This is topic Mormon Theological Question in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=025977

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I've just been having a conversation with my mother about the differences between Mormons and Protestants. All she knows about Mormon theology is the tidbits I’ve told her that I learned here, and what she learned growing up in an Evangelical church. Since in my own experiences I’ve never found that to be a highly credible source of information about Mormonism, I’m trying to confirm or deny some information she heard there. The crux of the situation is whether or not Mormons believe in the Trinity, but there is also a more general question of how the Godhead differs in Protestant and Mormon theology. I’ve been to mormon.org, and I can’t find anything specifically answering this. Can anyone help me out?
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
The Mormons believe that there are three memebers of the Godhead, but we believe that they are distinct persons. We do not believe in the traditional Christian trinity, being composed of three manifestations of one entity.

When Jospeh Smith received his vision, he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ appear as separate beings of flesh and blood. We believe that God has a body like man's, only in a perfected state. The Holy Ghost does not have a body, and can communicate with us on a spiritual level.

However, we do believe New Testament doctrines that teach that Christ and His Father are One. We believe this to mean that they are one in purpose and are the perfect example of unity. It is for this reason that Christ tells the church memebers to be one, even He and His Father are One. (John 17)
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Mormons have a VERY different view of the Godhead and the nature of God. It is for this reason that many protestant churches do not even consider them Christian. Would you like more details, or are you okay with the broad strokes?
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
More details, that's what I already knew.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Annie said it exactly. The godhead is composed of three distinct personages who are one in purpose and whose efforts are seamlessly joined toward the same ends.

The concept of the trinity, of three people who are somehow also one person, was introduced into Christianity long after the death of Christ. The revelations given to Joseph Smith don't uphold that view, but rather show a somewhat different understanding of the oneness of the godhead. For me, that made a lot more sense, when I was investigating the church, than the view taken by many other Christian churches. To me it seemed more like something that could be actually true in the real physical world.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Most problematically, Mormons do not believe that God is classically omnipotent, are not sure if He created the universe or not, and believe that Godhood is an achievable state to which man can aspire. Many Protestants find these beliefs a bit unnerving.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
ak, since many of us disagree on this, could you please add a "according to LDS teaching" or some such when you make claims about when various concepts were "introduced into Christianity."

Thanks.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
The difference over the trinity also highlights Mormons' difference with traditional and evangelical Christianity over issues of authority.

Mormons believe that authority to preach, perform rituals, and make changes to the canon of doctrine is only available directly from God, through the "priesthood". (Mormons use the word "priesthood" to refer directly to this authority, the way you might refer to an individual's "knighthood" or "governorship".)

Mormons emphatically deny that any authority can come directly from study of scripture or theology. It doesn't matter to a Mormon how many degrees a person might have in religion, or how many times they might have read the Bible. If they do not have access to the "priesthood" then their opinion on matters of faith has no more validity that anyone else's, as far as establishing doctrine.

Mormons believe that this "priesthood" was never passed down to anyone else after the deaths of the apostles, until it was restored to Joseph Smith in the nineteenth century. Therefore, Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, who were educated men, nevertheless had no special insight or authority that could have helped them to formulate a doctrine of the nature of God that had any bearing on reality. They could make it sound intelligent, they could find ways to back it up with scripture, they could make it seem logically airtight ... but the ability to actually make it reflect reality was severely limited by the fact that they were acting on their own, without the sanction of God.

So, to Mormons, the doctrine of the Trinity (which was devised by this council) is completely spurious. There is little reason to give it any consideration, beyond a passing interest in the curiosities of ancient Christianity. It is no more valid than George W. Bush's personal insights into the doctrines of his faith.

But that's just the Mormon perspective, which rests on the assumption that authority from God can only be derived from a very specific series of events. Evangelical Christians believe that authority rests solely with the canon of scripture, and that human authority on doctrine is derived from study of the scripture. From this perspective, the Council of Nicaea is as valid as anything else, really, and there is no special authority to be derived from the Mormon concept of priesthood. They see the Mormon priesthood as an attempt by men to gain power over other men without the sanction of God.

So there, you're stuck with a pretty irresolvable difference I personally, as a Mormon, believe that the scripture cannot be the final authority. Written by men, it is inherently flawed, and read by men, it is too easily misinterpreted, and will lead only to disagreements and confusion. Without some other authority representing the direct influence of God, scripture alone might be an excellent aid to forming arguments, but is limited in its ability to define truth.

Then again, you've got the Evangelical belief in the perfection of scripture, which denies this whole scenario, and the argument goes on and on ...

I think the core disagreement between Evangelical Christianity and Mormonism can be summed up in the following difference:

Evangelical = Authority of God through Scripture and Creeds
Mormon = Authority of God through Prophets and the Priesthood

Everything else eventually stems from this dichotomy. Evangelicals scoff at the reliability of mere mortals with "authority" from God, and Mormons scoff at the idea of a text being able to provide anything like a stable, reliable interpretation.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Oh, dkw! I'm sorry! I did not mean to offend! I thought the the historical fact that the concept of the trinity became part of Christianity at the Nicene Council was accepted by all Christians. I thought this because my mother is a Catholic who studied religion at a Methodist college and taught me about this, which I also learned later from LDS sources.

I stand corrected. It is held to be true by the LDS and also others, but not by all Christians.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
Interesting...

Geoff, from what you've said here, it would appear that Mormon's would acknowledge the priesthood in others (non-LDS) just so long as they know that God granted it to them.

Given that many clergy (and lay people for that matter) feel called by God to preach, it seems like the LDS church would acknowledge those people as priests.

But that's not really what you're going for, is it? I think you left out one piece, wherein the LDS church is the only earthly body recognized by the LDS church as having priests with authority from God.

Hence, another huge point of contention. Your clergy say everyone elses clergy is PROBABLY false, or rather "almost certainly" falsely ordained.

Right?

Or did I miss something in all the previous discussions of this topic?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for rejecting the Nicene creed.

I just haven't found a better one yet.

And I could write my own, but then I'd have to get serious about starting my own religion, and that's sort of a pain. Having to claim it came from God, first off...

But once I got over that, I could probably sail along pretty smoothly for awhile.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I’m not offended, it was just a friendly reminder.

There’s a difference, I think, between when an official statement is formulated and when the “concept” described by that statement is introduced. Certainly the debates leading up to the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon are what led to the formulation of the doctrine. But, for those of us who believe that the doctrine is true, it was true long before its official formulation, and the concept was there all along, just not expressed in those particular words.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
We beleive that God speaks to all his children, and that other churches have parts of the truth. We do believe, however, that the keys of the priesthood were restored to Joseph Smith and others, and that that authority comes from that source. So, people of all faiths can be doing God's work, and can be furthering God's ends on earth, but they won't have the specific authority to act for God that comes from the priesthood. Not unless they join the LDS church and receive it from one who has it.

[ July 18, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
dkw, I understand what you mean, and that makes sense.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I feel something is missing from my explanation above of the specific authority of the priesthood, that is, my testimony that I know this to be true. I'm a recent convert (three years), and I had no predisposing belief in any special grace inherent in the LDS church, yet since I've joined, I have felt on many occasions a blessing from the priesthood, that is simply beyond any earthly power. At my confirmation, in the temple when I did baptisms, when set apart for my calling, and at other times when receiving priesthood blessings on request, the power of the priesthood is something I've directly experienced. It's one of those things that you first observe to be true, then later you learn that it's true. But the direct observation is what was convincing.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Why do you call non-Mormons "Evangelicals" when Mormons evangelize far more than non-Mormon groups, with the exception of maybe Jehovah's Witnesses? If anything Mormons would count more as "Evangelicals," unless that is a Mormon name for non-Mormons.
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 

quote:

---

I feel something is missing from my explanation above of the specific authority of the priesthood, that is, my testimony that I know this to be true. I'm a recent convert (three years), and I had no predisposing belief in any special grace inherent in the LDS church, yet since I've joined, I have felt on many occasions a blessing from the priesthood, that is simply beyond any earthly power. At my confirmation, in the temple when I did baptisms, when set apart for my calling, and at other times when receiving priesthood blessings on request, the power of the priesthood is something I've directly experienced. It's one of those things that you first observe to be true, then later you learn that it's true. But the direct observation is what was convincing.

---

Funny, I've experienced the exact same thing in churches run by Catholics, Methodists and Baptists, so far. Plus once or twice in a Jewish Synagog.

Weird huh?

I mean, so the LDS does it for you, no problem.

But to deny that it can possible happen for anyone else outside of that context seems full of hubris.

For example, I'm not inclined to substitute Joseph Smith's vision for the vision of those who negotiated the Nicene creed.

All such appeals to authority seem to me to be off the mark by a good margin.

At that rate, you might expect me to ultimate deny ANY earthly authority, but I also acknowledge that there are holy people on this earth and I can possibly learn a lot from them. Or at the very least honor them, if not specifically on their terms (claims to exclusivity of access to the highest honors from God, for instance, don't get much airplay on Radio Bob).

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I feel about LDS clergy about the same as you all feel about everyone else's. That you don't really have an imprimatur from God, or that if they don't, you don't. Because it doesn't get passed down that way.

God Speaks. We listen or not.

and the authority of God comes from God or it doesn't come at all.

And a church insisting otherwise (or believing that it has the exclusive rights thereto) is just getting in the way, as near as I can tell.

And pretty much God said that to me. So I guess I need to spread the word, neh?
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 
Geoff, the idea that millions of LDS men and boys, aged 16 and up, have this conduit that is somehow so much more accurate than scholars with years of prayer, intelligence, and diligent study, scares me. Not to mention how upsetting it always is to know how little value ya'll place on the religions, beliefs, and eventual outcomes of us non-LDS people.

But then it also scares me how easily words and scriptures must be misinterpreted. How can any one religion based on scriptural interpretations possibly have gotten it right?

Both sound inherently flawed, to use your words.

[ July 18, 2004, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Theca ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
A clarification on authority in churches with educational requirements for clergy. The authority does not come from the degree. We get the degree (or, more accurately, complete the study required for it) in order to be more effective in the ministry to which we are called. Part of the roll of ordained clergy, in the UMC as well as others, is to act as a resource person for congregation members as they do their own theological reflection. We put the resources of our education in the service of the community. But the degree does not equal ordination – that requires examination by committees at various levels of the church, part of whose task is to discern is this person called by God to this particular form of ministry. You can have twenty degrees and have the Bible memorized cover to cover, but if you’re not called by God to the work, then you aren’t qualified to do it.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
At the risk of sounding flippant, God is where you find it.

I don't know or believe that any one person or group has all the answers to your quest for God -> that's a quest you have to undertake yourself.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I am totally interested in hearing the creeds and doctrines that Bob would come up with. I know he has put a lot of thought into these things. Perhaps he's talked about it before my time.

Theca, I don't think anyone looks to 16-year-old-Mormon-priesthood-holders to give authoritative interpretations on scripture. Its more like all Mormons look to the Prophet and past prophets for that. The 16-year-olds are busy with priesthood-related task, training for things to come. One of those 16-year-olds is destined to be ordained the president of the church someday.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dkw, that sounds very much as I understood things to be; That most Protestant Christians believe that God will touch the heart of certain individuals, directly calling them to certain ministries. The call comes directly from God rather than from a man who has been given authority from God.

Of course, from the LDS perspective, there is still the problem of different people called coming to different conclusions about scriptural interpretations. By having a specific authority on earth, there is more unity in the doctrine.
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 
beverly--OK. But other groups do have unity too. Don't forget the Catholic popes for example.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
The semantics may differ, but the role doesn't change much.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
Because there is a specifc set of Christin churches which designate themselves by the name Evangelicals. It's not an official denomination but in my mind it is n unofficial one. I might be completely off the mark in this, but that's the way I've always seen things.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Good point, Theca. I didn't mean to suggest that the LDS church is the only one like that, most church groups have a certain amount of unity in the doctrine. I was more pointing out the differences in doctrine between one Protestant church and another.

