree.
now you may commence the flames. ;D
-
Why does this discussion always lead to man being flawed... as i am Mr. Perfect i am starting my own new and improved race miyabi and you other curious-gnostic what-nots are free to join...first order of business what do we want to name our new race??? ;D
The Übermensch??? That seems to be where you're going with this. Although, the very concept of Nietzche's Übermensch is based on the fact that human beings are currently flawed. So, the answer to your question as to why it always leads back "to man being flawed" is simply....because they are.
-
@madness we established that therefore im not man so the question stands what should i call myself and others of perfection? :P
-
@kaz Shuessstaffeln?
-
Although, the very concept of Nietzche's Übermensch is based on the fact that human beings are currently flawed. So, the answer to your question as to why it always leads back "to man being flawed" is simply....because they are.
I notice the conspicuous lack of fellowship you share with other human beings :P
-
Although, the very concept of Nietzche's Übermensch is based on the fact that human beings are currently flawed. So, the answer to your question as to why it always leads back "to man being flawed" is simply....because they are.
I notice the conspicuous lack of fellowship you share with other human beings :P
;D Whoops! WE. We are flawed...
-
Personally i don't see the difference between a bible-beater and a member of a Jihad... you may not be causing death but you are definitely intruding on the first amendment by doing so...
This statement reveals a great deal of ignorance about both the Muslim concept of jihad, as well as of the First Amendment. The "greater jihad" in Islam is the struggle against one's own natural desires. All Muslims are expected to engage in this jihad, as it represents overcoming selfish urges and submitting oneself to God.
It is the position of every Christian denomination I've encountered, barring some tiny splinter sects with all the markings of a cult, that the Bible was inspired as to content and intent but the verbiage is the work of the individual writers.
A great many Southern Baptists appear to be an exception to this.
On the other hand the Bible never purports itself to be a history text. Things are glossed over and only referenced as they are pertinent to the central point of the writer. In prophecy, foretelling is mixed with, hymns, proverbs and didactic instructions couched in highly allusive and dense poetry. It stand to reason that it would be difficult to decipher and convey that meaning. And that some people might mistake allusion and flashbacks for chronology.
Also: The Bible is affected by issues that affect the historiography of texts in general, including author bias and error (inspired or not, an author's diction and worldview are clearly present) as well as translation issues (even when dealing with the same language, the meanings of words and syntax changes over time).
My personal opinion is that a) it was localized (affecting the "known"/"civilized" world), and the animals on the ark were (a breeding pair of) all of the animals of significance with which humans interacted. Of course, this is my own personal supposition. It also helps that there appears to be Geological evidence for a massive flooding in the Meditteranean + Mesopotamia at some time in the distance past.
-
I will now apoligize to the world for all activities my southern baptist maternal side's actions... yes i know they pist me off too
-
Ah, it seems to me that the most vociferous Atheists come from Southern Baptist stock. I find this very interesting.
-
Don't tell me your surprised the realize the stupidity they are surrounded by and do and about face. I however remained a christian for sometime afterward and slowly became agnostic, except I'm not really as i know there must be a god because matter/energy can not be created or destroyed. I believe the proper term for my view point is Deist root word deity...
-
Actually, the word is "Theist". Deism is a specific branch of Theism that believes God made the world/universe and then left it alone to do its own thing.
-
Ah, it seems to me that the most vociferous Atheists come from Southern Baptist stock. I find this very interesting.
I would profer that it is the passion that Southerners have for everything they do or believe that could be the root of that. Ever go to a football game with a southerner? They put us northerns to shame as "fans".
-
Screw you mtlhddoc2!
-
Why Kaz? I said nothing which even the most offended person could consider to be offensive.
-
I had the impression Kaz's rather crude response was meant to be funny, pretending to take offense at your implication that northern sports fans are not fanatical enough. But maybe I misread it.
-
Except northerners who think they are better fans than southerners. :)
Anyway, Kaz is just being Kaz.
Oh, beaten to it.
-
Kaz is a Southerner, BTW.
-
I'm a southerner and took offense that was what my post meant...i don't watch sports much either...
-
The reason for Kaz's language is…it's Kaz. That is reason enough.
-
Professional sports are evil! :-[ :-[ :-[
ROFL
-
Umm…what?? ???
-
I'm my own reason awesome!!!!!!!!!!! One question, does that work if I get pulled over?
-
It might work if you ever get pulled over by someone like Ookla...
not that I would ever imply that Ookla would give you a ticket, let alone pull you over
-
If work=fine and possible arrest, then yes. :)
-
Okay... I'm confused.
-
Wow this discussion has denigrated. Let's try to keep on topic, or allow the topic to drop, eh?
-
just because I'm bored, and i feel like it, I fan the flames of this discussion (not in the internet flaming way) and bring up the logical paradox inherent (usually called the "stone" paradox) in theism in general, that is general used by some to argue against it to see what everyone's comments and takes are. Note that this applies in any situation where the religion believes in truly supreme (as in can do anything) being(s).
It goes:
God is all-powerful, or as theologians put it, “omnipotent”; there is nothing that he cannot do. This is part of the definition of “God”.
So can God create a stone that is so heavy that he cannot lift it? Either he can or he can’t.
If God can’t, then he isn’t all-powerful. If God can’t create a stone that he can’t lift, then there is something that he can’t do: create the stone.
If God can create a stone that is so heavy that he can’t lift it, though, then he also isn’t all-powerful. If God can create a stone that is so heavy that he can’t lift it, then there’s something that he can’t do: lift that stone.
There is, therefore, no way of answering the question above that preserves God’s omnipotence. If there is an omnipotent God, then he neither can nor can’t create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it. This, though, is absurd; he must be either able or unable to perform this feat.
-
You are making the assumption that an all-powerful being is exempt from all rules.
But if we're speaking rationally, a creature with infinite strength (as only one example), would still have to obey the laws of physics in applying that strength. His strength does not allow him to break out of those laws.
On the same note, an infinitely powerful being would still be bound by physical realities—he would just be the master at manipulating them. This could preempt any paradox like that which you bring up.
But this is more to the point: If God is perfect, and perfectly honest, then he is inherently restrained, for if he says anything, he is automatically bound to keep his word, and cannot act in a way that would break his word. You might consider that a limitation of his power, but I would consider it the fulfillment of his honesty.
So, you have to tell me: Why would a creature create an object they couldn't move with the intention of moving it later on? (Remember, it is assumed that God is also omniscient.)
Kind of makes your paradox theoretically impossible, I fear.
Edit: But more to the point, you are simply arguing that omnipotence is impossible. First you define omnipotence as having the ability to do all things, regardless of their purpose, necessity, or accordance with universal principles. Then you say that it is possible for someone onnipotent to create impossibility. But by your very definition of omnipotence, you have rendered this impossible. Think about it this way: If God were to strip himself of omnipotence, he would no longer be omnipotent. On the same note, if God were to make something impossible for himself, he would simply be stripping himself of his own omnipotence. This does not mean that he was not omnipotent to begin with, simply that he has the ability to limit his own omnipotence in the future.
An entirely separate logical escape from your paradox is this: If God created an immovable object, God can also, presumably, remove the immovability from that object, and make it moveable again.
(Using standard physics models, an object so heavy it cannot be lifted by something omnipotent is a physical impossibility, as weight is limited by gravity, and anything too "heavy" [i.e., dense] becomes weightless within the context of space, while force has no such limitations.)
So, there you have it: 4 solutions to your problem:
1. An omniscient creature could not fathomly do such a thing.
2. Omnipotence need not be eternal, and as such your scenario wouldn't nullify its existence.
3. Limitations on omnipotence could be interepreted as being necessarily inferior to the omnipotence itself, invalidating suggestions that omnipotence could be limited.
4. The scenario you give is a physical impossibility, and such a scenario is absolutely incomprehensible physically.
-
But let me give you the solution I find most elegant of all (drawing from my 3rd solution, with a dash of Islamic philosophy thrown in):
Let's assume your scenario: An omnipotent being. He creates something that he cannot lift/move.
What does the existence of the object that he cannot lift/move depend on? It depends on his will. Without God's will, the unmoveable object could not exist to begin with. Logically (as God is omnipotent), the object cannot remain unmoveable without God's will. And so the immovability of the object is tied direclty to God's willing it to be so. The moment God wills otherwise, the object is no longer immovable to God, and God can move it.
The only possible way for an irresistable force and an immovable object to exist at the exact same time would be for God to will it so: the existance of both depend on God, and so if God were to create an irresistable force and an immovable object, it would be the will of God as to what followed when they met (whether the object was moved or the force was resisted)—and an assumption that they can be both irresistable and immoveable upon meeting at the same time makes the assumption that God would will himself to act in direct contradiction of his own will. This is tantamount to suggesting that God can be God without being God. It's a logical impossibility.
-
But let me give you the solution I find most elegant of all (drawing from my 3rd solution, with a dash of Islamic philosophy thrown in):
Let's assume your scenario: An omnipotent being. He creates something that he cannot lift/move.
What does the existence of the object that he cannot lift/move depend on? It depends on his will. Without God's will, the unmoveable object could not exist to begin with. Logically (as God is omnipotent), the object cannot remain unmoveable without God's will. And so the immovability of the object is tied direclty to God's willing it to be so. The moment God wills otherwise, the object is no longer immovable to God, and God can move it.
The only possible way for an irresistable force and an immovable object to exist at the exact same time would be for God to will it so: the existance of both depend on God, and so if God were to create an irresistable force and an immovable object, it would be the will of God as to what followed when they met (whether the object was moved or the force was resisted)—and an assumption that they can be both irresistable and immoveable upon meeting at the same time makes the assumption that God would will himself to act in direct contradiction of his own will. This is tantamount to suggesting that God can be God without being God. It's a logical impossibility.
the definition of omnimpotence implies that the creature can do anything, so if the creature can will itself able to do something previously established it couldn't do, then it, in fact, can do it. This paradox applies to an omnipotent being able to create limits upon itself, since it can do everything, it should be able to create things that it cannot do/use/whatever, which means it cannot be omnipotent, since it cannot do what it just created.
Note that this paradox is referred to as the omnipotence paradox, and the one i gave is just the most common example, it need not apply to rocks (this was the common example in the past before the properties of space were known). This has been argued for centuries, with both sides bringing up many differing points.
It basically boils down to "Can an omnipotent being create something it can't do? If so, it isnt omnipotent, because it cant do that. If not, it isnt omnipotent because it can't create that."
Wikipedia has a rather good article on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox) which is an interesting read, if nothing.
-
But then again... you are looking at it with your own point of view and your own humanly perspectives of rules and physical laws. What's to say that something omnipotent--God in this case--plays by our rules. Since we clearly are not omnipotent and we cannot judge for one that is omnipotent (since no one can set a standard but that one single omnipotent being), who's to say that it can't judge for it's own laws. And in that situation, paradoxes according to us are not necessarily paradoxes to another, omnipotent being.
does that make sense? because I don't know if it did...
-
the definition of omnimpotence implies that the creature can do anything, so if the creature can will itself able to do something previously established it couldn't do, then it, in fact, can do it. This paradox applies to an omnipotent being able to create limits upon itself, since it can do everything, it should be able to create things that it cannot do/use/whatever, which means it cannot be omnipotent, since it cannot do what it just created.
You're making several faulty assumptions, including that omnipotence must somehow be a permanent feature. And you also must realize that, logically, when an omnipotent person wills to temporarily not be omnipotent, their lack of omnipotence depends on their will. Were they to will themselves to permenantly no longer be omnipotent, then they would no longer be omnipotent; this does not deny previous omnipotence any more than seeing a dead creature denies previous life in that creature.
-
benvolio: that actually made tons of sense for said discussion.
-
YAY! My giddiness level just skyrocketed ten points!
-
Figured I'd just throw out the old obligatory Lewis quote:
His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.
If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.'
"It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.
In short, I suspect you gents are overanalyzing the issue. I have difficulty believing that omnipotence is so legalistic as you describe. You make a point, Benvolio, but it's applicable to your position as well: what's to say we have the definition of omnipotence right? In fact, I don't think 'we' do.
It is a tenet of my faith that God is internally consistent. I find it difficult to believe he would break his own laws or go about doing incomprehensible nonsense. Of course you're free to believe whatever you want, but I think my understanding is rather more consistent with the idea of a perfect being.
-
Well put, Epistemological.
-
Here's a question are we an ant farm or does god really care...and if he cares where do other sentient beings (aliens and the like) fit in to the big picture?
-
Totally depends on your religious perspective.
So, what's yours?
-
Here's a question are we an ant farm or does god really care...and if he cares where do other sentient beings (aliens and the like) fit in to the big picture?
I think I see where this is going...
Anyway, short answer: God cared enough to send his own Son to die for us. He cares deeply for each of us. We are not numbers to him but real people that he knew before time began. I'll leave the long answer for Jade...
-
Good answer Reaves. Kaz just seems to enjoy throwing darts against religion, Christianity mostly, just to see what sticks.
Other sentient beings??? Name me some of the more prominently KNOWN sentient beings please. "Aliens and such" really isn't a valid descripiton for anything that is PROVEN to exist.
-
Aliens like Dragons(serifim) and Chimera(cherubim)?
-
No but if you look at how large the universe, i mean there are billions of gallaxies and many solar systems in each one, the odds of other intelligent life is more than a possiblity it is probability... I'm not attacking any religon and defiantely not christianity. I in someways envy those with faith but the concept of that trust based on an absensce of fact i find hard to handle. Religion gives hope and those with hope do better in life so i acctually encourage religion even if i do not partake in it....
-
You're still taking a big leap there. You say it's probable that other intelligent life exists based solely on the size of the universe. Dr. Hugh Ross used probability, of various life sustaining factors, to conclude that the chance of life elsewhere is at about 1 in 10^289. It seems that you are placing a sizable amount of faith in absolute randomness.
-
No but if you look at how large the universe, i mean there are billions of gallaxies and many solar systems in each one, the odds of other intelligent life is more than a possiblity it is probability... I'm not attacking any religon and defiantely not christianity. I in someways envy those with faith but the concept of that trust based on an absensce of fact i find hard to handle.
I don't think the idea of intelligent life existing outside of our solar system is an attack on Christianity. I think you would be hard-pressed to make a case from the Bible that intelligent extra-terrestrial life exists for a certainty, but I don't think the Bible denies it. However I have not made this subject an area of study.
-
I believe in the slight possibility that LIFE exists elsewhere, but SENTIENT is a whole nother matter. Unless the universe, is in fact, endless.
-
And the whole endless, infinite unverse thingy was disproven by Albert Einstein... so that is a different matter.
-
on the other hand a globe has a finite surface but you can travel infinite distance orbiting it.
I don't see how infinite dimensions in sapce would lead to life on other planets. Infinite numbers of the same stuff is still the same stuff. :)
-
Renoard: your first line reminds me of superman when he travels around the world a bunch of times to turn back time...
your second line reminds me of the game portal when you make a portal right above and below you so that you fall infinitely. lol
-
And the whole endless, infinite unverse thingy was disproven by Albert Einstein... so that is a different matter.
Uhhh....no it wasn't. It's still very much a possibility. The current OBSERVABLE universe is over 93 Billion light years, and outside of that we don't know how far it reaches.
for example, if this were all ready proven, the following quote, which is less than 5 years old by State of montana University astrophysicist Neil Cornish wouldn't exist:
"no sign that the universe is finite, but that doesn't prove that it is infinite"
(quote taken from space.com from an article detailing an interview with the above expert. The article is talking about the currently measured size of the universe. It is located here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html)
-
beno: thats just a theory, Einstien proved nothing of the sort.
Ren: it makes a difference in the same way millions of people buy lottery tickets. The more you have, the better the chances of hitting the lottery. In this case it would be the Universal lottery, and calculating the odds of sentient life would in fact, take a supercomputer years to do. But, lets say the odds are 1 in a trillion. If you only have a trillion planets, pretty slim. But if you have trillions of solar systems with trillions of planets, the odds improve dramatically. Some would even say, it becomes likely. Now, will we, as a race, ever discover life in the universe, much less sentient life, doubtful, highly improbable. Maybe in 50 generations we will discover a way to traverse the universe at speeds which do not take several lifetimes, but this is also improbable. Needless to say, WE will never see it.
-
Life requires organization and complexity. Assuming spontaneous macro-evolution to be true, than evolution of life on Earth would be a measurable statistical spike in opposition of the trend toward entropy. Entropy causes matter to become less organized, more dispersed and orderly, whereas organized systems like a biosphere are highly organized, concentrated and chaotic on the macro scale.
The more space there is the higher the odds in favor of entropy and the less probably life becomes. ;)
-
If you want to argue Evolution, put it in a new thread.
But don't get belligerent.
(I was recently in a Facebook thread discussing evolution. It was hundreds of posts long, and involved the contributions of a Physicist and a Biology Masters student, among other things. Needless to say, the Physicist and the Biology grad student couldn't come to an agreement.)
-
That would explain why you misunderstood the posts so far. The other argument from face book obviously has colored you defensive. The point was about life on other planets, and how that fits in a religious economy. We were talking about the statistical probability of life on other planets. And mtlhddoc2 brought up the potential of an infinite universe increasing the probability. I was simply pointing out that the reverse is true. The bigger the universe, the bigger the statistical spike formed by life on Earth.
-
Hah, that's funny, as we haven't been discussing evolution up to this point (to my knowledge, at least).
So your assertion that this explains how I've misunderstood other points is rather illogical, it would seem.
But I understand what you're saying. I thought you had meant to start arguing about the feasibility of evolution, which is an entirely different discussion.
-
I was talking about the statistical probability that, if it happened once and if that once was chance, that it could have been repeated especially by chance. And the probability goes down further the closer the Universe gets to infinite, because of the fact that you have a larger sample affected by entropy. Making the stat spike even more pronounced and in opposition to the trend.
-
Right. Got that.
-
Ren: it is no different from a lottery standpoint. with your argument. The more tickets that are bought, the less likely it is that someone will win. I disagree. The more tickets that are bought, the more likely it is that not just one person will win, but several. But really, the existence of life, and then sentient life, is like hitting the lottery which then wins you another lottyery ticket, and that wins you another ticket, which wins you another ticket, which then wins you the prize. I agree it is unlikely that there is sentient life. But life in general (ameoba like), not unlikely. It is certainly possible, and becomes probable in the event of infinity, the more combinations you have, the more likely a specific combination will come to the fore. It is just chemistry, really.
-
I really don't know anything about the probability of life on other planets and such, but believing that God created not only this world, but the whole universe (or in some way organized the matter of the universe that may have already existed into a livable world for his children to live on), I believe that if there is life on other planets, He created that life as well. It's not like life will spontaneously begin to exist on other worlds without His knowledge of it. This is of course coming from a religious point of view. If there were no god, then I could see life possibly evolving elsewhere, but since I believe that there is a God, I also believe that all life comes from Him. Therefore, he may have placed some of his children on other planets. I don't know. But if he did, I do not believe that they will ever visit us (as aliens). Of course, this is just a personal belief with no hard evidence.
-
Life requires organization and complexity. Assuming spontaneous macro-evolution to be true, than evolution of life on Earth would be a measurable statistical spike in opposition of the trend toward entropy. Entropy causes matter to become less organized, more dispersed and orderly, whereas organized systems like a biosphere are highly organized, concentrated and chaotic on the macro scale.
The more space there is the higher the odds in favor of entropy and the less probably life becomes. ;)
That would only be if we have an infinite amount of space with a finite amout of matter. If both matter AND space are infinite, then every possible thing, no matter how small the chance, is happening an infinite number of times at every possible point in time. An infinite universe with infinite matter ensures we aren't the only life in the universe. An infinite universe with FINITE matter greatly reduces this possibility. However, talking of an infinite universe with finite matter is a moot point, as it's the same (for this discussion) as a finite universe (which, of course, has finite matter).
-
The troll is right... whatever now to the second part of the question do they fit in to the religons of earth if they do indeed exist.....
-
also, while we're in the general ballpark of the subject, can someone explain something to me? And i mean this seriously, as I've never understood any side of this debate.
I've heard alot of people from both sides of the camps (highly/non-religious) argue that life can/can't exist in the rest of the universe, because it would disprove/prove god.
I've heard highly religious people argue that there CAN'T be other life in the universe because god didn't create other life, and I've heard highly atheist types claim that finding life in the universe would disprove god, and I don't understand how either of these beliefs come off saying either as fact.
If other life were discovered, how does this disprove the existance of god? All this proves is that life probably springs from a natural process. This would mean, most likely, that many precepts of religion are incorrect, such as god creating man in his image, etc. but thi s doesn't god is disproven. Maybe s/he defined the process that creates life (as well as all processes in the universe). All this would do is make us less special insofar as to how religion relates humans to their deity.
I can kinda understand the religious perspective that if no other life exists, then god created all life on earth, since it means we are 100% unique and special, but in and of itself it's not certain proof, at least not to me.
-
Eerongal it is a question that no logical/ sane person can answer sorry...
-
The concept doesn't really make sense to me. Why would God create this huge universe and put life on only one planet? But anyway, LDS believe God has put intelligent life on a bunch of different worlds (and all of that intelligent life is created in God's image).
-
That makes perfect sense to me, Ook. Those who are looking for proof of God's existence; do you even have proof that our current scientific understanding of the universe is accurrate? Modern physics still can't explain why matter in the universe is held together the way it is. They have theorized that "dark matter" and "dark energy" exist, but there is no proof of this. If you want to talk about paradox, let's talk about some flaws in mathematics, which is how most theories of the universe are contrived. Ever hear the problem that, in order for an arrow to travel from the bow to the target, it must first travel half the distance, and then half that distance, and so on, traveling an ever smaller distance each time, but, mathematically, never actually reaching its destination? Does that prove that math is unreliable? 110 years ago, powered flight was thought to be impossible by many scientists. Also many scientests did not believe the sound barrier could be broken by a manned craft. With some research, you can find as many examples of scientific dogmatism as religious dogmatism.
Discovering life on other planets would only disprove some religious interpretations of Genesis, not the existence of a higher power.
-
That makes perfect sense to me, Ook. Those who are looking for proof of God's existence; do you even have proof that our current scientific understanding of the universe is accurrate? Modern physics still can't explain why matter in the universe is held together the way it is. They have theorized that "dark matter" and "dark energy" exist, but there is no proof of this. If you want to talk about paradox, let's talk about some flaws in mathematics, which is how most theories of the universe are contrived. Ever hear the problem that, in order for an arrow to travel from the bow to the target, it must first travel half the distance, and then half that distance, and so on, traveling an ever smaller distance each time, but, mathematically, never actually reaching its destination? Does that prove that math is unreliable? 110 years ago, powered flight was thought to be impossible by many scientists. Also many scientests did not believe the sound barrier could be broken by a manned craft. With some research, you can find as many examples of scientific dogmatism as religious dogmatism.
Discovering life on other planets would only disprove some religious interpretations of Genesis, not the existence of a higher power.
uh....Matter is held together by the strong force. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction)
(unless you mean why we are stuck on the planet, in which case it's gravity, though i highly doubt you meant this, because gravity is kinda...undisputed and a common concept)
-
Well... Zeno's paradox has been explained mathematically, though possibly not philosophically. (See Wikipedia.)
Eerongal, the question solved by dark matter is a gravitational one: galaxies don't rotate the way the law of gravity would predict, if all the matter in them were what you could see as stars.
-
Well... Zeno's paradox has been explained mathematically, though possibly not philosophically. (See Wikipedia.)
Eerongal, the question solved by dark matter is a gravitational one: galaxies don't rotate the way the law of gravity would predict, if all the matter in them were what you could see as stars.
Well, Zeno's paradox is really kinda invalidated by simple experience. Of course if you take the time dimension out of things, no motion can occur, everything is never changing, but our simple observations tells us that this isn't true, because motion can obviously occur, which makes this really more of a philisophical thing in the first place.
So you're saying that when he says about "matter being held together" he is talking about the Galaxy Rotation problem of the GRC (galaxy rotation curve)? Makes sense, since this isn't fully explained yet. One common belief is in dark matter, and another is that the laws of newtonian physics changes on a large scale, which is also possible, as displayed by MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), which has a pretty good rate of predicting galaxy rotation.
-
I would not say that dark matter is a common belief, just a vocal one. I am highly skeptical on the who dark matter thing. I rather doubt it exists. More than likely, their "unexplained" gravity is just an object they cannot see, such as a black hole or something. Scientists love to fill holes with things like that. When there is no viewable explanation, they just make one up.
As far as other life proving or disproving God: I dont think it applies and would not do either. Finding other life would not change how I view it, and shouldnt make a difference how you view it either, since your religious tomes were intended for an audience on THIS planet only.
-
I would not say that dark matter is a common belief, just a vocal one. I am highly skeptical on the who dark matter thing. I rather doubt it exists. More than likely, their "unexplained" gravity is just an object they cannot see, such as a black hole or something. Scientists love to fill holes with things like that. When there is no viewable explanation, they just make one up.
As far as other life proving or disproving God: I dont think it applies and would not do either. Finding other life would not change how I view it, and shouldnt make a difference how you view it either, since your religious tomes were intended for an audience on THIS planet only.
well, see, that's the thing, i don't see *WHY* some people get so adamant about how finding/not finding life is going to radically change religious perspective. That's what I was hoping someone could put into perspective and explain, it's just something i head occasionally and makes no sense to me...
-
also, while we're in the general ballpark of the subject, can someone explain something to me? And i mean this seriously, as I've never understood any side of this debate.
I've heard alot of people from both sides of the camps (highly/non-religious) argue that life can/can't exist in the rest of the universe, because it would disprove/prove god.
I've heard highly religious people argue that there CAN'T be other life in the universe because god didn't create other life, and I've heard highly atheist types claim that finding life in the universe would disprove god, and I don't understand how either of these beliefs come off saying either as fact.
If other life were discovered, how does this disprove the existance of god? All this proves is that life probably springs from a natural process. This would mean, most likely, that many precepts of religion are incorrect, such as god creating man in his image, etc. but this doesn't god is disproven. Maybe s/he defined the process that creates life (as well as all processes in the universe). All this would do is make us less special insofar as to how religion relates humans to their deity.
Real quick can you go a bit more in-depth on that with me? How do you come to that conclusion? As we know in logic...
According to the Bible, All S is P, where S is man and P is those life forms created in God's image. The corollary is that Some P is S. How does discovering life on other planets say anything about man being created in God's image?
-
I guess you'll just have to ask somewhere else then, Eerongal, since no one here seems to think that or has heard a good explanation for it. :)
-
Dark matter/ energy is an accepted fact it produces varying sources of radioation but not visible light a black hole is made up of dark energy... we can detect all sorts of readings from it we just can't see it...you can't see the wind either...
-
also, while we're in the general ballpark of the subject, can someone explain something to me? And i mean this seriously, as I've never understood any side of this debate.
I've heard alot of people from both sides of the camps (highly/non-religious) argue that life can/can't exist in the rest of the universe, because it would disprove/prove god.
I've heard highly religious people argue that there CAN'T be other life in the universe because god didn't create other life, and I've heard highly atheist types claim that finding life in the universe would disprove god, and I don't understand how either of these beliefs come off saying either as fact.
If other life were discovered, how does this disprove the existance of god? All this proves is that life probably springs from a natural process. This would mean, most likely, that many precepts of religion are incorrect, such as god creating man in his image, etc. but this doesn't god is disproven. Maybe s/he defined the process that creates life (as well as all processes in the universe). All this would do is make us less special insofar as to how religion relates humans to their deity.
Real quick can you go a bit more in-depth on that with me? How do you come to that conclusion? As we know in logic...
According to the Bible, All S is P, where S is man and P is those life forms created in God's image. The corollary is that Some P is S. How does discovering life on other planets say anything about man being created in God's image?
my reasoning for this conclusion is that if we find more intelligent life in the universe, that doesn't look like us (if it looks like us,or at least vaguely like us, it makes this reasoning moot) then it takes everything that was supposed to be special about us (mainly, our intelligence) and makes it less specific to just us, meaning that how would we know that we were created in god's image, and not just a random assortment of parts and looks?
(For example, we find a 5-tentacled blob monster thing that intelligent, and believes THEY were created in god's image, there's no proving them or us right, and most likely means we weren't created in anyones image, at least to me.)
That's just the way i see it, but YMMV.
Now, maybe I'm just grossly misinterpretting the whole "Created in his image" thing, but as far as I'm aware, god isn't depicted as looking like every creature so that everything is created in his image, so when I hear "Created in his image" that says to me that god's image looks human.
-
Most Christians believe that the "image of God" concept refers to something other than physical appearance. Some opinions of what it is include intelligence, speech, and moral understanding. My preferred interpretation is that mankind represents God on earth, and as such we are responsible to carry out God's will in relation to the rest of creation. The basis for this understanding is the word "image" being like a statue of an emperor in a distant province, reminding people of the emperor's power; or of the emperor's face being depicted on a coin or a seal, authorizing certain acts in his name.
In any case, there are many ways to read "image of God", but I don't know of anyone who argues that the Bible is trying to say God actually looks like a human in a corporeal sense.
-
Ok, now I see where you are coming from. I think it is very easy to interpret that verse in many different ways. For example, I always took that verse to mean that we have a soul. I don't think God's image refers to physical characteristics. If it did, then one could look at a person physically deformed from birth and say that he or she was not created in God's image.
I suppose white Christian Europeans might have thought something similar when they first encountered non-white indigenous peoples on other continents: "They don't look anything like us, how can they be created in God's image??!!"
I'm with Sarah on this one: as God's image-bearers we do represent him. There are a lot of subtle meanings that go into the concept of "image of God."
-
Ok, now I see where you are coming from. I think it is very easy to interpret that verse in many different ways. For example, I always took that verse to mean that we have a soul. I don't think God's image refers to physical characteristics. If it did, then one could look at a person physically deformed from birth and say that he or she was not created in God's image.
I suppose white Christian Europeans might have thought something similar when they first encountered non-white indigenous peoples on other continents: "They don't look anything like us, how can they be created in God's image??!!"
I'm with Sarah on this one: as God's image-bearers we do represent him. There are a lot of subtle meanings that go into the concept of "image of God."
yeah, i understand where those ideas are coming from, but i was just using it as an example of the only thing that I could really think that finding intelligent alien life would be "proving wrong". And that's only when intepretted in one specific way, so even then, it's barely even impacting anything
Edit:
I suppose to clarify, I'm looking for how/where in the bible it says "Hey, future people, if you find aliens, forget all this, because it's totally wrong then", because as far as I'm aware, this has like no bearing on pretty much any part of modern religious beliefs.
-
Kaz: "dark matter" is still considered a hypothesis, not a "fact"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
-
I would not say that dark matter is a common belief, just a vocal one. I am highly skeptical on the who dark matter thing. I rather doubt it exists. More than likely, their "unexplained" gravity is just an object they cannot see, such as a black hole or something. Scientists love to fill holes with things like that. When there is no viewable explanation, they just make one up.
