So roughly 4 months after the first visit (and roughly 2 months after my visit to an LDS Church), I have the missionaries coming again on Tuesday. Actually only one of the two that initially came is coming; the other got transferred to another place or something. I've got some questions lined up for them again, so I think it'll be interesting. I'll post here what happens since I'm sure someone else finds it interesting. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Good luck with that.
Reminds me of what my Dad said when some new elders came by our house, after he hadn't seen any in several months:
"Hey, I know you! You're the Mission Mormonaries!"
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
I would love to hear about your experience with the missionaries. I grew up in a very small town in the Bible Belt and have never experienced any sort of missionaries. I have always just wanted to talk to other people who have really been trained to talk about and promote their faith. If I weren't a Catholic nun who has absolutely no intention of converting I would invite them here.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
They wouldn't mind talking with you about their faith even if you have no intention of converting. It's good for interfaith relations that we know more about one another. Hopefully they'll tract into you some day, or you can go to www.mormon.org and look around if you are interested. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I agree with Tatiana. Last time, they were just glad that I was willing to talk to them (even more glad that I had questions for them about their religion). They may still want to convert you, but you don't have to by any means. You can just talk and tell them you were interested in hearing their ideas.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
I'm just not sure how they'd feel about coming up to a monastery. That might be a bit awkward
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I believe that there are many former missionaries on this site. They seem to be very open to talking to people about their experiences and their church.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
They skipped my house. Hit every house on the street but mine. Could it have been the mezuzah? I felt rather left out.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
katdog, I don't think the monastery would phase them. You would know if it might make folks around you uncomfortable, but don't worry about making the missionaries uncomfortable. I think it's nearly impossible.
pfresh, definitely let us know how it goes. Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
katdog- While I was a missionary, I was invited to visit a nun who lived in a convent. It was a delightful and memorable experience for my companion and me. We had a wonderful discussion and then she gave us a tour around the grounds. I imagine that many missionaries would enjoy such an experience.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Narnia, will do. Expect a report back here once they leave (which could be anywhere from 7:30PM to 8PM).
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
On my mission in Italy, I visited with priests on several occasions...no nuns or monks, though--I would have enjoyed it, but the closest I got was a Dominican monk who snuck up on us while we were visiting the Church of St. Dominic in Bologna and started yelling at us in English.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I found a card from one of our missionaries (he sent it after he was home) when I was cleaning out my desk this morning. Such a nice guy.
We had maybe ten come through all together, and there was only one that gave off a "jerk" vibe. Which, if you as me, is pretty darned fine odds. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Report time. First thing, I busted my toe on my table. Hurts a lot. But that's just a minor complaint
So I had prepared a sort of mental list of questions to ask or subjects to discuss (I have yet to let a Mormon missionary give me a lesson). Today I had one of the big questions as my first one; one I knew that unbalanced me just as a regular Christian and which I knew might keep them off balance at first.
The question is based off two basic assumptions. First, the assumption that God is omnipotent and can do whatever He wants. Second, that Jesus had to die to atone for our sins. The question is this: If God is truly omnipotent, then why did Jesus have to die to atone for our sins?
The answer I came to just by my own line of reasoning was this: that there must be some higher restraint (a celestial restraint if you will) on God that sort of made him do it that way. Either that or God is jerk and just let his son die for it rather than doing something else about it.
The Mormons (1 missionary I had met before, 1 missionary I hadn't met before, and 1 guy I knew who I went to church with once and e-mailed quite often) were sort of off set by my question. There was silence for a while. They weren't sure how to answer it. They dug through scriptures and stuff. In the end, they sort of came to my conclusion (using scripture for a basis). They said that God when creating everything set up certain laws. To be perfectly just, God must obey those laws himself (or else it all falls apart). In this case, there was a law set about the atonement for sin. While there may have been a way God could get around it without the sacrifice of his son (a way we might not see or know), the sacrifice of Jesus was the best or most optimum way of doing this.
After that, we discussed faith and the fact that faith usually precedes miracles. I forget why we discussed this, but it did come up.
Then we started talking about faith inside you. The guy who knew me made mention of something I had talked to him about over e-mail (I can go into it here if someone wants me to). He said that that example showed that I had a small light of faith in me. I just needed to pray earnestly and have true desire for knowledge. That those coupled with my faith would give me the answer to such questions.
Then we talked about the problems with my family (again the guy who knew me brought it up). Both my parents and my brother (although not my sister) are hardcore against the Mormon church. My brother mocks it based on broad generalizations of the religion, and my parents just seem to see the church as a cult. I tried to talk to my father about my interest in the Mormon church. He said that the only reason I was interested in it was to find a girl with similar values as my own (no smoking, no drinking, no sex before marriage). That thought had crossed my own mind, but when he said it it set in my mind. I told the missionaries this and they nodded. They said that I just needed to read the Book of Mormon more, pray more, and such. That if the Mormon Church was right for me, God would reveal that to me.