I am referring more to the increasingly popular Protestant view that the specific points of differing doctrine are not important, that as long as you are Christian, it's all good. From my understanding, which may be totally wrong, Protestants did not used to feel this way. Why else would there be so many different Christian churches with so many different versions of the doctrine?

For Catholics, this is not a problem. In their mind, they are right, the Protestants are wrong. For the Protestants (I think, I could be wrong) Catholics are wrong. I might add that the same is true of the LDS perspective.

The effort to say, "we are all Christians and that is all that matters" is a nice sentiment, but I don't think it accurately portrays the mindset of the actual people in the Christian churches of the world. No one is thinking that any church is flat out, %100 wrong, especially since all are to some degree based on the same scripture. But they are thinking, "my church is more right than your church" even if they don't say it out loud.

Boy, what I have said here sounds really offensive, thinking about it, but I believe it is true.

Then you've got the agnostics who just simply say, "I don't know, and there is no way I can know right now." They usually don't think anyone is wrong, since they believe they can't know someone is wrong any more than they can know they are right, but there are exceptions.

[ July 18, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"They usually don't think anyone is wrong, since they believe they can't know someone is wrong any more than they can know they are right..."

This doesn't dovetail with my own experience with agnostics, who in general think that anyone who thinks they're right is wrong.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

This doesn't dovetail with my own experience with agnostics, who in general think that anyone who thinks they're right is wrong.

---

Huh. That is an interesting point of view. So the only way to be right is by not thinking you are right? Or is being right impossible? Or just really, really improbable?

I was actually thinking about what I said and that it is probably more like (from an agnostic POV) "Well, I think you are wrong, but I can't prove it."
 

---

Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
 
beverly...what would be the point of my putting forth a creed? It's not up to me to determine what others believe. It's up to them, and God.

Seriously...my creed is for me. Not the masses. I wasn't seriously promoting the idea that I start a religion.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I know, Bob. Maybe I didn't think too carefully about what the definition of "creed" is. I honestly am interested in knowing your own personal perspective on religion.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
"As right as I believe I can be, given the lack of empirical knowledge on the subject."

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think it is interesting how troubled some people are by faith, the idea that someone can firmly believe something without strong empiricle evidence. I know I have seen people on Hatrack be deeply disturbed by it, and it surprised me quite a bit at the time. I have pondered it since.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 
As an agnostic, let me just say that I personally go for the "I have no idea whether or not you're wrong" approach to theology. I tend more toward the belief that nobody really knows the true nature or will of God, if, indeed, there even is such a being. And if anybody does know it, I couldn't know that they know it. For all I know, the Mormons could be absolutely right, or the Catholics, or the Lutherans, or the Orthodox Jews, or the Sunni Muslims, or the Zoroastrians. How could I possibly know? Obviously some of these people are wrong. The very fact that multiple religions exists proves that some of them are wrong. But since I have no way of knowing which, if any of them at all, are not wrong, I simply stay outside the whole thing and observe, giving equal opportunity for every religion to convince me, and so far remaining thoroughly unconvinced by all of them.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
It's the subjective nature of faith.

I might have Faith that Barney is the anti-Christ. Which is funny, until I act on my faith and try to kill Barney.

When someone starts about "their faith", you can't disprove their beliefs - you can only hope it doesn't involve you being tied to a stake and used as a briquette.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hey, even Joseph Smith started out as an agnostic. He wondered the same thing, went into a grove of trees, and asked God. God answered him. (Or so I believe.)
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
My favorite more modern agnostic/atheist is C.S. Lewis.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, Trevor, when faith results in death, that does get scary--especially for the ones dying. I have heard some say that that is exactly what is happening in Iraq right now. I am not sure what I think of that.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Unfortunately, that's what makes dealing with fanatics so difficult.

They believe they're dying for their faith - which makes rational discourse rather complicated.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think a person can have strong, firm faith without being fanatical. Perhaps to some I am fanatical. I don't know.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Can I talk you out of your belief system? Would any degree of rational discourse dissuade you from your beliefs?

Whether or not you're willing to die for your beliefs is just icing on the cake.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 

quote:

---

My favorite more modern agnostic/atheist is C.S. Lewis.

---

quote:

---

Can I talk you out of your belief system? Would any degree of rational discourse dissuade you from your beliefs?

---

quote:

---

When Jospeh Smith received his vision, he saw God the Father and Jesus Christ appear as separate beings of flesh and blood.

---

quote:

---

Hey, even Joseph Smith started out as an agnostic.

---

That's funny, I could have sworn his parents were deist and raised him as such. He later had a brief stint as a Mason. Not quite agnostic, if you ask me.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
You have faith, I don't.

1. Proof is generally unavailable.
2. Believers talk about "helping you discover the truth"
3. Non-believers term it "convincing us of your truth"

-Trevor

Edit: Sorry, I had something more pithy to say, but it slipped my mind.

Edit2: Oh, yeah. Bev - I can't say that I care what your faith is. If you cannot be reasoned out of your faith and you hold fast to it in spite of all challenges, You're a true believer and a fanatic. See my comment about no stakes and being used as a briquette.

[ July 18, 2004, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tom, spoken like a true agnostic.

I honestly don't know how atheists and agnostics become believers. I only know that it happens sometimes. I figure most people aren't going to find God unless they desire it enough to have faith. Most agnostics and athiests do not and probably never will.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Or delude themselves into believing something that isn't true, even if they desperately want it to be.

"She's really loves me! Honestly! She...just needs some time..."

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

That's funny, I could have sworn his parents were deist and raised him as such. He later had a brief stint as a Mason. Not quite agnostic, if you ask me.

---

I was comparing the way Joseph Smith felt about not knowing which church was true with how Verily the Younger feels who is agnostic. Maybe I've got my definition wrong, but isn't an agnostic someone who is not sure what they believe?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Nah, an agnostic believes he (or she) doesn't know.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hmm, not sure what invoked the hostility, Trevor, but I'm getting some pretty hostile vibes.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I hate to break it to you, but C.S. Lewis was a very devout Christian, so much so that he is considered one of the greatest modern theologians.

When we decided to get married in an Episcopal church, my priest had us read his book Mere Christianity , which I believe was a collection of transcripts from his weekly radio show on BBC.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
He didn't start out that way. But I also don't know if he was agnostic or athiest.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
No hostility from me - I'm simply trying to state my position as clearly and concisely as possible.

Although I realize the phrase "I don't care what your belief system is" could be construed as hostile with a minimum of effort, so I do apologize.

However, I promise no hostility on my part exists was intended to manifest, never mind be directed towards you.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
I've heard that he was an athiest. His good friend Tolkein is credited with introducing him to Christianity.

space opera

edit: forgot to add who the friend was..gah

[ July 18, 2004, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ok, Trevor, I will take your word for it. I don't know you well enough to know your style yet, and that comment did sound, uh, unfriendly.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
"The specifics of your belief system are not relevant for purposes of this definition."

Does that sound better?

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Well, it is how he described himself for most of his life, and it was one of the reasons he and Tolkien had so many differences as friends.

One of his major critiques of Tolkien's works, which stared out as reading materials for the Inklings, was that is seemed too secular.

quote:

---

1944

On seven consecutive Tuesdays, from February 22 to April 4 at 10:15 to 10:30 p.m., Lewis gave the pre-recorded talks known as "Beyond Personality." Taken together, all of Lewis' BBC radio broadcast talks were eventually published under the title Mere Christianity. From November 10, 1944 to April 14, 1945, The Great Divorce was published in weekly installments in The Guardian. (The Guardian was a religious newspaper that ceased publication in 1951; it had no connection with the Manchester Guardian.)

---

quote:

---

1911

Lewis was enrolled as a student at Cherbourg House (which he referred to as "Chartres"), a prep school close by Malvern College where Warnie was enrolled as a student. Jack remained there until June 1913. It was during this time that he abandoned his childhood Christian faith.

1929

Lewis became a theist: "In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed...."

---

quote:

---

So you believe that it is impossible to be both fanatic and right about something?

---

To me, the word for that would be zealous, with just positive connotations.
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
This is a quote from many, many posts back, but I've been away for a few hours, and this is a fast-moving thread

quote:

---

Geoff, the idea that millions of LDS men and boys, aged 16 and up, have this conduit that is somehow so much more accurate than scholars with years of prayer, intelligence, and diligent study, scares me.

---

Theca, Mormons don't believe that just anybody with the priesthood is an authority on defining doctrine. Only a few people at a time ever have that authority, or there would be utter chaos. Twelve-, fourteen-, and sixteen-year-old priesthood holders have very limited responsibilities, and even most adults with the priesthood are limited to acting within their own households or specific callings within the Church. Only the Prophet himself, with the aid of his counselors and the apostles, has the authority to define new doctrine, and these are usually older men with a lifetime of study and service behind them. It's a LITTLE less scary that way, isn't it?

Oh, hey, another old quote:

quote:

---

Geoff, from what you've said here, it would appear that Mormon's would acknowledge the priesthood in others (non-LDS) just so long as they know that God granted it to them.

---

Bob, actually, yes, we do think there have been many instances throughout history when people have possessed the priesthood and/or other gifts from God. But it doesn't make a LOT of sense for God to set up multiple competing churches in the same place at the same time. If there is any church at all that He will give His official stamp to, there will likely be only one at a time — or at most, multiple churches with no contact between them.

So we believe it's us right now. Not meant as a slam on anyone else ... and, I mean, honestly, what else are we going to believe? That we're wrong and everyone else is right? Hard to build a church on that. A political party, maybe ...

quote:

---

Given that many clergy (and lay people for that matter) feel called by God to preach, it seems like the LDS church would acknowledge those people as priests.

---

We have absolutely nothing against the idea that people from other faiths can be inspired, or called by God to preach. On the contrary, we believe that ANYONE can have those experiences. What I've been discussing is solely an issue of final authority on doctrinal matters, not of the validity of someone else's spiritual experience. We believe that God created our church specifically because He wanted to provide a place where people could be taught about Him with authority, with less of the chaos of speculation.

Of course, we still get our share of that chaos, but when it gets out of control, we have someone whose calling it is to set us straight. Naturally, there are other churches who believe that authority rests with other people, but ... well, that's why those people belong to other churches It's not a weakness in our doctrine that we believe we're right.

quote:

---

Hence, another huge point of contention. Your clergy say everyone elses clergy is PROBABLY false, or rather "almost certainly" falsely ordained.

---

quote:

---

Why do you call non-Mormons "Evangelicals" when Mormons evangelize far more than non-Mormon groups, with the exception of maybe Jehovah's Witnesses? If anything Mormons would count more as "Evangelicals," unless that is a Mormon name for non-Mormons.

---

I didn't make up that descriptor. It's the name used by many of the current generation of popular American Christian churches to describe themselves. "Born-again Christians" is another common name. By using these terms, I'm not trying to say that Mormons don't evangelize, or that we are not "born again" — much to the contrary. I'm simply using the title that this particular breed of Christians prefers to use for themselves.

Actually, many of them prefer to simply be called "Christians" with the express purpose of denying that title to other historically-Christian faiths, including Cathoics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodox, etc. I don't like that kind of semantic crap, so I use a more useful, more specific descriptor.

Besides, I have to do something to distinguish the current generation of "non-denominational" protestant Christians from earlier generations, as this is a relatively new movement with a different set of beliefs from previous Christian movements (Methodism, Calvinism, Puritanism, etc, etc).

[ July 18, 2004, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Trevor, that didn't sound hostile to me at all, BTW.

I think that I always entertain the idea that I might be wrong. After all, I have not seen an angel. But what if I had? Would I be fanatical if I had empirical truth and still could not be reasoned out of my religion?

I think that I am open to discussion, unless the person I am talking with holds my beliefs in contempt. They have to be open-minded too, or else it isn't a discussion.

I will address both Tom and Trevor on the subject of being "misguided". I think it is entirely possible for someone to have faith in something that is true and yet be fanatical about it, and therefore misguided. In my mind, the term fanatical implies a misunderstanding even of the true principles the person might believe in, and therefore incorrect response on their part to those beliefs.