As far as other life proving or disproving God: I dont think it applies and would not do either. Finding other life would not change how I view it, and shouldnt make a difference how you view it either, since your religious tomes were intended for an audience on THIS planet only.
It's becoming quite evident that you disbelieve a great many things, Mtlhddoc2. Have you read Nietzsche? I think you would really appreciate him.
-
I prefer Plato and Pascal myself.
-
I enjoy Nietzsche, but this is partly because I really like what Heidegger did with him.
-
In the words on Monty Python, "Heidegger, Heidegger . . ."
:D
-
I would not say that dark matter is a common belief, just a vocal one. I am highly skeptical on the who dark matter thing. I rather doubt it exists. More than likely, their "unexplained" gravity is just an object they cannot see, such as a black hole or something. Scientists love to fill holes with things like that. When there is no viewable explanation, they just make one up.
As far as other life proving or disproving God: I dont think it applies and would not do either. Finding other life would not change how I view it, and shouldnt make a difference how you view it either, since your religious tomes were intended for an audience on THIS planet only.
It's becoming quite evident that you disbelieve a great many things, Mtlhddoc2. Have you read Nietzsche? I think you would really appreciate him.
non-belief is not the same as disbelief. I believe in things that can be proven, not things that cannot. If you prove to me that this invisible matter that emits no radiation that we can detect, nor does it impede travel of planetary bodies. So it has no mass, apparently either. Prove it, and I will believe it. Same goes with the invisible man in the sky. Prove it and I wil believe it.
-
The question is, what do you accept as proof? Is it that you must see it yourself, or be shown a picture? What do you consider proof of something? I am asking seriously. You are obviously a very skeptical person, but you are consistent with it, which is admirable. Now I am curious to know just how skeptical you are. Non-belief is the same as disbelief, by the way. You either believe it, or you don't.
Believe me, there are many Fundamentalist Christians out there who do literally believe that God physically looks like a human male. Even those who take the bible literally (some even to the point that they still think the Earth is flat), will not change their views if aliens visit this planet. I have heard some wild theories, but the simplest one is that non-terrestial beings would be a trick of Satan.
-
disbelief is basically not accepting something which has been nproven to be a fact, as a fact:
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
2. amazement; astonishment: We stared at the Taj Mahal in disbelief.
Whereas non-belief does not have a dictionary reference. but basically. It means, to me, "I do not believe that" period. It is skepticism, but not denial. I am not a "fact denier", I am just a non-believer.
As far as proof required. Well, It would have to be something where, if I could fact check it, I could come to the same conclusions. It couldnt hurt if I could see it myself. I am just as skepitcal of "science" as I am religion. Since much of the fringe sciences, like astrophysics, is leaps of faith and sometimes just making stuff up.
-
I understand now. You base your beliefs purely by your own experience, if at all possible. No intuitive leaps, just pure Empiricism. I can respect that.
Not to nitpick, but disbelief does not always mean you are denying truth. It also means exactly what your definition of non-belief is; which is that you do not accept the evidence presented as sufficient proof.
-
Yeah, the dictionary.com definition of disbelief doesn't match up with the other dictionaries' very well.
-
dictionary.com is Webster's Dictionary isnt it? ???
-
dictionary.com is Webster's Dictionary isnt it? ???
no, http://www.merriam-webster.com/ is webster's online dictionary, though dictionary.com may take from them, but i dont know about that.
-
dictionary.com has two main dictionaries on it, plus a few others, none of which are Merriam-Webster's. The top hit is the "dictionary.com unabridged" definition, presumably written by dictionary.com editors basing it on the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition. The second hit is usually the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition itself, which is more accurate than the dictionary.com unabridged definition. You can also get AHD4 definitions from its publisher's website bartleby.com, but the interface there sucks, so when I want to use AHD4 I always use dictionary.com and skip down to the 2nd definition.
M-W is more respected in the publishing field than AHD4 but I prefer AHD4 for some uses; it's not a bad idea to check both.
-
I find that, these days, Wiktionary is usually (but not always) better than them all.
However, M-W is definitely the most respected American Dictionary, hands down. If you want a British Dictionary, there is only one: OED.
-
I have a problem when slang is added to the dictionary so i don't think highly of Webster
-
Wow, Darxbane, you know some fundamentalists with a lot weirder beliefs than any I've met! Tell me, do they take the Bible literally enough to believe that King David was actually a sheep (Psalm 23)? That's always been my favorite example of why no one actually takes the Bible literally and we all interpret it to some extent; I'd be sad if I couldn't use my favorite example anymore.
-
I know people who think his mind became a sheeps
-
And yet he could still write poetry, while he was a sheep? Boy, that's even weirder!
-
Sarah there is an enormous difference between accepting the theme and argument of a text literally instead of allegorically, and hyperliterallizing idiom. You can misunderstand idiom or mistake it for argument. But no one intentionally literalizes idiom. But it's not very intellectually honest to say that because someone doesn't literalize the idiomatic phrases that they are then not taking the text literally.
-
I guess I don't understand your distinction. To me it seems like varying degrees along the same spectrum of literalness. I realize that taking the psalmist to be a sheep is at the extreme end, an extreme that no rational reader would agree to, but to me that's exactly why this example demonstrates that we all engage in at least some form of interpretation when we read, even if it's as simple as the interpretive assumption, "The first half of Psalm 23 employs an extended pastoral metaphor to illustrate the psalmist's relationship with the Lord." My point is that that is an assumption, albeit a fairly obvious and uncontested one.
I think that readers of the Bible draw lines in many different places as to what should be understood literally and what figuratively - but they all draw the lines somewhere. For instance, there are differences of opinion on the Jonah story, the Job story, the Gospel stories, the Song of Solomon, and the prophecies of Revelation. Which are meant to be read as historical narratives, and which are meant to be read as metaphor or idiom or something else? I don't think the answers are always as clear as is the metaphorical meaning of Psalm 23, but I think it's a cop-out when people say they believe every word of the Bible literally, because that's impossible. Those people (in my experience - it sounds like Darx and Kaz know some exceptions) still engage in genre judgments - they still make distinctions between poetic portions and narrative portions of the text. And I don't always agree with what they classify as poetry and prose.
-
It's really not a matter of spectrum. Hermeneutics and exegesis are tools to get at what the author really intended to say. Metaphors and simile's, that take the form of common idiom in the authors day, have to be sharply distinguished from metaphor or idiom that is intended by the author to be part of his instruction or argument. Confusing the two is not a matter of degree but a pass/fail issue of bad scholarship.
The word doctrine is largely misused by the popular piety and even by leadership in some faiths. Doctrine is a set of rules for interpretation that arise from deep scholarship. Doctrines are the structure of a critical perspective used by a given student. These rules are arrived at by careful study that entails trying to put yourself into the mindset of the original audience of a given work and construct coherent tools for sharing that understanding with others.
After you have gotten at what the author is intentionally communicating then the questions of whether this is allegorical or literally truth come into the equation not before. This is an entirely different question. The arguments between scholars over these issues do come down to literality vs allegory. Fundamentalists are only one group among many who believe that the intended arguments, historical accounts and didactic instruction are literally factual and true because of that. Comparing all these views to misinterpreting an idiom is polemical.
It's tantamount to saying a divinity student who has immersed himself in biblical language, archeology, sociology and hermeneutics is just some uneducated buffoon who picked up a Bible and decided that he was reading a science text written in English 2 years ago. Even your mocking argument about the sheep writing poetry doesn't hold up.
A hyper-literal mind like you propose would see God herd the MAN David as if he were a sheep and God was his shepherd. Even changing David into a sheep requires some awareness of the oddity of the phrasing and the oblique descriptions. In fact the word sheep (hershel) never appears in psalm 23 so it would take a mind with at least the subtlety to understand the allusion, in order to see David as a sheep.
That leads us back to the issue of the student. A serious student capable of deciphering the allusion is also going to see the idiom. This illustrates my point that assuming differences in interpretation are as simple and drawing a line where you are going to stop taking things literally ignores the basics of language. If I said, "You are jumping from the frying pan into the fire with that logic," taking me literally would entail considering if I mean you are literally going to get into trouble.
Only a small child would think I really meant a pan or a flame. It's not a matter of degree but of cognition. By suggesting the Bible scholar would or even COULD see pans and flames in this construction is suggesting that 90 units of grad school makes one into a child.
---------------------------------
note on edits.
changed make or break to pass/fail in the first paragraph with the caveat that I don't literally mean that the reader on the scholar are in my class. I will not be grading posts. Please understand this is idiom.
:)
-
It seems by your argument Renoard that all serious Bible scholars would interpret all scripture the same way, and clearly that is not the case.
In any case, when Kaz said I know people who think his mind became a sheeps I have a feeling he may have been referring to Nebuchadnezzar's seven years of insanity. However, he could have just been joking. (Who knows, he may actually know some people who believe King David had the mind of a sheep. No wonder he doesn't go to church anymore :P )
-
@reaves I think Kaz is 18.
But yeah that was probably not (ahem) literally true.
-
you know if you look at my profile there is a peice of cake...
And i meant exactly as i said i was raised as a literalist...some of the southern baptist are cucoos it was his punishment for ignoring something or other and yes i know of the Babylonian King who thought he was a cow for 7 years... that punishment was over a gold statue wasn't it?
-
If you want a British Dictionary, there is only one: OED.
I know Collins made a big stir last year when they announced they were removing some words from their dictionary.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article4799560.ece
If no one cared about the Collins dictionary it wouldn't have caused a stir.
The OED is exhaustive whether you're looking for US or UK words; they never delete words and they have citations for everything. That doesn't necessarily make it a good dictionary for everyday use though. :)
-
@kaz Not precisely. It was punishment for denying the Jewish people the right to be Jews and reject worship of the King.
-
After you have gotten at what the author is intentionally communicating then the questions of whether this is allegorical or literally truth come into the equation not before.
The problem with this is that it's circular: The author's meaning is understood only through textual interpretation, which involves reading text as either literal or metaphor.
It's tantamount to saying a divinity student who has immersed himself in biblical language, archeology, sociology and hermeneutics is just some uneducated buffoon who picked up a Bible and decided that he was reading a science text written in English 2 years ago. Even your mocking argument about the sheep writing poetry doesn't hold up.
I don't think it is at all. It's like having a professor of Linguistics interpret one phenomenon one way, and having another interpret it another way... and this happens all the freaking time.
-
Sarah, are you really that surprised? After all, God walks among men for most of Genesis, particularly with Abraham. I have never asked about the sheep thing. I'll let you know. You can get a grasp of their philosophy by reading about Kent Hovind. It appears Kaz was raised by a Baptist sect similar to the people I know.
-
Renoard, the literalists I am thinking of are not serious Bible scholars who have done their best to use all the tools at their disposal to determine the author's original intent, and determined that he was writing a literal, historical account. I can respect them, even when I disagree with their conclusions. Not that I always do disagree, of course - I believe that much of the Bible is meant to be read as historical narrative.
I'm thinking of people who say, "Why bother going to seminary and studying all those languages and history and archeology? You don't need any of those liberal intellectuals to tell you what the Bible means - just read what it says and believe it. Forget the lexicons and commentaries; all you need is the Scripture and the Holy Spirit. Research just complicates the simplicity of faith. Just take the Bible literally: God said it, I believe it, that settles it." This is the attitude I try to combat with the Psalm 23 question, because it seems to me that these people are reading the text as if it were a science textbook written two years ago in English. What's worse, they seem to believe that anyone who reads it differently is doubting the veracity of God.
Another, perhaps more pertinent question I like to ask these people is whether they believe in stoning rebellious children, as Moses's law requires. Basically, what I'm trying to get them to admit is that they do make interpretive decisions and that it's not as simple as just "believing everything the Bible says." I want to convince them that actually studying the Bible (including other relevant disciplines) is a worthwhile endeavor. Since we all make assumptions and interpretive decisions, it's better to have some solid foundation for those choices than to make them intuitively. Does this make sense? Do you understand what I'm trying to argue here? Have you met these people, and how do you deal with them?
By the way, if your big words and references to divinity students were intended to intimidate me, I should probably let you know they aren't working. You see, I myself have been a divinity student; I earned a master's in biblical languages, and in the process I did occasionally encounter such terms as "hermeneutics" and "exegesis". ;)
-
Yeah i've heard that hogwash from several sources but not all the literalist belive that..they think it is unecessary to have a seminary degree to understand God's intent but they believe it is a good thing to understand the background...that is until your ignorance vanishes and you realize that parables were a common occurence if one did not have all the facts, in that time period...
-
So I thought we had some good discussions going on here at one point and I really enjoined them. I guess I'll try to jump-start it again with a question, directed at the LDS members here:
What are some of the big doctrines that differentiate Mormonism from other Christian denominations? I understand that most likely not all Mormons believe the same thing, I just mean in general. For example, what do you guys believe about God? The person of Jesus Christ, his divinity and his humanity? The doctrine of sin?
Also even if you're not Mormon feel free to jump in :D
-
What are some of the big doctrines that differentiate Mormonism from other Christian denominations? I understand that most likely not all Mormons believe the same thing, I just mean in general. For example, what do you guys believe about God? The person of Jesus Christ, his divinity and his humanity? The doctrine of sin?
I love answering these type of honest questions, so I'll go ahead and go first and let the rest of the LDS people feel free to chime in and clarify anything I may leave out:
God- He is our Heavenly Father-the father of our spirits- and directed the creation of earth and our mortal bodies. He is a perfected being and as our father, his greatest desire is to see that his children reach his same level through the tests of mortality. A veil was place over the earth so we would not remember the pre-earth life where we lived with our Father in Heaven, but we have been given prophets and commandments to show us the correct path to progress while retaining our agency to do otherwise.
While we are expected to progress and do all we can to keep the commandments and become perfected, we all will fall short and as no imperfect being can be in the presence of our Heavenly Father, we stand in need of a mediator to bridge the gap of Justice and Mercy.
Jesus Christ- He is our eldest spirit brother and created the earth under the direction of his Heavenly Father. He was the literal son of God and a mortal mother, Mary. Because he was mortal he could understand the sorrows of the world and how it sometimes results in sin. Because he was divine he could overcome sin and no one could take his life but he choose to give it. He sacrificed his life and took on the atonement to pay for the sins of those that are willing to repent. He is our mediator with the father and will make up the difference of sin after all that we can do.
Other differences you may see in our religion compared to other mainstream Christian faiths is our belief in continued revelation through the Book of Mormon and current prophets (from Joseph Smith to Thomas Monson) and we also encourage our members to gain their own personal testimony and relationship with God through daily prayer and scripture study.
Oh, and feel free to ask questions, but the church does have a site with a lot of our beliefs spelled out for anyone looking for a specific and credible source: www.mormon.org
-
Hey, thanks for sharing Frog!
I was a little confused over your first paragraph. So you believe we lived in heaven before coming to earth and only live on earth once? What exactly do you mean by God being the father of our spirits? Does this mean something different than being our Father in heaven?
And I was also a bit confused in your paragraph about Jesus Christ. What exactly do you mean by the term "spirit brother"?
I have also heard that Mormons do not believe the Son is completely God, while still having taken a human nature to Himself. I know you don't believe in the Trinity, but you could clarify on this? Do you believe that God the Father created the Son?
I believe in the Trinity -- God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons in one nature, and that the Son is two natures in one person. I believe in God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. I believe that God created human beings sinless, but that because of the sins of Adam and Eve we are now corrupted by sin.
God's justice demands that sin be paid for. He did not have to save anyone but because of His love he chose to save anyone who would believe and trust in His Son, Jesus Christ. He was fully man so that He could fully represent us before God, and fully God so that He could act as God's representative to us.
I believe in justification by faith and not by works. I guess you could say if our sin is a giant pit standing between us and God, the Cross is more of a bridge than a landfill. We can't do anything to fill the pit; any good works we try to fill the pit with is ultimately not enough to save us.
I believe that sanctification is a direct outgrowth of justification. God calls on us to become more and more Christlike, not to earn our salvation but because its closer to how things ought to be.
I go to a non-denominational church. I don't know to what degree Mormons are in tune with Christian public figures, but to give you a better idea of what we believe my senior pastor is Joshua Harris (the guy who wrote I Kissed Dating Goodbye ) or you can visit http://www.covlife.org/about/beliefs
-
Great questions and I’m sorry for the confusion. Let me know if this helps (again, anyone else is free to jump in if they would like to clarify):
So you believe we lived in heaven before coming to earth and only live on earth once?
Yes. We lived in heaven as spirit children of god. What I mean by that is that God has a perfected physical body but when we were first created, we were only spirits but we still were his literal children. In order to become like him, we had to receive physical bodies and learn to use them properly like he did, which is what this earth life is for. At the second coming, we’ll regain our bodies in a perfected form and those that have lived righteously will continue to progress.
The Earth was created for that purpose and we do not believe in reincarnation, but I believe there is some doctrine of the Earth being perfected as a home for many of us after the second coming but I would have to look it up to give you anything more specific than that.
What exactly do you mean by God being the father of our spirits? Does this mean something different than being our Father in heaven?
I meant that he created our spirits and is our father in the spiritual sense; you know, just to differentiate him from our mortal fathers.
And I was also a bit confused in your paragraph about Jesus Christ. What exactly do you mean by the term "spirit brother"?
Again, that is just to say that we are all brothers and sisters and children of our Heavenly Father. Jesus Christ was the eldest.
I have also heard that Mormons do not believe the Son is completely God, while still having taken a human nature to Himself. I know you don't believe in the Trinity, but you could clarify on this? Do you believe that God the Father created the Son?
We believe in the Godhead, which is similar to the Trinity, except to say that while we believe that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are all divine, have similar goal and work together for our salvation, they are three separate beings. Heavenly Father the spiritual father of us all and stands at the head. Jesus Christ is his son, both mortally and spiritually, and actively took on the role of the Savior. By doing so he can be correctly titled God as well, but he is still under the authority of his father and acts in his name. The Holy Ghost or Spirit is another separate being; a spirit that has not yet received a mortal body but it is his presence you feel when receiving answers to prayer.
I believe in the Trinity -- God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons in one nature, and that the Son is two natures in one person. I believe in God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. I believe that God created human beings sinless, but that because of the sins of Adam and Eve we are now corrupted by sin.
So are you saying that you believe that we are all individually accountable for the sins of Adam?
Our take on that is a little different. We believe that the fall of Adam was an important step in the creation. Not so much that he sinned by leaving the garden, but rather that it showed his choice to leave God's presence and progress as God had intended. In the garden they were childlike and innocent, they couldn't progress because they had never been tempted or had trials that a mortal existence would expose them to. So when they left the Garden, they could be tempted, have trials and sin but they also could learn things they could never learn if they were continually in God's presence and have mortal children. Every person is born innocent and is accountable for their own sins before God.
God's justice demands that sin be paid for. He did not have to save anyone but because of His love he chose to save anyone who would believe and trust in His Son, Jesus Christ. He was fully man so that He could fully represent us before God, and fully God so that He could act as God's representative to us.
I believe in justification by faith and not by works. I guess you could say if our sin is a giant pit standing between us and God, the Cross is more of a bridge than a landfill. We can't do anything to fill the pit; any good works we try to fill the pit with is ultimately not enough to save us.
I believe that sanctification is a direct outgrowth of justification. God calls on us to become more and more Christlike, not to earn our salvation but because its closer to how things ought to be.
So if saving comes by faith, than does that mean that you believe every person will be rewarded equally after this life regardless on how they lived it? Or does God only chose certain people to save? If so, how is this decided? How do you show your belief if not by works?
We believe in the balance of works and faith. You need both. As your analogy shows, we agree that ultimately we cannot save ourselves and Jesus' atonement allows him to bridge that gap if we repent and are baptized in his name, but it is by our works and commitment to give our very best effort in following the commandments that we qualify ourselves for his saving grace.
I hope that you aren't offended by any of my questions. I'm really am curious to know! I studied a lot of religions in college and find it all very interesting, so I'll be sure to check out the link you put up.
Thanks for the fun discussion! :D
-
Thanks for the quick response! I'm really enjoying the discussion.
Yes. We lived in heaven as spirit children of god. What I mean by that is that God has a perfected physical body but when we were first created, we were only spirits but we still were his literal children. In order to become like him, we had to receive physical bodies and learn to use them properly like he did, which is what this earth life is for. At the second coming, we’ll regain our bodies in a perfected form and those that have lived righteously will continue to progress.
The Earth was created for that purpose and we do not believe in reincarnation, but I believe there is some doctrine of the Earth being perfected as a home for many of us after the second coming but I would have to look it up to give you anything more specific than that.
Thanks, yeah this answers my question, but also raises another one. Do you believe that God always had a physical body? That would seem impossible given that He existed before creating the physical universe.
I personally have never really thought deeply about this particular issue, whether the Father has a physical body. There are many references throughout the Bible to a "throne" and Jesus Christ sitting at His "right hand" but those could simply be metaphors or symbolism.
I believe in the Trinity -- God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons in one nature, and that the Son is two natures in one person. I believe in God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. I believe that God created human beings sinless, but that because of the sins of Adam and Eve we are now corrupted by sin.
So are you saying that you believe that we are all individually accountable for the sins of Adam?
Our take on that is a little different. We believe that the fall of Adam was an important step in the creation. Not so much that he sinned by leaving the garden, but rather that it showed his choice to leave God's presence and progress as God had intended. In the garden they were childlike and innocent, they couldn't progress because they had never been tempted or had trials that a mortal existence would expose them to. So when they left the Garden, they could be tempted, have trials and sin but they also could learn things they could never learn if they were continually in God's presence and have mortal children. Every person is born innocent and is accountable for their own sins before God.
Basically I am saying that because we are all descendants of Adam, we are all sinful; its in our blood. However, we are judged by God for our own sins. Because we are all children of Adam, we are going to sin. But, if we are born again through belief in and surrender to Jesus Christ, we can overcome the power of sin in our lives. (Though we can never become perfect and without sin in this life.)
I believe that in one sense Adam's sin was a perversion of God's plan, a blight upon the creation He deemed "very good". However, in another sense it was part of His plan all along, so that He could glorify Himself through sending His son to the cross.
God's justice demands that sin be paid for. He did not have to save anyone but because of His love he chose to save anyone who would believe and trust in His Son, Jesus Christ. He was fully man so that He could fully represent us before God, and fully God so that He could act as God's representative to us.
I believe in justification by faith and not by works. I guess you could say if our sin is a giant pit standing between us and God, the Cross is more of a bridge than a landfill. We can't do anything to fill the pit; any good works we try to fill the pit with is ultimately not enough to save us.
I believe that sanctification is a direct outgrowth of justification. God calls on us to become more and more Christlike, not to earn our salvation but because its closer to how things ought to be.
So if saving comes by faith, than does that mean that you believe every person will be rewarded equally after this life regardless on how they lived it? Or does God only chose certain people to save? If so, how is this decided? How do you show your belief if not by works?
God rewards each believer differently based on their works in life. However, the free gift of eternal life is not earned but given to anyone who believes and trusts in Jesus.
However, you are quite right: faith without works is dead. But its the faith that comes first. You can't do your job or work in the soup kitchen for God's glory, for example, until you have a personal relationship with him.
I believe that God directs some people to be saved through the process of election. In case you're unfamiliar with this term (I don't know how Mormon theology is taught :D ) I'll give you Wayne Grudem's definition from his book SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. "Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure."
As a result of election, these people through free will come to trust in Jesus for forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
We believe in the balance of works and faith. You need both. As your analogy shows, we agree that ultimately we cannot save ourselves and Jesus' atonement allows him to bridge that gap if we repent and are baptized in his name, but it is by our works and commitment to give our very best effort in following the commandments that we qualify ourselves for his saving grace.
I would say that without any sign of change or growth towards Christ's likeness in a person's life, it would be very difficult to say that they have been saved. Of course, only that person and God know the true answer to that question.
I don't think we can ever do anything to qualify ourselves for grace. It's all undeserved. God doesn't choose to save anyone because He foreknew that they would be a good person in life.
Personally I find this doctrine and some of its implications very hard to swallow. At the same time though, it's incredibly comforting to know that I don't need to worry about messing up; Christ has already purchased me from sin into eternal life.
As a side note, however, I am emphatically not saying that because Christians have trusted in Jesus, they don't have to worry about how they live their lives. There are so many reasons to live a godly life as a Christian. To name a few:
a.) Well, obviously God commands us to follow His commands and become more like Christ.
b.) We want to be a "vessel for noble use", not dis-noble use.
c.) The Bible clearly states that our rewards in heaven are dependent upon our acts in life.
d.) This one really hit it home for me. Each sin I commit now is a sin that Jesus had to pay for on the cross with His life's blood. In a sense, it has already happened, but I still have to make the decision then and there.
Anyway, like I said at the beginning I have really been enjoying this discussion. Anyone else, feel free to jump in! :D
I'm not at all offended by your questions. Its not often I get to have a deep theologically grounded talk with someone of another faith. Thanks for sharing your honest beliefs with me!
-
Do you believe that God always had a physical body?
Well, this is getting into stuff that I'm not sure I have a full grasp on yet, but I will give it my best shot! We believe that God's time, along with the universe, is one eternal round and has no beginning or end. He is perfect so he bound to follow natural laws including the concept of mater: it is neither created or destroyed only changed and directed. He organized existing intelligence into spirits (us) and we can assume that his assent to Godhood was at least somewhat similar. What I can tell you for sure is that right now he has a body similar to our own but perfected as our bodies were created in his image.
I believe that in one sense Adam's sin was a perversion of God's plan, a blight upon the creation He deemed "very good". However, in another sense it was part of His plan all along, so that He could glorify Himself through sending His son to the cross.
So if Adam didn't sin, what would be the state of our existence? Would we exist at all? What is your concept of the devil and his role in the Fall?
And if you believe that God and Jesus are the same person, why is he called the son? I guess I just have a hard time understanding the concept of the Trinity in regards to Jesus' earthly ministry. Like who was he praying to if he is God himself?
God rewards each believer differently based on their works in life. However, the free gift of eternal life is not earned but given to anyone who believes and trusts in Jesus.
However, you are quite right: faith without works is dead. But its the faith that comes first. You can't do your job or work in the soup kitchen for God's glory, for example, until you have a personal relationship with him.
Careful, we might be dangerously close to agreeing on that one! ;) We believe that resurrection of our mortal bodies is free to all men based on grace alone, but progression and life with Heavenly Father requires faith, works and certain ordinances.
I believe that God directs some people to be saved through the process of election. In case you're unfamiliar with this term (I don't know how Mormon theology is taught :D ) I'll give you Wayne Grudem's definition from his book SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. "Election is an act of God before creation in which he chooses some people to be saved, not on account of any foreseen merit in them, but only because of his sovereign good pleasure."
As a result of election, these people through free will come to trust in Jesus for forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
Yeah, the closest thing we have that I can think of in that regard is that we believe that some people were given certain tasks or callings before coming down to earth (like those that are called as prophet) but if they choose not to remain worthy of it, someone else will be chosen in their place.
I would say that without any sign of change or growth towards Christ's likeness in a person's life, it would be very difficult to say that they have been saved. Of course, only that person and God know the true answer to that question.
I don't think we can ever do anything to qualify ourselves for grace. It's all undeserved. God doesn't choose to save anyone because He foreknew that they would be a good person in life.
Yeah, 'qualify' was probably the wrong word to use. We will never 'deserve' the grace and power of the atonement, and we can never repay him. It is a hard doctrine to understand that someone loves us so much that he would be willing to pay such an awesome price. But he did and he does and I think that the love I feel is one of the best things about the gospel. All I was trying to emphasize was that he expects some effort (our very best effort, in fact) and the ordinances (such as repentance and baptism) are essential. He isn't going to do all the work for us, and somehow, that makes me incredibly happy too to know that I can contribute, even if it is only in a small way.
And, yes, I can agree that your desire, mindset and faith are always very important.
I think I saw a picture on your site of someone being baptized by immersion and I thought it was cool because it seemed similar to how we do it. Is this something you all do? What is the usual age?
Thanks again, but one thing we might consider is continuing this discussion into PMs unless someone else wants to contribute. I mean, it doesn't matter to me and I would enjoy it if someone else did want to chime in, but I would feel bad about keeping the discussion open here if it's only the two of us that are interested.
-
Reaves, regarding your c.) at the end there, that makes me wonder what your definition of salvation is and how it relates to the reward you get in heaven that is dependent on our acts in life.
However, the free gift of eternal life is not earned but given to anyone who believes and trusts in Jesus.
This sounds like a contradiction to me. If you say you have to believe and trust in Jesus in order to get eternal life, aren't you saying that is the way to earn it?
Mormons believe that Jesus saves everybody in a couple different ways. We believe everyone, without fail, will be resurrected and gain immortality. And we believe that after resurrection, even unrepentant sinners will go to a very nice place, much nicer than this earth, where the only punishment is their sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that if they had followed him they could have lived with him forever instead of just seeing him at the judgment bar.
What we generally think of as "salvation" though is "obtaining all that the Father hath" which is possible only through faith in Jesus Christ, repentance (a constant process of turning from sin whenever you mess up), baptism for the remission of sins and laying on of hands by someone in authority to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (as Jesus said, except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God). Yes, no one will be perfect—only a perfect person could be said to deserve salvation. But God requires us to try before Jesus will make up the difference. (And only God is the judge of whether or not we really tried—and the trying doesn't stop until the moment we die.)
As for God having a physical body—are you saying something's impossible for God? ;) We don't know how many universes God may have created, or whether any laws of physics existed in some form before he created the universe we live in, but we do know he created man in his own image.
Basically I am saying that because we are all descendants of Adam, we are all sinful; its in our blood. However, we are judged by God for our own sins. Because we are all children of Adam, we are going to sin. But, if we are born again through belief in and surrender to Jesus Christ, we can overcome the power of sin in our lives. (Though we can never become perfect and without sin in this life.)
This is pretty much what Mormons believe, except that we believe children are incapable of and untainted by sin until they reach the age of accountability, 8 years old. Anyone older than that must put off the natural man and yield to the enticings of the holy spirit and become a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and become as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.
[ADDED:]
The insistence that works don't matter is a bit misplaced in modern Christianity. Historically there were two important periods to deemphasize works: back in the New Testament when some people were saying you still had to follow the law of Moses and all of the Pharisaical nitpickiness, and during the reformation when they were reacting against the Catholic church and the forgiveness of sins by saying a certain number of Hail Marys and Our Fathers and whatnot. Like the book of James says, some works have always been a required part of Christianity. Even the conscious choice of believing Jesus is the Christ is a work.
-
Do you believe that God always had a physical body?
Well, this is getting into stuff that I'm not sure I have a full grasp on yet, but I will give it my best shot! We believe that God's time, along with the universe, is one eternal round and has no beginning or end. He is perfect so he bound to follow natural laws including the concept of mater: it is neither created or destroyed only changed and directed. He organized existing intelligence into spirits (us) and we can assume that his assent to Godhood was at least somewhat similar. What I can tell you for sure is that right now he has a body similar to our own but perfected as our bodies were created in his image.