Example: A believer understands that at times God has actually commanded a person to kill. (We will assume that this is true for the sake of the point.) The believer is also fanatical and extrapolates upon this true belief to justify their decision to kill someone, but not at God's command. Take the crusades for example, or the witch trials. I don't think those people were carrying out God's will. I think they were taking personal extrapolations on true principles. They were misguided because of the way they behaved in response to truth.

Yes, I think fanatics are always misguided.

A dictionary definition of fanatic:

quote:

---

marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion

---

Note the term "excessive". That is where the "misguided" idea comes from.

[ July 18, 2004, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Interesting - just as "over-zealous" might have bad connotations.

But if someone is zealous in a "bad" cause, do we call them a zealot with the same bad connotations?

Of course, to me, a true believer is just as negative as fanatic, but I'm cynical that way.

-Trevor

Edit: Excessive - another poor descriptor, I suppose. Certainly one open to interpretation.

You used the same www.webster.com I did.

[ July 18, 2004, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"The whole first section of Mere Christianity is how Lewis used logic to convince himself out of Athiesm."

Oh, how I wish he had used logic. That would have been a genuinely cool book, if he had.

-----

"The believer is also fanatical and extrapolates upon this true belief to justify their decision to kill someone, but not at God's command."

Here's a question: how does someone distinguish their belief that God has asked them to kill someone from the FACT that God has asked them to kill someone? For example, beverly, let's say an angel appeared to you and told you, with great regret and sorrow, that Papa Moose had to die for reasons that made excellent sense. What tools would you use to determine empirically that you were being "zealous" and not "fanatic?"

[ July 18, 2004, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Zeal is only enthusiasm or passion. It can be directed to good or evil, the definition does not specify one or the other. "Over-zealous" implies misdirection in the "over" part.

I must admit puzzlement over the term "true believer" having any sort of negative connotation. That does seem to imply a strong cynicism towards faith.

[ July 18, 2004, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
My personal definition of a "fanatic" is a person who believes so strongly in a single thing that it dominates all other considerations, including basic morality. Such a person is dangerous because we depend on maintaining a basic moral common ground to keep our civilization intact.

It is also common for a fanatic to identify with a group of likeminded people who are considered superior, more valuable, or more human than outsiders. This, too, is dangerous, as it encourages severe animosity toward the outside world, and can lead to thoughtless violence.

As a religious person, I feel it is part of my responsibility to work against fanaticism within my own faith. Religion is a very good thing insofar as it helps individuals to better themselves and enrich their normal lives. When it starts to replace or destroy their normal lives, I begin to get suspicious.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
"True Believer" - strongly believes in his or her faith.

Whether that faith requires you to plant trees and flowers or fly planes into bildings, the are both "true believers."

Applying "misguided" is your applying your opinion of their faith or their devotion to their faith. For all I really know, God might be a bloodthirsty bastard who revels in death, destruction and chaos. He did require a blood sacrifice, after all.

Apply any term you like to someone who unswervingly devotes themselves fully and completely to a cause or belief and I'll think it a bad term.

Patriot or terrorist? Yet another "in the eye of the beholder" label.

-Trevor

P.S. Ya know, each time I read this, it sounds angrier and angrier. And I'm not angry - resigned, perhaps.

Edit: Basic morality - by what definition? How do we define what constitutes "basic morality?"

[ July 18, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Here's a question: how does someone distinguish their belief that God has asked them to kill someone from the FACT that God has asked them to kill someone? For example, beverly, let's say an angel appeared to you and told you, with great regret and sorrow, that Papa Moose had to die for reasons that made excellent sense. What tools would you use to determine empirically that you were being "zealous" and not "fanatic?"

---

quote:

---

He did require a blood sacrifice, after all.

---

Out of curiosity, are you referring to the sacrifice of animals, or humans?

It makes sense that one person would look at the term "true believer" as a positive thing and another person as a negative thing. It reflects one's own perspective. I was only commenting that your perspective on the word speaks volumes to me of your perspective on religion, God, and those who put faith in such things.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
To both Tom and Trevor, my faith is not always "rock solid", but it has never wavered to the point that I am more likely to believe that these things are "not" true, just to the point of curiosity, pondering and the like. My faith is strenghtened repeatedly by the whole "ringing true" thing (among other things).

I understand that different things seem to "ring true" to different people. But then, we all have to use that as our guide for what to believe in, don't we? To Tom and Trevor, my beliefs don't "ring true" and therefore they are both pretty convinced that I (and others) are wrong. That's fine with me, as long as you are truly honest with your own hearts and minds. (Be honest, don't we always have the suspicion that those who don't believe as we do are not being fully honest with themselves?)

I am content to wait till the afterlife for a more solid reassurance of these things. If there is none, then the point is rather moot. If there is, well, then all us believers and the agnostics and atheists can start having some very interesting conversations. Till then, we all just continue our search for understanding and do what we feel is right.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Animals, humans - I'm not sure I see a difference.

But that's another rant I don't really want to go down.

-Trevor

Edit: Oh, I fully admit I could be wrong. And if I wake up with St. Peter looking at me laughing, I hope I have the dignity to concede the point and make some quip before being condemned to Hell.

But before I take the express bus downstairs, I would like some questions answered.

[ July 18, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Gotcha

Out of curiosity, do you make a distinction between eating a chicken and eating a human? Are you strictly vegetarian?

[ July 18, 2004, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Oh, I love a good steak.

I just didn't slaughter the cow on a murky religious point, nor did I see the need to nail someone to a tree - not that I would have felt the need to have a plate of Christ.

And for some reason I keep seeing the scene from "Hot Shots" and I can't stop giggling. It may be from the lack of food at the moment.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
And here I thought it was safer to stay out of these discussions....
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
But they ate the animals they sacrificed, didn't they?

Mmmmm, meat.

I have to say I draw a pretty strong distinction between eating a chicken and eating a human, therefore animal sacrifice and human sacrifice.

As to the sacrifice of Christ and the purpose of it, that is a whole 'nother matter entirely. First of all, are you willing to believe in a Divine Messiah that willingly sacrificed Himself? Or do you think it was just a guy who was helpless as any mortal under those circumstances? Makes a huge difference.

If you think he was just a guy (as I suspect you do) then it wasn't a sacrifice at all, just another execution. No human sacrifice involved at all, then. Unless you want to include Abraham and Isaac, which didn't involve any actual human sacrifice either.

[ July 18, 2004, 09:59 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

And if I wake up with St. Peter looking at me laughing, I hope I have the dignity to concede the point and make some quip before being condemned to Hell.

But before I take the express bus downstairs, I would like some questions answered.

---

quote:

---

why sacrifice animals at all? Although it may just be on of those "It's a God thing, you wouldn't understand."

---

quote:

---

6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.

8 Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and ccall upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

---

quote:

---

59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;

---

quote:

---

And again, why was Jesus sacrificed? To what point?

And the whole "cleansed of blood" description seems a tad...violent for a God who invokes, "thou shalt not kill." Or perhaps murder.

---

quote:

---

Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Council of the Twelve gave the following illustration to show how Christ’s atonement makes it possible to be saved from sin if we do our part.

“Let me tell you a story—a parable.

“There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.

“He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

“So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

“The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

“But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.

“Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“ ‘I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,’ he confessed.

“ ‘Then,’ said the creditor, ‘we will exercise the contract, take your possessions and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.’

“ ‘Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?’ the debtor begged. ‘Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?’

“The creditor replied, ‘Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?’

“ ‘I believed in justice when I signed the contract,’ the debtor said. ‘It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.’

“ ‘It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,’ the creditor replied. ‘That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.’

“There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“ ‘If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,’ the debtor pleaded.

“ ‘If I do, there will be no justice,’ was the reply.

“Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?

“There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

“The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“ ‘I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.’

“As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, ‘You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.’

“And so the creditor agreed.

“The mediator turned then to the debtor. ‘If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?’

“ ‘Oh yes, yes,’ cried the debtor. ‘You saved me from prison and show mercy to me.’

“ ‘Then,’ said the benefactor, ‘you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.’

“And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken.

“The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was satisfied” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, pp. 79–80; or Ensign, May 1977, pp. 54–55).

Our sins are our spiritual debts. Without Jesus Christ, who is our Savior and Mediator, we would all pay for our sins by suffering spiritual death. But because of him, if we will keep his terms, which are to repent and keep his commandments, we may return to live with our Heavenly Father.

It is wonderful that Christ has provided us a way to be healed from our sins. He said:

“Behold, I have come unto the world … to save the world from sin.

“Therefore, whoso repenteth and cometh unto me as a little child, him will I receive, for of such is the kingdom of God. Behold, for such I have laid down my life, and have taken it up again; therefore repent, and come unto me ye ends of the earth, and be saved” (3 Nephi 9:21–22).

---

There's a verse that says "We are saved by grace after all we can do" - a verse which many use to attack the church's philosophy saying that 'That's not real grace. How is it grace if you have to earn it?'

That comes from a misunderstanding. It's like... if you're in a 1 million mile race, and you are only physically able to run 100 miles. You try your hardest to get as far as you can - you really try - but you can't possibly attain that goal. The grace part takes you the rest of the way, the 999,900 miles you couldn't go on your own.

However, making the effort - no matter how little you can go - is STILL important. We believe God gave commandments, not suggestions - and those include helping the needy, and proclaiming the Gospel to those who haven't heard it, or don't understand it.

We also figure if Christ made such a major sacrifice, it's the least we can do to agree to his terms to accept the payment for a debt there was no way we could pay on our own.

Plus, we believe he has our best interest at heart, and that it will be More than Worth It if we endure to the end.

[ July 18, 2004, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Mmmm, some very deep and involved questions with deep and involved answers. This thread has already been so derailed that even blacwolve has not returned to say if she has had her questions answered to her satisfaction. (I apologize if you are actually a guy, blacwolve.)

But, since when has derailing threads stopped a jatraquero?

Also, keep in mind, the answers of an LDS might differ from those of another Christian. Of course, even among LDS the answers might differ slightly.

But me thinks this deserves a thread of its own, it is a pretty involved topic by its own right, what say ye? Shall we start a new thread on it?
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
This is a Mormon Theological Question thread Appears quite on topic to me.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Alright - I'm not sure I get it, but let's try this tack.

Why was Jesus required to be nailed to the cross? To forgo our sins? Is God not such an all-powerful being he couldn't "forgive" the sins? Or the debt, as the parallel goes?

As God is the creditor, in this case, the maker of all things and the source of all laws, why then is he bound by those laws? And why are we to be thankful for His willingness to sacrifice his Son for a system that he himself put in place?

-Trevor

Edit: And at the risk of taking the parallel to literally - the debtor had the option of not accepting the loan. Were we given the opportunity to reject or at the very least not accept this "loan?" Or God's own rules and laws concerning sin, which, I assume is what Jesus is abolishing with his sacrifice?

[ July 18, 2004, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

Evangelical = Authority of God through Scripture and Creeds
Mormon = Authority of God through Prophets and the Priesthood

---

quote:

---

Edit: And at the risk of taking the parallel to literally - the debtor had the option of not accepting the loan. Were we given the opportunity to reject or at the very least not accept this "loan?"sacrifice?

---

Yup.

Actually, according to LDS theology, the fact that we're here on earth means that we already DID accept the loan. We agreed to the Plan as spirits before we were born into mortality in order to progress.

[ July 18, 2004, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Taalcon, does that apply to everyone, or just Mormons?
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Every single human being born on Earth.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
So, then, how could anyone go to Hell?
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
And I'm referring to the initial loan - we knew we'd be getting into debt the moment we were born, and we knew all about the Savior's Atonement plan. We agreed to go into debt, knowing accepting the Atonement was the only way to Return to the presence of our Father in Heaven. We also knew that we wouldn't remember our premortal life, but we did know that the Holy Spirit would be given to guide us on the Right Path.

[ July 18, 2004, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I wasn't at the computer, so I didn't see this until now, sorry.

Yes, my questions have been answered and I love the way this is turning out, I think it's really interesting.