I believe that only God is timeless. He created matter, space, and time at the same instant. He created the "natural" laws that govern everything in the universe.
I believe that in one sense Adam's sin was a perversion of God's plan, a blight upon the creation He deemed "very good". However, in another sense it was part of His plan all along, so that He could glorify Himself through sending His son to the cross.
So if Adam didn't sin, what would be the state of our existence? Would we exist at all? What is your concept of the devil and his role in the Fall?
And if you believe that God and Jesus are the same person, why is he called the son? I guess I just have a hard time understanding the concept of the Trinity in regards to Jesus' earthly ministry. Like who was he praying to if he is God himself?
If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would be sinless beings, with the same moral capacity to make choices. However, I see this as being a moot point; if Adam and Eve had not sinned, someone else would have :P I'd like to think if I had been in Adam's place I would have made the right choice, but who knows.
I believe that the devil, the angel called Lucifer, was the first to rebel against God and the first to sin. Consequently, he was the one who first introduced sin into the world that God pronounced "very good" and he was the one who tempted Eve. However, he did not make or force her or Adam to sin; that was their choice.
I do not believe that God the Father and Jesus are the same person. I believe they are different persons, yet are both codeity together with the Holy Spirit. All have existed eternally, yet differ in roles and authority.
I think I saw a picture on your site of someone being baptized by immersion and I thought it was cool because it seemed similar to how we do it. Is this something you all do? What is the usual age?
Yep, in just the last year or two we installed a baptism pool in our facility. Basically we believe that baptism is a symbol of an inward work in the heart. 1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
(ESV) Its a symbol of new life in us that was commanded by Jesus.
For people growing up in the church the general age is about 15-19 I suppose. They need to be able to give a clear testimony of their salvation and show through their lives that they have new spiritual life inside them. For new believers its generally six months - a year after they have been saved, I guess. I personally have not yet been baptized but I plan to do it in my senior year of high school.
Thanks again, but one thing we might consider is continuing this discussion into PMs unless someone else wants to contribute. I mean, it doesn't matter to me and I would enjoy it if someone else did want to chime in, but I would feel bad about keeping the discussion open here if it's only the two of us that are interested.
I was thinking similarly but it looks like Ookla has joined the conversation so we can keep it here :D Thanks for your thoughts!
Reaves, regarding your c.) at the end there, that makes me wonder what your definition of salvation is and how it relates to the reward you get in heaven that is dependent on our acts in life.
I believe in the hell that Jesus promised to save us from if we would accept him into our lives. So in essence I see salvation as being moved from the kingdom of sin, where the punishment for sin is death, into the kingdom of heaven where Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.
However, the free gift of eternal life is not earned but given to anyone who believes and trusts in Jesus.
This sounds like a contradiction to me. If you say you have to believe and trust in Jesus in order to get eternal life, aren't you saying that is the way to earn it?
I suppose you could see it that way. If someone offers me a cool glass of water in a parched desert for free, and I believe him when he says its not poison, that could be considered a "work". But I believe that it was not us who first reached out to God asking for His help, but that we were in open rebellion against Him and He reached out to us, putting the glass of life-giving water in our hands. Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (For the future, all biblical references I'll be giving will be taken from the ESV Bible)
As for God having a physical body—are you saying something's impossible for God? ;) We don't know how many universes God may have created, or whether any laws of physics existed in some form before he created the universe we live in, but we do know he created man in his own image.
I believe that God's power is unlimited, but qualified by His other attributes. For example, it is impossible for God to lie because to do so would be to deny the very attributes that define Him as God. Neither can He deny His justice, because to do so would be to deny essential aspects of His character.
[ADDED:]
The insistence that works don't matter is a bit misplaced in modern Christianity. Historically there were two important periods to deemphasize works: back in the New Testament when some people were saying you still had to follow the law of Moses and all of the Pharisaical nitpickiness, and during the reformation when they were reacting against the Catholic church and the forgiveness of sins by saying a certain number of Hail Marys and Our Fathers and whatnot. Like the book of James says, some works have always been a required part of Christianity. Even the conscious choice of believing Jesus is the Christ is a work.
James 2:18 "But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
I think what James is saying is that it is very easy for someone to go to church and nod their head, saying Jesus is Lord. Its harder for that person to repent and break patterns of sin in their life, yet that is what God commands. James goes on to say in verse 21: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. "
It would have been impossible for Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice to God if he had not had faith. It does say Abraham was justified by works...because of his faith, the faith that God put there. As always, God is the primary cause and we are the secondary.
Like I said before, anyone feel free to jump in! You don't need to be Mormon or Christian to participate in these discussions. Just share what you believe about God and who Jesus is.
-
Hey, Ookla! Thanks for chiming in. Especially here:
Mormons believe that Jesus saves everybody in a couple different ways. We believe everyone, without fail, will be resurrected and gain immortality. And we believe that after resurrection, even unrepentant sinners will go to a very nice place, much nicer than this earth, where the only punishment is their sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that if they had followed him they could have lived with him forever instead of just seeing him at the judgment bar.
What we generally think of as "salvation" though is "obtaining all that the Father hath" which is possible only through faith in Jesus Christ, repentance (a constant process of turning from sin whenever you mess up), baptism for the remission of sins and laying on of hands by someone in authority to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (as Jesus said, except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God). Yes, no one will be perfect—only a perfect person could be said to deserve salvation. But God requires us to try before Jesus will make up the difference. (And only God is the judge of whether or not we really tried—and the trying doesn't stop until the moment we die.)
I think I might have confused myself and Reaves by extension by failing to realize that his concept of saving vs full salvation would be different than my own (duh :P).
Well, this is getting into stuff that I'm not sure I have a full grasp on yet, but I will give it my best shot! We believe that God's time, along with the universe, is one eternal round and has no beginning or end. He is perfect so he bound to follow natural laws including the concept of mater: it is neither created or destroyed only changed and directed. He organized existing intelligence into spirits (us) and we can assume that his assent to Godhood was at least somewhat similar. What I can tell you for sure is that right now he has a body similar to our own but perfected as our bodies were created in his image.
I believe that only God is timeless. He created matter, space, and time at the same instant. He created the "natural" laws that govern everything in the universe.
Yeah, I think Ookla probably stated that better than me too. I guess I just don't see the 'chicken and egg' theories of when Heavenly Father and the Universe first existed as important to our current salvation as knowing his current state and our relationship with him. I'll be sure to ask him about it someday though. ;)
If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would be sinless beings, with the same moral capacity to make choices. However, I see this as being a moot point; if Adam and Eve had not sinned, someone else would have :P I'd like to think if I had been in Adam's place I would have made the right choice, but who knows.
So (just for clarification) you believe that Adam and Eve were fully mortal and able to bear children in the Garden? If taking the apple was the wrong choice, what would be the right one?
I do not believe that God the Father and Jesus are the same person. I believe they are different persons, yet are both codeity together with the Holy Spirit. All have existed eternally, yet differ in roles and authority.
Yeah, I always thought the Nicene Creed with the trinity and their concept of God was a bit confusing and contradictory, but that makes more sense.
Yep, in just the last year or two we installed a baptism pool in our facility. Basically we believe that baptism is a symbol of an inward work in the heart. 1 Peter 3:21 "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
(ESV) Its a symbol of new life in us that was commanded by Jesus.
For people growing up in the church the general age is about 15-19 I suppose. They need to be able to give a clear testimony of their salvation and show through their lives that they have new spiritual life inside them. For new believers its generally six months - a year after they have been saved, I guess. I personally have not yet been baptized but I plan to do it in my senior year of high school.
Congrats!
So is baptism, for you, more of a formality or a requirement?
We all are expected to be baptized at eight or the time of our conversation after a bishop's interview where they see that we understand it's significant. We see it a chance to cleanse the slate and make our first commitment to God. We renew the commitment by repentance and the weekly sacrament. Along with it's connection to repentance, baptism by the proper authority is seen as a vital step for salvation as Jesus was baptized himself.
-
;D
Just to put it out there since this discussion seems to be all over the map. The Christian view of the Trinity is sometime best understood by those of other faiths via contrast. The othodox received Christian dogma is as follows:
God is a spirit being and as such has no corporeal form, except that humanity which the son in the person of Jesus assumed at his incarnation and birth. The view of three fully humanoid individuals is generally referred to euphemistically as "three little Indians." Conversely the Sebellian view is commonly called "Jesus Only" or "oneness" and teaches that Jesus himself is actually the father God of all Creation. These are both heresies that are viewed by many of the church fathers as damning.
The entity known as the son, is not created by the father but is eternal in the same sense as the father, just as the Holy Spirit is also Eternal. These three are distinct in that they posses the capacity to relate individually and to express relationship with each other. On the other hand they are indivisibly one divine being or God. Jesus is in no way of the order of creation, except in that he assumed humanity in order to complete his mission on Earth.
We are metaphorical Children of God because he created Adam and we are descended from Adam. We may only become spiritual children when we accept the truth saving faith and are granted the power to become sons of God through religious conversion.
As humans we are a little lower than the Angels in authority and sophistication. Our spirit is the life that God breathed into Adam (who was entirely human) passed down through the generations. Our flesh or brains and bodies are also inherited from Adam and are purely animal in nature.
The indestructible part of a man is the psyche which is translated in the King James version as Soul. This is the part of man that is made in the image of God and is in essence an artificial intelligence. It is distinct from the Spirit (life force, or higher nature sometimes called the Super Ego to sound cool and latinized) of man. It is the Soul that goes to eternal reward or punishment
There is no divinity or potential divinity in a human and humans are not angelic and do not become angels after death. Although, like the angels, humans become asexual and non-reproductive after being resurrected. Instead angels are various orders and species that are created for special purpose, and aside from satanic rebellion have no freewill. Jesus is not an angelic being but rather an aspect or person in the Godhead.
Satan is the original rebel and fell from God's good graces because he thought he could do a better job at managing Heaven and Earth. He attempted to implement his own will and God cast him down. He is of a species distinct from that of humans both is terms of spiritual realities and earthly ones. The Hebrew word for him in Genesis is Serif not snake or serpent. He is a Serif, like the Serifs (serifim) in Zecharia, and in Revelations. This is why he is described in the King James version of Revelations as the Old Red Dragon. A Serif is an angelic being whose species is that of a winged serpent like a "dragon" or wyvern and they rarely have taken corporeal form, such as in the garden east of Eden and when they were give the power to torment the Israeli refugees in the Sinai desert.
---------
It is the inevitable case that popular piety, meaning the guy in the pew, will try to take the message of the Gospel and put it in his own words. This is a good thing, but eventually leads to a case of the game of Telephone, where telling and retelling can garble some of the core concepts. That is why dogmatic tenants and interpretive doctrines get written down. They are tools so that lesser students of the bible can get at the core concepts without miscommunication.
It's also inevitable that portions of core teachings that are not politically correct or inclined to be viewed as superstition are allegorized or minimized and couched in buzz words. It's more convenient to talk of Serifim (also Seraphim transliterating the Hebrew word) than to say dragons, and be laughed at. Of course, as Paul said, If I'm crazy it's for Christ, and if I'm sane then it is in your service. (II Cor. 4) :P
-
Despite my previous post which was getting rather long, I had a couple of other items to add.
Salvation is prior to and distinct from baptism. We have an aphorism: It's a Finished Work at Calvary. Alluding to the statement "it is finished" and illustrating the fact that salvation is through right minded belief in the effectiveness of Jesus blood sacrifice on the cross to remit sins and the sin nature in a man or woman. When one comes to believe that Jesus is uniquely the son of God in a way that no human can participate in except vicariously, repents as in turning from the former life of sin and making a lifelong habit of restitution for the former life of sin, they can be said to have been converted and are "saved".
However, refusal to be baptized would be ridiculous and rebellious. Baptism is a sacerdotal act. Meaning in plain English, it is a form of sacrifice where the person BEING baptized is making the sacrifice. The person baptizing is merely a necessary officiant and imparts no power to the ceremony. The act of obedience is the source of effective power rather than the ritual washing. Such rebellion could only be met with judgment.
-
You have obviously studied Christian theology. This thread (once Reaves asked his recent questions) is a discussion of what Mormons believe and how it differs from historical Christian theology. So it is useful to have your input as a contrast to what we've been talking about.
Most of Christian theology in this context was thought up and written down after Christ and his original 12 apostles (and Paul) were no longer on the scene. This is what Mormons call the Great Apostasy. Just as you say, there was a big game of Telephone going on, and true doctrines got mixed with the philosophies of men and there was no absolute source to refer to to sort out these questions. So some people got together and came up with often convoluted ways of explaining how the doctrines and philosophies that they liked best fit together and wrote it down. Later people found inconsistencies in these writings and thought up even more convoluted ways of reconciling the inconsistencies, and wrote those down too.
This is why the doctrine of Continuing Revelation (that God has a prophet on the earth today that he talks to in order to explain things, so that if there is a question the prophet can ask God instead of just polling his scholarly friends, and that each individual can confirm the truth of what he says by praying and asking God and getting a witness from the Holy Ghost) is so important in the LDS church. The Reformation was an honest and sincere attempt to weed out the philosophies of men from the true doctrines, but without a pure, untranslated, uncorrupted copy of God's word, or someone to ask, they really did not have the resources to know which was which.
I believe that what most Christian believers actually believe deep in their heart is very close to LDS teachings and doesn't bear much resemblance to the convolutions of theologians.
-
Sorry, I was of the impression that the thread was a general discussion not limited to Mormon theology. Reves asked a question, and I was simply responding to some of the further development.
I am a Pentecostal. We would argue that in fact there will be a great apostasy but that it has yet to come. We also believe in prophecy as a gift given to many individuals not a single infallible leader, and the prophecy while alive and well does not progress or evolve the church as anything which Jesus himself and the 12 didn't teach 2000 years ago is false prophecy.
Of course we also do not accept that the 66 books of the canon have been distorted or changed, and that it provides a true revelation of Christ and of God. In fact adding to or deleting from the list of canonical works is considered to be an act of diabolical false prophecy. We also believe that there has been a great deal of apostasy far short of the coming Great Apostasy or falling away, that has claimed many poor souls and created a number of new and invalid faiths. This would especially apply to any of those that were founded in the 19'th century on the premise that new revelations contrary to the received text had created a new entity to replace the church and or Israel. Particularly those that adopted Swingly's heresies.
I'm curious, does the LDS allow members to join the Oddfellows, Masons, Rosey Cruscians or Shriners?
-
Renoard: just to make a historical point here. Books have already been added and deleted at least once in the history of the Christian faith. The Emperor Constantine's Council of Nicaea in the 4th Century removed dozens of books they thought were not of value, or did not deal with Christian philosophy. Plus a host of other "decisions" were made as to who Jesus was and what his relationship with God was. In effect, the bible was actually re-written.
-
I Googled Swingly's heresies and got no results. I don't know what that is.
Renoard, I was responding to your post because it seemed like you were saying "this is the way it is, and the only way that rational beings can think about it."
From our perspective, most everything in your two posts is false prophecy and not anything which Jesus himself and the 12 apostles taught. We believe it's not Biblical, and it's apostate. I talked about theology in general rather than addressing the particular points, because at the Restoration in the 1820s–30s, we believe God essentially threw out all of post-Apostasy Christian theology and restored Christ's original church. Much of the book of Doctrine & Covenants comes from revelations given by God to Joseph Smith when he asked specific questions about things he was confused about in the Bible and by what the multitudinous sects of the time were teaching and arguing about, and God clarified what the true doctrine was.
We believe that every LDS doctrine is consistent with or at least not contradicted by what's in the Bible. (Some things the Bible doesn't talk about because it was lost over time or wasn't an issue for that group of people.)
As for associating with other groups, the temple recommend interview that devout members go through every two years asks a question about whether the person associates with a group that has teachings contrary to those of the church. Members have to be able to answer that question according to their own conscience. If you're joining one of those groups for the enlightenment and mysteries, a good Mormon would know it's a waste of time. Some of them might have bits of leftover knowledge, but the complete truth is found somewhere else. If you're joining them because they have awesome drinking parties, that's not a good reason either.
I am not saying that you are a false prophet or an apostate. Only that the theology you're referring to is not indisputable fact, and that all the different Christian churches out there—all of them that don't have access to a true prophet and to modern revelation from God—have no way to verify that their interpretation of the Bible (which can be proved indisputably to have been changed over the last 2000 years) is the true one.
-
You've actually gotten the history a slightly garbled mtlhddoc2. The Canonical council was international and included bishops who owed no allegiance to the Rome, especially the Western Empire. In fact, while Constantine was responsible for establishing the Roman Church and calling the council, he had no input into the canon itself whatever and the Western Empire had a minority of bishops at the time. In fact the Bishop of Alexandria rather than Rome was the more influential leader.
The canonicity of the books in question was never suggested until the rise of the Hellenistic Jews who after centuries of ethnic cleansing attempts to use social engineering on them, had lost their essential Jewishness. Because they were detached from the Jewish orthodoxy they added books that were not part of the Jewish canon. These are books that had already failed the tests for false prophecy and had been discarded over the years. In fact the Torah and Nevim were closed by 200 BC and the Khetuvim or Writings were closed by 100 AD. (I refuse to use BCE and CE ;P )
However the Hellenes who were trying to get back to their roots and relearn Hebrew and Aramaic, commissioned translators in an irresponsible way to translate any Hebrew work they could lay hands on without the discernment to stick to the Tanakh as it had been received.
The New Testament canon was already established and in use prior to the council of Nicea as evidenced by a list published by Athanasius in 367 . And some evidence suggests that this was the same list used by Origen. It did take until the council of Trent in the 1500's to finally codify this canon composed of the Hebrew Tanakh and the 27 books of the NT. But that was largely do to the massive conflict between warring movements in the Church. And yes these men, as students of the twelve and the twelve's students, were lead by the Holy Spirit in their work. They did make a truly catastrophic error in accepting legalization of the faith at the price that Rome charged. ;D
Peter, I was couching it that way AFTER a prefice that said this is the orthodox Christian view. I thought my tone wasn't much different from yours. ;)
Swingly was a brainfart put the wrong name in there. :)
-
I'm curious, does the LDS allow members to join the Oddfellows, Masons, Rosey Cruscians or Shriners?
I'm not certain of the "doctrinal" rules here, but I know that my boss, (a stake president) is a Masonic leader... some sort of poohba. If you look into politics and Law Enforcement in Utah especially, you will find many a Morman male wearing a Masonic ring. Also, you will find that most of the Mormon traditional ceremonies are closely related, if not exact replicas, of Masonic rites and traditions. So, if it is not widely accepted, it is secretly among the society here.
-
I am not saying that you are a false prophet or an apostate. Only that the theology you're referring to is not indisputable fact, and that all the different Christian churches out there—all of them that don't have access to a true prophet and to modern revelation from God—have no way to verify that their interpretation of the Bible (which can be proved indisputably to have been changed over the last 2000 years) is the true one.
I find this whole thread fascinating you all are very intelligent and well read men who are confident in your respective convictions.
I wonder though, this modern revelation of which you speak, is it also indisputable and infallible and unchanged since the inception of the LDS church about 150 yrs ago? You speak to Renoard regarding his theology and how it is not indisputable fact... Are you implying that your theological doctrine is? How are we able to historically verify said facts? What can you give me, other than the word of a self proclaimed prophet, that your perspective is fact? Don't you, by your own argument, invalidate the truth of your doctrine and your book? what is YOUR way to historically verify that your interpretation of the Mormon Bible is the true one?
I'm not meaning to be "inflammatory" here... Merely asking a few clarifying questions defining your logic.
-
"By their fruits you shall know them." If you want to know that Thomas Monson, or any of the previous prophets are correct, you have to read their teachings, judge their actions, and then pray about it. If you want to know Book of Mormon is true, you have to read it and pray about it as well. It is promised that if anyone does this with a sincere desire to know the truth, it will be manifested to them. Everyone in the LDS church is encouraged to seek their own testimony and understanding of the gospel. In fact, that is how Joseph Smith received the first vision that sparked his ministry, by reading James and taking its advice to ask God what church to join. He saw Heavenly Father and Jesus and was told that none of the current churches had the full truth and was lead to translate the Book of Mormon, which, though equal in truth as a companion to the Bible, has the benefit of being persevered without years of retransalations by men with various agendas.
The Book of Mormon is the best place to start. If you read it and seek to gain a testimony of it, everything else tends to follow (if the translation of the book is correct, than logically the translator of the book was a prophet and so forth). It's a simple answer, but unlike the men, I am not much of a scholar yet and like the simple answer best. :D
-
The whole concept of man achieving godhood is just alien to me i truly believe i can do anything anyone else can do and i know for a fact i'm no demi-god or someone who can achieve something like it...
-
No one is trying to insult your intelligence Kaz, but it seems to me that if you already determined that you can’t achieve or believe something then it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy no matter what kind of potential you had to begin with. It’s not something that can happen over night or through the course of a single mortal life-time, but it’s a continuing process that it is possible to make progress in. At the very least, I’d like to aim for behaving like a child of god with infinite potential and fail than succeed at behaving like an upstart monkey. :P
You may have said earlier, but I’m lazy. What is your religious background and understanding of this life and what happens after death, Kaz, Writerainge or anyone else?
-
Sorry I haven't added anything to this thread today, but tomorrow is the last day of finals and I need to study!! Hopefully I can get back to it tomorrow. I'm glad to see more people joining in!
-
Ookla says that if I want to respond to this thread, I should do it myself rather than making him type it like I did last night.
Writerainge: I pretty much agree with what Frog said about revelation.
We have a prophet who receives revelation for and speaks to the whole church for a couple of reasons, none of which is to have somebody who we believe is infallible and who we should follow blindly. Reason 1: God's house is a house of order, and if there wasn't somebody in charge, and an established chain of command, there would be chaos. Reason 2: We believe most revelation comes from when a person has a question, and asks God for an answer. Each member in the church is entitled to receive revelation for him/herself and for their area of responsibility. If it's my calling to teach a class of 7 year olds, I'm mostly going to be thinking and praying about how to get that group of seven year olds ready to be baptized at age 8 (by making sure they know how to tell right from wrong, and understand repentance, and Christ's role in the atonement) rather than thinking about the growing problems of internet pornography, and how to make sure Church programs work for people all over the world (and not just in Utah).
When the Prophet says something new, each member is encouraged to think about it, study the issue, and ask God for a confirmation that it's true. Sometimes, we have to trust that the Prophet knows what he's talking about, and give it a try for a while to see if it makes our lives better (If you want a great scripture reference for this, read Alma chapter 32 in the Book of Mormon, where he encourages the people to "experiment on the word")http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/32.
A recent time when I did this was when our church leaders asked us to be active in the campaign for Prop 8 in California (and if you need to debate the issues in that campaign again, please start a new thread rather than discussing it in this one). It was a very difficult thing to ask, because many of us have a live and let live attitude (see the 11th Article of Faith http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1) and didn't want to hurt the people who felt strongly in the other direction. Once I started working on the campaign, it was VERY difficult to continue because of the really horrible things people were saying to me. Yet, because I had prayed about the matter, I knew in my heart that I was doing what God wanted me to do, and I know that I have been blessed with stronger faith because of the experience. I came to see that we were asked to participate in the campaign not because it would likely keep any current Homosexual couple from doing whatever they wanted, but because we needed to assert our right to have an opinion on moral issues and vote our conscience, and that those rights were under VERY HEAVY attack.
So the Prophet receives revelation about what the general membership of the Church ought to be thinking about, focusing their energy on, and asking for revelation about in their lives. This doesn't stop anyone from asking for revelation about their specific issues. The doctrines of the gospel give wide latitude (within some strict parameters) for each person to decide between himself and the Lord what is the right thing for him to do in any situation. I believe this is referred to in the New Testament as "Christian Liberty" (OK, in looking for a citation, I see that Paul never used that term, but the topic I'm thinking about is in 1 Cor chapter 8) http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/8/9#9
As the Church has matured, there have been many times when the programs have changed to better meet the needs of the people. There have also been a few times when the Lord, through revelation to His Prophet, has released the Church from the responsibility of obeying certain commandments because it wasn't really possible to do so (for example, we're not expected to live the United Order/Law of Consecration/Having All Things in Common like the New Testament saints or the early Mormon saints tried to, because it doesn't work within the larger economy unless everyone is equally committed, and that's impossible.) The underlying doctrines of the church have NOT changed, however, and we are still asked to commit everything we have and all our time and talents to the building up of the kingdom of God on Earth.
So no, our logic does not require anyone to take our word for anything. Each person who is truly humble and asks God to help him know the truth, intending to act on the truth once he knows it, WILL receive an answer, a revelation, a witness for himself. This revelation will probably not be an angelic visitation, but it will be clear enough confirmation, that the person receiving it won't doubt what he's experienced. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/4#4
-
How did you think i was insulted? I didn't mean to sound as if i was... well my understanding of life after death is that of ignorance... i was raised as a Southern Baptist and became a christian with out a denomination (non-denominational is a denomination) and eventually lost all faith i had... i believe we are all ignorant of the after life and i dislike the very concept of faith because it is the choice to believe regardless of ignorance i don't know for certain if re-incarnation exist though i find that more appealing than an after-life which to me sounds like stagnation... but the fact remains we are all of us uncertain
-
How did you think i was insulted? I didn't mean to sound as if i was...
That was mostly just me trying to soften the fact that I was about to disagree with you. I'm rarely one for controversy, especially when it's so easy to take written comments out of context when you don't know the tone or person behind it. But now I am mostly going to agree with you.
I personally would see being an 'asexual servant of God' forever as stagnate, boring and almost as depressing as believing that death is the end of existence. That is not what LDS people believe. If you are a position where you dislike the concept of faith, explaining this probably wouldn't mean much to you, but faith isn't just an arbitrary belief or hope either. There are ways to test it. Most commandments come with promised blessings. You keep the commandments in the proper spirit, and then you receive the blessings. By this I can say that I gained trust in God and faith by experience along with my hope for a positive outcome.
It's sort of like a weight loss program. If you want to know if it works, you sign up, follow all the instructions and then see if you manage to drop 50 lbs. ::)
Are you happy with your current beliefs (or lack thereof ;) )? To me, that is always the most important thing: Finding ways to have real happiness or joy in this life that goes beyond a few cheep thrills.
-
The funny thing is i have found peace in admitting my ignorance and am much happier than i was as a professed christian
-
well my understanding of life after death is that of ignorance... i was raised as a Southern Baptist and became a christian with out a denomination (non-denominational is a denomination) and eventually lost all faith i had... i believe we are all ignorant of the after life and i dislike the very concept of faith because it is the choice to believe regardless of ignorance i don't know for certain if re-incarnation exist though i find that more appealing than an after-life which to me sounds like stagnation... but the fact remains we are all of us uncertain
I have to agree with Kaz here... Faith, by definition is belief or hope without knowledge... I think certain people with faith need it to give their lives meaning and purpose. It's a scary thing to wonder, "Who am I? What is my purpose? Do I matter in this universe?" etc. Religion and faith gives specific answers to said questions and that promotes a feeling of being loved, forgiven, and sense of purpose.
I have read the book of Mormon, living in Utah, you can't really escape it. As a history major, I immediately had chronological and logistical issues with the book. Regardless, I glazed such issues over with the idea that perhaps science, history, and such things were mistaken and I needed to pray with sincere intent and see if I could communicate with the divine. After receiving no such communication or "confirmation" (I am aware of what they are supposed to be because of the missionaries) I was informed that I must have "done it wrong" or "not been open" to said communication. I am to take it that if I didn't get the answer that they told me to get, or it wasn't revelated to me that what I read was truth, then I wasn't asking in the correct manner and/or open to the correct answer which is the answer they gave me that I'm supposed to have.
Honestly, placing aside the issues I have with the entire Joseph Smith deal, Brigham Young, Church doctrine regarding women (which isn't LDS specific), "priesthood", Word of Wisdom, worthiness, temple ceremony, bishop confessionals/interviews, tithing practice, political maneuverings i.e. paid lobbyists and special interest groups, historical inconsistencies, etc... I have a fundamental problem with the idea that a loving God would create sinners and then punish them. It makes no sense to me. The entire idea of Jesus Christ, one person atoning for our sins, also has no basis in rationality for me. Thus, that is where faith takes part in your lives. In order to wrap yourselves in this religion so completely and utterly that every decision you make; from the people you chose to love and partner with, to the food and beverages you consume, to the clothing you wear, to when you shop, to how you spend your money, is based around the commandments and "revelations" of a prophet that tells you that he speaks to God for you. You HAVE to receive some kind of "revelation" i.e. a good, peaceful feeling, a small voice in your consiousness, or a confident burning in your heart that everything that comes out of his mouth is true... otherwise, the entire basis for your ethics and value system would break down and it would be a colossal waste of time and huge pain in the ass. But, since you're willing to bet that you're building your mansions in the highest realm of heaven... it is worth the effort to you.
I am not in any way saying that you are WRONG in doing so... don't missunderstand me.
I'm just saying that I don't KNOW... therefore, I can't reconcile in my mind living my life in such a way. Instead, I search for universal truths and follow those truths to the best of my ability always striving to better myself and the lives of the people I come into contact with. I, essentially, live a faithless life. I don't portend to have revelation for anyone and I do my best to build a relationship with the divine without presuming that it is a glorified version of myself. I believe in doing good for the sake of doing good, not to receive blessings or to please a higher power. I believe that love is the highest and truest law and is taught in nearly every religion throughout the world because inside we have a connection to each other that tells us that this is so. I am a creationist because it doesn't make sense to me that matter is formed from nothing. I believe there is a loving, caring creator/father/mother of our souls/spirit/energy/essence and that we will most likely have to answer for our actions here. My belief, however is not faith, it is not knowledge, it is a most powerful HOPE. And coming to have that hope has made me the happiest person I can possibly be. I have had tragedy and trial to maintain balance and nurture growth and compassion, but most of my days are filled with unadulterated bliss. None of my pleasures are fleeting, none of my gratification is instant and/or short lived, instead, I live with a constant feeling of well being and wholeness nurtured by my loved ones.
So, in essence that is my religion. It's kinda hard to give it a name... lol.
-
Also, I am confused by the idea that religion has anything to do with finding real happiness as opposed to cheap thrills. How would one's belief in which ever god and gospel help you to ascertain the difference?
-
I think we have very little disagreement about the fundamentals here. It sounds to me like you have done some "experimenting on the word" in your search for fundamental truths that lead to happiness, and you have found some that have borne good fruit. I think that if you continue to honestly search for truth, and doing good for the sake of doing good, then you will be just fine in the afterlife.
I've gone through quite a few periods in my life when I've honestly wondered, "What if it's all a lie? What if there is no afterlife, or my church has it all wrong?" Being of a logical and scientific turn of mind, I then said, "OK, take the hypothesis that there is no afterlife, what would you do differently her and now?" I asked myself if I'd wear different clothes, date different people. Would I eat differently? Smoke cigarettes? Get drunk every evening like my next door neighbors do? Steal? Have sex outside of marriage?