However, to derail the derailment, does anyone want to tell me about LDS marriage ceremonies? What vows are taken, who administers the ceremony, etc.?
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I see, Taalcon. I guess the analogy just got too deep for me. I thought Trevor was talking about the "loan" of Christ's sacrifice, or accepting the fact that he paid for our sins.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Ok, so I have no memory or recollection of this debt/agreement, yet someone is knocking on my door saying, "oh, guess what - you owe me a hell of a lot?"

And God wasn't kind enough to implant this knowledge from "birth" so I wouldn't get caught with my shorts down over a debt that I couldn't possibly know I signed?

Part the Seconde
Why can't someone with sin come before God? If that was his rule and we are bound by it, why create someone to "absorb" that sin and die - wouldn't it be less brutal to simply change the rule?

And why am I expected to be grateful for being offered this "savior" that saves me from a system being introduced by the God in question?

God creates the system, realizes nobody can meet him, so he creates this half-mortal being with the intention of saving us from the system He created in the first place?

-Trevor

Edit: Sorry PSI, was distracted -> so he gives us free will and the demand, "Love me or go to Hell."

Ya know, that really sounds like a dictator to me - in the bad sense of the word.

[ July 18, 2004, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
Christ's sacrifice made more sense to the people int he past, and had more meaning. They sacrificed animals to pay for their sins, so Christ's death was something they could relate to.

Trevor- So it would be better to be a love-love robot?

[ July 19, 2004, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
No one ever answered my question. RnD could start.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

So, then, how could anyone go to Hell?

---

quote:

---

Why can't someone with sin come before God? If that was his rule and we are bound by it, why create someone to "absorb" that sin and die - wouldn't it be less brutal to simply change the rule?

---

quote:

---

# Mosiah 3: 19

19 For the natural• man is an enemy• to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields• to the enticings of the Holy Spirit•, and putteth• off the natural• man and becometh a saint• through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh 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.

---

quote:

---

9 For it is expedient that an atonement• should be made; for according to the great plan• of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

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 ancinfinite• and eternal• sacrifice.

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 law• 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.

16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice•; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

---

quote:

---

# Alma 42: 24

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also amercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

---

quote:

---

# Alma 42: 25

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

---

quote:

---

Doctrine and Covenants Section 45

3 Listen to him who is the advocate• with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin•, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified•;

5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren• that believe• on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting• life.

---

I hope that helps.

[ July 19, 2004, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
This thread (not to mention ^ some posts) is super long. Would it be frowned-upon to respond to fragmented bits and pieces without digesting the whole sacred cow?

moo.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Respond away!
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
what IS the ancient chinese secret, huh?

*daintily dips fingernails in dishwashing soap*

fallow
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

It's not as much a rule as it is... we couldn't take it. Being before God, knowing that he knows everything you did, and being in the presence of the Perfect Being who loves you, and did his best to allow you to choose the path that would lead to absolute happiness, and knowing that you didn't trust him - the shame would be unbearable, and a bit of a 'hell' in and of itself.

---

quote:

---

14 For our words• will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us; and in this awful state we shall not dare to look up to our God; and we would fain be glad if we could command the rocks and the mountains• to fall upon us to hide• us from his presence.

15 But this cannot be; we must come forth and stand before him in his glory, and in his power, and in his might, majesty, and dominion, and acknowledge to our everlasting shame• that all his judgments• are just; that he is just in all his works, and that he is merciful unto the children of men, and that he has all power to save every man that believeth on his name and bringeth forth fruit meet for repentance.

---

This isn't because God made things this way, it's just the way things *are*.
 

---

Posted by Theca (Member # 1629) on :
 
So if non LDS aren't so bad off, then what exactly does does the subtitle of God's Army mean? God's Army Saving the World One Soul at a Time. What are we being saved from?
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 


*sweeps Lao under the rug*

umm... what is a godhead? I've never really understood this term. Kinda makes me giggle (Freudian). Is it like a figurehead? Like a carved icon face-forward-into-the-wind sort of shipwise adornment?

fallow
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Well Talc, I'll grant I don't agree with the "shame would be too much to bear" idea, but it does set up the rest in context.

Beav - I have to admit, I expected "because God wills it" statement much sooner in this discussion.

And I will concede if I believed any of the preceeding statements, the rest would make sense.

Unfortunately, I don't - so the subsequent issues fall apart for me as well.

But I have to admit, it's one of the more concise answers I've ever gotten.

-Trevor
Edit: They are saving us from the not so bad Hell.
Edit 2: Bev - I find it difficult to accept that an all-powerful, all-knowing God is bound by "the way things are." Either He is the creator of all things or he isn't.

But, as I understand LDS mythology - God isn't an all-powerful, all-knowing entity, which means His limitations are plausible.

[ July 19, 2004, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ooo, *excellent* question, Theca. There is this little matter of no one being able to be saved in ignorance. The idea is that before your final judgement you must have had the opportunity to accept Christ and His gospel, either in this life or the next. The second idea is, the sooner the better.

Fallow, as I understand it, the Godhead (at least in LDS theology) is like a "council of Gods". We do indeed believe in three separate entities, but that they are so united in purpose that it usually doesn't matter which one you are referring to. They are all equally and in their own right GOD. They are as "one" as three separate entities can be.
 

---

Posted by Calgon (Member # 4151) on :
 
I'm the ancient Chinese secret.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

And I will concede if I believed any of the preceeding statements, the rest would make sense.

Unfortunately, I don't - so the subsequent issues fall apart for me as well.

---

Not too surprising. 'tis what I expected.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

why just 3?

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Calgon,

*snort*

nice moo-moo

fallow
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Bev - I find it difficult to accept that an all-powerful, all-knowing God is bound by "the way things are." Either He is the creator of all things or he isn't.

But, as I understand LDS mythology - God isn't an all-powerful, all-knowing entity, which means His limitations are plausible.

---

quote:

---

why just 3?

---

Reminds me of many of the questions my 5-year-old son asks. Because that is the way it is?

No, I do believe there is more to it than that. First of all, you've got Father in Heaven. You've then got the need for a Savior in the plan, ergo Christ. Now, God seems to really like the idea of having 2 or more witnesses of any truth, so then you have the Holy Ghost, a personage of Spirit whose job it is (among other things) to testify of Christ, the Father, and all truth.

Could there be more than three? Perhaps. Less than three? No. So three is the minimum, and perhaps God likes to be efficient.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Efficient?!

Ok. 3 sounds like kind of an arbitaray choice, particularly regarding how they're pretty much all the same guy, as closely-bound as they are.

Why no feminine presence? That's kind of the stickler for me. Doesn't make any sense whichever way I churn it.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
The Holy Spirit can be very...motherly. One of his roles and titles is that of Comforter.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
the holy-spirit is a cross-dresser?



fallow
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
I think he runs around naked.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Well, you have to take into account the firmly held belief that our Father in Heaven has a female counterpart, that He is married. We believe that Christ either is or will be also. Marriage is pretty central to LDS theology. We believe no man or woman is complete without it, including God.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
As much as I hate the answer, "just because" will actually carry a lot of ground because of the complexity of trying to understand "God, creater of all things" - no matter how you interpret him.

That being said, I will never swear faith to a belief system that rationalizes "just because" - but I will accept that empirical proof and definite answers are both in short supply.

The idea that human evolution was nothing more than an alien's practical joke is as plausible as the LDS teaching or the Catholic church's theology.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Hah! That might be reason enough for me to convert, if I hadn't already made my thoughts known on the "Singles" thread.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*shrug*

Maybe we are all in the Matrix.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Snicker - well said.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Try to imagine time having no end.

Pretty cool, eh? Makes your mind kind of bend a little, but you can almost comprehend it.

Now think about something having no BEGINNING. Think about it hard.

Give you a headache? Seem impossible? It's incomprehensible.

As much as we know and believe that the Earth had a beginning, before that, the idea of Eternity stretching into BOTH directions is enough to give you a migraine.

Whether you think of it from a science OR a theological viewpoint - both will leave you reeling. Some things ARE just incomprehensible to the human mind. We're infinite beings living in a finite body. there ARE limits to our current understanding.

We believe we have all the info we NEED to know, but not all there IS to know. We can't recieve that until we've been trialed through this life, and recieve exalted eternal spiritual bodies.

As of right now, I'm content with not being omnicient. I'll leave that to God for the time being!
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

ok. why isn't the "marriage" of god, or the feminine presence explicit?

fallow
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
C'mon Fallow - now you're delving into the "just because" category.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
In some ways, material existence, or life in Ea, can be thought of as being in the matrix, and heaven, or the celestial realm can be thought of as our real life. Time is only in effect in the matrix. Real life is in a universe in which time is not part of the laws of physics. That's the sense in which we are all eternal.

Edit to say this is my own theological speculation, based on LDS theology, and not any sort of doctrine of any religion ever known, as far as I can tell.

[ July 19, 2004, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Taal,

quote:

---

As of right now, I'm content with not being omnicient

---

quote:

---

ok. why isn't the "marriage" of god, or the feminine presence explicit?

---

quote:

---

Why no feminine presence?

---

quote:

---

But, as I understand LDS mythology - God isn't an all-powerful, all-knowing entity, which means His limitations are plausible.

---

Thanks for using the phrase "as I understand it."
God is all-powerful and all-knowing in LDS doctrine. Just because we say he "can't" break his rules, doesn't mean he isn't capable. He just knows that the consequences would not be worth the benefit. Before the Earth was created, in the Council of Heaven, a Plan of Salvation was presented to us. Christ - Jehovah - presented God's plan. This included a need for man to be tried and tested, be tempted and hopefully overcome sin. Because he knew we would not be able to always overcome sin, he, being our Eldest Brother, offered to sacrifice himself... to come down with an understanding of his role and to BE perfect and sin free, so that he could then atone for us. Satan - Lucifer - suggested that we all just be perfect... by force. Then we wouldn't need a sacrifice and no one would go to "hell." He also wanted God's Glory for accomplishing this. Often, we dote on the concept that this was bad just because he wanted God's Glory, but this isn't completely rational. God knew the same thing parents know on Earth. Kids have to learn things the hard way, or they just won't learn. He sticks to his laws because he created them. There is no need for him to break them. One day we will all understand this, either in this life or the next. The sooner the better, so we can help others to understand as well.
(forgive me if I am not completely clear. Geoff, Taalcon and Beverly are mch more eloquent than I.)
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*not if any middle-aged man was created in the image of God*

*shudders*
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
"In the image of God he created them. Male and Female, he created them."

Perhaps Adam looked just like Daddy, and Eve looked just like Mommy.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
gnixing,

eloquence... is... kinda important.

fallow
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
'nother good question.

The main idea is the protecting of Her sanctity. The name of God is profaned. There is also the open ended idea that Heavenly Father may be a polygamist God. Polygamy is, after all, still accepted in LDS doctrine as a true principle if not practiced currently.

The idea is that there is eternal marriage, that it is the highest state of existance for men and women. That marriage can have an open-ended number of women in it, but one man--that this is the eternal pattern, the way "things are".

So as for a Mother in Heaven or Mothers, I prefer to think of Her or Them as being included together with the Father, even more united than the classic trinity, the idea of the Godhead.

But truly, this is not something that is often discussed and little is explicit in LDS theology on the subject.

Edit: Sorry, my answers come so slowly with how long I take to formulate my responses.

[ July 19, 2004, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

Taal,

quote: As of right now, I'm content with not being omnicient

Is that conditioned on having access to the omniscient via admittedly flawed and rationally-awkward channels?

---

quote:

---

"In the image of God he created them. Male and Female, he created them."

---

So, mommy is an earthly redepiction of (the cross-dressing Holy Ghost's portion of the triumvirile's triad)?

fallow
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that the Holy Ghost is male. Also, he is a spirit, no physical body like Father and Mother in Heaven. Not likely to be the same entity.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Ok Fallow, now you're just trolling

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

With respect Gnix, it still sounds like self-rationalizing justification.

Everything holds true _if_ we accept these basic premises. If we accept this interpretation, this makes sense.

To me, it still sounds like trying to explain thunder with someone rolling a strike above the clouds.