I looked at even the most glamorous representations of many of these behaviors, and found that they didn't look like they led to happiness. The drunken parties my neighbors throw every night don't even look like they're fun before they often turn into screaming matches, and most of the people who hang out there don't seem to have stable jobs, homes, families, or even relationships.
I also saw that being a member of the Church gave me a safety net for many of the areas that I'd fall down in my life alone. I know that I'll have a whole crowd of people happy to meet me and be my new friends when I move someplace new (it's still hard for me to socialize, but at least I have a starting place). There are opportunities to serve others, learn from people who've been through my stage of life and beyond, and share my own talents. I don't have to worry that my donations to humanitarian causes are being spent on executives with huge salaries and expensive infomercials. The list goes on and on.
Then I considered that if in every area I could reasonably test in this life, living the gospel made me happier than not, then there might also be truth in the places I couldn't test -- and even if there's not, it really isn't that hard for me to do the little extras. That's what makes it worth it for me. I have had spiritual experiences, but they are somehow easy to dismiss or forget in the tough times. during those times, my logic keeps me on the straight and narrow until I can feel His hand in my life again (and I always have felt Him again).
As for a loving God creating us then waiting to punish us, I don't think that's how it works at all. I have an 18 month old daughter, and I love her and want the best for her. I make rules about what she can eat (not too many sweets), and when she has to sleep, and what she can play with (she's not allowed to dance with my sharp scissors). There are times when she gets into something I don't want her to, and she gets upset when I take it away. When she gets older, I'll make rules based on my greater experience, and if she deliberately breaks them, there will be consequences for her actions. I may have to punish her for small (in the grand scheme of things) disobediences in order to keep her from heading down a path that I know will lead to unhappiness (for instance, I don't think that drug use or teen sex can ever be a recipe for happiness, so I'll do my best to make sure she has good friends and stays out of dangerous situations). I will never be so angry at her that I'll stop loving her, even if she makes some decisions that disappoint me or make me sad. I know that school and college will be difficult at times, but I'll send her anyway, because I know that she can't grow up to be a competent adult if I lock her in the house all the time. I could be said to be her creator -- almost every bit of her physical body was once a part of me, but there was something eternal -- some personality -- that I just made a home for.
I think that this is exactly the way God feels about us, only his love and experience are infinitely greater than ours. I believe that he created our spirits (and also the world we live on and therefore our bodies), but that He had some kind of material to start from -- some part of our personality that is eternal even beyond God. He sent us to earth to gain the experience we'd need to become all that we can be in the eternities -- and I believe that we will be working, progressing, and creating in the afterlife. He knew that it would be hard, and that not all of us would live up to our full potential, but He also knew that if we didn't experience mortality, none of us could progress much further than we had already. I believe that He wants to do everything in His power to help us succeed. I believe the only real "punishment" in store is having to look in His loving face and see the sad look of disappointment there. I believe that it will be so painful to those who willfully rebelled that they won't want to be near Him, and so will not be able to dwell in His presence, and the eternal soul wrenching guilt of knowing what you could have been if you'd only done as He asked. I believe that anyone who sincerely wants to do good and be the best they can be, will have an opportunity to do so either in this life or the next. I believe that the better we can become in this life, the easier it will be to keep moving forward in the next, but that He'll give us all the chances we need as long as we're sincerely doing the best with what we have (As for what "Sincerely doing you best" entails -- only God can judge that).
As for happiness versus cheap thrills, think of a drug addict. He gets cheap thrills, but very little real happiness as he destroys his relationships, his health, his career, and ultimately his whole life in search of more drugs. If your faith in God leads you to a religion that teaches you not to waste your time, money, etc on addictive substances, then following that religion will keep you from doing things that will certainly make you unhappy, and encourage you to do things that will make you happy, even if they're not all as obvious as not doing drugs.
-
Just one more note -- I don't know why you didn't receive a confirmation of the Book of Mormon. It is, of course, possible that you "did it wrong" as somebody implied to you at the time. It's also possile that other things going on in your life made it difficult for you to recognize or accept those feelings. It's also possible that God expected you to think about it a little more deeply. It's also possible that it wasn't the right time. There are lots of possibilities. I certainly don't know -- I wasn't there and don't have enough information to judge you, your efforts, or your intentions. Nobody but God can judge that sort of thing, and those who made a judgement about you were wrong to do so.
I don't know you or your situation well enough to tell you how to get the conditions right to feel the spirit, but I will say once again, that you should continue doing things that you have found bring you true happiness, and be open to the idea that there may be things in your life that you can change to become a better person (as there are for all of us, including me). If you keep striving to have a relationship with God, and become a better person all the time, I believe He will direct you to the places where you can find the understanding you (like most people, including me) are looking for.
-
I have to agree with Kaz here... Faith, by definition is belief or hope without knowledge... I think certain people with faith need it to give their lives meaning and purpose.
I would argue that you've entirely misunderstood what faith means in the context of Christianity. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen." (Hebrews 11:1) Faith is paying your tuition with the hope (after apprehending the evidence) that you will receive a proper education in exchange. Faith is placing a pan of dough in the oven with the hope (and expectation) that it will come out as bread. Total ignorance is completely incompatable with faith.
And while your own personal approach to LDS theology is ultimately between you and God, your lack of inspiration after reading the Book of Mormon might possibly have come from your misunderstanding of faith—I suggest this merely as one possibility; it is, of course, impossible for me to know the reasons for your own particular experience, short of specific divine intervention.
To give you some personal context: I used to be a Strong Agnostic (I believed that anyone who said they "knew" was either deluded or lying). I didn't originally understand what faith was. At one point in my life, due to entirely sociological reasons (which Karen has hinted at), I "accidentally" exercised an intense amount of faith, and learned thereby both what faith was and the Truth. And, in case it is of interest to you, I have a history degree.
Overall, I'd like to support what Karen has said. Her response is well thought-out and explains many of my own thoughts and feelings. Thank you for that, Karen.
You may also be interested to note (if you have not before) that one LDS scripture states that "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ingorance." (D&C 131:6) We, as saints, are not in the business of ignorantly accepting anything; not if we are true to our religion. Interestingly enough, there is demographic evidence which seems to support this on a wider scale.
-
Why do the LDS want to be known as Christians? The biggest differences between the other denominations happen to be Saints (and their power is severely limited primarily to fight the seven deadly sins) and whether or not you can lose salvation. The differences are so drastically different such as the very fundamental concept of Jesus being the son of a deity or of Joesph also the concept of achieving god-hood and even the after-life why would you want to be considered something you are so different from in core beliefs
-
I had a post written up last night after Writerainge. It was awesome and it was long. I even stopped to put in a few references and things. But than an epically cool storm came in and I lost connection. Now Karen and Jade have beaten me to the punch (great job guys!) so you have been spared my ramblings. Here is the highlighted version anyway to show my support and that I am still involved with the conversation:
I can’t invalidate your personal experience. I don’t know you, your current circumstances, mind set or the missionaries involved. But this puts up a warning flag to me:
I have a fundamental problem with the idea that a loving God would create sinners and then punish them.
I would have a problem with that too. I wouldn’t join a church that believed that, because honestly that just seems silly. God didn’t create ‘sinners,’ he created human beings with freewill. We believe that each child is born innocent, but he gave us our agency and expected us to use it. If we weren’t given the opportunity or enticed to sin by the adversary (Satan), life would be meaningless. There is no victory without the possibility of failure. We are all just learning here, so of course, as a loving Heavenly Father, he provided a way for us to make up for our shortcomings if we choose to use it. He won’t force anyone into heaven and he certainly hasn’t forced anyone into hell or punishment. (2 Nephi 2)
And I would also like to add that while I haven't lived in Utah myself, I have lived in other high LDS populations and one thing to remember is that while we believe our church to have the complete doctrine needed for salvation, we have never professed to having multitudes of perfect members. Individuals will make mistakes. I make them all the time. In fact, one of my favorite quotes is this: “That the church isn’t meant to be a museum of perfect people, but a hospital for those that are sick.” (I wish, I could find his name, but I can't. I know it was spoken in conference)
Oh, and to clarify, the question I asked Kaz was merely a question as to get to know him and his situation better. I wasn't trying to imply that the only happiness he could have found was in cheap thrills. I just know that my greatest happiness comes from following the principles of the Gospel. It is the whole point. The Plan of Salvation that we use to describe the purpose of life is also called the Plan of Happiness and "Men are that they might have joy." ( 2 Nephi 2). So if Kaz says that he is happy, my honest response would be that I am happy for him. Obviously getting away from the constant battle of various religions to find a few of his own core beliefs is beneficial to him right now, and I wouldn't do anything but support him.
After all, if someone isn't interested in the product of the gospel (happiness) why would he be interested in the process?
Yeah, so now that I have that out of my system I can sincerely thank you for taking the time to give the church a fair shot. That's really all we are asking. :D
Oh and Kaz, I think one of the main reasons we would like to be know as Christians is because we worship Christ and believe in his core doctrine as laid out in the Bible. One of the most common complaints I hear about the Church is that "we worship Joseph Smith" and "completely discredit the Bible" and that simply is not the case.
-
yeah but the fundamental principles are drastically different... sure you worship christ but all other denominations believe him to be part of the trinity the only god for eternity and the blood descendant of the father not of Joseph... mary's virginity is extremely important to them. Not to mention they believe all people who do not accept christ as the only means to the father go to hell after death and those who do accept this "truth" go to heaven there is no second chance there is no reincarnation i simply have a hard time seeing how you can consider the LDS a christian denomination... though my opinion matters little since i believe Jesus Christ to have been a man and very similar to Ghandi trying to pave a road of acceptance and over all peace for mankind
-
Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I didn't make it clear in my previous posts. We do believe that Jesus was the son of Heavenly Father both physically and spiritually. Joseph (of the Joseph and Mary variety) was a good man but he was not Jesus' father. Jesus needed to be immortal to complete the atonement and be a pure and holy sacrifice for sin (as the physical son of God, no one could take his life except that he gave it to them and had the power to break the bonds of death) he needed to be human so he could better relate to our sorrows and our experiences here. That is what makes him the perfect mediator between us and the Father.
Neither do we believe in reincarnation. Just eternal progression and resurrection at the time of the second coming. Heaven is a very broad term for many different degrees of glory which is worked out individually. Resurrection and eternal life is a free gift; progression and "gaining all the father has" is not.
There are many denominations that are Christan and it is a very broad term, but we believe that we practice Christianity as it was when it was first established by Christ himself. Of course we wouldn't want to take on the name of another Christian denomination that didn't share all our beliefs (like the Baptists or so forth) but it is very important to us that we take on the name of Christ as it is his church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and it is by him that we achieve our greatest potential.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d2552bce258f5110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
-
I've gone through quite a few periods in my life when I've honestly wondered, "What if it's all a lie? What if there is no afterlife, or my church has it all wrong?" Being of a logical and scientific turn of mind, I then said, "OK, take the hypothesis that there is no afterlife, what would you do differently her and now?" I asked myself if I'd wear different clothes, date different people. Would I eat differently? Smoke cigarettes? Get drunk every evening like my next door neighbors do? Steal? Have sex outside of marriage?
I looked at even the most glamorous representations of many of these behaviors, and found that they didn't look like they led to happiness. The drunken parties my neighbors throw every night don't even look like they're fun before they often turn into screaming matches, and most of the people who hang out there don't seem to have stable jobs, homes, families, or even relationships.
As for happiness versus cheap thrills, think of a drug addict. He gets cheap thrills, but very little real happiness as he destroys his relationships, his health, his career, and ultimately his whole life in search of more drugs. If your faith in God leads you to a religion that teaches you not to waste your time, money, etc on addictive substances, then following that religion will keep you from doing things that will certainly make you unhappy, and encourage you to do things that will make you happy, even if they're not all as obvious as not doing drugs.
I find these misconceptions common among Mormons... There are people in my neighborhood who will not let their children into my home because I have alcohol and coffee there. Mormons tend to think that if you drink at all, you are a party animal. What they don't realize (especially if they've never lived out of Utah) is that MOST people in this world drink a glass or two of wine/ale/microbrew/or other alcohol with their evening meal and/or relaxing after work or before bed on occasion. Your view of drinkers is the "girls gone wild" type, and in this sociological climate, you sort of do get one or the other in Happy Valley. But if you stepped into the real world for a moment you would see that moderation reigns. It has been proven a glass of wine a day will help you to fight off obesity, live longer, and promotes overall well being. (Read; "Why French Women Don't Get Fat." By Mireille Guiliano) This is the type of drinker that I am and my family is. We are amateur Somolier's and study the science behind wine and the pairings with food and they way that a fine wine will enhance the flavors of your meal. This is a growing trend in the US and has been long standing tradition in Europe.
Also, Since beginning a regimen of regular morning coffee along with green tea and other herbs and a healthy diet. I have cured the ulcers that I have been plagued with since childhood and dropped 60 pounds and maintained that healthy weight for 2 years. The roasted coffee bean is quite medicinal and will help you to stave off diabetes, stroke, kidney/liver damage, and recently found to help Parkinson's disease. (plus it tastes like heaven in a CUP!) I understand how Alcohol can be destructive force in many people's lives, but I find that anything in excess (including food as I watch my corpulent Mormon neighbors trundle to work) can be destructive.
My husband and I have very stable jobs where we thrive, (as do most people who moderately drink in the world) and the best marriage. We are soul mates and not once in our 7 year relationship we have never screamed, name called, an rarely even fought. We do everything together and even our Mormon friends can attest to the fact that we are some of the happiest people they know. (Ask Erik Holmes) Our three children are straight A students and are growing up with an understanding of safe sex, moderation in all things, and a realistic education about the world around us. We are the rule, not the exception. People who have drunken parties every night are usually the lowest common denominator and are not a realistic way to gauge how the rest of us live. Being compared to a drug addict or compulsive partier is somewhat offensive, but something that I run into a lot because of people's ignorance.
I'm glad that the church has been a safety net for you when you would have otherwise been alone. That is wonderful. I find that many many people are religious for the social aspect. That is a valid reason for needing such. Your thoughts on a loving God who doesn't not create sinners and then punish them are beautiful... but your lovely personal sentiment is not backed up by christian doctrine, the bible, or even the book of Mormon. According to doctrine you are sent here to sin and be forgiven of your sins and the only way to do that is to follow specific commandments, many of which make NO sense.
i.e. We are born with sexual orientations and if they don't fall into the mainstream then they are "evil" and must be "cured". We are born with healthy sex drives that can only be explored within the bonds of marriage and as a result much sexual dysfunction is created and nurtured. Some religions hang your salvation and worthiness to receive certain blessings on how much money you give them (this is not exclusive of the LDS church). Most churches do not allow women to have any "Priesthood" powers and seek to take away the rights of women over their own bodies and choices. And SOME even pacify the women by telling her the fact that she can bear children and nurture a home make her holier and more spiritual then men so she doesn't need any of that "troublesome responsibility"... and the women just accept that.
Lists and lists and lists of things that make no sense but cannot be argued in a religion forum because reason and logic are not used as an argument but "revelations", "feelings", and biased sentiment born of the traditions and Dogma of the last 2000 years. You could pick any one of these and a myriad of other issues and we could debate them all for hours and hours both sides finding studdies and instances to back up our claims. I think that since most of us are steadfast in our convictions at this point, our opinions would not be changed. I respect that, absolutely, and as fun as I find lively religious debates, I'm starting to think that this one might prove futile because of the dominance of a specific ideal.
Much love, though.
-
I agree with you writerainge.
It is difficult to judge the tone and meaning behind a written post and it is so easy to take offense. You took offense because you felt that Karen was comparing you to a drug addict thorough a generalizing statement (though I sincerely doubt that was her intent) and I could just as easily take offense to the fact that you seem to be implying that you know more of our doctrine and feelings than we do and that our belief is based on ignorance or immaturity through generalizations as well (I have lived in many states, where is this ‘real world’ you speak of where everyone lives the way you do?). If our purpose in having this discussion was to actually convert anyone to our own line of thinking, it would be a colossal waste of time. It just isn’t a good medium for it. Conversion is an individual process and as there are often many questions, misconceptions and individual circumstances (including all the ones you mentioned), it is better for someone that is truly willing to listen go to those that do this fulltime and can meet them in their home (the missionaries).
The only reason I took part in this discussion was to answer honest questions, and maybe clear up a few misconceptions; not to convert and not to preach. I am sorry if any of my comments lead you to believe otherwise or if you felt like you were being attacked (though really there were just as many people outside the LDS church taking part in the discussion as there were inside it). I would just say again that we would never attest to having perfect members (though we all give it our best!) and many of the principles that you base your own happiness on our ones that we also hold dear.
I would love to continue to answer questions, but it may be better if I left off for PM on that if anyone is interested as it is so easy for a forum like this to erupt into flame. Otherwise I would direct you to the church sites (www.mormon.org, www.lds.org) and, of course, the missionaries. Thanks all!
-
EDIT: Okay, I definitely see your point, JadeKnight, and subsequently I've deleted this post. I was not attempting to bait anyone here, and I have a lot of respect for everyone here and their beliefs, so I apologize for any offense that I may have caused. I'll take a look at that website, thanks for that link.
-
I find these misconceptions common among Mormons... There are people in my neighborhood who will not let their children into my home because I have alcohol and coffee there. Mormons tend to think that if you drink at all, you are a party animal. What they don't realize (especially if they've never lived out of Utah) is that MOST people in this world drink a glass or two of wine/ale/microbrew/or other alcohol with their evening meal and/or relaxing after work or before bed on occasion. Your view of drinkers is the "girls gone wild" type, and in this sociological climate, you sort of do get one or the other in Happy Valley. But if you stepped into the real world for a moment you would see that moderation reigns. It has been proven a glass of wine a day will help you to fight off obesity, live longer, and promotes overall well being. (Read; "Why French Women Don't Get Fat." By Mireille Guiliano) This is the type of drinker that I am and my family is. We are amateur Somolier's and study the science behind wine and the pairings with food and they way that a fine wine will enhance the flavors of your meal. This is a growing trend in the US and has been long standing tradition in Europe.
Also, Since beginning a regimen of regular morning coffee along with green tea and other herbs and a healthy diet. I have cured the ulcers that I have been plagued with since childhood and dropped 60 pounds and maintained that healthy weight for 2 years. The roasted coffee bean is quite medicinal and will help you to stave off diabetes, stroke, kidney/liver damage, and recently found to help Parkinson's disease. (plus it tastes like heaven in a CUP!) I understand how Alcohol can be destructive force in many people's lives, but I find that anything in excess (including food as I watch my corpulent Mormon neighbors trundle to work) can be destructive.
And there's just as much evidence going the opposite direction, as well, though I'm certain you're not interested in it, and I'm certainly not interested in getting into a spat over it. I once spent (weeks or months) arguing with a friend about this very topic some 10 years ago, throwing research back and forth at each-other, etc. Eventually we both gave up trying to convince each-other when we realized that the argument was fruitless. A year later he changed his mind and agreed with my position, but he didn't during our debates, and there was so much contradictory research that making any appeal to the
"literature" useless.
Of course, any Saints you know who are corpulent should probably re-read the Word of Wisdom, which specifically discourages gluttony. However, I fear a great many Saints don't take their religion quite that seriously—very few, for example, even ponder over what is meant by "eat meat sparingly". This is true for all religious practitioners, of course, and while, demographically, the Saints seem to be on the better end of the rule, they are still quite human and often fall woefully short of the mark (myself included, I'm sure!)
We are the rule, not the exception. People who have drunken parties every night are usually the lowest common denominator and are not a realistic way to gauge how the rest of us live. Being compared to a drug addict or compulsive partier is somewhat offensive, but something that I run into a lot because of people's ignorance.
No, if you have a marriage that happy, you are most certainly and emphatically not "the rule". Congratulations on having such a strong life, however. At the same time, I'm not going to suggest that getting wasted is the rule, either. Naturally, it is somewhere between these two extremes.
Your other specific misconceptions have been rehashed in so many ways on so many different public forums that I see little benefit in going over them here. If you're honestly interested in answers/rebuttals, you'll find them in ample abundance here: www.fairlds.org I get the impression, however, that you are not interested in listening, so much as speaking.
-
Hamster: I believe you'll find answers to every single one of your concerns over at www.fairlds.org. I recommend you explore the site and find answers to your questions there. I'm concerned that your post is similar to others I've seen which were attempts at baiting; I hope this is not the case, and I'll leave it as is, though I would discourage others from responding to it here (that stuff is better in PM). However:
Let me make it clear: This forum is not an appropriate place to hash out obscure doctrinal issues or get into heated arguments about the superiority of one relosophy over another. If it devolves into that, this thread will be locked. If you engage in discussion here, make sure you're doing your best to be respectful and polite to others and their views—we believe in tolerance here, and no relosophy should find itself "on trial" here.
If any of you ever feel that discussion is progressing in such a way that it offends you, or you feel that your views are being mischaracterized, contact a mod, and we'll do our best to rectify the situation (perhaps by locking the thread, if it seems appropriate).
-
I think I might have confused myself and Reaves by extension by failing to realize that his concept of saving vs full salvation would be different than my own (duh :P).
Lol wow, of course now I realize your definition of salvation would be incredibly different from mine considering you don't believe in a hell, but I didn't even think about it then :D That explains a lot.
Yeah, I think Ookla probably stated that better than me too. I guess I just don't see the 'chicken and egg' theories of when Heavenly Father and the Universe first existed as important to our current salvation as knowing his current state and our relationship with him. I'll be sure to ask him about it someday though. ;)
Okay, that's one way to look at it. However, throwing into doubt God's creation of the universe is throwing into doubt a much more important and immediate claim: the veracity of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." If you don't believe that, how can you believe anything else the Bible tells us?
If Adam and Eve had not sinned, we would be sinless beings, with the same moral capacity to make choices. However, I see this as being a moot point; if Adam and Eve had not sinned, someone else would have :P I'd like to think if I had been in Adam's place I would have made the right choice, but who knows.
So (just for clarification) you believe that Adam and Eve were fully mortal and able to bear children in the Garden? If taking the apple was the wrong choice, what would be the right one?
That depends on what you mean by fully mortal. I believe that without any sin committed, there would be no death for humans. And I see no reason to doubt that Adam and Eve could bear children. Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."
And also: Genesis 2:24 "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed." Both of these verses definitely seem to more than suggest that Adam and Eve were not neuter but fully formed as man and woman even before they sinned.
As for what Adam and Eve should have done concerning the forbidden fruit...well, they should have trusted God's promises. God said that if they disobeyed his commands regarding the tree, they would die. When the serpent spoke to Eve, it immediately struck at the truth of God's word; whether eating of the fruit of the tree would actually cause them to die, and it made a counter-promise: that eating of the fruit of the tree would cause them to be like God.
I do not believe that God the Father and Jesus are the same person. I believe they are different persons, yet are both codeity together with the Holy Spirit. All have existed eternally, yet differ in roles and authority.
Yeah, I always thought the Nicene Creed with the trinity and their concept of God was a bit confusing and contradictory, but that makes more sense.
Yeah, there is a point where everyone just has to realize that they are finite creatures and can never fully understand the nature of an infinite being.
So is baptism, for you, more of a formality or a requirement?
We all are expected to be baptized at eight or the time of our conversation after a bishop's interview where they see that we understand it's significant. We see it a chance to cleanse the slate and make our first commitment to God. We renew the commitment by repentance and the weekly sacrament. Along with it's connection to repentance, baptism by the proper authority is seen as a vital step for salvation as Jesus was baptized himself.
Alright, that is a little different from our view. We believe that while baptism is not necessary for salvation, it was commanded by Jesus and there is really almost no good reason to avoid it. If I really thought it was necessary, trust me I would have been baptized long ago :D
Oh yeah, and that is another difference: we only take the Lord's Supper once every month. We just don't want it to become "old hat" something that becomes just another part of Sunday morning. I personally believe that when Jesus said: "In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me," he wanted it to be something done at every meal, analogous to prayer before eating, but that is just my personal beliefs and not representative of my church.
I'm glad we're able to have this kind of discussion. Its really helped me understand a lot more about the LDS faith, thank you for being so honest and open with me.
Its possible you'll see my next questions as loaded or confrontational, but I really want to hear what you have to say. First of all, where in the Bible do Mormons find support for the doctrine of deification, namely that we can become like God? And also, how do Mormons explain biblical references to hell?
Like I said I'm not trying to place your faith "on trial" as Jade put it. I just want to understand what it is you believe about things that seem so foreign to me. Thanks again!
-
Reaves, I am going to answer your questions in a PM. I believe that you are being sincere and I love your interest, but I stand by Jade's and my previous statement that this open forum is not a good place for it. It becomes even clearer to me by the fact that a few of the impressions you list are not the impressions I was hoping to give off. It just became difficult to address several people with various backgrounds and views of the LDS church at the same time. I will be clarifying this in my response to you, but again I would urge those that are curious to go the sites that I and Jade have listed or ask their individual questions in the form of a PM.
-
Like I said in the PM I sent you, I certainly understand that and I'd love to continue this discussion via PM. However, I also intend to continue a respectful discussion in this thread, though perhaps not with you in particular.
-
While I could answer your questions, I'll entrust Frog to that task, as he has already taken the discussion to PM (thank you, Frog).
One question, though, Reaves: Where do you find the scripture "In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me", and what translation are you using? I can't find a scripture which says this in the KJV; Luke 22:19-20 is vaguely akin, but seems to say something slightly different.
-
I just spent like an hour typing a reply, but it said "An Error Has Occurred! The topic or board you are looking for appears to be either missing or off limits to you." Fantastic. And I didn't copy it before I sent it, and hitting back also gives me an error.
The topic number seems to have changed from 6629 to 6859 all of a sudden, and my post is in limbo.
Ugh. Suffice it to say that we do believe in hell to one extent or another, we do believe God created the heavens and the earth, you should read 2 Nephi 2 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2) for our view on the need for the fall, and here's some scriptures (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/m/29) to read on your last question.
Sigh.
-
My apologies, Ookla! I had performed a merge with a stray post; this is one of the unfortunate side effects of such things...
-
While I could answer your questions, I'll entrust Frog to that task, as he has already taken the discussion to PM (thank you, Frog).
One question, though, Reaves: Where do you find the scripture "In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me", and what translation are you using? I can't find a scripture which says this in the KJV; Luke 22:19-20 is vaguely akin, but seems to say something slightly different.
Sorry, I see I forgot to put up a reference and even beyond that the post was unclear. I wrote 'Jesus said' but actually the verse was referencing what Jesus said and did not begin as dialogue at all. Anyway, that verse was in 1 Corinthians 11:25 from the English Standard Version (ESV)
@ Ookla: Oh okay, gotcha. Sorry, I misunderstood what you said earlier. When you said Mormons believe that Jesus saves everybody in a couple different ways. We believe everyone, without fail, will be resurrected and gain immortality. And we believe that after resurrection, even unrepentant sinners will go to a very nice place, much nicer than this earth, where the only punishment is their sure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and that if they had followed him they could have lived with him forever instead of just seeing him at the judgment bar.
I took that to mean that no one went to eternal punishment. However, now this raises another question. If unrepentant sinners go to "a very nice place" what is hell?
Also the link for the LDS scripture 2 nephi 2 is broken.
Sorry your post got eaten :(
-
Thanks for the reference.
My personal opinion is that hell is a state of a being, not a physical location: It is a deep misery. You know, that sickening feeling of realizing you've done something terribly, terribly wrong?
-
And there's just as much evidence going the opposite direction, as well, though I'm certain you're not interested in it, and I'm certainly not interested in getting into a spat over it. I once spent (weeks or months) arguing with a friend about this very topic some 10 years ago, throwing research back and forth at each-other, etc. Eventually we both gave up trying to convince each-other when we realized that the argument was fruitless. A year later he changed his mind and agreed with my position, but he didn't during our debates, and there was so much contradictory research that making any appeal to the
"literature" useless.
Perhaps things have changed in the Medical/Heath community during the past 10 years... I have yet to see real unbiased scientific evidence going in said opposite direction. I, actually, would be quite interested in it if you have some cited published medical information disputing my claims. I cited some literature already, ("Why french women don't get fat") in which many university studdies back up said information regarding Wine and spirits. I do have more websites/articles on hand, though, as I'm a nutritional herbologist and often recommend to new mothers that they drink a glass of Guinness or other stout beer to help their milk come in... (a midwives tradition) with which I have had much success. Keep in mind, I am talking about the consumption of alcohol and coffee in moderation. It is widely known that both can be harmfull in excess... as can water, food, and even many fruits, herbs, and vegetables.
Your other specific misconceptions have been rehashed in so many ways on so many different public forums that I see little benefit in going over them here. If you're honestly interested in answers/rebuttals, you'll find them in ample abundance here: www.fairlds.org I get the impression, however, that you are not interested in listening, so much as speaking.
Again, I'm not interested in public forums... I'm interested in unbiased scientific research and studdies. I will visit your website, as I am willing to listen to new points of view. You are mistaken that I'm not interested in listening... I listen and learn for a living. I craft my opinions carefully and with much pondering and research. They are changed as new things are discovered, studdied, and hypothesis proven as much as is scientifically possible for the time.
-
Out of curiosity, why are you pursuing a History degree if you already have one in Nutrition Sciences?
(As I stated previously, I'm not interested in revisiting the alcohol debate. Perhaps others here are, but I am not; it's been perfectly pointless in the past, and I don't expect that to change, despite claims of good faith.)
If you are sincerely interested in learning about LDS viewpoints on controversial matters, I expect you'll find more than you could have possibly hoped for at FAIRLDS. Furthermore, if you find they're missing anything, or you still have questions, you can contact them for more detailed or complete answers from experts—they're more than willing to explain obscure doctrine, I think.
-
We are born with sexual orientations and if they don't fall into the mainstream then they are "evil" and must be "cured".
The problem isn't that they are evil or deviant. There is nothing evil in being gay. But homosexual acts do a grave harm to those who engage in them, and since humans are creatures of immense dignity and worth, made in the image of the Almighty, yes, one could call it evil.
Sex is for two purposes: procreation and union (of husband and wife). Glance in the Catechism (which is available online) and you will see that the Catholic Church (the church to which I belong) teaches this; but it is also abundantly clear in a full reading of the Theology of the Body. The belief that sex must always be in-principle procreative is not demonstrable outside of Scripture or revealed truth, but that's not to say that there are not powerful -- particularly aesthetic -- arguments for it; or, e.g., teleological arguments for it. Sex lacking either the unitive or procreative aspect is disordered (and incidentally, someone who definitively can't have sex can't get married in the Church). St Aquinas insists on the unicity of the human person, meaning that the human being is body and soul (the Church believes this now, though there was debate in the past); the bodies of man and woman are in principle procreative respecting heterosexual intercourse: they are designed so to effect the co-creation of new life with God. Therefore even marriages in which there is irremediable infertility are in principle -- by the nature or, as it were, definition of the participants -- procreative.