Hence the nature of faith, I suppose.

---

You know, quite honestly, that's how I look at science.

"We don't *really* know what is going on here, but according to our observations, we deduce X."

"Oops, no, we were wrong. We observed C, F, and M, so we now deduce... Y."

"Uh, sorry, strike that last one, we just observed Q!"

All us humans just a tryin' to understand our universe.

Wouldn't it be nice if God just told some prophets what's going on and they tell us? Oh wait! He did.

I am being silly. I am just pointing out that both *are* valid points of view. I won't knock yours if you don't knock mine.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:00 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 

quote:

---

ok. why isn't the "marriage" of god, or the feminine presence explicit?

---

I would echo Taalcon in a fashion on this. This may be my own doctrine too, but.. here goes.
The feminine presence was once explicit. At some point in time, I believe, God commanded his prophets, seers, and revelators to not refer to her further, because people cursing in his name was bad enough.
I look at it from a personal view. My father never permitted us to curse or talk down to my mother. Our Heavenly Father has done the same thing. His church has never denied that there is a Heavenly Mother. (this is on the assumption that the LDS church is His church.) It's stated quite clearly in our Hymnal. I don't believe God's church has ever denied the feminine presence. I believe that Christ felt very highly of women by his relationships expressed in the New Testament.
And, ancient paganism... goddess worship... etc, likely spawned from those who were part of God's church in ancient times... or descendants of such faith that were isolated from revelation and confirmation from God's ordained prophets.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*demures from touching broom*

I am NOT!

Just wondering if the lack of the explicitly feminine in the triune godhead should be swept into the wisedom bin of "inexplicability".

fallow
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Faith IS a very important principal. It's been even said that Faith was one of the 'tools' used in the Creation of the World itself.

Plus, Miracles are said only to manifest themselves AFTER the trial of Faith.

I can only say, as a convert myself who initially gawked at this, that it has manifested its truth to me. It can be...very personal. But also undeniable.

This is true for non LDS as well - we don't have the monopoly on Faith Miracles.

As much as 'Healing (spiritual and physical) By Faith' is a gift of the Spirit, 'Faith to Be Healed' is an equally important gift.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
gnixing, that was quite, strikingly elegant IMO.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

do me a favor. don't malign science, when you don't know what you're talking about, please.

fallow
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
*agrees with Bev* Very nice, Gnix!
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Fallow, you appear to be maligning LDS beliefs much more than she's maligning Science!

All she's saying is that as much as science CAN tell us, it doesn't give us all the answers, and in some cases can be very confusing. That's...the facts, plain and simple.
 

---

Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
 

quote:

---

Why no feminine presence? That's kind of the stickler for me.

---

quote:

---

The idea is that before your final judgment you must have had the opportunity to accept Christ and His gospel, either in this life or the next.

---

quote:

---

fallow, you mean to tell me that science does not repeatedly revise it's version of observed truth?

---

quote:

---

Everything holds true _if_ we accept these basic premises. If we accept this interpretation, this makes sense.

---

That's where faith, prayer and repentance come into play.
The nice thing about LDS doctrine is that it does hold true to itself. Always. I've never seen a valid circumstance that contradicts my claim.
Yet, one has to come to accept the basic premises first. Many times on this thread, I have read posts explaining how to come to accept these premises. As much as the topics in this thread can be debated, there is only one way to KNOW if they are true.
a) You have to first come to believe that God exists.
b) Then, being sincere in your quest for knowledge, you must do your research.
c) Pray to God (in Christ's name) for confirmation that what you have researched is true, or knowledge in the lack of any answer.
d) Have faith that God will answer your prayer.

If you do this, you will receive an answer, you will know.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
gnix,

sounds like a self-referential tautology.

*not that it can't be a happy one*

fallow
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Alexa, I share your ponderings on the subject of missionary work. I trust that it is important, but I also believe I don't fully understand why. I do believe what I said earlier is true though.

I have also thought about this in relation to work for the dead. Doctrine shows us that there is urgency involved. I wonder why? I pondered that one for a long time.

I prayed about it. I had one of those experiences where my mind opened up to new ideas that I hadn't considered before, and to be honest with you, now I can't remember what those ideas where.

It is as though God were saying, "Yes, it *is* important, and here is part of why, but this is not common knowledge and you are not going to remember this. You will only remember that you once understood."
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Worked for me.

And I hoped the answer was 'The Mormons are silly goons and don't know what they're talking about'. If anything, I didn't WANT it to be true, because then my life would have to change.

Turns out they were right. Took me a year after recognizing that answer (repeatedly) to be Baptized.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
You sure did. Funny how something so small gets lost in the rest of this stuff.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
fallow, replace a) with "desire to believe" then it isn't so much a tautology.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

I have also thought about this in relation to work for the dead. Doctrine shows us that there is urgency involved. I wonder why?

---

I tend to think the folks on the other side of the Veil who have ACCEPTED the gospel are pretty anxious for their ordinances to be performed.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
That's definitely part of it, but I knew that already. I wanted more than just "they really really want it". I got my answer, but doggoneit, I can't remember it.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
taalcon!

The only thing I malign is taste and civil discourse. *mumbles incoherent and mildly sinister inventivectives vs. taalcon and it's offspring unto the -10th generation*

fallow

edit: the letter "e"

[ July 19, 2004, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 

quote:

---

why does the feminine (even if "acknowledged") in proto-forms of religion now occupy (apparently) somethingly slightly above that of explicit "denial"?

---

quote:

---

the Atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane, where all the sins of the world were taken upon by Christ - a person who has never sinned

---

Really? Then why did he choose to spend 40 days and 40 nights atoning in the desert fro his actions against the moneylenders in the temple?

If he thought it was a sin, I'll take his word for it.

TMedina: God did let us know...that is what the church is for, to let us know what our obligations are to one another and to him.

If a child refuses to listen to a parent when they give instruction, the child must bear the responsibility for the choice sooner or later.

If your parents payed all your bills without question for your whole life, how responsible would you be? But if you have to pay for it yourself, suddenly things have value and worth because they weren't free.

If there were no moral consequences to our actions, how would we grow? God could take away all our choices and make life easy, but only when things are difficult do we really appreciate them...because we had "payed" for them they have worth beyond what we would see otherwise.

That's my take on it, anyway.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
And now it's time for bed. This particular council smacked me in the face today:

D&C 88:124
Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated.

Dag, yo.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:18 AM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 

quote:

---

Then why did he choose to spend 40 days and 40 nights atoning in the desert fro his actions against the moneylenders in the temple?

---

Have to reply to this though... that wasn't a sin, and that wasn't atonement. It was fasting and preparation for the work he knew he had to do. Righteous anger isn't a sin
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

what's your point? This is a basis for trash-talking?

---

quote:

---

Really? Then why did he choose to spend 40 days and 40 nights atoning in the desert fro his actions against the moneylenders in the temple?

---

Whoa. That is an interpretation of that scripture that I have never heard before! Well, there are plenty of references in LDS scripture to the sinless state of Christ His entire life, and that if He weren't sinless, He couldn't have atoned for the sins of the world. So that's just the LDS take on it for ya.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

alpha desire to believe in? (beta-to-zed)?

fallow
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
First Bev - I was not knocking your faith. I posed questions and you supplied answers. I don't believe in your answers, but that was more or less the expected outcome.

Had I been knocking your faith, the whole "hostile vibe" thing would have been unmistakeable. And probably a personal insult thrown in to the mix for variety.

As to the other, Science can be replicated and duplicated. Have we explaind everything yet? No. Do we think we have to the best of our current understanding? Maybe. And to be fair, a great deal of Science is speculation. Not all, but still quite a bit is.

At one point, my mother told me about a mathematical formula in her high school text book that "proved" man could never go to the moon. And various conspiracy theories notwithstanding, we have.

If anything, Science confirms the idea that Man and therefore his understanding is Imperfect.

Although I will concede the most controversial of scientific theory still remains that - theory.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Promethius, sounds right to me, but I wouldn't know either.

fallow, I think you are referring to gnixing's list, but beyond that you lost me.

Trevor, I have not felt that you are knocking my faith. That comment was more for fallow.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 
fallow, you lose me often too... but I still enjoy your posts.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Here is an interesting thought about the limitations of science. Repeatablity is very, very important in establishing theory. But there is so much complexity in our universe, so many things that we just aren't even capable or measuring. I'm not sure we ever will be capable. Trends in social groups, the tiny patterns in chaos that we may never see.

Just an interesting side note, science did discover a way to find out if a newborn's brain can register sound. If they record the baby's brainwaves over a long period of time and average them together, the tiny, tiny changes made in those waves by reference to a specific, introduced sound can be detected. Brilliant strategy! But there are many, many things that will not submit so easily to the questing eye of science.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
gnix,

it's a habit. but, one that brought me into the splendor of your proximity and mind-spew.

for that, I am thankful.

*chuckles*

fallow

edit: erases pretentious "ciao" sign-off

[ July 19, 2004, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: fallow ]
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 
we always need some sort of nonsense. even if what we perceive as nonsense really has some meaning to it.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
fallow, you wouldn't by any chance happen to be a fan of "They Might Be Giants"? I love their lyrics, so chaotic, hinting at things that I may never understand, but feel I nearly grasp at. Puns, twisted cliche sayings, seemingly random cleverness. You could write some lyrics that would give them a run for their money.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
So after all that, we come back to:

Faith is a personal issue. Either you have it or you don't, for various reasons.

quote:

---

If you don't have faith, no proof is ever enough. If you do have faith, no proof is needed.

---

And Bev - I trust you understand my stance on "true believers" now.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

I assume you are typing on a computer.

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

No. In fact, from what I've heard, I don't like them too much.

fallow
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Pity, I really enjoy them. I was listening to them quite a lot on our recent road trip and I thought of you.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
T,

quote:

---

Faith is a personal issue. Either you have it or you don't, for various reasons.

---

quote:

---

So after all that, we come back to:

Faith is a personal issue. Either you have it or you don't, for various reasons.

---

quote:

---

And Bev - I trust you understand my stance on "true believers" now.

---

Actually, I am not *entirely* confident that I do. But I have tried my best.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

*raises eyebrow*

you thought of me?

fallow
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yes. Yes I did.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
Taalcon is cool.

Carry on.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Gnix,

Isn't "joy" tantamount to the "opiate" of the masses remark attributed to Stalin?

When is "joy" a good buzz, and when is "joy" a 'bad' buzz? assuming it can be described in such unlofty terms.

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

positive, negative or quizzically-constipated?

fallow
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 


I'd say more positive. Hey, I was comparing you with something I like a lot. That can't be too bad.
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 
Well.. I don't know that waxing philosophical on the meaning of joy is really all that necessary.
In my understanding, Joy is never a negative thing. But then, I don't believe that Stalin was able to provide Joy to the masses. This is way off topic though.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Fallows - if you'd care to define Faith, knock yourself out. As defined by www.webster.com:

quote:

---

firm belief in something for which there is no proof

---

quote:

---

And now as I said concerning faith—faith• is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not• seen, which are true.

---

 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Ooo, that whole chapter is a great commentary on faith, feel free to read it all.

Alma 32
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
TM,

Small favor. Stop breathing the hot breath of pointed religious dissent/disfavor/disfruitfulflavor'o'theweek into my posts and take an anti-feverish-defensive breath mint in composing yours. PLEASE!

*wishes he had a hot-tub to soak in*

*wishes he had a hot-tub to soak in and recruit harem candies (candidates) with*

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

apologies for my tardy digestion of your posts.

you related me to what, positively?

also, a man only knows joy after his fall. how about the ladies? do they fall? do they know joy? is this part of the story?

fallow
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 


Oh, uh, just FYI that *really* long post of mine on page 3 had a very important link that wasn't working. It works now. I recommend the read.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Stop invoking my posts in your wanton typing and I'll do my best to return the favor.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 

quote:

---

also, a man only knows joy after his fall. how about the ladies? do they fall? do they know joy? is this part of the story?