We are born with healthy sex drives that can only be explored within the bonds of marriage and as a result much sexual dysfunction is created and nurtured.
You are blaming sexual dysfunction on abstinence before marriage? It seems to me that fornication has a great deal more to answer for (e.g. teen pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases, a strong shared emotional experience with someone who plans to desert you) than abstinence ever could. Unless, of course, you are speaking to someone whose all-important desires have been temporarily frustrated.
Some religions hang your salvation and worthiness to receive certain blessings on how much money you give them (this is not exclusive of the LDS church).
There may be churches that do this, but I don't think mine is one, and I don't think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is either. There are good people in all churches and good leaders in many. For someone to reduce very real and honest religious convictions to nothing more than avarice and, perhaps, a desire for control, seems to me to say more about the accuser than the accused.
Most churches do not allow women to have any "Priesthood" powers and seek to take away the rights of women over their own bodies and choices. And SOME even pacify the women by telling her the fact that she can bear children and nurture a home make her holier and more spiritual then men so she doesn't need any of that "troublesome responsibility"... and the women just accept that.
This, right, here, is the single most inflammatory thing you've said, and it more than anything else suggests to me that you are looking for an argument rather than answers to your questions. I assume 'bodies and choices' is a coy reference to abortion. I will not argue that subject here (goodness knows we already have enough to argue about) so let me restrict myself to this: by denying those you disagree with the possibility, in your mind, of valid reasoning for their views, you have killed any chance at meaningful conversation before you even started posting. If any woman feels they're being 'controlled' by being taught to value life, they are probably not going to be happy with the rest of their Christian walk either. If any woman feels imprisoned by her role as mother and life-giver, then something is terribly wrong. There is no prison. There is no lack of responsibility. The responsibilities of the woman are just as substantial as those of the man, if not more so, and in many places they overlap. Both, for instance, have the same responsibilities to those around them, to set a godly example. Both have the responsibility to care for their family. Both have the responsibility, in short, to live for the Lord, even if the specifics of what that means change a little. Man and woman are equal in value, but not identical in function or purpose. Two things need not be identical to both be of worth. Both are made in the image of God and both are absolutely and categorically equal in human dignity.
Lists and lists and lists of things that make no sense but cannot be argued in a religion forum because reason and logic are not used as an argument but "revelations", "feelings", and biased sentiment born of the traditions and Dogma of the last 2000 years. You could pick any one of these and a myriad of other issues and we could debate them all for hours and hours both sides finding studdies and instances to back up our claims. I think that since most of us are steadfast in our convictions at this point, our opinions would not be changed. I respect that, absolutely, and as fun as I find lively religious debates, I'm starting to think that this one might prove futile because of the dominance of a specific ideal.
Much love, though.
I think it might prove futile too.
Praying that it won't,
E.
-
We are born with sexual orientations and if they don't fall into the mainstream then they are "evil" and must be "cured".
The problem isn't that they are evil or deviant. There is nothing evil in being gay. But homosexual acts do a grave harm to those who engage in them, and since humans are creatures of immense dignity and worth, made in the image of the Almighty, yes, one could call it evil.
YOU could call it evil. I was born bisexual, therefore, I have engaged in homosexual acts, and never was grave harm done to me. Instead of cheapening my dignity, it strengthened my identity and made me more comfortable with my body, my beauty, and expanded my understanding of human intimacy. If someone thinks it is evil it is becuase they have been told by a religion that it is... which is fine, if that's what they want to think... I just disagree.
Sex is for two purposes: procreation and union (of husband and wife). Glance in the Catechism (which is available online) and you will see that the Catholic Church (the church to which I belong) teaches this; but it is also abundantly clear in a full reading of the Theology of the Body. The belief that sex must always be in-principle procreative is not demonstrable outside of Scripture or revealed truth, but that's not to say that there are not powerful -- particularly aesthetic -- arguments for it; or, e.g., teleological arguments for it. Sex lacking either the unitive or procreative aspect is disordered (and incidentally, someone who definitively can't have sex can't get married in the Church). St Aquinas insists on the unicity of the human person, meaning that the human being is body and soul (the Church believes this now, though there was debate in the past); the bodies of man and woman are in principle procreative respecting heterosexual intercourse: they are designed so to effect the co-creation of new life with God. Therefore even marriages in which there is irremediable infertility are in principle -- by the nature or, as it were, definition of the participants -- procreative.
This is completely a subjective opinion shared with your church. I don't believe that sex is for the sole purpose of procreation or the union of man and wife. I think this is biologically evidenced by the fact that a woman's pleasure center is not inside her body and can rarely be reached through intercourse. That isn't to say that I don't agree that union isn't a majority of the purpose but it goes OH so much deeper than that... I wish you could know... but, I think we'll move on...
You are blaming sexual dysfunction on abstinence before marriage? It seems to me that fornication has a great deal more to answer for (e.g. teen pregnancy, sexually-transmitted diseases, a strong shared emotional experience with someone who plans to desert you) than abstinence ever could. Unless, of course, you are speaking to someone whose all-important desires have been temporarily frustrated.
Sexuality is something that if explored safely, while being completely honest with ones self and ones partner, can be spiritual beyond belief. If honesty and realistic expectation is part of your sexual relationship, then there is no reason to feel deserted if things end. The oppression of sexual exploration of yourself and others isn't healthy physically or psychologically. Fornication, (as I PRAY you know) is such a minuscule part of ones sexual experience.
Some religions hang your salvation and worthiness to receive certain blessings on how much money you give them (this is not exclusive of the LDS church).
There may be churches that do this, but I don't think mine is one, and I don't think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is either. There are good people in all churches and good leaders in many. For someone to reduce very real and honest religious convictions to nothing more than avarice and, perhaps, a desire for control, seems to me to say more about the accuser than the accused.
I don't know if your church is one... although it has been in the past. The LDS church is one of these. If you do not give 10% of your earnings to them, they will not allow you into their highest realm of heaven, let you in to their temples, nor can you partake of their eternal blessings. I'm not saying that they don't have the right to do this... I'm just saying I don't agree with it. I'm not quite sure what that says about me, exactly...
Most churches do not allow women to have any "Priesthood" powers and seek to take away the rights of women over their own bodies and choices. And SOME even pacify the women by telling her the fact that she can bear children and nurture a home make her holier and more spiritual then men so she doesn't need any of that "troublesome responsibility"... and the women just accept that.
This, right, here, is the single most inflammatory thing you've said, and it more than anything else suggests to me that you are looking for an argument rather than answers to your questions. I assume bodies and choice's is a coy reference to abortion. I will not argue that subject here (goodness knows we already have enough to argue about) so let me restrict myself to this: by denying those you disagree with the possibility, in your mind, of valid reasoning for their views, you have killed any chance at meaningful conversation before you even started posting. If any woman feels they're being controlled by being taught to value life, they are probably not going to be happy with the rest of their Christian walk either. If any woman feels imprisoned by her role as mother and life-giver, then something is terribly wrong. There is no prison. There is no lack of responsibility. The responsibilities of the woman are just as substantial as those of the man, if not more so, and in many places they overlap. Both, for instance, have the same responsibilities to those around them, to set a godly example. Both have the responsibility to care for their family. Both have the responsibility, in short, to live for the Lord, even if the specifics of what that means change a little. Man and woman are equal in value, but not identical in function or purpose. Two things need not be identical to both be of worth. Both are made in the image of God and both are absolutely and categorically equal in human dignity.
I'm glad that you see things this way regarding the roles of man and woman... I can't say that I disagree with you on many points. I in no way mean to be inflammatory and if you chose to be inflamed by my honest opinions, I can't stop you. I'm merely using reason and logic and asking honest questions to which I've only received Dogmatic answers. I believe in early abortions to be available for women who have been the victims of incest, rape, and other unforeseeable situations, but my post was by no means a coy reference to abortion. Yet, I could see how you would think that. I was more referring to the physical and sexual double standards that apply in this world when it comes to women and how certain expectations of a "woman's role" are set by this particular patriarchal society. I'm not sure about the whole "image of God" idea... again that is an opinion of yours and your religion. But I agree that we are equal in human dignity... I like that you use this word. There are many women who feel imprisoned by her role as mother and life-giver because that is not what she wanted her role to be... A mother is a sacred thing, but women need options that are sanctified by society... that is all.
The futility comes in to such conversations becuase most all these subjects are, well, subjective... Its all a matter of opinion. There is no way to KNOW that this is what your God wants other than to believe texts which were written by men and voted on by pagans and jews nearly 2000 years ago to try and obliterate civil and religious unrest. You base your lives on this religion, and that's fine... I chose to base my life on rationality. Which is also fine. The only way any of us are vindicated is when we die and find out for ourselves. If your Jesus is standing there on the other side of death, I'll kneel at his feet. If it is someone else, I kneel at theirs. I just don't know.
-
I'd like to point out for tone purposes that when I use the word "you," I'm referring to people in genral, and not a specific person. Please don't read this as confrontational -- just explaining things that don't seem clear yet.
I could definitely debate any of the things on your list of general problems with religions (I see that Epistemological did a good job of covering the most important of the points). without going through point by point, just know that none of them are things that I see as real problems in my life as a member of this church. Most of them are due to perversions of the true doctrines of the gospel. I had a religion teacher once who would often draw a continuum on the chalkboard -- whatever doctrine we were talking about, he would put in the center, and then show how even slightly pushing it towards one extreme or another in any direction can make it opressive or even a sin. Satan has been able to skew almost everything in mainstream religion -- sometimes just a little bit, and sometimes a lot -- to distort it as you've pointed out. Some of that (OK, often much of it) even creeps into the day to day practices of the LDS church because, though the gospel may be perfect, the people trying to put it into practice are not. One of the things that the Prophet and General Authorities do a lot of in our church is to watch for those shifting winds and try to direct the membership back towards the true doctrine.
Regarding the health effects of the Word of Wisdom, the real issue here is free will. Satan's plan is to take away free will so that he will have all the power and glory. The Father's plan is to give us free will so that we can make the most of ourselves. The reason we're counselled against many sins is that when we do them, the natural consequences limit our free will in the future. (disease, unwanted pregnancy, prison, trying to remember all the lies, less money and time to spend living happily and doing good, etc...) It doesn't make sense to knowingly surrender your free will to an addictive substance.
I agree that overindulging (or underindulging which is something I struggle with) in food is as much of a problem as overinidulging in drugs or alcohol. Obese Mormons who overindulge in food aren't really living the Word of Wisdom. It's not something that automatically keeps you out of the temple, but it does affect your ability to serve, and to feel and act on the promptings of the spirit. I've seen a much greater focus lately from church leaders trying to address this on an individual level -- though not necessarily across the pulpit. The real difference between food and alcohol or tobacco, is that they are addictive substances, and when under their influence, you really can't feel the spirit at all, or have the mental capacity to make wise choices about other things. Far too many people have started out drinking "just a moderate amount" and really regretted something the next morning. Then there are the millions who can't break the chains of cigarette smoking or alcoholism even if they try. My family history suggests that if I was to start, I would quickly become addicted with unfortunate results. That's not a risk I'm willing to take for a little relaxation when a little TV will usually get me as relaxed as I want to be.
With tithing, the question is: not how much money are you giving the church, but are you willing to trust God? He has promised that if you follow his commandments (and tithing is even a Biblical one), he will "open up the windows of heaven so that there will not be room to receive it." If you can't trust him with an affordable percentage of your worldly goods, then you certainly don't have the commitment necessary to keep the covenants made in the temple. And before you argue that 10% is not affordable for some people, know that if tithing means the difference between eating or paying rent or something like that, then your Bishop has the authority to help with those necessities out of the welfare funds. I have never met a single person who feels poorer for paying a full and honest tithe.
As for the "patriarchal order" and the priesthood, I think that as with many things, God knew human nature, and designed the church and the gospel to take advantage of our strengths and shore up our weaknesses. If you simply take a look at the trends in churches where they have given women the priesthood, you'll see that the already skewed demographic tilts even further. Even in the LDS church, there are more active women than men. If you tell men that we don't really need them in the leadership and serice positions they hold, then they won't feel like they have a place in the kingdom of God. This is not the only reason for the policy of course. There is truth in many of the things that you claim are said just to "pacify" the women. When the programs of the church are run as the Prophet has counselled (and there have been specific leadership trainings directly from Salt Lake on the topic -- which tells you that the programs are not always run perfectly), no woman has to feel like she's minimized or opressed or lacks responsibilities or a voice in this church.
I know that there have been doctrinal questions addressed in PM's in the last few days. Did they answer all of the questions people asked about my post on the afterlife, hell and forgiveness for sinners? I'd be happy to go searching for specific refrences in the scriptures if they haven't.
-
Until theycan pin point the gene that makes you anything other than straight than i will continue to believe it is a convenient excuse aka lie for unconventional behavior
-
Until theycan pin point the gene that makes you anything other than straight than i will continue to believe it is a convenient excuse aka lie for unconventional behavior
Can't argue with that logic... Spoken like a true Agnostic. *shrug. There's nothing wrong with unconventional behavior... so long as it doesn't hurt anyone. ;)
-
ainge: wholeheartedly agree. People are what they are, gay straight bi, whatever, it takes all types.
-
ainge: wholeheartedly agree. People are what they are, gay straight bi, whatever, it takes all types.
I'll say "Amen" to that. ::)
-
the problem with the unconventional is society dislikes it
-
ITYM: The problem with our society is that it dislikes the unconventional.
That said, my general view on religion is that it is mainly a tool to keep the masses in line by promising them afterlife goodies for staying in line. I don't discuss my views much because the discussions that ensue tend to start multi-generational feuds. ;) :P :-* :-* :-*
If I include enough emoticons, this post is sure to be an exception to the rule. :D
-
Please forgive me in advance for this.
Miyabi wrote in one of the very first posts in this thread:
Therefore I choose to not believe or disbelieve in the absolutes.
Do you absolutely believe that there are no absolutes, dear Miyabi? Please think about this carefully before responding. Any other takers?
Oh, and Renoard, I think I love you. Like a brother, y'know, but I really mean it. Thanks for your intelligent posts. I have only read about half of this thread, but I will joyfully contribute, as time allows, from now on.
-
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"
Ahhh....Sorry. I couldn't resist. Just easing the tension a little bit. ;D
-
What, me create tension??? Never.
Seriously, I like the quote. You sound just like me at age 21. Oh, there I go again . . .
-
ITYM: The problem with our society is that it dislikes the unconventional.
That said, my general view on religion is that it is mainly a tool to keep the masses in line by promising them afterlife goodies for staying in line. I don't discuss my views much because the discussions that ensue tend to start multi-generational feuds. ;) :P :-* :-* :-*
If I include enough emoticons, this post is sure to be an exception to the rule. :D
We seem to be in agreement on a great many things.
-
Sortitus wrote: my general view on religion is that it is mainly a tool to keep the masses in line by promising them afterlife goodies for staying in line.
Wow, dude, are you really willing to risk your eternal life on that guess? Again, this is another thing I used to believe with all my heart, but no longer do. What if the Bible is true and you're wrong? There is no second chance for salvation after death and this might be your last one.
-
And from Frog on page 12 of this thread: "By their fruits you shall know them." If you want to know that Thomas Monson, or any of the previous prophets are correct, you have to read their teachings, judge their actions, and then pray about it.
I have read about the life and sayings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young written by Mormons, orthodox Christians and a certain "cultural Mormon," most recently. I have compared these men's lives, writings and practices to men like Charles Spurgeon and Jim Elliot, Andrew Murray and Amy Carmichael (a woman! imagine that!), Michael Behe and Hudson Taylor. I urge anyone with an open and curious mind to do the same. My Mormon friends are the nicest people in the world, but none of them so far have been willing to judge any of their early prophets by their fruits or compare their Mormon beliefs with the Bible. I have a feeling that someone on this forum might be more intellectually sincere.
-
Sortitus wrote: my general view on religion is that it is mainly a tool to keep the masses in line by promising them afterlife goodies for staying in line.
Wow, dude, are you really willing to risk your eternal life on that guess? Again, this is another thing I used to believe with all my heart, but no longer do. What if the Bible is true and you're wrong? There is no second chance for salvation after death and this might be your last one.
This is frequently called "Pascal's wager".
-
And from Frog on page 12 of this thread: "By their fruits you shall know them." If you want to know that Thomas Monson, or any of the previous prophets are correct, you have to read their teachings, judge their actions, and then pray about it.
I have read about the life and sayings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young written by Mormons, orthodox Christians and a certain "cultural Mormon," most recently. I have compared these men's lives, writings and practices to men like Charles Spurgeon and Jim Elliot, Andrew Murray and Amy Carmichael (a woman! imagine that!), Michael Behe and Hudson Taylor. I urge anyone with an open and curious mind to do the same. My Mormon friends are the nicest people in the world, but none of them so far have been willing to judge any of their early prophets by their fruits or compare their Mormon beliefs with the Bible. I have a feeling that someone on this forum might be more intellectually sincere.
I think you'll find a great many of us quite intellectually sincere—if you've read this thread, this much should be obvious, I'd hope. Out of curiostiy, do you have any training in historiography?
-
The short answer is, no . . . but I don't hold much with intellectual snobbery. 8)
-
the probability of the bible being right and everything else being wrong, b/c that's what it claims to be the ONLY way to salvation so if you want to get to the law of probability i say his gamble is just as bad as yours and if there is indeed one way then man in general is screwed
-
I've been sick ( :'() so I haven't been active in any of the forums lately, but I was happy to see that this one calmed down a bit. So I shall be brave and address mtbikemom's comment to me. :P
And from Frog on page 12 of this thread: "By their fruits you shall know them." If you want to know that Thomas Monson, or any of the previous prophets are correct, you have to read their teachings, judge their actions, and then pray about it.
I have read about the life and sayings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young written by Mormons, orthodox Christians and a certain "cultural Mormon," most recently. I have compared these men's lives, writings and practices to men like Charles Spurgeon and Jim Elliot, Andrew Murray and Amy Carmichael (a woman! imagine that!), Michael Behe and Hudson Taylor. I urge anyone with an open and curious mind to do the same. My Mormon friends are the nicest people in the world, but none of them so far have been willing to judge any of their early prophets by their fruits or compare their Mormon beliefs with the Bible. I have a feeling that someone on this forum might be more intellectually sincere.
I would see no problem with studying the lives and teachings of any of the men (and woman!) you mention. Our doctrine is based in principles and truth and they have a habit of showing up all over the place and from various sources (imagine that!) and we were given the challenge to seek them out and add to them. But one thing I'd say is that with studying those men and teachings, it is also important to look at who they claim to be. Jesus said he was the Son of God and Savior of the World and I believe him. Joseph Smith said that he was a prophet and I believe him. If you say that these people taught good principles and lived good lives, I will probably believe them as well (haven't read them yet, but now I'm interested, so maybe I will. Alas! So much to do, so little time. Such is the way of life :( ) and could list many more that could fall under this category that I have read.
But if I went around, claiming to be a follower of Joseph Smith (just as an example) and than said he was higher or lower than the prophet he claimed to be, you would certainly be in your rights to say that I missed something. And I would say the same for any of the other examples.
I'm a bit curious though by what you mean by 'comparing our Mormon beliefs to the Bible.' I wouldn't think any Mormon would squirm at comparing their beliefs to the Bible simply because we don't see the contradiction. Why can't they both be right?
And to Kaz's question, I would say that if the Bible teaches principles that are echoed in many other sources, doesn't that make it much less of a gamble? Calling the Bible 'right' just isn't the same as 'calling everything else wrong.'
At least those are my current thoughts. Anyone care to add/subtract to them?
-
"i am the way the truth and the light no one gets to the father except through me" according to the bible you either except christ as god and follow him or go on a one way ticket to hell... thus my point stands uncorrected
P.S. anyone surprized i can spout off bible versus i use to have all of John chapter 3 memorized... had it beaten into me :P
-
I
the probability of the bible being right and everything else being wrong, b/c that's what it claims to be the ONLY way to salvation so if you want to get to the law of probability i say his gamble is just as bad as yours and if there is indeed one way then man in general is screwed
If all religions are in fact equal and the best we can do is just randomly pick one and hope its right, then you are correct.
We are screwed.
However, we don't need to just close our eyes and pick the religion our fingers land on as we look through the cosmic library of religion. That's not what we were intended to do.
I believe that God Himself came to this earth in the form of a man to show us, as you quoted earlier, "the way, the truth, and the life." Its as if we are sitting unaware in the middle of the train tracks. There's only one way to survive: get off the tracks. You can't dig under them. You can't fly over them. You can't push the train away. Jesus came to die to give us a chance to accept His way of life.
-
No Kaz, it doesn't surprise me at all that you can quote John. Most people have access to the Bible now a-days. ;)
But I would say that even with the Savior being called the 'only way' it can still be a pretty safe bet because I know of very few (if any) religions that say that if you follow the Savior and his teachings you will go to Hell. And since the very basic principles within religions tend to match, I'd say it was a pretty safe bet all around.
BTW I am now picturing you as the funny guy, Benny, in the first Mummy movie where he pulls out all those different religious medallions and prays to each of them in turn to get rid of the Mummy. And it amuses me greatly. ;).
-
the difference between benny and myself alas isn't much but i believe that whatever not whomever god is loves his creation and will do right by it and he will not send us into eternal agony for mistakes so long as we strived to better ourselves and do right unto those around us
-
Wow, dude, are you really willing to risk your eternal life on that guess? Again, this is another thing I used to believe with all my heart, but no longer do. What if the Bible is true and you're wrong? There is no second chance for salvation after death and this might be your last one.
Yes, I am willing to wager my eternal life (should it exist) on that. On one hand I agree with Kaz's most recent post (directly above this one), but on the other the God of the Bible (and the Book of Mormon) is made out to be such a capricious, egotistical, overbearing, and generally crappy ruler that the wisest course of action may be to leg it and never look back. This last point is basically what caused my most recent girlfriend (a Mormon) to break up with me. I only say basically because it was slightly more complicated than that. It always is that way (complicated), isn't it?
That brings me to another point that I find interesting: the apparent mandate from LDS authority saying that members aren't allowed to date non-members. The aforementioned girl felt that she was sinning because she was dating me. Having gone most of my school years to schools that are made up almost completely of Mormons, I know that this wasn't some mistaken belief unique to her. In fact, there were generally two reactions the Mormon kids had upon finding that I wasn't "one of them". They would either treat me as if I had some disease and stay away, or they would try to "cure" me. I still keep count of the number of times I've had the missionaries sicked on me (I started keeping count in 9th grade). The official count is 35, including last Thursday. lol. Maybe the question to life, the universe, and everything is "How many times must sortitus be given the first discussion before he decides to round out the set and join the Mormon mafia?" If that's so, just seven to go. ;)
Nothing against you Mormon peeps. You're just very determined. :D
-
Well sortitus is because you are a blasphemer and not because of you post it's the signature
-
Hey! What's wrong with driving cars straight into outer space?
-
Sortitus wrote: Maybe the question to life, the universe, and everything is "How many times must sortitus be given the first discussion before he decides to round out the set and join the Mormon mafia?"
That would be, dear Sort, if the world did actually revolve around you.
Answer me this, if you would. How many lies to you estimate you have told in your life. Be honest, now. :D
-
you mean other than the delusion about having a girlfriend even in the past? ;)
-
The short answer is, no . . . but I don't hold much with intellectual snobbery. 8)
So, you consider yourself as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is?
the probability of the bible being right and everything else being wrong, b/c that's what it claims to be the ONLY way to salvation so if you want to get to the law of probability i say his gamble is just as bad as yours and if there is indeed one way then man in general is screwed
This ignores the nature of Pascal's wager; realize that it's a risk of a slightly inconvenienced lifestyle vs. the risk of eternal damnation (Pascal's views, not mine). People have pointed out flaws in Pascal's Wager, but yours is generally not used as one of them.
-
That brings me to another point that I find interesting: the apparent mandate from LDS authority saying that members aren't allowed to date non-members. The aforementioned girl felt that she was sinning because she was dating me. Having gone most of my school years to schools that are made up almost completely of Mormons, I know that this wasn't some mistaken belief unique to her. In fact, there were generally two reactions the Mormon kids had upon finding that I wasn't "one of them". They would either treat me as if I had some disease and stay away, or they would try to "cure" me. I still keep count of the number of times I've had the missionaries sicked on me (I started keeping count in 9th grade). The official count is 35, including last Thursday. lol. Maybe the question to life, the universe, and everything is "How many times must sortitus be given the first discussion before he decides to round out the set and join the Mormon mafia?" If that's so, just seven to go. ;)
Nothing against you Mormon peeps. You're just very determined. :D
Interestingly enough, Sortitus, Ari was not a Latter-day Saint when we started dating. In fact, she was quite opposed to the thought of joining the Church. She was not LDS when we got engaged, either. Now, this certainly made a great many LDS people I know uncomfortable, and we're encouraged to date other Saints, but not a single person suggested that I was breaking any commandment. You see, we're encouraged to date "within the Covenant" because doing so generally saves Latter-day Saints a lot of heartache down the road. But we're not forbidden from doing otherwise.
This recommendation is not without sociological reason, either: statistically, marriages consisting of two individuals from different religions have a much higher divorce rate than those consisting of two religions from the same religion. When one (but not both) of those individuals is LDS, the number soars much higher. Most Latter-day Saints know individuals who married non-LDS folks, and regret it. In fact, my great grandmother cursed the fact that for nearly 50 years she had married my grandfather out of the temple (a secular wedding). The fact is, in every way, a marriage between a Latter-day Saint and a non-Latter-day Saint is statistically much less likely to be successful, for pretty obvious reasons. For these reasons, it's generally not a good idea for the two groups to date eachother.
All that said, I've never had an LDS girlfriend; it just never worked out for me that way. I've dated non-Saints my entire life, and now I'm going to marry Ari, who wasn't LDS when we started dating and got engaged (though she got baptized a little over two years ago). In my case, I knew who she was almost from the start, and knew she was a good woman. For her part, she took a much closer look at the Church than she previously had. But it shouldn't surprise you that Latter-day Saints are encouraged to date those of the same religion as them; sociologically, this is just smart, if they want to stay married.
-
Has anyone here seen "religulous" By Bill Mahr? I think its something you all should check out.
-
I'm not really interested in watching a movie designed to make fun of me.
-
it is people like him that make athiests look bad. Most athiests are not hostile jerks towards anyone with a religious belief.
-
it is people like him that make athiests look bad. Most athiests are not hostile jerks towards anyone with a religious belief.
Hear, hear. And a great many of them are reasonable, too. Really, it'd be nice if an honest film was made on the topic some day. Unfortunately, "honest" and "reasonable" don't seem to be strong suits in Hollywood.
-
Jade it isn't the lifestyle that bothers me its the concept of beleiving without the basic understanding of how or why... faith is just that to believe even though you have no answers to accept even though you don't KNOW... and i can't deal with that...
on a different note i find the LDS church to have less flaws in the basic belief structure than the other denominations (and realize that i truly don't count the church of LDS as a christian denomination whether it was ingrained in me as a kid or not i see to large a difference between there philosphy and any other denomination excuse my tangent) because if you are made in the image of god and that image was originally without flaw how can you not achieve everything he has... though i still find the whole notion of achieving god hood silly... even something such as demi-gods or buddhasatvahs or whatever... i personally think we are not in whatever created us image we are merely intellegent beast that may or may not have a soul...(though i hate to admit it i do believe in a soul... i guess i don't know but to acknowledge that in my heart would most likely lead to despair)
-
Jade it isn't the lifestyle that bothers me its the concept of beleiving without the basic understanding of how or why... faith is just that to believe even though you have no answers to accept even though you don't KNOW... and i can't deal with that...
But, see this is exactly what Christian faith isn't. Faith is "the evidence of things unseen". Faith requires research and some degree of knowledge; it is never "blind". And you exercise faith yourself—if you earn money, and pay for goods in money, then you have faith that the dollar will continue to retain a similar value; if you didn't have this faith, you would try to avoid using the US dollar in transactions as much as possible. You would definitely avoid bank accounts. See, you don't know that the dollar will retain its value, but you hope it will, and you have reasonable expecation that it will. This is how faith works.
-
the God of the Bible (and the Book of Mormon) is made out to be such a capricious, egotistical, overbearing, and generally crappy ruler that the wisest course of action may be to leg it and never look back.
Whoa, I'd avoid lightning storms and open spaces after a statement like that.
Fortunately, nothing you nor I or anyone else believes about God changes who He actually is and what He has freely offered to every person at great personal cost. Truly did you say that "God . . . is made out to be . . ." because He has not presented Himself that way, either in Word or deed, but has been presented in all manner of negative ways by those who choose to keep him out of their lives.
He is a good and fair judge, demanding that the nation of Israel completely wipe out certain people groups who tended to sacrifice their infants to flaming idols and sexually degrade themselves in the name of worship. If only they had obeyed. He knew what was coming, after all, and what was best for his chosen people, so don't get "capricious, egotistical, overbearing, and generally crappy ruler" out of that part of the historical biblical record; get wise sovereign.
He is compassionate, not willing any to come to destruction. He is longsuffering, patient, kind, joyful and inestimably loving. I'm sorry that you have imagined him any other way and I'm sorry for the unpleasant experiences you have had with religion and certain religious people. Jesus himself had issues with ridiculous religious practices, as I remember, and so have I. I bet you remember what he said about "true religion."
There is a part of you that craves union with and submission to this most-amazing of all beings in the universe. It is the eternal part of you, your soul . . . otherwise you would not waste time on this thread. (Ring a bell, Kaz, Writerainge and mtlhddoc2?)
You did not answer my question, Sortitus. Come on, what are you afraid of? A little old mom like me?
How many lies do you think you may have told in your life? It is not a trick question, but there is a purpose to it other than the obvious.
-
Really, it'd be nice if an honest film was made on the topic some day. Unfortunately, "honest" and "reasonable" don't seem to be strong suits in Hollywood.
Try "Expelled" by Ben Stein. He exposes part of the problem.
-
So, you consider yourself as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is?
I consider myself exactly what I am, a mature, well-read individual with a wealth of life experience and a sometimes-still-quick mind but a dearth of titles and degrees. Is this a way of diffusing the argument, dearest JK, or are you really this much of a snob? I'm thinking a little of both and a lack of years.
I can't even remember what we were talking about, getting all distracted in defending my poor, uneducated self. I refrain from boasting, but I have probably had more careers, jobs, passions and life experiences, not to mention read more books, than you probably know exist. So there.
(I re-read old posts)
Weren't we talking about comparing Mormon church fathers to the giants of the orthodox Christian faith? That's small-o orthodox, btw. Back on subject, new intellectually-honest friend, if you please.
I really don't think a few extra years in academia helps one have a truly open mind or be able to discern good beginnings from bad in any organization. That's all we're really talking about. Good fruit/bad fruit. The validity of the source material is important, but there is a preponderance of independent evidence to look at. Please start with Mr. Bagley's exhaustively researched treatment of LDS history. I dare ya!
-
This statement:
Is this a way of diffusing the argument, dearest JK, or are you really this much of a snob?
Coupled with this one from earlier: I have read about the life and sayings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young written by Mormons, orthodox Christians and a certain "cultural Mormon," most recently. I have compared these men's lives, writings and practices to men like Charles Spurgeon and Jim Elliot, Andrew Murray and Amy Carmichael (a woman! imagine that!), Michael Behe and Hudson Taylor. I urge anyone with an open and curious mind to do the same. My Mormon friends are the nicest people in the world, but none of them so far have been willing to judge any of their early prophets by their fruits or compare their Mormon beliefs with the Bible. I have a feeling that someone on this forum might be more intellectually sincere.
makes me giggle.
JK's a snob for asking about your background AND your mormon friends are intellectually insincere if not lazy for not having the proper background of study, as judged by you. Surely you can see the irony?
That little incongruence aside, your statements interest me. Two questions 1: What's the title of the Bagley book your so proud of having read? I'd like to check it out. 2: Why do you say your mormon friends refuse to compare their beliefs to the bible? Is it something specific to them or do you see a fundamental disconnect between mormonism in general and the bible. In either case, what is it?
-
Whoa, I'd avoid lightning storms and open spaces after a statement like that.
Yeah, OK. I'll just ignore the fact that I've said things like that for years now, and haven't had any incredible and deadly incidents with the elements. Besides, who's to say that God would use the lightning and not, say, you with a gun?
Fortunately, nothing you nor I or anyone else believes about God changes who He actually is and what He has freely offered to every person at great personal cost. Truly did you say that "God . . . is made out to be . . ." because He has not presented Himself that way, either in Word or deed, but has been presented in all manner of negative ways by those who choose to keep him out of their lives.
He is a good and fair judge, demanding that the nation of Israel completely wipe out certain people groups who tended to sacrifice their infants to flaming idols and sexually degrade themselves in the name of worship. If only they had obeyed. He knew what was coming, after all, and what was best for his chosen people, so don't get "capricious, egotistical, overbearing, and generally crappy ruler" out of that part of the historical biblical record; get wise sovereign.
Wise sovereign? Perfect in every way is the official definition, right? Read your religious texts again, and this time remember that God is omniscient and omnipotent. As the ultimate Chessmaster (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChessmaster), bloodshed should be entirely unnecessary for God to further his methods. Where you see a wise sovereign, I see an excuse for people to be jerks to each other. The Judgement of Solomon VS The Crusades. Unfortunately, there are very few tales like the former in the Bible, while most of the Old Testament is similar to the latter. The New Testament reads more like a philosophy text.
He is compassionate, not willing any to come to destruction. He is longsuffering, patient, kind, joyful and inestimably loving. I'm sorry that you have imagined him any other way and I'm sorry for the unpleasant experiences you have had with religion and certain religious people. Jesus himself had issues with ridiculous religious practices, as I remember, and so have I. I bet you remember what he said about "true religion."
I don't remember that, no. I am glad to hear that he's so kind, as I was getting ready to spend my life in a bunker avoiding everything that isn't yet fully understood by science.
There is a part of you that craves union with and submission to this most-amazing of all beings in the universe. It is the eternal part of you, your soul . . . otherwise you would not waste time on this thread. (Ring a bell, Kaz, Writerainge and mtlhddoc2?)
Uh... I what? What if I said that that sounds like a somewhat silly proposition, and that I'd rather buy into the Mormon view and believe that I'll become a God than be absorbed into some multi-consciousness. Though if we were originally all parts of God and we were scattered, that would explain why God (or at least portrayals of him) has gotten a lot more intelligent over the years. Rudeness aside, I'm not here because I feel that way. I merely find religion interesting, even if I do find much of it silly at the same time. It's like martial arts; I'm not drawn to them because of the mystical BS many of them contain, but because of the physical and mental benefits they often give. Expanding your awareness can be done in many different ways, and believing that a supreme being is giving you answers is one of them.
You did not answer my question, Sortitus. Come on, what are you afraid of? A little old mom like me?
How many lies do you think you may have told in your life? It is not a trick question, but there is a purpose to it other than the obvious.
I know what you're trying to do, but it's an impossible question for me to answer. Especially since you didn't specify the type of lie. Try the Wikipedia page on Lies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie) to define what you're talking about. It may be worth noting that the statement you quoted in the previous post was (I thought quite obviously) a joke. Maybe not. *shrugs* My sister and her husband are visiting from overseas, so I'm having a bit of a hard time finding time to keep up with this thread.
Jade, thanks for the direct response. I understand that inter-religious marriages are statistically unsound, but I suppose I'm somewhat of a romantic deep down and think that people could make it work if they stopped being so... human. :P
-
This statement: Is this a way of diffusing the argument, dearest JK, or are you really this much of a snob?
Coupled with this one from earlier: I have read about the life and sayings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young written by Mormons, orthodox Christians and a certain "cultural Mormon," most recently. I have compared these men's lives, writings and practices to men like Charles Spurgeon and Jim Elliot, Andrew Murray and Amy Carmichael (a woman! imagine that!), Michael Behe and Hudson Taylor. I urge anyone with an open and curious mind to do the same. My Mormon friends are the nicest people in the world, but none of them so far have been willing to judge any of their early prophets by their fruits or compare their Mormon beliefs with the Bible. I have a feeling that someone on this forum might be more intellectually sincere.
makes me giggle.
JK's a snob for asking about your background AND your mormon friends are intellectually insincere if not lazy for not having the proper background of study, as judged by you. Surely you can see the irony?
I think there is a difference. The first statement is a response to Jade in which he is asking whether she is qualified to judge the historical veracity of the books she has read. He is not questioning that she has, in fact, studied the issue.
In the second statement she is claiming that none of her Mormon friends have actually studied the issue.
In the first, Jade wonders whether she is able to piece together an accurate historical record. In the second, mtbikemon says that her friends have not bothered to try.
Please note, I'm not trying to start or continue an argument, just clear up a perceived misconception.
-
So, you consider yourself as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is?
I consider myself exactly what I am, a mature, well-read individual with a wealth of life experience and a sometimes-still-quick mind but a dearth of titles and degrees. Is this a way of diffusing the argument, dearest JK, or are you really this much of a snob? I'm thinking a little of both and a lack of years.
So, to tease out the implication, you do believe you're as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is? It's very clever of you, to play the game of ὕβρις and then call me a "snob" when I ask a simple question about how highly you rate your own opinion.
I can't even remember what we were talking about, getting all distracted in defending my poor, uneducated self. I refrain from boasting, but I have probably had more careers, jobs, passions and life experiences, not to mention read more books, than you probably know exist. So there.
(I re-read old posts)
Despite the fact that I'm quite certain that you're wrong, and the fact that you'd make such a statement and then say that you "refrain from boasting" (how humble of you!), what really amazes me is that you think that I am a snob after all that.
I really don't think a few extra years in academia helps one have a truly open mind or be able to discern good beginnings from bad in any organization. That's all we're really talking about. Good fruit/bad fruit. The validity of the source material is important, but there is a preponderance of independent evidence to look at. Please start with Mr. Bagley's exhaustively researched treatment of LDS history. I dare ya!
There is a preponderance of evidence to look at, most definitely. And this is absolutely why a basic understanding of historiography is critical in discussing such a subject. Your very statements seem to belie such an understanding, and while I'm sure you'd find it very amusing to exchange such tit-for-tats, I've little interest, I'm afraid. I'll gladly point you to some resources where you can learn more about historiography, or particular historical issues, however.
Morality, we may be able to have a discussion about. History? This much I doubt, I'm afraid. If this makes me a snob—expecting one to understand the historical equivalent of the scientific method when examining history—so be it. Better to be called snob than to encourage ignorance.
-
Jade, thanks for the direct response. I understand that inter-religious marriages are statistically unsound, but I suppose I'm somewhat of a romantic deep down and think that people could make it work if they stopped being so... human. :P
Yes, I'm a bit like this, too. But, really, I don't think it's a wise thing; both parents will almost certainly feel very strongly about their own particular relosophical opinions, and this will almost always create significant conflict in the home when the couple starts trying to raise children after their own independent worldviews.
-
I have met people who converted just because they wished to marry someone of another faith... I've seen it with Christians and Muslims... but can you really call it conversion to me it sounds like convenience
-
Reaves:
I think there is a difference. The first statement is a response to Jade in which he is asking whether she is qualified to judge the historical veracity of the books she has read. He is not questioning that she has, in fact, studied the issue.
In the second statement she is claiming that none of her Mormon friends have actually studied the issue.
Ah, how mutable words can be. Perhaps you are right. I do not claim to be the ultimate arbiter of what people actually mean on the internet. I freely admit that I could be wrong.
The irony I saw, however, was JK being labeled as a snob for asking if mtbm had studied historiagraphy, while mtbm smugly excoriated her friends for not studying the issues she considers pertinent. Historiography itself is at least as relevant as the texts it would be used to analyse in this case.
That aside, I'd like to emphasize the importance of taking nearly everything you read about mormon history, from both inside and outside the religion with a hefty grain of salt. Two examples.
*I read the first few chapters of Krakauer's "Under the Banner of Heaven." I didn't bother to finish because in the first few chapters he egregiously misquotes the Doctrine and Covenants. I don't mean he flipped words around or made stuff up. He simply took the verses out of context and implied terrible things that are only creditable if you don't read the verses before and after the ones he chooses to quote. Either he had an anti-mormon D&C scholar feeding him verses which he blindly planted and analysed in his book or he knew exactly what he was doing. I found the former hard to believe and thus the rest of the book became irrelevant.
*Minor example concerning the murder of the prophet Joseph Smith. I've read first hand accounts that explicitly state that Joseph had a pistol and fired down the stairwell at his assailants as well as a stick he used to attack them in self-defense before he went through the window. You will not find this in any of the "official accounts" of his death. I suspect that is because the church leadership prefer, for some reason I personally can barely understand, the more peaceful version with the vigorous self-defense left out.
Long post to try and say 'take everything you read with a grain of salt.'
In the end religion cannot be proven or disproven by history or logical analysis. It always comes down to an individual's personal Q&A relationship with God. And that's one thing the Mormon church teaches with vigor. Question? Ask God. He will answer you and you should do what he says. Period.
-
*Minor example concerning the murder of the prophet Joseph Smith. I've read first hand accounts that explicitly state that Joseph had a pistol and fired down the stairwell at his assailants as well as a stick he used to attack them in self-defense before he went through the window. You will not find this in any of the "official accounts" of his death. I suspect that is because the church leadership prefer, for some reason I personally can barely understand, the more peaceful version with the vigorous self-defense left out.
I always thought it was interesting that the church glossed over that as well. In multiple accounts it was stated that they had a pepper-box pistol (a 6 barreled muzzle loading pistol to be exact).(http://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Rel341/7116211382002_52382B%5B1%5D.jpg)
In the Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, he states that "...a man named Townsend...was one of the mob...[and] the pistol discharged by Joseph Smith wounded him in the arm near the shoulder..."
-
Wow you have the Bene Gesserit litany against fear as your signature.... that takes up alot of space....
-
So, to tease out the implication, you do believe you're as qualified as a historian to determine how historiographically honest a work of history is? It's very clever of you, to play the game of ὕβρις and then call me a "snob" when I ask a simple question about how highly you rate your own opinion.
Despite the fact that I'm quite certain that you're wrong, and the fact that you'd make such a statement and then say that you "refrain from boasting" (how humble of you!), what really amazes me is that you think that I am a snob after all that.
The truth is, we're both snobs in our own way. I tune out when someone tries to shut down a good point by claiming that only historians should discuss points of historical significance. Or that any given professional is the obvious expert over any amateur. Ho hum. Or when anyone takes heart issues to their head in endless intellectual diatribes. Zzzzzz . . . You will only discuss issues of historical validity with trained and degree-laden professionals? Excuuuuse me. You try to diffuse and disqualify when someone like me has an opinion on which you feel intellectual superiority. I am not so easily intimidated, though maybe I should be. :)
Neither of our biases serves the main point: Can the real life and fruit of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (not the sanitized version put forward by LDS literature) compare favorably to any of the mainstream Christian men and woman I've mentioned? How about Elisabeth Eliot who returned to the village of the people who had murdered her husband and served them for years as a missionary? Compare this to the call, by for "blood atonement" in early Mormon teachings. This is a valid comparison of the fruit of two differing belief systems. Enighten us all with your historiographical brilliance, if you will, on this one point.
Btw, "I refrain from boasting" was meant as self deprecation. I jump too quickly from defensive to silly sometimes. Try to follow! (I kid . . . this was not your fault.)
I trust certain others to do the research I am unqualified/unwilling/too lazy to do on my own, namely Will Bagley in his excellent book Blood of the Prophets. I encourage you to read it and comment here. You cannot possibly discount his credentials or his academic standards. He continues the important work that Juanita Brooks began, I believe, but with greater access to primary testimony and documents than did Mrs. Brooks. I have also read page after page of critical review of this work, none of which addressed much more than side issues and conjecture. Lots of lawyer-ly babble, little substance, IM not so H and inexpert O. Bagley's depiction of early Mormon church history is important, but you be the final judge of its accuracy. If your mind is truly open, I believe this could change your life and I will take all the credit in my ever-humble fashion. (I tried to make it obvious that time.) :-*
-
In para. 2, I should have written: Compare this to the call, by Brigham Young himself, for "blood atonement" against apostates in early Mormon teachings authored by him. (See 21 December 1856 and 8 February 1857, Journal of Discourses, 4:53, 219-20. See also Doctrine and Covenants, 132: 19, 20, 26, 27.)
-
I know what you're trying to do, but it's an impossible question for me to answer. Especially since you didn't specify the type of lie.
You will not know what I'm "trying to do" for sure until you answer directly. Just a rough estimate will do. A lie is a lie, from "little white" to " bearing false witness in a court of law." About how many do you think you may have told in your lifetime? (me: thousands, maybe)
-
I've been on vacation for a week. Looks like things are moving along here.
Back on page 12, Writerinage said (referring, I believe to my post on the afterlife and the possibility of Eternal Progression, and forgiveness of sin after death):
Your thoughts on a loving God who doesn't not create sinners and then punish them are beautiful... but your lovely personal sentiment is not backed up by christian doctrine, the bible, or even the book of Mormon.
I've been thinking about how to answer this, because I think it's very important to point out that this is not just "my lovely sentiment." This is fundamental Church doctrine, as preached by our prophets, and backed up by scripture.
My brother recently did a short post about our doctrine on his blog (http://tpmotd.blogspot.com/2009/06/two-of-my-favorite-quotes.html), and has some good quotes to back it up.
I was talking to my mom today about this thread (mostly how interesting it is to have an intelligent rational discussion with people who really want to understand the other point of view), and found myself articulating the reason why it's been so hard coming up with an adequate response.
Latter Day Saints believe that we were sent to earth to try to become more like God. We were to be tested to see who would do the best they could with what they'd been given, and who would be decieved, take the easy way out, or just plain rebel (Think of Christ's Parable of the talents in the New Testament (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/matt/25/)) Those who passed the test would be given more responsibilities, and more opportunities to learn and grow until they became like God, having all that he has. If you have a view of the afterlife that includes Eternal Progression, active work, and a purpose to continue existing, then you can begin to see the reasons for so many of the commandments and prophetic counsel that others see as so restricting. If you don't believe in such an afterlife, then the commandments could easily seem like "a tool to keep the masses in line." What's the point of exercising such self control, if your reward is to sit around on a cloud playing a harp as an asexual being, or even worse, if you cease to exist altogether? By twisting and hiding this one small bit of doctrine in the Bible as it was copied and translated, and in traditional Christian theology, Satan has done an enormous amount of damage to the gospel as most people learn it -- without that crucial piece, large portions of it simply don't make sense, and very rational people have a hard time reconciling the conflicting bits.
There have been a lot of questions asked about the Mormon view of Heaven and Hell. Some of that discussion has moved into PM's, but Ookla asked me to address it a little in this post, since that's what I'm talking about anyway.
Before we were born, we (human beings) were all spirits living with our Father/Creator (God) in the spirit world. In order to help us progress, God the Father directed his firstborn spirit son Jesus to create the Earth and everything on it (pretty much as described in Genesis). When we come to Earth, our spirit gets a mortal body, and together these two are the "soul." When we die, we leave the body behind, and we're spirits again, in the spirit world. In this spirit world, there are two states -- paradise (for the people who were good) and spirit prison (for the people who weren't). We don't know if these are two separate places, or just two different states of mind, but we do know that there will be communication between the two groups, and those in prison will be taught about the plan of salvation and how Jesus died for our sins, and they will be given a chance to accept Him as their personal Savior, and be set free. Baptism is a part of this process, and if they weren't baptised in mortality, someone will have to be baptised for them by proxy, and then they will have to accept that ordinance in order for it to have any effect.
At some point in time, Christ will come again, the world will end, and there will be a final judgement. Everyone who was ever born will get ressurected and recieve their bodies again (in this way, Jesus saves everyone from physical death -- the separation of the body and spirit which make up the soul). Those that accept Christ as the Redeemer will have their sins forgiven, and can live with Him and the Father (Thus He saves some people from spiritual death, or our separation form God). Those who won't accept Christ's suffering for their sins, will suffer for their own sins. This is known as being "damned" or having your forward progress stopped. There are three main, and many finer gradations of eternal reward/punishment. Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76/) talks more about the final judgement and what you have to do to qualify for each of the kingdoms, and what they will be like. Essentially, if you're the kind of person in this life who would reject Christ's plan or refuse to live the way you know you should because it's just too much work, then you'll be the same sort of person in the next life, and you won't want to do what it takes to go to one of the higher kingdoms.
Hell, in our theology, can refer to a few different things. The most obvious is the spirit prison which exists between death and the final judgement. In this case, the "everlasting and eternal" adjectives that have been applied to it in scripture are a sort of play on words by God because he is everlasting and eternal, whatever punishment he chooses to dole out will be everlasting and eternal punishment (see D&c 19 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/19/11#11) -- a chapter that explains a lot of what I'm saying here). Hell can also refer to the "outer darkness" that is reserved for those who knew without a shadow af a doubt that Christ was the Son of God, and yet betrayed that knowledge and worked against His kingdom. Hell can also refer to the "telestial kingdom" which is one of the three degrees of glory (see D&C 76). I don't have a citation handy, but we've been told that if we knew how great even this lowest of the kingdoms is, we'd kill ourselves to get there, and yet the highest, or Celestial Kingdom is amazingly better even than that.
Most of my refrences so far have been to the Doctrine and Covenants, a compilation of revelations received by Joseph Smith and subsequent Prophets. If you read them, you'll find that they really describe the torments of Hell as a state of mind of knowing that you're guilty, and that you could have had so much more if you'd only been willing to do what it takes (believe, keep the commandments, etc). If you want a source in the Book of Mormon for this view of hell and the afterlife, read about the experience of Alma the Younger while he was in a coma-like state after being rebuked by the angel. Alma 36 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/36/13#13) (Oh, and sorry about all the footnote letters scattered in there -- if you want to read a clearer copy, click on the link)
5 Now, behold, I say unto you, if I had not been aborn of God I should bnot have known these things; but God has, by the mouth of his holy cangel, made these things known unto me, not of any dworthiness of myself;
6 For I went about with the sons of Mosiah, seeking to adestroy the church of God; but behold, God sent his holy angel to stop us by the way.
7 And behold, he spake unto us, as it were the voice of thunder, and the whole earth did atremble beneath our feet; and we all fell to the earth, for the bfear of the Lord came upon us.
8 But behold, the voice said unto me: Arise. And I arose and stood up, and beheld the angel.
9 And he said unto me: If thou wilt of thyself be destroyed, seek no more to destroy the church of God.
10 And it came to pass that I fell to the earth; and it was for the space of athree days and three nights that I could not open my mouth, neither had I the use of my limbs.
11 And the angel spake more things unto me, which were heard by my brethren, but I did anot hear them; for when I heard the words—If thou wilt be destroyed of thyself, seek no more to destroy the church of God—I was struck with such great fear and amazement lest perhaps I should be destroyed, that I fell to the earth and I did hear no more.
12 But I was racked with aeternal btorment, for my soul was charrowed up to the greatest degree and racked with all my sins.
13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was atormented with the bpains of hell; yea, I saw that I had crebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.
14 Yea, and I had amurdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.
15 Oh, thought I, that I acould be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my bdeeds.
16 And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the apains of a bdamned soul.
17 And it came to pass that as I was thus aracked with torment, while I was bharrowed up by the cmemory of my many sins, behold, I dremembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.
18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, ahave mercy on me, who am bin the cgall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting dchains of edeath.
19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my apains bno more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.
20 And oh, what ajoy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!
21 Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy.
22 Yea, methought I saw, even as our father aLehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels, in the attitude of singing and bpraising their God; yea, and my soul did long to be there.
23 But behold, my limbs did receive their astrength again, and I stood upon my feet, and did manifest unto the people that I had been bborn of God.
24 Yea, and from that time even until now, I have labored without ceasing, that I might bring souls unto arepentance; that I might bring them to btaste of the exceeding joy of which I did taste; that they might also be cborn of God, and be dfilled with the Holy Ghost.
In the scripture below, Zeezrom realizes the damage his lies have caused and starts to feel the chains of Hell Alma 14:6 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/14/6#6)
6 And it came to pass that Zeezrom was astonished at the words which had been spoken; and he also knew concerning the blindness of the minds, which he had caused among the people by his lying words; and his soul began to be harrowed up under a consciousness of his own guilt; yea, he began to be encircled about by the pains of hell.
In another chapter, (Alma 5 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/5/6-7,9-10#6)), Alma talks to a group of people -- the children and grandchildren of converts -- about how their fathers had been saved from Hell by believing in Christ. Again, Hell is equated with feeling the guilt of the sins they committed, and with chains that are holding them captive so that they can't progress. To be released from these chains, they had to accept Christ and his Atonement for their sins, and become born again through Him. In this sermon, the goal at the judgement day is to have His image in our countenances -- in other words to do all we can in this life to become like Him.
Wow you have the Bene Gesserit litany against fear as your signature.... that takes up alot of space....
As a side note, I used to chant this as an exercise in "Rational Emotive Imaging" to cure myself of a paralyzing fear of the dark and parking lots.
-
About how many do you think you may have told in your lifetime? (me: thousands, maybe)
Okay if everyone was honest on this subject those who lie the least would still have thousands and those of us who lie to save our skins or whatnot... manipulation ect. have reached the tens of thousands possibly more... and if you include deceit such as leaving out information imply falsities well I'm pretty sure you get into the hundred of thousands.... but this really isn't relevant to the discussion the bogus statement just deserved comment...
-
The truth is, we're both snobs in our own way. I tune out when someone tries to shut down a good point by claiming that only historians should discuss points of historical significance. Or that any given professional is the obvious expert over any amateur. Ho hum. Or when anyone takes heart issues to their head in endless intellectual diatribes. Zzzzzz . . . You will only discuss issues of historical validity with trained and degree-laden professionals? Excuuuuse me. You try to diffuse and disqualify when someone like me has an opinion on which you feel intellectual superiority. I am not so easily intimidated, though maybe I should be. :)
You appear to either be evading or misunderstanding my point; I'm suggesting that training in Historiography is critical in wading through historiographical messes (and there is no question that this is a massive historical quagmire in that regard, with numerous conflicting testimonies all over the place). The degree is incidental into this, but your ὕβρις is not, as it is a reflection of your attitude, and, IMO, reflects a degree of scholarly "carelessness".
As I have stated before, I'm not interested in engaging you in a pseudo-intellectual debate. You'll find plenty of historical insight to chew on here: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai048.html, and if that doesn't satisfy your questions, you'll find that individuals on that website will be more than happy to argue with you about it ad nauseam—and I expect that many of them are much more familiar with this particular issue than any of us here.
And I let me state quite clearly (again!), that this is not an appropriate place to put any religion "on trial". Baiting is not okay here. And flaming is absolutely not okay. Obscure doctrinal issues should be discussed over PM. I see a lot of great discussion here, and I do not want to lock this thread, but action will be taken if things start appearing hostile or offensive.
-
Sorry, any and all who read this thread. Life intrudes. I know some of you just can't wait for my next post.
Jade Knight: Lighten up, buddy! Methinks I need to find better ways to get my message across since I seem to offend when I just want to introduce a topic or challenge you to look deeper into a subject for yourself. I think I was responding to something you said waqy back about judging people by their fruit, but I am way too careless to check. I admit it.
Let's both take a chip off our obviously-intelligent proverbial shoulders and get down to basics, maybe. Here's the bottom line for me: If one person reads Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets, who would not do so otherwise, I will consider my time on this forum well-spent. If you read it, or something similar, and write about it, I will dance around my kitchen with joy. I will at least smile warmly, if the dancing thing weirds you out.
"Pseudo-intellectual debate"? I choose not to be offended by that . . . and agree that any sort of intellectual debate is a waste of time. I simply ask you to look into the lives of your prophets, un-sanitized and from primary sources, and compare them to the lives of people who I consider to be instrumental in the orthodox view of Christianity through the ages. That's all. I think we all agree that "by their fruit, we shall know them." I believe this means that the behavior and "fruit" of a person declare whether or not he/she can be trusted for doctrine and truth, whether we should listen to them and follow them as God's spokespersons. And, btw, what the heck is ὕβρις ??
You might want to think a bit, also, about why my comments offend, but the anti-God/anti-religion comments by atheists and lapsed Christians here do not provoke accusations of "flaming" and cause you to consider closing this thread. You have called this thread "general," right? I'm interested if Mr. Reaves has anything to add to this point. He has made such clear and insightful posts in the past and is better at diffusing sticky arguments than me.
-
About how many do you think you may have told in your lifetime? (me: thousands, maybe)
Okay if everyone was honest on this subject those who lie the least would still have thousands and those of us who lie to save our skins or whatnot... manipulation ect. have reached the tens of thousands possibly more... and if you include deceit such as leaving out information imply falsities well I'm pretty sure you get into the hundred of thousands.... but this really isn't relevant to the discussion the bogus statement just deserved comment...
Yeah, a lie is a lie according to my Bible, and "leaving things out" counts, I think, unless you are doing it to save someone's life, but that's beside the point. One lie per person will do for my next point.
Here's a pertinent quote: "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolators (anyone who makes their creator/God into something palatable rather than who he really is), and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Rev. 21:8, parenthetical insertion mine. Whatever you believe about heaven or hell, if this is true, it doesn't sound pleasant. Especially if it is eternal as many believe.
Matthew 12:36 says "But I (Jesus) say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment." I think it's safe to say that the Bible teaches that there will be a day of judgment and that no one will escape it. " . . .it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment." Heb. 10:27
Another interesting one: Jesus said that to look on a woman to lust after her is the same as committing adultery with her in your heart (Matt. 5: 27 and 28) and that to be angry with a man without cause is the same as murder (Matt. 5:21 and 22).
Next question: If God were to judge you according to his commandments on judgment day and this scripture is also true that " . . . whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all," then will you be innocent or guilty before him? This is a yes or no, no squirming allowed.
-
I simply ask you to look into the lives of your prophets, un-sanitized and from primary sources, and compare them to the lives of people who I consider to be instrumental in the orthodox view of Christianity through the ages. That's all.
The problem is that you assume I have not already done this. But since you are interested in primary sources—I am curious: have you read The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith and They Knew the Prophet (two collections of nothing but primary sources)? Have you read any collection of primary sources related to the Latter Day Saint movement which is void of significant commentary? If so, I'd be curious to hear which.
I think we all agree that "by their fruit, we shall know them." I believe this means that the behavior and "fruit" of a person declare whether or not he/she can be trusted for doctrine and truth, whether we should listen to them and follow them as God's spokespersons.
Yes, we all agree with this—at least all the Latter-day Saints do, as well as a great many other Christians.
And, btw, what the heck is ὕβρις ??
It's a Greek word. If you care enough to know, you'll care enough to look it up.
You might want to think a bit, also, about why my comments offend, but the anti-God/anti-religion comments by atheists and lapsed Christians here do not provoke accusations of "flaming" and cause you to consider closing this thread. You have called this thread "general," right?
You may not have noticed, but a while ago another religious discussion thread got closed because an Atheist became highly offended at some of the comments made in that thread which he found hurtful. I do not think those comments were intended to be offensive, but we weren't going to keep the thread running when people's feelings were being hurt. The same goes here—if people can't approach a topic respectfully enough to avoid hurting people's feelings (and it's possible that certain subjects cannot be approached without doing so), threads may get locked. This is doubly true where flaming may be present.
I think it's fine for people to say that they think something is right or wrong (such as the existence of God), so long as they let other people speak for themselves. I may say that I think that Christianity is right, and consequently Islam is wrong, but if I, as a Christian, were to go and tell a Muslim that Muhammad was a crackpot and therefore Islam is wrong, I'd be a moron if I expected anything other than that they would be quite offended, and rightly so; this would be an unreasonable approach to Islam, as it does not reflect Muslim scholarship and Muslim viewpoints. As such, it entirely fails to understand the Muslim perspective on the issue. The same approach is true of all religions.
-
Brave and gentle Jade Knight,
Oh, ὕβρις is hubris. That hurts my feelings just a little bit, y'know.
Let me ask you this, in answer to your last thoughtful and respectful post, which I truly appreciate:
If some great friends of yours were in a boat, having a wonderful time, floating past you who are safe on the shore and you knew for certain that in a short time they would get to a point in the river's current where it would be impossible for them to avoid a deadly waterfall ahead, which they obviously do not realize, what would you do? If you wave and smile, not wanting to be the one to ruin even a few minutes of their pleasant cruise, could you really live with the consequences? No, you run shouting into the water, making an utter fool of yourself for their sakes, and even upset the boat in order to save these people. You are, after all, a noble Knight!
I believe that when Jesus said that he is the door to heaven, he meant that he alone is the door to heaven. I also think that "I am the way, the truth and the life" means just that, and a good understanding of Greek supports the universally-held Christian belief that there is no other way to heaven than by faith in his work on the cross as payment for the sins that we all have committed. Carrying these sins, even just a few and no matter how much good we have done, make it impossible to even stand in the presence of God. Jesus paid the fine and did the time for me and, when I finally realized it, I became a citizen of heaven. I intend to bring as many souls along with me as possible and don't really care much about unpleasant consequences.
If someone tells me that there is another way to be sure to live in eternal bliss with the creator of the universe, sometimes I will risk hurting their feelings for the sake of their eternal soul. Not always, much to my shame.
Question (and I will do the reading you suggested and get back to you about it sometime this summer): What does the LDS church teach about the only way to heaven/salvation/eternal life? Does your church teach that there more ways than one? I know I've read about this somewhere, but I'm mostly interested in your personal take on it.