---

Generally, "man" and "mankind" both equally relate to the ladies. I would have to say it's derivitive of "human" not "male."
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Well, that usage of man was in the sense of, like, all mankind. So pretty much it is men and women. Kinda like "Since the dawn of Man...." That sort of thing. Not very PC, but then scripture isn't the most PC collection of writings around.

Averaging in the Positive, yes. Reason: admiration of your wit. Negative: resulting from too much confusion and the occasional rude confrontiveness. But that doesn't entirely detract from me enjoying and being entertained by your posts.
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
TM,

yer a walking wanton. funky, cold, and most-impotently, "deep fried".

*sniggers*

fallow
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
You ok Fallows? Are you running a fever?

I'm kinda worried...that almost made sense.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
bev,

the "inclusivity" rationale is nice. even kinda 'romatically' engaging. but it seems very lopsided. not fair. not the truth. or, not the fully realizible (sp) truth.

fallow
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
Trev,

If you don't quiet down, I'll give you a reason to respect my sensibilities.



fallow
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
You're welcome to try Fallows. You might even have better luck than most.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
TM,

what's your sign?

fallow

PS. Bev, thank you for your responses and thoughts. Very much appreciated.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 
Okay, this was several pages ago and has since gotten lost in the shuffle, but I feel I must defend myself against this:

quote:

---

Maybe I've got my definition wrong, but isn't an agnostic someone who is not sure what they believe?

---

quote:

---

Taalcon is cool.

---

quote:

---

I believe Protestants think Catholics have it wrong because Catholics believe Mary can act as an intercessor between them and God. Protestants dont think Mary has this power.

---

quote:

---

I think they also dislike large showy cathedrals.

---

quote:

---

I dont know why Catholics beleive Protestants have it wrong.

---

quote:

---

Most Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church have a much higher level of agreement with each other than either do with the LDS Church.

---

Yeah, I can believe that.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Heh - I hope that's a good thing Claudia.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
Dagonee:"Most Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church have a much higher level of agreement with each other than either do with the LDS Church."

I'm not sure that's true. I just think that there are a handful of key doctrines that are kind of like the issue of abortion is in politics. They're deal-breakers. In other words, it doesn't matter how many other things they agree on, there are a handful of specific differences that are seen as TOO big and important just on their own.

It seems to me that Protestantism and Catholicism tend to have myriad small differences, but fewer of them are "deal-breaker" differences.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think it depends on the deal.

There was a statement early of how Protestants and Muslims are closer with their ideas of God than Protestants and LDS. Viewed from one perspective (God is not bound by anything, including his own laws), then yes. Viewed from another (Jesus is the son of God), then no.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
If you count the number of differences, this may be the case (although just deciding how many differences there are in beliefs on Communion would be challenging).

But if you picture the beliefs as having "size" of some kind (importance, centrality, whatever), then I think my original statement still stands. I mean, the understanding of who God is is pretty central to things, no?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Yes, of course. Joseph Smith said the same thing.

But even assigning importance here is subjective. I mean, Jesus' sacrifice and role as the son of God is fairly important.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not• seen, which are true."

I would leave off the last codicil, as it's perfectly possible to have faith in things which are not true.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I think the point is that having faith in something unseen that's NOT true isn't really faith, it's lunacy.

And please don't ask how to know which is true or how I know I'm not a lunatic. It's so played.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Since (in Mormon theology, at least) faith is a gift from God, and God does not give evil gifts, it is impossible to have faith in something that is not true.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what is true and what isn't. Believers have faith they know what is true and lunatics are people without the true faith which is what the believers have. Of course, the lunatics are thinking the same thing about the true believers, albeit with different titles.

I'm sure most of you are familiar with Pascal's wager - we won't really know who wins until it's too late to do anything about it.

-Trevor

Edit: PSI, Scott - I am not trying to jump on your belief system. I am trying to look at the subject from an impartial, analytical view.

Which, sadly, doesn't always manifest itself in my posts.

[ July 19, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 

quote:

---

Since (in Mormon theology, at least) faith is a gift from God, and God does not give evil gifts, it is impossible to have faith in something that is not true.

---

That doesn't explain people that have faith in things that are contradictory to your own belief system.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Good point, PSI. I think there is an LDS lexicon in which "faith" includes "in truth", but I by no means restrict all definitions of faith to that one.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Then, of course, there are those of us who define faith not as belief but as priority. What you have “faith in” has nothing to do with what you believe exists, it has to do with what you make the ultimate priority of your life.

<---- somewhat Tillichian theologian
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
The aspect of faith that I like to emphasize is not so much that it is based on truth but that it is a belief that motivates one to action. So in my mind, faith must always include works. If it does not, it is belief, not faith.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
The word "faith" seems to have as many definitions as the word "love", and that makes it really hard to communicate in words about either one.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I'll give you a reason to respect my sensibilities."

That would be nice, fallow. I've wanted one for a while.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
As someone who is religious and also a scientist, I saw something neat in this thread. People with a wide variety of worldviews all hold the truth to be sacred. Because the truth is sacred, then the means they know of approaching the truth also partakes of that sanctity. So beverly, in trying to point out to fallow how she feels about his trash-talking of religion, trash-talks science and offends fallow.

At least that's what it looked like to me. But to me it seems that we serve the same God, the Truth. "I am the Way and the Truth and the Light." Doing Science is also serving God.

To scientists, too, I want to say that science knows it is incomplete. Like a Goedelian formal system, to gain in precision it willingly gives up completeness. Even if we can't understand God in a scientific sense of knowledge, that doesn't mean there is no knowledge available to us at all. Religion is the empirical knowledge stage. The stage that the makers of the great Samarai swords were in steelmaking, when they coded their understanding in prayers and rituals. It is the mysterious beginnings of knowlege, the place outside science where new hypotheses come from.

Just because a holy seer can be mistaken about the thermonuclear nature of the stars does not mean such a person doesn't know more than me about many things, for instance how one should live this weird incredible mystery called life.

Religion vs. Science is a false dichotomy. Both seek the Truth.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
First off, TM and fallow should cool it down several degrees. They are acting like chums on a playground trying to one up each other's rudeness, although there doesn't seem to be any actual argument.

Now for some comments. This might have been dropped, but here it goes . . .

I don't believe that "Mother in Heaven" is a basic belief for LDS Theology. Don't get me wrong. I didn't say it wasn't a belief, just not a very important one compared to others. In fact, its not only hardly explicit, it is mostly derived. The notion of a Mother in Heaven is implied more than stated.

My point is not to reject the doctrine, as I believe it does exist as such. However, the only reason there is such an idea is because many pieces of the gospel "puzzle" wouldn't make sense without coming to the conclusion. That, by the way, is why I don't think Mormons have done or will allow much to be done with the idea of the feminine God. Mother in Heaven is theologically much like background noise to other more explicit issues. She "comes out" when there is no way of explaining a concept without her missing presence.

Why then does God not give more information about Mother in Heaven? I believe that is because its not in "the Plan" that she plays an open part. God has given very specific information about worship, and she is not part of that order. Other than that, I don't think a reason is given -- no matter how many justifications of the situation are explained. Now, I can speculate that it is out of respect, or that when you speak of God you are speaking of both Mother and Father in Heaven, or there might be multiple mothers. To be honest with myself at this time, it is one of those things that I am forced to say, "I don't know. Ask God."
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Interesting interpretation, Occasion.

We are not chums and I'll match rudeness for rudeness. I have this dislike for backing down in the face of challenge. Call it a quirk. Be that as it may, I think Fallows and I are done for the thread.

As to the other - fair enough. As I noted before, certain nuances are not given to explanation as others might be. It would be asking why do we describe dieties with the word "god" and not call them "tomatos?" I happen to like a slice of God on my chicken sandwich, thanks. Why did humanity form language in _this_ fashion and not that fashion? Why does the American South have this twang while Northern America has its own accent?

If you want to question why Joseph Smith described it that way - I don't know. Did he have ulterior motives? Was this a massive product of his fantasy? Possibly. Or maybe God did reveal himself and this is part of His grand plan. Equally possible.

Why is water wet? Why don't we drink liquid oxygen instead of breathing it in gaseous form? I honestly don't know and I could rationalize it as "that's not how life evolved on this planet" or "well, God liked this particular model." Maybe on another planet, they do drink liquid oxygen and don't breathe.

Some things just happen.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I'm not sure that I believe our Heavenly Mother is inactive; I can't imagine my wife being inactive in the lives of our kids, why should she?

What if (heretical musings? possible) Father and Mother are both the God to whom we pray?

Then again, why doesn't God just come out and say, 'Hey, your Mom's been here this whole time, we're just like REALLY united, see?'


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, just to clarify, my intention was not so much to trash-talk science as to make a point. It bugs me when atheists and agnostics look at believers as delusional and science as the only "right" way to come to know anything. They seem to think that if you believe in God, there is something wrong with you.

True, there are plenty of believers who are not adept at rational thought. But there are also plenty of believers that are. They are intelligent, rational people, and yet they still believe. So there must be more to it than that.

So for the sake of making a point, I attacked science. It is not an accurate reflection of my actual feelings on the subject.

Edit: After re-reading ak's post, I am tempted to think this post of mine is redundant.

[ July 19, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Occasional, I am in agreeance with you. I am not particularly comfortable talking about something as doctrinal that is not explicit, but I did want to try to answer the question posed.

I'm a sucker for satisfying curiousity, being the intensely curious creature I am myself. As long as the curiousity is respectful.

[ July 19, 2004, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Snicker. Actually, you made some very valid points regarding Science, Faith and Religion.

I am willing to concede that I take it on Faith that oxygen molecules exist. I also believe that if I choose to pursue the matter, I can find oxygen molecules on my own. And I tend to take current theories regarding the Universe much the same way I hold most religions - "Really? Cool. Now prove it."

Science is not an end-all, be-all philosophy in and of itself. It can be argued that Science is as much a study into the mind of God as philosophy or even theology.

However, my opinion on Religion differs in that I do think it's delusional. I can't prove it doesn't exist, which as we've noted before, lack of proof doesn't disprove the idea. But some sort of proof would be nice before I commit myself to this philosophy.

Otherwise, I might as well sacrifice a chicken to my computer in the hopes it makes the Blue Screen of Death go away. Yum - chicken fingers.

I respect your right to have Faith in something that is important to you and I also concede that the "proof" of faith may be such that one must believe in order to receive that proof.

However, from my perspective and I mean no personal offense, but there is precious little difference between your Faith and any other group - be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Wiccan or Barnian.

Sorry, I'm rambling and revisiting old ground.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"It bugs me when atheists and agnostics look at believers as delusional and science as the only 'right' way to come to know anything."

The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something. Now, you can require less evidence of something before you choose to believe it, but you're still going to base your belief on SOMETHING empirical, some sort of observation on which you've hung a hypothesis; to do otherwise, I submit, is something that we would all clearly regard as lunacy. (In fact, that's a fair definition of genuine raving insanity: holding a belief for no reason whatsoever.)

Agnostics and atheists, then, simply believe that the standard of proof on which most believers rely is insufficiently rigorous to rule out the more likely possibilities of self-delusion and groupthink. And believers, who as a general rule believe that insufficient evidence is a CONDITION of their faith, basically have to admit that this evidence is insufficient to everyone except themselves.

I see no way past this, so you're probably going to have to learn to shrug it off.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 

quote:

---

"It bugs me when atheists and agnostics look at believers as delusional and science as the only 'right' way to come to know anything."

The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something.

---

Well there's a significant difference between "science" and "scientific method". Other than that though, I agree with you, logic is the only reason anyone believes anything, even if the logic is simply "my preacher told me so". I think every Thiest on this board has a much stronger logical argument backing up their belief than that, it's just that the logic mostly eminates from a personal experience that not all share. If you saw God and He told you which religion was right then it wouldn't take a whole lot of logic to have faith in that religion, but it wouldn't be science either, because you couldn't validate your experience to anyone else, and thus your faith would be based on the logical extrapolation of an experience, but it would not be shared by others. I think most of the at least the Christians on this board (and probably most Thiests, but I'm overstepping my bounds enough just speaking of Christians ) have had a smilar experience, just not of the same magnitude. Non-believers either haven't had that experience, or have redpudiated it as un-true (which is also perfectly logical, I'm not saying ti had to have come from God, just that the experience existed that could've come from God) and thus don't feel it's been adequatly proved to them. That's why arguing the veracity of a faith normally doesn't work, someone will point to their personal experiences and the other person will say they haven't had those experiences and then... that's pretty much it.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something.

---

quote:

---

Agnostics and atheists, then, simply believe that the standard of proof on which most believers rely is insufficiently rigorous to rule out the more likely possibilities of self-delusion and groupthink.

---

quote:

---

I have this dislike for backing down in the face of challenge. Call it a quirk

---

quote:

---

The thing is, the scientific method is the ONLY way to come to know something.

---

quote:

---

trusting your pastor on a matter of biology would not be particularly logical, unless you had some reason to believe that pastor was an authority on the subject.

---

quote:

---

Jacare, that's just scientific method by indirection.

Which is fraught with its own perils (the Telephone Game, anyone?). It seems you are trying to squash the idea of learning "How" something is with the method to communicate "How" something is. In English (and probably most languages) these two ideas are often conflated in everyday speech, but that doesn't mean they aren't separate ideas. Which is important for this conversation.

-Bok

---

No, Bok- with reference to any given bit of knowledge you HOPE it is the indirect scientific method, but really, do you have any proof that it is? For many things the proof may be "out there" ie you could go to school or read scientific journals, perform the experiment yourself and then really know, but since people only do that for a limited subset of knowledge it is safe to say that the vast majority of what a person knows is simply authoritarian statements taken on faith.

If we leave the individual aside and take humanity as a whole (what I assume you are doing) then Tom's statement still doesn't hold up. WIth reference to things scientific like how electricity works or how many planets there are etc, yeah, the scientific method will buy you that. But what about the equally important knowledge about say, how to raise children, or how to build a trusting relationship. The scientific method has nothing to say with regards to these pressing human issues.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"But what about the equally important knowledge about say, how to raise children, or how to build a trusting relationship. The scientific method has nothing to say with regards to these pressing human issues."

Are you telling me that people who are qualified to give advice on how to raise children or build a trusting relationship do not base this advice on hypotheses built on their observations and experiences? And that these hypotheses, when taken to heart by others and tested on their own children and relationships, are not vetted for accuracy?

While things like this are certainly "squishy" science -- if only because it's harder to control all the variables -- they're still knowledge obtained through science.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Gee thanks Pook - I was hoping it was because of my dazzling wit and charming repartee.

But I'll take what I can get.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Tom, I think that was my point. We use the word “know” in too many different ways to be able to say that one method is the only way to know something without any qualifiers on what we mean by “know.”
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dag, yes, science is a self correcting system. But at what point to we become sure that science has given us an accurate depiction of THE UNIVERSE AS IT REALLY IS?

Speaking strictly logically, science is not the most efficient method of discovering truth. The most efficient method is revelation from God. If God does not exist, then it is not an option.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Ah. See, I can't help thinking that this is a linguistic flaw and not in fact a contrary argument. If the word "know" is misused in confusing ways, that's not exactly a contradiction.

-----

"The most efficient method is revelation from God."

Bev, even then, God is merely a mechanism by which scientific knowledge can be obtained. He's the ultiamte trustworthy source, but is still a scientific source. It's just like trusting a pastor, only with a bit more oomph.

[ July 19, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Jacare -- believing something because someone told it to you is also part of the scientific method. You are reaching a logical conclusion based on certain premises and observations. Example: "I believe my teacher is correct about this theorem because he is an accredited math teacher, and I have previously followed a logical train of thought that has led me to accept that such accreditation usually results in satisfactorily trained teachers. Ergo, when my teacher tells me something, even if I cannot personally verify this statement on my own at the present time, I am willing to accept it as truth because I have logically come to trust the source." There's nothing illogical about this, and it's perfectly in keeping with the scientific principles; where illogic creeps in is the obvious flaw of this line of thinking: trusting in a source of information on a given subject even if you have no reason to do so, or demonstrable evidence that you should not. (In other words, trusting your pastor on a matter of biology would not be particularly logical, unless you had some reason to believe that pastor was an authority on the subject.)

---

Sorry, I disagree. The scientific method is as follows:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

In accepting second-hand knowledge you certainly don't do step 4 and you probably don't do any of the other steps either. What you do is trust that the source of your information has properly gone through those steps.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
And thus you have the plight of the agnostic. You can't know anything.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Now you're assuming I meant to make a contrary argument.

I was merely asking you to clarify your communication.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"What you do is trust that the source of your information has properly gone through those steps."

Yes. But the great thing about actually basing your belief on science is this: if for some reason you eventually conclude that your source was flawed, you can pick another source or do the experiment yourself and expect to get valid data. There's nothing inherently wrong or unscientific about trusting a source, provided you are willing to withdraw that trust when necessary.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Are you telling me that people who are qualified to give advice on how to raise children or build a trusting relationship do not base this advice on hypotheses built on their observations and experiences? And that these hypotheses, when taken to heart by others and tested on their own children and relationships, are not vetted for accuracy?

---

quote:

---

Yes. But the great thing about actually basing your belief on science is this: if for some reason you eventually conclude that your source was flawed, you can pick another source or do the experiment yourself and expect to get valid data. There's nothing inherently wrong or unscientific about trusting a source, provided you are willing to withdraw that trust when necessary.

---

quote:

---

Dag, yes, science is a self correcting system. But at what point to we become sure that science has given us an accurate depiction of THE UNIVERSE AS IT REALLY IS?

---

Actually, it can't ever give an accurate depiction of the universe as it really is. We can know the current position or the current velocity of parts of it to whatever precision our instruments allow, but we can't know both.

Even without this, I think science can't tell us the really important things about the universe. If there's a God as described in the Judeo-Christian tradition(which I believe there is), nothing can be more important than knowing that he exists and what he wants of us. And science can't tell us that. Nor does it purport to.

I just don't think there's a conflict between science and religion.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I am beginning to think that Tom Davidson has as much faith as many believers do. While you claim not to be athiest, you are pretty sure that God does not exist. Believers are pretty sure that God does exist. All act in accordance with those beliefs.

See my definition of faith: Belief that results in action in accordance with that belief.

So we can't know anything for sure. Then all our "knowledge" is just varying levels of belief and faith which we act in accordance with.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Yeah, well - I've never claimed to know anything Bev.

But seriously - we come back to the problem of: "How do we accept the revelation of someone who we can't confirm or deny actually exists?"

With Science, we at least have the option of discovering knowledge for ourselves. Most of us will trust the lexicon of human knowledge as it has been garnered by the rest of Humanity instead of individually re-testing each "fact" to test its veracity and accuracy.

By contrast, the interpretation and understanding of revelation or Faith is highly subjective and individual experience and cannot be replicated or duplicated by the next person to come along.

-Trevor

P.S. I will stop repeating what others have said - I promise.

Edit 1: Yes Bev - Athiests have just as much Faith or Belief as the religious folk do. They choose a position without fact or proof, just as much as the believers do. Tom's just a True Believer of a different sort.

In fact, the agnostics are the only honest ones because we admit we don't know and are, for the most part, ok with that.

[ July 19, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I also think that because the LDS/Mormon canon is "open" to further revelation, things about it can change. So that makes it a bit like the refinement of science. In the same way the Protestants and Muslims believe in the same God.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think we are on the same page, Dag.
 

---

Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
 

quote:

---

Ah. I see the problem. You're using the word "knowledge" incorrectly.

The scientific method is the only way to gain knowledge. There are, however, lots of ways to gain belief.

---

quote:

---

The thing IS, however, that if you wanted to, you COULD test it, at any given moment, to assuage your worry. And, depending on the equipment used, you'd be able to measure the previous observations as true to some certainty value.

---

quote:

---

Nope. I'm just pretty sure that God as He's been described by the world's major religions does not exist.

---

quote:

---

While it's certainly a postulate, I wouldn't call it "utterly unfounded." Even if you grant that one out of the thousands of religions on this planet is true, that means the vast majority of people who believe they have received some communication from God are in fact self-delusional. The only other logical possibility is that God is in fact communicating with people but giving them different and contradictory messages, in which all these people ARE correct in their perceptions but God Himself is nothing like they believe Him to be.

---

I didn't say the possibility of delusion was unfounded, I said the greater likelihood of delusion was unfounded. Small but important difference.

There's lots of other possibilities. Here's two, from a Christian perspective for simplicity:

1) God is communicating with some people, who then misinterpret what he says.

2) God is communicating with some people, and other supernatural are communicating with others.

It would be possible to come up with more. It's even possible to come up with reasons other than delusion and groupthink where the result is still wrong.

The bottom line is we simply don't know, nor will we likely ever know unless we make a time machine.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Bev, it's a shame that the exact same process described in Alma is also a textbook example of brainwashing. Trying to believe until you believe is pretty much guaranteed to work for anything.

---------

Dag, in order for your two additional possibilities to be MORE likely than groupthink or delusion, you would have to accept two other postulates:

1) That God is such a bad communicator that a significant percentage of the people to whom He speaks do not understand Him, or are driven to misrepresent Him;
2) That the other supernaturals out there conveying different messages either outnumber God or communicate faster and more efficiently.

If you're willing to accept these possibilities, I'm willing to let the "greater likelihood" bit slide.

[ July 19, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Tom - you and I think way, way too much alike.

Bev - I'll give it a skim. But I'm not promising anything.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I must say, that is a pretty cynical view of it. But I can understand why you look at it that way.

Edit: I personally think a lot of people call things brainwashing that are nothing of the sort. By such definitions, it is *impossible* for a parent not to brainwash their child, despite their best efforts.

[ July 19, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
In my education, I didn't learn any facts. I only learned strongy supported theories. There is no right and wrong in Linguistics, only stronger and weaker arguments. Data may arise that will require revision. The Ph.D.s kind of hope it does, otherwise they will be out of a job.

P.S. Tom, I don't have any problem with those premises.

[ July 19, 2004, 02:22 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

That the other supernaturals out there conveying different messages either outnumber God or communicate faster and more efficiently.

---

1. Yes Virginia, there is a God
2. God has a plan and it's (insert here)
3. Begin

Unless of course, all the conflict, strife and general confusion is part of his greater plan and there is a purpose that we are unaware of yet.

To which I submit, I cannot be against God's plan if he expects me to challenge the belief of his Children. Like the barrels in the obstacle course, I serve the greater purpose.

Edit 2: For grammar
Edit 3: Because I forgot to note Edit 1 tags.

[ July 19, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, an BTW, Tom, I think don't think this is a "try to believe until you believe" as much as it is a "drive this car so you can see for yourself how well it handles." Is that brainwashing? It is asking you to try something out. Try before you buy. How is that brainwashing?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Try before you buy. How is that brainwashing?"

Well, speaking as someone who HAS tried, and didn't buy, I was told repeatedly that I had not apparently tried in the right spirit, or honestly enough, or humbly enough, or....Anyway, you get the idea: that I would have to keep trying, each time with less and less skepticism, and I would know that I was finally doing it properly when I felt what they told me I should be feeling.

That is, I'm afraid, brainwashing.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Unfortunately, the logic tends to be: Well if it didn't happen, obviously you didn't do it right.

Which is one possible explanation. Another is - there was nothing to happen and I'm not willing to lie or pretend something did happen.

If I make myself believe, then yes - I could find faith. But that doesn't convince me of the inherent rightness or correctness of this faith versus any other self-perpetuating belief system.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Dag, in order for your two additional possibilities to be MORE likely than groupthink or delusion, you would have to accept two other postulates:

1) That God is such a bad communicator that a significant percentage of the people to whom He speaks do not understand Him, or are driven to misrepresent Him;
2) That the other supernaturals out there conveying different messages either outnumber God or communicate faster and more efficiently.

---

quote:

---

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act• for himself. Wherefore, man could not act• for himself save it should be that he was enticed• by the one or the other.