-
mtbike: the waterfall scenario is a good analogy, except for one problem. there are those who do not believe there is a waterfall and their pleasant river cruise will go on just fine, after all we scouted ahead to make sure. And we can assure you, there is no waterfall.
And lets just say, for instance, that there is an invisible waterfall. Well, I for one, when I die, would like to be remembered as a caring invididual, someone who was respectful of others, donated his time, and money when he had it to helping the less fortunate, someone who loved others and was loved in return. And lets just say this waterfal of yours does exist. When i reach the bottom of it, i would like to think the pond at the bottom would be welcoming of a good person, regardless of whether I believed in the waterfall or not. And I would sincerely hope that the pond would NOT be welcoming of a person who was rude, disrespectful, uncaring of others feelings, even if they acted as they did in the pond's name.
-
I'm new to this discussion here, but I enjoy having friendly discussions and explaining a little about what I believe. Mtbkmom: your question is on our belief if the "Only Way to Heaven" right? Well, we would agree with the rest of the Christian world on the fact that Christ is the only way there. As has been stated before we believe that this life is here for us to become "ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect." (Matt 5:48) This means that we need to grow to respond to situations in our life the way that Jesus Christ would act in that situation. This is something that would really be impossible for anyone to reach on their own. We have already failed to do that many times and will continue to fail to do so for the rest of our lives. That is why there needed to be a savior- someone who was a perfect person who could then pay the price and suffer for our sins so that we could be forgiven and change. We believe that the Atonement of Christ is there for us to overcome our faults and mistakes- it is the only way for us to overcome those faults and mistakes.
I would agree with many of the things that you wrote on the subject. If I try to get to heaven on my own- it don't matter how many good works I have done, in the end I just won't make it. This is somethings that is mentioned many times in the Book of Mormon as well as in the bible such as- And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. (Mosiah 3:17) It is only through the the power of the Creator and Savior that our very nature can be changed and we may become a disciple of Christ.
For the sake of discussion, even if someone was able to live a perfect life without Christ's help they still wouldn't be able to be saved because it is only through faith in Christ the power of the atonement that death and hell is overcome. He really is the only way into heaven.
-
mtbikemom, LDS believe everything you said in your post about Jesus Christ being the only way to heaven/eternal life. The only thing we may see differently is where you said that when you realized Jesus Christ was the only way you became a citizen of heaven. LDS believe that you also have to follow Jesus Christ and repent and keep his commandments. If you believe in Jesus Christ but don't repent and refuse to follow his commandments, you don't get to heaven.
-
Ookla: all the major religions have the same basic beliefs - believing and accepting is fine and dandy, but if you dont actually try and follow the path, and regret and attempt to repent your mistakes, you go see the other guy.
-
Not to hear some Christians talk.
Nevertheless:
Well, I for one, when I die, would like to be remembered as a caring invididual, someone who was respectful of others, donated his time, and money when he had it to helping the less fortunate, someone who loved others and was loved in return. And lets just say this waterfal of yours does exist. When i reach the bottom of it, i would like to think the pond at the bottom would be welcoming of a good person, regardless of whether I believed in the waterfall or not. And I would sincerely hope that the pond would NOT be welcoming of a person who was rude, disrespectful, uncaring of others feelings, even if they acted as they did in the pond's name.
Hear, hear.
-
I'm going to stir things up a little bit... while I sort of agree with what BookWorm and Ookla have said, I interpret things just slightly differently from them.
You see, there's a lot of misunderstanding of the LDS viewpoint of heaven. We believe, unequivocably, that there is no way to the Father but through Christ. And we also believe that if it weren't for Christ's sacrifice, atonement, and triumph over death no one would be resurrected, or return to any sort of heaven, or reconciliation with God of any sort.
At the same time, "heaven" in LDS terminology is slightly different than that used in some Christian churches. It is technically possible for someone to be in the LDS version of "heaven" and be in the LDS version of "hell" at the same time—for us, "heaven" in this sense is pretty much synonymous with the afterlife.
You see, I believe that hell is a state of anguish which the wicked shall feel. They are not in a (literal) lake of fire and brimstone, but they are miserable because of their sins. These, who have rejected God, Christ, and morality, will live without God and Christ.
But then there's this sticky issue of "salvation". What does it mean? If it means being God's inheritors, then we've got a pretty narrow definition of it—most will fall short. If it means resurrection and restoration, then we've got a pretty broad definition of it—this is given freely, even to the wicked.
But here's the crux of the matter: Most non-LDS Christians (and many of the Saints, too!) think that Latter-day Saints believe that all non-Latter-day Saints will be damned, thrust down to hell, and won't get to live with Jesus in Heaven. This is, in no uncertain terms, false, according to LDS theology. Latter-day Saint theology says quite clearly that non-LDS Christians (who are righteous, mind you) will go to a Heaven very much like the one they think they'll go to—they will become ministering angels of Christ. They will live with Christ, and enjoy basking in his glory. They will have a sort of joy in all this. This is the sort of heaven they expect and hope for, and this is the sort of heaven they will receive.
We, as Latter-day Saints, simply believe they could have done better (Rom. 8:17, Col. 3:24, etc.).
-
So, the lake of fire is a metaphor or a poetic device, not a real thing? (Made originally for the devil and his angels, not for man, btw . . . but some choose it by rejecting the free gift of God. God never sent anyone to hell, they send themselves.) How about "weeping and gnashing of teeth?" And why did Jesus speak more about hell, as a really awful, real place, than he did about heaven, also as a real place? Check it for yourself. One cannot rationally accept heaven and reject hell without rejecting what Jesus taught.
How can it not be obvious that the writings that you consider holy and indisputable have re-interpreted and changed this most basic of Jesus's teachings, our eternal destiny. Whoever you think Jesus is and was, I would like to state this unequivocally and I can prove it to all who are really interested: The Bible and the LDS Church's scriptures teach different and, in some major places, opposing doctrines. The Book of Mormon is your waterfall and there is no gentle pond at the bottom, dear ones. The "scout" that you are relying on was unreliable. While Mormons are some of my favorite people in the whole world, I believe this is true and important and millions of mainline Christians agree. I'm just the one with the great big mouth on your forum. Call me Jonah, though I am not nearly as big a jerk. I'd bake you a pie or a cake if I could! ;)
Bagley's aforementioned book does a much better job than I could ever do explaining some foundational things from which I arrive at my conclusions about Smith and Young. Bagley is no anti-Mormon and neither was Juanita Brooks. These are pure historians who simply tried to tell the truth and ask some important questions. Please read their books, but especially Will Bagley's Blood of the Prophets. He is not even a born-again Christian!
Ookla, I left out some details for simplicity's sake, but they are important. My salvation story, which I will not bore you with, includes a vision experience and a lot of crying. I had been agreeing with the Bible, going to church and acting like a Christian, or what I thought was a Christian, for many months before I realized I was missing the most important thing: realizing that all my sins had put Jesus on the cross just as much as the worst sinner's. At that moment, I gave my life to him completely (asking forgiveness and turning from my sin) and he has been changing me ever since, guiding me and actively loving me, continuing to bless me with "the fellowship of his sufferings."
Many born-agains believe OSAS (once saved, always saved), but I do not. We are allowed such disagreements, I believe, but I also believe that certain egregious sins (there are several lists in the New Testament) separate one from the "True Vine" and that heartfelt repentance is necessary once again in order to be restored to salvation. This is not a popular modern belief and, I believe, is the excuse many so-called believers use to practice all kinds of lawlessness (from gambling to extortion to fornication . . . see 1 Cor. 6:9 & 10 for more), yet be protected by one prayer they might have said at a young age. On that one point, I am more Mormon than modern Christian!
So, if you can tell me, are there any special things that one must do, ceremonies or such, to reach the Mormon's better heaven rather than the lesser one that you believe I am headed for? You don't have to describe them unless you really want to. Do the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc . . . supersede the Old and New Testaments when there are conflicts? Is my statement that there are disagreements between the two another point of unreconcilable contention? Just curious.
-
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: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows. Here is a quote from the top Amazon review:
Bagley is subject to criticism because much of any account of the massacre is simply "interpretation". Bagley chooses to interpret evidence to blame church leaders. In fact, the evidence may be capable of different interpretations. Perhaps, Bagley doesn't give Brigham Young enough credit for the letter he sent to the Southern Utah communities instructing them to leave the pioneers alone. (which somehow arrived just a day or two too late to prevent he massacre). Also, its difficult to rely on much of anything John D. Lee said. Lee wrote and said many contradictory things about the massacre. Additionally, his statements may have been motivated by a desire to escape criminal responsibility for his acts. Much of the other evidence in the book is both dated and circumstantial.
However, if there is a conclusion that can be drawn from the book it is this. The true and complete story of the massacre has never been told. Obviously, there is much more to it than has ever been explained. That the church participated in a coverup of the events cannot be denied. And, one has to ask why, if no one "higher up" had any culpability for what occurred.
I find it interesting that so many people focus on this one act of violence. There is no denying that it happened, that more people were guilty than were charged criminally for the crime, and that it was a very bad thing that they did. However, it is the ONLY time the early Church members did anything like it. Never before (when they were being massacred in Missouri and at Haun's Mill) or since (when the United States government was systematically hunting down and imprisoning church leaders) has any church leader advocated violence against the very real enemies of the Church. Those that were involved in Mt. Meadows did and will pay a spiritual price for their actions, and will not escape the judgment of God for their actions without sufficient repentance (and what is "sufficient" is up to God). Nobody know what Brigham Young did or did not do or think about the subject, except for the very scant evidence which is subject to interpretation. We do know that he made it clear afterwords that the massacre was the wrong decision, and nothing like it was to happen again. And nothing ever did.
Compare that with the history of the Crusades, the Pogroms, and the hundreds of years of wars, rape and pillage in Europe all in the name of spreading true Christianity, not to mention the Holocaust, and I think that our fruits speak pretty well.
There are several "special things" that one must do in order to reach the highest degree of glory in heaven. First, is to have Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Second is Repentance. Third is Baptism (by someone with the proper priesthood authority) by Immersion for the Remission of Sins. Fourth is the Laying on of Hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. (see http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/4#4) All of these are things that Christ told his followers in the Early Christian Church to do, so we believe that in doing them, we are following Christ.
These four things happen in the process of joining the LDS Church. After that, one must endure to the end, continually repenting and striving toward perfection, always doing your best to grow towards being more like Jesus. There are other ordinances in the Temple, including being married and sealed to your family, that are also necessary if you want to have the eternal family that we believe makes Heaven such a nice place.
The lake of fire may be either real or a metaphor. It really doesn't matter which, because the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth are very real. If a person rejects the atonement of Christ, they will suffer for their own sins, and that will not be a good thing. Where Mormons disagree with some other religions is whether there is a chance to accept Christ as your personal savior and receive the necessary ordinances after you've died. We believe that there is. (see http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/2-3#2)
As for disagreements between the Bible and our other scriptures, we believe that there are far fewer points of contention than you make out. We do believe that not all of the gospel was revealed to the people in the Bible, and that not all that was revealed was written down. We believe that in some specific instances (such as when Moses came down from Mt. Sinai and found the Israelites worshiping idols) the Lord took away the higher law and gave the people something that they could understand better. We believe that through the centuries the Bible text has been changed both by innocent errors in translation and transcription, and by deliberate means (such as at some synod or other which I can't be bothered to look up right now). The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible highlights some of these errors, and interprets some passages where the meanings of words have changed over time, but it was not completed, and is not exhaustive. We believe that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, but we don't believe that it is His last and final word. We believe that as society and technology changes, specific church programs and traditions may need to change, but the principles they are based on do not change. The Bible has very little to say about internet pornography for instance, and modern revelation is needed to help us fight this new threat. (see http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/8-9#8)
As for which source trumps another, it really doesn't come up that often.We treat the Standard Works (Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) as scripture, and where there is apparent conflict, it's often the case that an older work is simply clarified expanded or explained by a newer work, and when you understand what each is saying, there is no conflict at all. We believe that the statements of modern prophets and other Church Leaders during General Conference are as close as you can get to scripture without being officially canonized (though occasionally, there will be edits made between the talk given and the published version if there are doctrinal errors). Where these disagree with the scriptures it's often on a matter of current Church programs or cultural traditions (like wearing prayer shawls or having women cover their heads). Other statements by the General Authorities may be intended only for a specific group of people, or in the context of other talks given at the same meeting, so we're asked not to transcribe and pass around what was said in Stake and Regional Conferences. Sometimes, when General Authorities are speaking in an unofficial context, they say things that are simply opinion, and as humans, we can all make mistakes. That's why we don't claim that our General Authorities are infallible (like the Pope).
-
Whoever you think Jesus is and was, I would like to state this unequivocally and I can prove it to all who are really interested: The Bible and the LDS Church's scriptures teach different and, in some major places, opposing doctrines.
And I can say this unequivocally: you are incorrect. If you think this is so, you either misunderstand the Bible, or LDS Scripture, or both. The Book of Mormon no more contradicts the Bible than the Bible contradicts itself.
Relating to what Origamikaren said, Eusebius, one of the early Christian scholars, said that in his day it was difficult to find two versions of the Bible which were similar, because so much alteration of the text was going on in his day, some 1700 years ago.
I will also repeat here that we're not going to devolve this thread into a religious scripture-bashing tit-for-tat which is most likely to turn into a flame war. If you'd like to discuss this particular issue with me separately via PM or over AIM, you are welcome to; I would personally prefer IM; it's quicker.
-
Third opinion on the scriptural issue: Joseph Smith did a good job at knitting together holes in the bible to make scriptures more applicable to his time. The BoM has very little new religious content with battles throughout. Reads like a two centuries old, less metaphorical CS Lewis novel. Again, this is just my opinion.
I think that (in a religious discussion) people take offense because everyone speaks of their beliefs as fact. We all know that the discussion is a discussion of opinions, and to keep throwing in IMOs and "no offense"s just gets in the way of discussion. On the other hand, putting those in can help you sound less rude when disagreeing. Your mileage may vary.
The waterfall metaphor is interesting, but still assumes that you have irrefutable evidence. More accurate would be to say that those warning of the waterfall believe that they have power that enables them to predict the future. Everyone is in the boat in the first place and cannot avoid the waterfall. They can only protect themselves as best they can in case of an accident. Metaphors are never perfect, however, so this is just the best I could do to try to correct what I saw as faulty abstract reasoning. My abstract reasoning is soooo much better. :P;)
To assume that the lake of fire and brimstone is literal because of weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth is pretty silly. By the time they die, most people have made a choice that made them cry. Whether it be sticking a coat hanger into a power outlet or a less physical experience, the emotional trauma is still there.
As a more direct answer to the LDS belief of heaven, they believe that there are four basic levels you can go to. First is the Celestial Kingdom, a place reserved for those who have received all LDS ordinances. Second is the Telestial Kingdom, where good people who are not LDS go. Third is the Terrestrial Kingdom, where all sinners (including fornicators and murderers) go. Last is outer darkness (Outer Darkness?), where Satan and his angels live and you can only go if you have been converted and turned away from God in willful rebellion. The first three are all good places, and have varying degrees within them. How it was explained to me is that Terrestrial is basically what we have now, and what most people call "hell", Telestial is the standard Christian portrayal of heaven, and Celestial is the true heaven, where people are in a constant state of Joy, everything is literally perfect, etc., etc. Plus, you get friends and family in the top slot. That certainly trumps singing praises to somebody 24/7 in my book.
One thing that I find enormously annoying about most Christians is that they assume that because you do not believe in their god that you not only do not believe in any god, but that you lack any beliefs or morals whatsoever. I have a belief system, and morals as well. I may believe in no god, one god, or many gods. My religion is not taken seriously by, well, basically anyone. Hence I do not disclose it. If I were to disclose it on this thread, I'm sure that some of you would look it up and point out its doctrinal holes. My religion is cheese. Or gravy. Maybe it's cheese and gravy. In any case, we've all studied our individual religions more than the other people in this thread, unless we are truly ignorant. In which case we would be asking questions in earnest about religion in general or a specific religion, not debating theological issues with each other. This thread is not here for any of us to attempt to convert people (unless they ask for it). It's here to allow us to discuss General Religious and his military exploits in the Antarctic or some such nonsense.
-
As a more direct answer to the LDS belief of heaven, they believe that there are four basic levels you can go to. First is the Celestial Kingdom, a place reserved for those who have received all LDS ordinances. Second is the Telestial Kingdom, where good people who are not LDS go. Third is the Terrestrial Kingdom, where all sinners (including fornicators and murderers) go. Last is outer darkness (Outer Darkness?), where Satan and his angels live and you can only go if you have been converted and turned away from God in willful rebellion. The first three are all good places, and have varying degrees within them. How it was explained to me is that Terrestrial is basically what we have now, and what most people call "hell", Telestial is the standard Christian portrayal of heaven, and Celestial is the true heaven, where people are in a constant state of Joy, everything is literally perfect, etc., etc. Plus, you get friends and family in the top slot. That certainly trumps singing praises to somebody 24/7 in my book.
You're sort of right on this, but you get some important particulars wrong: you've got the names of the Terrestrial and Telestial mixed up, you oversimplify the differentiations and characteristics of these in a way which might be unhelpful for some, and I'm not sure you entirely understand the concept of Outer Darkness, either (not that you'd need to!) Frankly, however, discussion of the "Kingdoms" really need not be significant to those who are not Latter-day Saints; it's about what they convey, and the underlying principles behind them, not the silly names (meaning "of the sky", "of earth", and "of far away") or strict definitions of what they contain.
I have a belief system, and morals as well. I may believe in no god, one god, or many gods. My religion is not taken seriously by, well, basically anyone. Hence I do not disclose it. If I were to disclose it on this thread, I'm sure that some of you would look it up and point out its doctrinal holes. My religion is cheese. Or gravy. Maybe it's cheese and gravy.
Now I have to know what you are! You can't mention your religion and then not disclose it!
In any case, we've all studied our individual religions more than the other people in this thread, unless we are truly ignorant. In which case we would be asking questions in earnest about religion in general or a specific religion, not debating theological issues with each other. This thread is not here for any of us to attempt to convert people (unless they ask for it). It's here to allow us to discuss General Religious and his military exploits in the Antarctic or some such nonsense.
Hear, hear. Discussion will be most helpful so long as we focus on discussing our own religions more than the religions of others. And I'd like to second the thought that we're not here to convert anyone. We're here to foster greater understanding.
-
Wow, its been a while since I've commented on this thread. I guess I'll pick up where I left off :P
origamikaren: Latter Day Saints believe that we were sent to earth to try to become more like God. We were to be tested to see who would do the best they could with what they'd been given, and who would be decieved, take the easy way out, or just plain rebel (Think of Christ's Parable of the talents in the New Testament)
While of course we believe that life is a test, Reformed Christian theology differs from this. We believe that mankind was created to demonstrate God's glory: either by showing His grace and love through repentance and acceptance of Christ's gift, or by showing His perfect justice and hatred of sin. Although I might be oversimplifying when I say this, I still think its helpful to see the two perspectives as man-centered and God-centered, respectively.
origamikaren : Those who passed the test would be given more responsibilities, and more opportunities to learn and grow until they became like God, having all that he has. If you have a view of the afterlife that includes Eternal Progression, active work, and a purpose to continue existing, then you can begin to see the reasons for so many of the commandments and prophetic counsel that others see as so restricting. If you don't believe in such an afterlife, then the commandments could easily seem like "a tool to keep the masses in line." What's the point of exercising such self control if your reward is to sit around on a cloud playing a harp... as an asexual being?
I'm not sure that this is what you are saying, but I'll be clear anyway: there are more alternatives than just the LDS view of heaven, including deification and eternal progression (I think I know what you mean by that ) and believing that all we will do is become a harp-strumming cherub! I believe that we will continually grow and progress in knowledge of God and the universe and love, awe, and respectful fear of our Creator, without ever becoming like Him. This might seem like a logical fallacy, but you have to remember that God is infinite, in every sense of the word. His character can never be exhausted; no matter how long you spend in His presence, finite mortal beings can never discover everything about Him.
Origami, thanks for your explanation of the Mormon view of hell. I was really struggling to reconcile one of Ookla's earlier comments, that everyone would live in a really nice place, and the Biblical and apparently Mormon view of hell.
mtbike: the waterfall scenario is a good analogy, except for one problem. there are those who do not believe there is a waterfall and their pleasant river cruise will go on just fine, after all we scouted ahead to make sure. And we can assure you, there is no waterfall.
That would be a neat trick ;)
But then there's this sticky issue of "salvation". What does it mean? If it means being God's inheritors, then we've got a pretty narrow definition of it—most will fall short.
I'm curious; why exactly do LDS generally define salvation as inheriting all that God has (plan of salvation) ? It seems to travel tangentially to what the common definition of salvation really is.
sal·va·tion (sāl-vā'shən)
n.
Preservation or deliverance from destruction, difficulty, or evil.
A source, means, or cause of such preservation or deliverance.
Deliverance from the power or penalty of sin; redemption.
The agent or means that brings about such deliverance.
Christianity
Deliverance from the power or penalty of sin; redemption.
The agent or means that brings about such deliverance.
[Middle English savacioun, from Old French sauvacion, from Late Latin salvātiō, salvātiōn-, from salvātus, past participle of salvāre, to save; see salvage.]
sal·va'tion·al adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Many born-agains believe OSAS (once saved, always saved), but I do not. We are allowed such disagreements, I believe, but I also believe that certain egregious sins (there are several lists in the New Testament) separate one from the "True Vine" and that heartfelt repentance is necessary once again in order to be restored to salvation. This is not a popular modern belief and, I believe, is the excuse many so-called believers use to practice all kinds of lawlessness (from gambling to extortion to fornication . . . see 1 Cor. 6:9 & 10 for more), yet be protected by one prayer they might have said at a young age. On that one point, I am more Mormon than modern Christian!
Oh...you're one of those ;) Jk. Generally I would define this as an Arminian perspective, as opposed to Reformed which I mostly always agree with. I would say that the person who prayed as an eight or nine-year old and then went right on "practicing all kinds of lawlessness" into their twenties and thirties never really repented of their sins and trusted in Christ for salvation. However, and this point must be made, I believe that God does not choose to save people because of His foreknowledge of how they would live as a Christian; grace is all undeserved. The sad truth is that some genuine born-again Christians live worse, more sin-entrenched lives than some unbelievers.
origamikarenCompare that [Mountain Meadows massacre] with the history of the Crusades, the Pogroms, and the hundreds of years of wars, rape and pillage in Europe all in the name of spreading true Christianity, not to mention the Holocaust, and I think that our fruits speak pretty well.
This is a valid point, but I think there is a difference with comparing the life of Brigham Young, probably the second-most well-known Mormon leader after Joseph Smith, with the lives of Popes and kings whom most Christians would not identify with at all and with whom many Christians might say were not born again.
In addition, I find your statement that the Holocaust was committed in the name of Christianity utterly disgusting. And I know what Hitler said about the Jews being to blame for killing Jesus.
We believe that as society and technology changes, specific church programs and traditions may need to change, but the principles they are based on do not change. The Bible has very little to say about internet pornography for instance, and modern revelation is needed to help us fight this new threat. (see http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/8-9#8)
I would agree with everything here except your last sentence. The Bible says nothing about internet pornography, but it has lots to say about lusting after women. I don't think we face any challenges categorically different from what the Christians in ages past faced. 1 Corinthians 10:13 "No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it."
The waterfall metaphor is interesting, but still assumes that you have irrefutable evidence. More accurate would be to say that those warning of the waterfall believe that they have power that enables them to predict the future.
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 :P
I have a belief system, and morals as well. I may believe in no god, one god, or many gods. My religion is not taken seriously by, well, basically anyone. Hence I do not disclose it. If I were to disclose it on this thread, I'm sure that some of you would look it up and point out its doctrinal holes. My religion is cheese. Or gravy. Maybe it's cheese and gravy.
Two guesses: the Great Pumpkin or Chuck Norris.
-
I will also repeat here that we're not going to devolve this thread into a religious scripture-bashing tit-for-tat which is most likely to turn into a flame war. If you'd like to discuss this particular issue with me separately via PM or over AIM, you are welcome to; I would personally prefer IM; it's quicker.
What, and deprive all those lurker-types the fruits of my insightful research? O.K., O.K., we'll continue this by PM. And you can tell me where to send your pie. Or cake . . .
-
The waterfall metaphor is interesting, but still assumes that you have irrefutable evidence. More accurate would be to say that those warning of the waterfall believe that they have power that enables them to predict the future. Everyone is in the boat in the first place and cannot avoid the waterfall. They can only protect themselves as best they can in case of an accident.
To further belabor my imperfect metaphor (which I borrowed from Ray Comfort of The Ambassador's Alliance), I do not have evidence, but confident faith which is a gift of the Spirit. My faith is based on Biblical prophesy, which has so far never been proved false in any instance (they keep digging up ancient cities that the Bible speaks of and shutting up the skeptics) and by the lives of people I know who have abandoned the doomed-but-pleasant boat-ride-to-destruction and find themselves safe on the shore. Safe for all eternity!
The shore (or bridge, to borrow from Reaves) is not easy, sometimes downright unpleasant, but it leads to all things good for eternity. "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Romans 8:18) There is nothing in the Bible which speaks of different levels of glory, btw, for different kinds of believers. We are all going to be "co-inheritors with Christ," not just those who have been given some new revelation. 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.
The pleasant cruise, which most are choosing and which seems so logical and right, reminds me of this verse in Paul's letter to the Thessalonians (5:3): "For when they say, 'Peace and safety!' then sudden destruction comes upon them . . . and they shall not escape." This is written in the context of the "day of the Lord," which day is the day of our death as well as His return.
I was incorrect when I attributed this statement to Jesus, but we believe that "every word" of the Bible is "God-breathed" as it claims to be, so when James wrote that "pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world," he was speaking for God. (James 1:27)
Since you claim to be interested in religion, dear Sort, please tell me. Does this characterize your life? I seek to make you temporarily miserable because I truly care about you, risking the wrath of Knights and dread Ooklas! We try to "be perfect as he is perfect" but we fail every time. God wants us to fail and acknowledge our failure so that we ask for His help. He will not force His way in, but gives everyone a chance. Until we "stand on that beautiful shore" (from a hymn I've heard somewhere), asking forgiveness in humility, we cannot even begin to approach true religion.
The rich young ruler (Luke 18:18-27) probably had better morals and ethics than any of us, but walked away rejecting Jesus' free gift because he could not give up all his comforts. He was trying to tell Him who sees into our hearts, much like you have, that he had done everything right, or at least right enough, that he had lived well and planned to keep on doing it, but did not realize that his possessions had become his idol. He wanted to stay in the boat and avoid the consequences, but that is not possible.
"Look at all these great, interesting, carefree people in my boat!" one might say. "Look at all those ridiculous Jesus freaks waving their hands over there and telling me to get out of the boat, get all wet and join them. That's crazy!" Unless, in fact, there is a waterfall somewhere ahead and there is no surviving the plunge. And there is rarely time for last-minute repentance.
-
Quick point... what ancient cities have they dug up that were not mentioned in other texts besides the bible? Did they dig up Atlantis while I was sleeping?
-
This is a valid point, but I think there is a difference with comparing the life of Brigham Young, probably the second-most well-known Mormon leader after Joseph Smith, with the lives of Popes and kings whom most Christians would not identify with at all and with whom many Christians might say were not born again.
In addition, I find your statement that the Holocaust was committed in the name of Christianity utterly disgusting. And I know what Hitler said about the Jews being to blame for killing Jesus.
Reaves, I meant that to be utterly disgusting. That's how I feel about people judging me and my religion by one small group of people whose actions don't represent me or my beliefs. I don't believe that the Holocaust was committed in the name of true Christianity. Since I claim to be a Christian, I feel that I have inherited as much from the political and military history of Christianity as any Catholic or Protestant. To me, that history is a warning that blind devotion can go too far. It's also one of the main reasons for our Article of Faith #11: We claim the privelege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privledge let them worship how where or what they may.
-
Hey, buddy, long time-no argue!
Quick point... what ancient cities have they dug up that were not mentioned in other texts besides the bible? Did they dig up Atlantis while I was sleeping?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2020 is a nice article about the problems and benefits of archaeology in relation to Biblical sites. It corroborates my original statement ad adds more, some of which you will like, I think.
I may or may not research for you about cities not mentioned outside the biblical record, but I would rather comment on your statement that all the major religions have the same basic beliefs - believing and accepting is fine and dandy, but if you don't actually try and follow the path, and regret and attempt to repent your mistakes, you go see the other guy. 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!
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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 :P
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.":D)
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. :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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, 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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
AFAIK, a nobody can get into the highest levels unless they are married (in an LDS temple). Husband and wife stay together, though I'm unsure as to what happens if they would normally go to different levels. The ladies still don't get the priesthood though. Well, not directly anyway. I've heard some members claim that women hold the priesthood through their husbands, but these were just random people. It's about three kilometers past that point that my brain explodes.
Well, I'm honestly a bit surprised that you would accept the challenge, mtb, but glad. I don't think I made this clear in my previous post, but I hope that some others of you will join in the challenge and read the book with the viewpoint opposing your own. Obviously, those who are not partisan in this matter will have to read both. ;)
-
I composed a very long flaming post, but was thankfully interrupted by my daughter who wanted marshmallows and attention. If this post doesn't convince you that I have done my research, and can still belong to the church in good conscience, I might be willing to explain myself better in a PM, but since I think you're just trolling at this point, you'd have to give me some pretty strong evidence that it would be worth my time to do so.
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.
You're assuming that I don't already know about the Massacre and the possible involvement of church leaders at several levels. My mother is a historian, and I have grown up learning about Mormon History all my life. I don't need to read this particular book to know what your general problem is. I have no interest in debating primary sources with you because the point is moot.
Let's assume for sake of discussion that Brigham Young was fully complicit. Sortitus summarized my feelings quite well when he said that Brigham Young, as well as the others involved may have done some things that we question now, but they were human and so prone to make mistakes, and that's between them and their God.
What else do you know about the history of the time? These people had seen their children murdered, their aged parents driven from their homes and sent out to die in the cold. They had been forced to abandon nearly everything they owned, and had endured years of privation and epidemic fatal illness, finally walking hundreds of miles while thy watched other members of their parties die of starvation exhaustion and exposure. Now they had begun to scrape a living out of a piece of desert where local experts said they'd "pay a hundred dollars to see a single ear of corn grow" and they thought they were safe.
Then they hear that some of the murderers they had fled have followed them west and were stirring up trouble (I know that the settlers had nothing to do with Parley's death, or any of the earlier mob activity, but that was not common knowledge or perception at the time). Under those circumstances, I might have overreacted and made a terrible mistake as well. As for the cover-up, the US army was on its way to harass the Church in SLC, and news of something like this could have tipped the precarious balance towards real violence there.