---

"One or the other" refers to good and evil.

So how would man know what to believe? That is what the Holy Ghost is for. While the communication is subtle, it is undeniable unless a person is being dishonest with themselves.

How do you know the difference between such influence and the thoughts and feelings natural to your mind? First, I imagine you do have to be actually looking for it. Secondly, you have to be ready to receive it, to accept it. Thirdly, if you experience it, you will know.

Not the most satisfactory answer, but oh well.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Okay, I WAS going to stay out of this, but Tom...

quote:

---

1) That God is such a bad communicator that a significant percentage of the people to whom He speaks do not understand Him, or are driven to misrepresent Him;

---

You don't think God has the ability to make us all believe exactly as he wants us to believe instanteously whenever he wants? Sure, God could just suddenly open himself up so that everyone in the world would know him, and know all the answers to all the questions, and have no division or argumentation of beliefs at all...

...but then that wouldn't be freewill on our part, would it? It wouldn't be giving us a choice as to whether or not to believe on faith. That would make us nothing more than his drones -- because there would be no CHOOSING to follow God...

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
To both Tom and Trevor, while I might privately believe that is true--that the reason you did not receive a witness has more to do with you than the actual truth--I probably wouldn't say that to your face unless directly asked.

I can't speak of your specific experience, Tom, because I know nothing about it. Nothing to go on.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Trevor,

Beverly touched on some of the possible effects of too direct communication with God. There are others that have been discussed, but I think these are the big two.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Which I will concede is entirely possible.

It may be that God does exist and to experience his proof requires me to first embrace him of my own free will.

It is equally possible that I cannot hope to understand God's intentions as He is so completely alien to my own understanding, so every challenge I pose has a legitimate answer that is beyond my ken to understand.

But from my outsider's perspective, that answer could be applied to any number of philosophies, Christianity or LDS being just two of the chorus. And with equal justification.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
As long as you admit that it is a possibility, that's fine with me. I freely admit that the explaination of their being no God makes just as much sense to the human mind. I am not at all surprised at the growing number of athiests and agnostics about us. People can come up with explainations to believe whatever they want to believe.

I just want Tom to admit that he is every bit as evangelical as I am, if not more so.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, BTW Tom, if you have tried and you ain't buyin' and the person is pressuring you further, that is akin to brainwashing. I would hope that I haven't done that to anyone.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"Beverly touched on some of the possible effects of too direct communication with God."

If God has chosen to deliberately be vague and indeterminate, every single soul that is not "saved" can be laid directly at His feet. When students do not learn, we blame the teacher.

-----

Bev, I'll freely admit to trying to be an evangelical agnostic; in fact, I announced my intentions along those lines a month or two ago on this forum, specifically in response to what I believe is a growing religious threat not only to our society but specifically to this forum. *grin*
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Yes Bev - that's why when push comes to shove, I claim "indecisive, unknowing Agnostic" on most of my forms.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

If God has chosen to deliberately be vague and indeterminate, every single soul that is not "saved" can be laid directly at His feet. When students do not learn, we blame the teacher.

---

quote:

---

If God has chosen to deliberately be vague and indeterminate, every single soul that is not "saved" can be laid directly at His feet. When students do not learn, we blame the teacher.

---

quote:

---

Ah, but consider a patient God who gives us every chance to accept Him, both in this life and for quite a long while after this life. According to my understanding of LDS theology, our own personal final judgement does not come until God has given us far more chances than we deserve.

---

[ July 19, 2004, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Zalmoxis ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
@Lucifer: we're only getting one side of the story. And probably a garbled one at that.

And I refer you to my "barrels on the obstacle course" idea. Perhaps Lucifer is fulfilling his own requirements in the grand plan.

Zal - I don't think any doctrine or dogma could fully and completely answer every challenge presented to it. Certainly not to the satisfaction of determined skeptics and those of us who attempt to understand the world and indeed the Universe through our own perceptions, abilities and therefore limitations.

LDS is in no way different from any other theology - they do their best to answer, but short of a definitive answer key, the best response is "well, we believe this to be true."

Beverly was quite succinct when she supplied the notion that a core LDS belief is that even God must adhere to rules, although he does so out of choice rather than inherent limitation. It justifies quite a bit, but only if you accept the premises of:

1. God exists
2. God is bound by rules that he agrees to follow
3. Some things are just "It's a God thing, you wouldn't understand"

quote:

---

FG, I disagree that if God told us, with complete certainty that he existed, that it would remove free will from us. Telling someone a fact doesn't remove the free will of a person to act on that given fact.

---

quote:

---

Why does he intervene at some times and not at others, and in some ways and not in others?

---

quote:

---

FG, I disagree that if God told us, with complete certainty that he existed, that it would remove free will from us. Telling someone a fact doesn't remove the free will of a person to act on that given fact.

---

quote:

---

However I think there are ways God could communicate that would give surety to his existence, even his religious preference, while not unveiling any particular future plans, and thus not revoking free will.

---

quote:

---

A while back, I described one method that I used when I was seeking.

---

I must have missed that.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Well, after getting pretty thoroughly frustrated with the traditional methods of seeking God, I put a piece of colored construction paper in a sealed envelope in my closet and checked it periodically to see if bits of color had been changed in order to form a message. No dice.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Only if he tried to tell me how to vote.

---

So you admit he'd be telling you to vote for Bush?

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
*sneaks into Tom's closet*

FG
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Actually, FG, that's a perfect example of how difficult it could be to come up with 100% reliable communication. What if another entity snuck in there and made the message? If God is choosing to not physically restrain creatures he's given free will, then it's hard to imagine any message not subject to doubt.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oh, I also humbly submit that while there may have been athiests since the beginning of civilization, as science reveals an increasingly complex universe the number of athiests has increased; that God may have chosen such a time to reveal additional doctrine answering certain questions more completely in order to deal with new generations of His increasingly more inquisitive children? (sorry 'bout the run-on-sentance)

I know the explainations from the other side already, but just a thought.
 

---

Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
 
Has anyone here read "Contact?" Something like the proof that Ellie found would convince me. I think it would probably convince just about any skeptic.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tom, you obviously didn't stuff the envelope sincerely enough.

j/k
----

Edited to add that the above was said with all respect and affection, and that any smidgeon of snarkiness contained therein is directed towards and only towards those that want him to try the prayer thing again (e.g., me).

Edited II: Oh, now I'm worried because I didn't show respect towards the experiment. I suspect that Tom never lost his sense of humor even in the midst of that, and that's what I was appealing to, but there's a chance that there's nothing humoresque there at all and I'm being horribly offensive. Give me 30 seconds and I'll probably delete this out of panic.

Edited III: Pop is brilliant. We knew that.

[ July 19, 2004, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

as science reveals an increasingly complex universe the number of athiests has increased

---

Maybe the causality of this statment is reversed. "At the current rate of increase, by 2010 everyone in North America will be an Elvis impersonator." just popped into my head. I saw it on a show about Elvis impersonators once.

P.S. Dagonee- yes the glory of God would not only kill a mortal, but would take away our free agency. That is why the Holy Ghost is how He communicates with us. (Switching to LDS theology) The Holy Ghost is not as strong as any mortal, so we can abide its presence and disobey/distort what we are told.

[ July 19, 2004, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
bev, well I hope he judges me mercifully for trying to be the most decent person I can be... And forgives my selfishness in hoping that I get to remain in the highest heaven regardless of the advertised prices

-Bok

[ July 19, 2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Kat, if you include "j/k " then it's all good.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 

quote:

---

See, by my definition, you're an atheist, Verily.

---

How do you figure? By definition, an atheist is a person who believes that God does not exist. A true atheist does not accept the possibility that God may exist. An atheist says, "There is no God."

I say nothing of the kind. I say, "There may be a God. There may even, for all I know, be an entire pantheon of gods." I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility. I'm even willing to listen to evidence trying to convince me one way or the other. So far, none of the evidence--pro-existence or anti-existence--has appeared convincing to me. Therefore I have not joined either camp.

It's possible that I may one day take a side--but only if presented with convincing evidence. And frankly, the atheists would have a much harder time of that than the theists. If God exists, then it should be possible, theoretically, to prove it. The fact that no one, as far as I can see, has yet managed to do so does not constitute proof of the opposite position. It could never really be proven that God doesn't exist, even if it is true.

So though it may appear to the religious-minded that I tend toward atheism, in that I don't live my life as though I am being watched and judged by a Supreme Being, the truth is that it would be much easier to convert me to some religion than to convert me to atheism. Before I could become an atheist, I'd need to be presented with credible evidence that God doesn't exist, and frankly, I just don't think that's possible.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Sorry Tom - you're on your own. Every reply I make comes across either as snarky or just repeating earlier comments.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
The mercy of God is not a bad thing to hope for. Being the best you can be has got to be helpful.

Pooka, my phrasing there was not quite as I would like it to be. There are so many reasons for more people today to be athiest or agnostic. People have more lesiure time, are less dependent on "Providence" (at least in this prosperous, relatively peaceful country), are more educated (therefore more questioning, more curious), *and* with the scientific discoveries, past scripture is being called into question.

So, if God knows this will happen, is expecting it, it is not unreasonable to assume that He might see fit to reveal more about Himself and the universe to give people more reason to believe.

But that would be assuming causality in a one direction when it is just as easy for someone to assume causality in the other.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Is there a term for someone who doesn't know if there is a Creator/s or Supreme Being/s, doesn't think you can no, and yet strongly rejects the idea of the traditional Judeo/Christian/Muslim God?

It seems like a fair amount of agnostics fit into that sub-category--people turned off by the Biblical God.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Angry Atheist
or
Angry Agnostic
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
There needs to be a graemlin for that....
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 


I don't know if that was directed against me or not, but I will provide a response.

The Biblical or Christian God is the most common factor in conversion attempts or lectures regarding my morality and/or spirituality.

Although living in the South, I may be more exposed than most to questions like "have I been saved" or "have I met my Lord and Savior?"

To a lesser extent, the Religious Right seems to favor a proactive action in using their God to dictate law and policy in this country - see the birth control and abortion threads, as well as gay rights, etc.

As a genuinely neutral agnostic, I feel that I must respond in the same manner in which I feel like I am being challenged. The more I feel I am pushed, the more I feel I have to push back. By comparison, I have yet to be confronted by Buddhists or Hindus or even Muslims trying to convert me. Which, again, may be simply a matter of geographical happenstance.

Bev is one of the few people who is willing to concede that there is a vague chance she might be wrong and she doesn't have any intention of making me see the error of my ways, nor does she believe I must be converted.

To that end, I have made every effort not to be offensive in discussing the finer points of the admittedly fascinating theology discussion because I think she is receptive and isn't trying to force her belief system where it isn't wanted.

So I'm not angry, per se, but rather vigorous in defense of my position. Which, hopefully, doesn't require the liberal use of a stake and charcoal briquettes.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
 
This site is the best I have found for information on atheism and agnosticism, including really great definitions and an exploration of different kinds of atheism.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I was more thinking of Tom (and others) than you, Trevor, especially considering how respectful you have been in our discussion here. *BUT* I am not surprised to hear that you have been soured to the Judeo/Christian (or maybe just Christian) religions by your experiences. I could kinda tell.

And I am not surprised either. Many people are offensive about it. It is a shame to discount the doctrine because the believers were insensitive or obnoxious. They are human and imperfect. But hopefully they are trying to be better.

Of course there are plenty of people who want to believe that they are believers, but they are not all that serious about following. Best not to judge religions by those people either.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Trevor, it isn't the case that you and Tom are alone on this board. It's that most of your agnostic fellows don't usually look in a fast moving thread on Mormon Theology. If you run a search on "agnostic" you can find a lot of interesting discussions. I haven't been able to find the particular one I was thinking of. Maybe it was Faith vs. Religion.

As a bible belt survivor, let me say you have my sympathies.

P.S. While I am definitely a believer, I haven't perfected living my life as if someone were watching either.

[ July 19, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Nah, pooka, I'm talking about outright hypocracy there. Being dishonest about the whole thing. I doubt that is your problem.
 

---