I do not say that anyone involved made the right decision, but I don't think that debating who made what decision based on scanty sources from people who had good reason to lie will serve any good purpose now. I have plenty of primary sources from my own family history to document the atrocities that the early Mormons suffered, without anyone being held accountable before the law.
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?
I did answer the question when I talked about Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and Receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost as well as other Temple ordinances including being Sealed to your family in the temple (Eternal Marriage).
Our Church teaches that men and women are equal in the sight of the Lord. It does not teach that men and women are the same. I am just as important to my Heavenly Father as any man, but I do not have the same responsibilities here on Earth. I believe that my responsibilities for bearing and rearing children, teaching the gospel to my family and making sure that each of them is truly converted, and caring for the sick and afflicted both within my home and in the community at large are just as important as any Priesthood responsibilities. I believe, and our Church teaches, that something analogous will happen in Heaven. Again, I can go into specifics if you want to see evidence from the scriptures and from modern prophets, but I'm pretty much done with this discussion as it's currently tending.
They will just go with less treasure, which we are told we can build up while on the earth.
And you have a problem with the idea that works can get you a better place in Heaven?
-
explain the system of "works" - for example, would Bill Gates get a better place in heaven because he gave more? Or would a poor widower working two jobs to support his 4 children get more for leaving a bigger than normal tip for a waitress? How do you quantify your "works"?
-
explain the system of "works" - for example, would Bill Gates get a better place in heaven because he gave more? Or would a poor widower working two jobs to support his 4 children get more for leaving a bigger than normal tip for a waitress? How do you quantify your "works"?
Don't know and don't care. My own works are all I really need to concern myself with. Are they things God would have me to do? Then they are good and will accrue for eternity. I need a close relationship with Him to be able to discern this, though.
It's quite the deal, when you think about it. God gives the strength and power to do His work on earth and we get the reward. It's a win-win.
-
I'm sorry to have provoked you to a near flame-attack, Karen. I hate when that happens. Especially when I waste really good writing time on something I'll never send.
I know the approved Mormon version of events relating to the Massacre. Until you read what Bagley has to say, you will not realize that there is so much more to know and there is no reason for us to talk about anything related to Mormon history until you do. I'll answer your last question in the spirit in which this thread was probably intended:
And you have a problem with the idea that works can get you a better place in Heaven?
I have a problem with any doctrine that is not specifically dealt with in the Christian Bible. I do know that, speaking of eternity, Jesus said that "(we who will be resurrected with Him will) neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:30) This seems to contradict Mormon beliefs of eternal pregnancy for women, and maybe a lower place than men, but please forgive me in advance if I got this one a bit wrong. I am still learning. But trust me when I say that there is nothing in my Bible that speaks of different levels in heaven. If you can find one, please share. This will be my first point of contradiction. (I duck under my kitchen table from impending time-waster-temper-tantrums.)
-
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.
James 2:17-20:
Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
You believe that God is one; You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
The demons do not have efficacious (effective) faith. Why is that? They do not obey God (duh!). So while faith and obedience might not be the same thing, faith at least implies obedience. James views faith as a good thing ("you do well") but not complete in and of itself. He writes in chapter 2, verse 22:
You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.
And yet, that last bit (works) is troublesome, because Paul also writes in Romans 4:3:
For what does the Scripture say? 'ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.'
Abraham was credited as righteous even before he had done anything righteous, because he had faith in the Lord. James says of this in chapter 2, verse 21:
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
So we have an apparent contradiction, but I don't think it has to be.
What do we know so far? We know that to be pleasing to God and to effect salvation, the faith must be of an active quality. We already know that it is possible to have faith that is of an inactive quality. What does James think of this faith? Well, in his opinion it is dead. He does not dismiss faith out of hand ("you do well") but he does caution that inactive faith will not avail us. In chapter 2, verse 14 he writes:
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
James does not seem to think so. And as interesting as what he says is, it is almost equally interesting what he does not say. He does not say that these people of dead, workless faith do not have faith. He clearly and categorically states that their faith is ineffective, dead, useless, not pleasing to God. The intellectual assent is right on the mark, but if we do not wish to join the demons in Hell we must do a little better than that.
How does all this match up with what Paul writes? Paul writes that a man is justified by his faith. We see this most clearly in Ephesians 2:8-9:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
So we may safely conclude that our salvation is not a result of what works we perform. Now pair this with what we learned from James. James says it is indeed possible to have faith that is displeasing to God; this faith is faith that does not work. It is a dead and empty faith, and it is not saving faith. So we know the faith Paul speaks of cannot be an intellectual assent. It must be a true commitment to God, and it must produce works. Lack of works is indicative of the faith that does not save.
In verse 10 Paul goes on:
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
So there are works that are pleasing to God; these are works done in faith. They make the faith that justified complete, and they prove the faith an active and robust one.
But here we encounter a dilemma. Works are not necessary justification, as we have established. And yet it is possible to 1) have faith and 2) do no good works. And this faith is displeasing to God. The implication is that it does not save.
But we are not saved by works! Ephesians 2:8-10 makes this abundantly clear.
But let's look at Paul's statement a little more carefully. For by grace you have been saved through faith. We see Abraham was justified his faith, but also that he was later justified by his works, and that his works made his faith complete. So was it his justification that was incomplete beforehand? I doubt it; that sounds rather like 'half-pregnant'. I believe his justification was complete but ongoing, something that was not over in a flash but necessary to continually reaffirm. The works prior to his (or anyone else's) justification (that is, first instance of faith) are displeasing to God, because they treat God like a debtor instead of a beloved Father. Not so works done after. Works done after complete faith, and together with faith, save. James asks if that man's faith will save him, and if it is dead it will not, but if it is alive, surely it will, and if it is alive, it will produce good works. So for our initial justification we need faith that is alive. After that, well...Romans 11:22 reads:
Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.
To put this verse in context, Paul is speaking of the Jews falling into apostacy and apparently being abandoned by God. God extends his covenant with them to the Gentiles, and the terms of this new covenant are different from the last. Paul warns, though, that the Jews in abandoning him were also abandoned, cut off from his good graces. Paul warns us to that if we do not continue in his good graces the same will happen to us. I think the verse is pretty clearly talking about being cut off from salvation here, but I've had Christians argue fiercely with me over it, insisting that the context somehow changes the meaning. I don't see that it does. The Jews as a people were cut off; if they are saved, it will not be through Judaism. The Gentiles were 'grafted on'; if they fall into apostacy, the same fate awaits them. But I suggest reading the whole chapter for yourself and making up your own mind.
In conclusion, what I get from all this is while the initial point of justification is faith, the point of coming to faith in Christ, and no works preceding that faith in Christ may merit the justification, afterwards that faith must continually be reaffirmed -- it must stay alive. "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Mt. 24: 13). You must continually be justified; otherwise, your faith is proved incomplete. I think this is why Paul speaks in the past tense. Faith is what initially justifies us apart from any works of our own (which are done outside faith and thus displeasing to God), but faithful cooperation with Christ (i.e. good works) is necessary our whole life after, and it is after that our good works become, not just pleasing, but necessary to God for justification, as a continual reaffirmation of the faith we placed in him when we were first justified.
-
I have a problem with any doctrine that is not specifically dealt with in the Christian Bible.
I think the fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians is where Mormons get this idea (NB: I am not a Mormon).
39All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish.
40There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body;
43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
-
explain the system of "works" - for example, would Bill Gates get a better place in heaven because he gave more? Or would a poor widower working two jobs to support his 4 children get more for leaving a bigger than normal tip for a waitress? How do you quantify your "works"?
Don't know and don't care. My own works are all I really need to concern myself with. Are they things God would have me to do? Then they are good and will accrue for eternity. I need a close relationship with Him to be able to discern this, though.
It's quite the deal, when you think about it. God gives the strength and power to do His work on earth and we get the reward. It's a win-win.
If you are going to offer up a system where some get a better seat at the table than others, you must have some sort of guiddeline you go by, or else it is all just a bunch of people trying to feel better about themselves. If the rich go to heaven and have a better seat at the table just because they were better off than someone the poorer people and could do more, that kind of sets up a system where you can be a cold-hearted slumlord in order to make your money, and then cash out ans do
"great things" with your millions you bilked from the less fortunate and get a better seat. So either explain it, or just say "I am talking out my your know what" or ignore me, like you did about the whole cities issue which you boasted about, yet had zero proof.
-
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.
Mtbikemom, this is an insult to Karen. I do not see how you could intend it any other way; you are stating that she would "rather be ignorant than be educated".
And to claim this of Latter-day Saints in general?
If you've never visited adherents.org, you may wish to. It's a website filled with religious statistics. One interesting thing hidden on there somewhere is a demographic study comparing religion to education. What the study found was that there was, in many cases, a clear correlation between religious activity and education. In Judaism (being the exceptiong to this), religious activity seemed to be unrelated to education. In most religions, including all of the Protestant churches surveyed, increased education correlated with decreased spiritual activity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proved to be the one outlier: for Latter-day Saints, increased education was correlated with increased spiritual activity.
-
This seems to contradict Mormon beliefs of eternal pregnancy for women, and maybe a lower place than men, but please forgive me in advance if I got this one a bit wrong.
Eternal pregnancy for women? Inferior place in heaven for women? Where in the world do you get this stuff? I mean, this reminds me of some of the "Mormons have horns" stuff I've heard, or that ridiculous "Mormons have to marry 8 wives to go to heaven" stuff.
Epistemological:
Latter-day Saints get the idea from revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants (which outlines this concept in fair detail). However, we feel that it is certainly supported and reaffirmed by the Biblical scripture you cite there.
-
If the rich go to heaven and have a better seat at the table just because they were better off than someone the poorer people and could do more, that kind of sets up a system where you can be a cold-hearted slumlord in order to make your money, and then cash out ans do "great things" with your millions you bilked from the less fortunate and get a better seat.
See the widow who gave her last two mites to tithing for those less well off than herself. Jesus stated that she would be reserved a better place than those who were giving heaps of gold that was a mere fraction of their wealth.I do know that, speaking of eternity, Jesus said that "(we who will be resurrected with Him will) neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:30) This seems to contradict Mormon beliefs of eternal pregnancy for women, and maybe a lower place than men, but please forgive me in advance if I got this one a bit wrong. I am still learning. But trust me when I say that there is nothing in my Bible that speaks of different levels in heaven. If you can find one, please share. This will be my first point of contradiction. (I duck under my kitchen table from impending time-waster-temper-tantrums.)
First, stop insulting people (See your last sentence. The one in parentheses.). Second, the quote you gave merely says that people cannot get married in heaven. It says nothing about those who are already married.
-
sort: ok, thats a start. But again, how do you quantify it? they have spoken of different levels of heaven, yet no formula for acheiving them. Is a poor man who takes care of his children well considered the same as a rich man who does more than that? Is someone who does not give because they need to pay their rent considered less than someone who can afford their rent and gives whatever is left over?
See, to me, that just sets up a system of inequality from the get go. It almost says that if you are well off or not, you wont, or will, get in or have a better spot based solely on your birthrights.
-
Second, the quote you gave merely says that people cannot get married in heaven. It says nothing about those who are already married.
I agree with this spirit of your post but I don't think this bit is right. You have to look at the context:
23On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,
24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;
26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
27"Last of all, the woman died.
28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."
29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
By your interpretation of Jesus' words, the problem the Sadducees posed is never really addressed, because the problem is not about marrying after death. It is about marriage after death.
-
sort: ok, thats a start. But again, how do you quantify it? they have spoken of different levels of heaven, yet no formula for acheiving them. Is a poor man who takes care of his children well considered the same as a rich man who does more than that? Is someone who does not give because they need to pay their rent considered less than someone who can afford their rent and gives whatever is left over?
See, to me, that just sets up a system of inequality from the get go. It almost says that if you are well off or not, you wont, or will, get in or have a better spot based solely on your birthrights.
Christ said to give away all that you don't need. I'd assume that anyone who gives away everything they have but what they need to survive is maxing out the benefits from this. Perhaps it's judged on the amount of wealth you kept but did not need.I agree with this spirit of your post but I don't think this bit is right. You have to look at the context:
23On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,
24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;
26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
27"Last of all, the woman died.
28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."
29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
By your interpretation of Jesus' words, the problem the Sadducees posed is never really addressed, because the problem is not about marrying after death. It is about marriage after death.
I was just being clever, but you make a good point. Searching LDS.org's scriptures, the JST says nothing about this. The text quoted is as it lies in LDS scripture.
-
sort: ok, that is a fair explanation as quoted from scripture. I will not question it further, except to point out that if you do not attempt to have, you can have nothing to give away. so the whole thing is one big catch-22. It is also very rare indeed to see anyone who keeps only what they need. Does any of us "need" the internet? Or a television?
-
Of course not. That's why we're all going to he(ck) except for the Quakers.
I'm only kidding! But seriously. :|
-
Second, the quote you gave merely says that people cannot get married in heaven. It says nothing about those who are already married.
I agree with this spirit of your post but I don't think this bit is right. You have to look at the context:
23On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him,
24asking, "Teacher, Moses said, 'IF A MAN DIES HAVING NO CHILDREN, HIS BROTHER AS NEXT OF KIN SHALL MARRY HIS WIFE, AND RAISE UP CHILDREN FOR HIS BROTHER.'
25"Now there were seven brothers with us; and the first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother;
26so also the second, and the third, down to the seventh.
27"Last of all, the woman died.
28"In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had married her."
29But Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
30"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
By your interpretation of Jesus' words, the problem the Sadducees posed is never really addressed, because the problem is not about marrying after death. It is about marriage after death.
Look at it from an Authority (Priesthood) perspective. The Priesthood is the power granted by God to act in his name and have it be as if HE issued the command. We see that Jesus gave Peter this Authority and told him what was possible:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jesus had stated the same thing earlier:
Mark 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
The same thoughts were states many years before:
Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it...
Mormons believe that Marriages performed in the proper way and in the proper place by those who have the Authority (Priesthood) have that promise that the bonds created will still remain in Heaven.
-
Look at it from an Authority (Priesthood) perspective. The Priesthood is the power granted by God to act in his name and have it be as if HE issued the command. We see that Jesus gave Peter this Authority and told him what was possible:
Matthew 16:19
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:18
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jesus had stated the same thing earlier:
Mark 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
The same thoughts were states many years before:
Ecclesiastes 3:14
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it...
Mormons believe that Marriages performed in the proper way and in the proper place by those who have the Authority (Priesthood) have that promise that the bonds created will still remain in Heaven.
I'm not saying the relationship between spouses goes away, but that marriage is a moot point in heaven when all are in the presence of God. It is subsumed under and fulfilled by God's unconditional love. I think you're stretching the meaning of those verses a bit in support of your doctrine, and you have not offered an alternative interpretation of Matt. 22:30. Do you agree with Sortitus?
-
Reaves, I meant that to be utterly disgusting. That's how I feel about people judging me and my religion by one small group of people whose actions don't represent me or my beliefs. I don't believe that the Holocaust was committed in the name of true Christianity. Since I claim to be a Christian, I feel that I have inherited as much from the political and military history of Christianity as any Catholic or Protestant. To me, that history is a warning that blind devotion can go too far. It's also one of the main reasons for our Article of Faith #11: We claim the privelege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privledge let them worship how where or what they may.
Once again, I think there is a difference. I'm asking not to be compared to Nazism and the Crusades. You're asking not to be compared to the possible actions of...Brigham Young?? In any case, the discussion has clearly moved on from this issue and I don't think its what either of us intend to delve into.
I do appreciate the conclusion you gave at the end of your post about the lessons of history and your eleventh Article of Faith.
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.
Actually, she in fact recommended a book to you. DARWIN'S BLACK BOX by Michael Behe.
origamikaren: Sortitus summarized my feelings quite well when he said that Brigham Young, as well as the others involved may have done some things that we question now, but they were human and so prone to make mistakes, and that's between them and their God.
Of course, it is possible for everyone to make mistakes, even born-again Christians. There is no sin that we can commit that is powerful enough to cover up Jesus' blood. However, if these allegations/uncomfirmed accusations are true (I have not studied this issue at all, tbh) and Brigham Young was in fact at least partly responsible or complicit in the massacre, then I would hesitate to name a college after this fellow.
mtlhddoc2:
explain the system of "works" - for example, would Bill Gates get a better place in heaven because he gave more? Or would a poor widower working two jobs to support his 4 children get more for leaving a bigger than normal tip for a waitress? How do you quantify your "works"?
Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that. That's above our pay grade. It's not our job to worry about who gets more, we can just leave that to the Judge. However, I thought Sortitus said it well when he referenced the widow who gave her last two coins. But really, its not our place to try to quantify our own or others' rewards in heaven; ie, "who will get more". I'm pretty sure that the guy who invented the definition of Justice will get it right ;)
-
Reaves, recommending a book, what a novel idea. But the fact is, she is still vague and points to a single source of reference in book form. Other than one particular book, there is NOTHING out there to substantiate her "facts". The fact is, the bible is, if nothing else, an historical document. No archaeologist or scientist would discount the historical aspects of it just becaus ethey were not Christian. thats as ridiculous as disregarding Homer's categorizations of the world just because it was a work of fiction. fiction or fact does not matter here. There are plenty of geographic references in both the bible and the works of homer to know that they both categorized the current geographic world of thier time.
Above your pay grade? Obama used that line when talking about abortion too. without at least attempting to quantify it, you are leaving alot of moral grey areas, which in turn confuses the very people you are trying to "help". By using the term "above my pay grade" you lose the will to challenge your own faith, which weakens it. My faith is challenged daily, which strengthens it, and I never back down from the challenge.
-
Reaves, recommending a book, what a novel idea. But the fact is, she is still vague and points to a single source of reference in book form. Other than one particular book, there is NOTHING out there to substantiate her "facts". The fact is, the bible is, if nothing else, an historical document. No archaeologist or scientist would discount the historical aspects of it just becaus ethey were not Christian. thats as ridiculous as disregarding Homer's categorizations of the world just because it was a work of fiction. fiction or fact does not matter here. There are plenty of geographic references in both the bible and the works of homer to know that they both categorized the current geographic world of thier time.
Above your pay grade? Obama used that line when talking about abortion too. without at least attempting to quantify it, you are leaving alot of moral grey areas, which in turn confuses the very people you are trying to "help". By using the term "above my pay grade" you lose the will to challenge your own faith, which weakens it. My faith is challenged daily, which strengthens it, and I never back down from the challenge.
He who commands obedience will judge obedience. Judgment isn't my job. My job is to work out my salvation with fear and trembling and help others to do the same.
Remember, we are judged by faith as well as deeds. The rich man who gives more to charity because he will miss less will in my view probably not be entitled to more than that widow who gave her last two coins. A moral action is judged by three things: 1) intent, 2) essential nature and 3) specific circumstances. No 'guidelines' are possible or necessary beyond the guidelines God has given already. God knows what is in the heart. We know what God commands. God rewards obedience and selflessness. That's all we need to know here. I don't see any grey areas.
-
Epist: that is called "blind faith". And the bible instructs, nay, commands, that your faith be constantly questioned. If you have already reached the pinnacle of faith, the rest of your life is essentially empty.
-
I appreciate that this thread has needed very little moderation, especially for such a sensitive topic. That said, I'd like to remind everyone that religion is very personal, and while we like to encourage respectful discussion, please refrain from telling other people what they should think or feel.
Everyone has an opinion, and you're free to express it. But please don't tell other people what their opinions are or what those opinions mean.
Thanks for keeping the discussion clean.
-
First, stop insulting people
I was just trying to be cute/funny. I keep forgetting to be serious, sorry. You provided the tantrum, though, and I did well to duck. = ]
Commenting on someone who has formed an opinion about a work that they have not read is not insulting them (I did not say that Karen's mom wears Army boots or anything similar), it is simply pointing out what should be obvious, Jade Knight. She has just placed herself exactly where my current Mormon friends have placed themselves: choosing ignorance of an excellently researched and balanced work because they think they know what it says. One of them gave this as an excuse: "My husband would be angry if I brought this into the house." Like I said, I offered, they said no, and we're all still home schooling friends. BTW, my copies of the BoM and D&C are waiting for me at the library and I mean to keep my promise and read as much of them as I can before commenting on them. I'm just asking questions and pointing out things that I perceive to contain flawed reasoning and contradictions on this thread.
Also, the only reason I recommend Will Bagley's book exclusively is that he does not proseletize or seek to do anything other than research and report. I could cite Christian sources and ex-Mormon testimonies by the ton, but what would be the use? My point so far has been proven, anyway. Not one single Mormon has promised to read it here. Unless I missed something. Let me say again, though, the book is graphic and not appropriate for everyone.
And I'm sorry if "eternal pregnancy" is not a Mormon doctrine for women. I heard it described that way once, by someone who had left the church and was taught this by a family member. I'm sure orthodox Christians teach their kids some weird stuff, too, and I stand corrected. 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. My ex-Mormon girlfriend seemed to think this was very wrong and unequal, not to mention unsupported by the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, which teaches that all believers are co-inheritors with Christ, equal in His sight.
Thank you for your clear and direct posts on marriage in the afterlife, Epistemological, and everything you have written, Reaves. There are lots of other contradictions between Mormon doctrine and the Bible, but I've been asked not to discuss them here. Would someone else like to tackle the question concerning Mormons' denying the deity of Christ, but accepting his ability to forgive sin? This does not seem logical to me.
-
Thank you for your clear and direct posts on marriage in the afterlife, Epistemological, and everything you have written, Reaves. There are lots of other contradictions between Mormon doctrine and the Bible, but I've been asked not to discuss them here. Would someone else like to tackle the question concerning Mormons' denying the deity of Christ, but accepting his ability to forgive sin? This does not seem logical to me.
I don't think they do deny the divinity of Christ. They regard all human beings as potential co-inheritors with God and that we will have a relationship with Christ exactly like Christ's relationship with the Father. This seems to me like full-blown polytheism, but the Mormons I have talked to harmonize the apparent contradiction by explaining that all these beings are collectively part of one Godhead.
I think that's wrong, of course (I believe in theosis, which is similar but not quite so bold), but the fact remains that Christ is divine in some sense according to LDS doctrine. Alma 34: 10-15 reads:
10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal esacrifice.
11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.
13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the claw of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.
15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.
So, Christ is able to effect propitiation through his infinite merit as a sacrificial victim.
-
I am not quite finished catching up but I'm posting this before i forget... some of the people on this board are posting in absolutes and if you believe that there is black and white and the grey in life is less than 50% and that's the perception that is being given off...you are naive more so than this young man who is woefully ignorant because of his..my age and i probably have no right to an opinion...but after seeing my mothers crusade...her entire life since i was born... and the terrible acts committed such as the attempted isolation (didn't work b/c i alone talk and live with him) of all her children from their father who has always been the more dependale parent i am reasonably sure that right and wrong are not nearly so simple as they are painted to be.
On a different note this supposed knowledge everyone speaks of is getting annoying you believe you do not know if so you must be a modern day Lazarus...and if you truly think you are i can get you a list of professionals to cure you of your delusional state
-
I really shouldn't be doing this, but I'm going to post again in hopes that getting things off my chest will allow me to stop obsessing about this thread. If anybody feels offended by what I'm about to say, then chalk it up to my physical and mental exhaustion and sleep deprivation.
My mental state for the last several days has been terrible. I have been fighting a constant battle against anxiety and depression with obsessive tendencies for years, and this thread is making me lose ground at the moment. I'm certainly losing sleep over it, and with an 18 month old, I can't afford that. During the last several days my mind has swung from one extreme of feverishly ruminating on the arguments I'd love to make, coming up with all sorts of really good analogies that I'm sure mtbikemom won't even acknowledge in her responses (For instance, does knowing that several of the founding fathers were less than exemplary in their personal lives, especially relating to the slaves they owned, make you want to renounce your citizenship and trash the constitution?), to the other extreme of complete lethargy so that I'm barely able to feed myself and my family. This is what certain kinds of stress does to me, and I know the symptoms to know what I should do (cut off the source of stress completely), but lack the mental willpower (due to my illness) to accomplish it as quickly as I'd like.
Why won't I read the book? Is it because I'm intellectually lazy and prefer ignorance to facing the truth? NO. It's because I have more things to do with my life than humor the whims of every jerk with an axe to grind. I haven't had time to read Brandon's latest book, Warbreaker. What makes you think I'm going to put that off to satisfy you? I don't watch Law and Order or CSI on TV because the constant focus on the negative brings me down. I don't watch certain other shows because the commercials tell me that the content they're proudest of is offensive and degrading, and drives the Holy Spirit from my home. I haven't read the Stephanie Meyer Vampire books because I've had a bad experience with what thinking about Vampires does to my mind, and people whose opinion I trust tell me they're a waste of time anyway. Am I physically lazy for not trying every new vitamin, pill, and antidepressant some pharmaceutical company tries to sell me? Am I morally obligated to sample every bit of poison drug dealers peddle so that I can know that they're harmful? I don't think so.
I know, because I know myself, that reading this book won't make me happy. I doubt there will be anything in it that is worse than my imagination can come up with. But even if the worst parts of it are true, it still wouldn't shake my faith in the truthfulness of the Gospel, and the value of being a member of this Church.
According to my theology, each person is accountable for their own sins. I am no more responsible for what those men did in the massacre than I am burdened with Original Sin because Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Your theology may differ, but that's not my problem.
I am not interested in debating one isolated event, no matter how heinous. Christ died to atone for our sins...ALL of them. If we recognize our mistakes, turn from them and repent, the Lord will forgive. That's the essence of the Good News of the Gospel. Suppose that Brigham young personally fired every one of the shots that killed those travelers (a statement which we know to be false). We know from his actions before and after the event, that this was an aberration. Something happened which caused some people to react horribly in the heat of the moment, but once the act was done, the church as a whole, including the First Presidency, said, "This is not who we are. This is not how we want to be known. This is not how we're going to act. Nothing like this is EVER to happen again, is that clear?" And nothing like it ever did. They turned from their sins and repented and forsook them. Isn't that what we're all supposed to do? And didn't Jesus Christ himself say something like you're supposed to forgive seventy times seven? This was ONE. One very bad thing, but just one. Elsewhere, it says, "I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." In Matthew 6:15 He says "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
And what has the Church done since then? Led a campaign of murder and oppression? No, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and man hours in humanitarian service. We offer our truth to the world without coercion. If someone wants to leave the church, we're sorry to see them go, but we don't kidnap them, hold them against their wills and forbid them to communicate with family members. We let them go, with our love, and occasionally reach out to say that the door is still open if they wish to return. I know from real experience and experimentation in my own life that in the church is where happiness and spiritual growth lies for me. This is not some passing whim, or a faith that can be shaken by hearing any "shocking" story about how another human being made a mistake.
I have journals from people in my own family describing they joy they felt when they found the early church and recognized the truth that their fathers had been searching for for generations. I have read how they moved again and again to escape mobs and other violent persecution. I've read to the end, where the handwriting changes and another family member wrote of how my something Great Grandfather died of one of the rampant diseases at Winter Quarters. They, and all the generations since then have studied and prayed and believed with all their hearts. So don't presume to teach me my own family and cultural history with a book designed to defame a great man and continue the persecution that has been heaped upon us for more than a hundred and fifty years. Don't fall into Satan's trap and continue the persecution yourself. Give me the right to believe what I believe, and I'll do the same for you.
Since I won't be coming back to this thread, I just want to point out that it has been categorically stated several times in General Conference that no man or woman who does not have the chance to be married in the temple in this life will lose any blessings in eternity because of it. If they keep the covenants they make, they will have all the blessings anybody else does. That includes those who do not have access to a temple, those who never met the right person, and those who can't bear children for any reason. Those who have the chance, but choose not to take it are a different matter. Who is to say who was given a fair chance? Only God at the judgment bar.
As for Matt 22:30, Jesus essentially said, "I'm not going to dignify your question with an answer because you're not asking for the sake of knowing, but only because you think it'll trip me up. Under the Law of Moses, in the Old Testament, there is no ordinance for eternal marriage. Stop worrying about what happens to dead people and take a look at what you're doing while you're alive." Now, because the Law of Moses was a preparatory gospel, and doesn't include several of the ordinances we consider necessary for salvation, there are a lot of people whose fate seems uncertain. We've been told not to worry about them, that God is just and merciful, and that however it works out in Heaven, we'll all be happy with the arrangement.
And now, I'm going to sign off. You may have holes to poke in what I've said, but really, I don't care. You're not asking these questions for the sake of understanding, but just to get a reaction and try to tangle us up in our words. So, since Jesus felt good about saying it, I do too. I'm not going to dignify this discussion with any more response.
-
Thank you for your comments, Karen.
Kaz: You are a strong agnostic. Your own particular relosophical viewpoint requires that you believe that no one can know about these things. I held this viewpoint once. I have since discovered that it is erroneous. I do not expect you to believe me; you have not had the experiences which I have had. If you're really interested, you're welcome to suggest a psychologist, if you like, though my fiancée happens to have a degree in Psychology, and she happens to think I'm right on this particular issue.
Out of curiosity, what makes you so sure that your own particular relosophical views are not delusional?
-
So, Christ is able to effect propitiation through his infinite merit as a sacrificial victim.
I will have to do some research on this, but I hope someone who is already fully versed on the subject will chime in. I hesitate to make unsupported statements and give opinions, but I will come back to this when I am ready.
I have sent Karen a gentle, I hope, pm . . . but i want to say for the sake of all of you that i appreciate how open and direct she was in her post. Since she will no longer read this thread, I will at some time write about how amazing some of her statements seem to me. I think some prayer and reflection are in order on my part. I would dearly love to discuss Blood of the prophets on a separate thread someday, but I'll need a few more of you to agree to read it. Only Sortitus has been so bold.
If it is true that your church leadership has lied systematically over the years and committed certain acts and, unrepentant as a body, gone to great pains to cover up all evidence of them, don't you think you should know about it? If a particular Catholic bishop was found to have ordered the murder of a group of people, no matter what they had done to him, would this be a man to follow? Aren't those who show up at his trial and stand by him to the end showing a great deal of lack of discernment and blind devotion? I myself have left a large church when I realized that things were not as they should be at the top. Spiritual leaders are supposed to be held to a much higher standard than even presidents and kings, according to my Bible. I should look up the supporting verses, but I am needing to get breakfast going.
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
Thank you, everyone, for this engaging discussion and for expending energy on this. I want to illuminate you further while I learn from you. If any of you prayed for my daughter's health, thank you. She is getting better and almost ready to get back on her bike.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :P
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
Actually forget this post. It's just not worth beating a dead horse.
The horse died around page three.
-
This thread is getting too cantankerous to keep open.
I'm sorry; most everyone here has been respectful and reasonable. Mtbikemom, if you feel that it is more important to assert the superiority of your opinion than it is to respect the views of others, you should not be engaging in religious discussion here. I believe you yourself have stated that you feel justified in insulting and offending others if it's part of preaching your perspective. Consider this a warning if a similar thread should appear in the future: if you still have the same attitude, don't join in.
I apologize to all those who have been contributing respectfully, and who would have liked the thread to remain open.