After that (since it had been slightly over an hour), they decided it was about time to leave. They made an appointment to talk to me before church on Sunday (and for me to possibly go to church with them afterwards). So that will be round 3 with the missionaries.
Hopefully this post will be meaningful or something to someone out there. I find it kind of fun to chronicle my adventures with the Mormons. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Hopefully this post will be meaningful or something to someone out there. I find it kind of fun to chronicle my adventures with the Mormons. [Big Grin]
Besides being intellectually stimulating and fun, are you getting anything out of this? Are you interested in perhaps joining the religion? Or are you just enjoying the discussion?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Could it have been the mezuzah?
Probably not. Most missionaries wouldn't have known what it was. (Er...neither did I, until I looked it up.)
Not sure why they skipped on you, Stephen.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'm interested in the church and may join at some point. At the same time, it's just interesting to discuss and listen to other ideas.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Awesome! I had the same thing happen to me that I was curious about the church for one reason initially (curiosity about these odd beliefs ) and then as I learned more, the things that I had thought already about many things (like your question about God and Christ and omnipotence) were exactly what the church taught. The next thing that happened is that other questions I had never asked were answered in ways that seemed very right to me. The further I investigated the church, the more things clicked and I just felt way down deep that yes, this is true, all this is real, to the extent that we can understand now, this is how things really are. I knew without knowing how I knew. It all made sense and explained so much to me.
So as you continue, you should expect to feel more and more sure until you won't need to wonder or ask anyone else if it's right for you, you'll just know. The thing to do at this point is to continue to ask questions in your mind, to pray about everything, and to listen for the still small voice. Also, feel totally free to ask anyone LDS any question you might have about the church, or doctrines. Maybe ask more than one person, to get different perspectives. The missionaries are the ones who are trained to answer, but anyone should be able to tell you their view.
When I was investigating, several people, particularly Emily Milner, and Samuel Bush and his wife Vivian, answered many of my questions very well indeed. I was impressed not so much by their logic as the spirit of their replies. Always, the love was there, and the feeling of wholeness, and the ring of truth. Their conviction came through, and the strength of their experience in the gospel.
Listen with your heart as well as your mind and spirit, and I expect you will hear the same thing. Good luck with your journey. I'm so glad that you have had the courage to take the steps you've taken so far. I know that God will lead you on the path he wants you to walk.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
LDS scripture makes it pretty clear that God has to follow the rules or he ceases to be God. (I assume that part of being God is the fact that He never *will* go against the rules.)
The idea here is that there truly was no other way, and that this was the plan from the begining. We believe that we lived with God as spirit beings before birth and the plan was laid out before us then, and it follows that pretty much everyone born on earth approved of it.
Some say this means that we believe in a God that is not omnipotent. I understand this line of reasoning, it makes sense. We believe that God has all power that it is possible to have and therefore no one has more power than He has. Not the classic definition of "omnipotent," but if it is impossible to truly be omnipotent, the word isn't very useful in that classic definition. I have little problem with using the word to mean "having all power that is possible to have."
We do believe that God is omniscient.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Omniscient was never up for debate. I just had a hard time saying omnipotent since I was using the classic definition (all powerful, can basically do anything). I understand though what you are saying. You are sort of emphasizing what the missionaries already said. It's good stuff though.
As for Tatiana's response, a lot of people said similar things back in November or so when I first started looking into the church. Things go slowly with me, particularly because of the family issue. We'll see how it goes though.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:You are sort of emphasizing what the missionaries already said. It's good stuff though. [Smile]
Yup. I guess I am. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Go as slowly as you need to. This is important stuff so resist any pressure to rush things.
The family issues are tough and I wish there was a easy answer. When my great great grandmother joined the Mormon church, she came home from her baptism to find all of her possessions in the middle of the street. Her Father never spoke with her again. I think this extreme would be pretty uncommon in a 21st century American family but that doesn't mean things will be easy. Most modern American families will eventually come to respect an individuals choice with time but some do not.
I'm curious about your Dad's assessment that you are only interested in the Mormon Church for girls. Is this purely hypothetical or do you (have you) had Mormon girl friends?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Purely hypothetical. He knows the type of girl I want to date (and eventually marry), and he knows that the Mormon church would probably higher number of them. So it's a hypothetical thing. I haven't had any Mormon girlfriends to my knowledge.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
pfresh, one book I enjoyed was C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. Of course he wasn't LDS, so I don't agree with everything he said in it; but he made a good explanation of why we need a Savior in the first place.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'll be sure to check that out the next time I'm out at the bookstore (which'll probably be Thursday). Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I had a lot of objections from my family too. It's not a happy thing. But gradually over time they've come to accept it, and don't seem to harbor any grudges or bitterness now. I believe with time they may even be glad of it. I think it's probably obvious to them that I'm a better person now, stronger, happier, and more determined and committed to do what's right, and to make a positive difference in the world, and in all my spheres of influence.
One thing that really helped me a lot with family issues was an article I read in the Ensign a while back about how to deal with issues that arise from having family who aren't in the church. It was intended for people who are already members, but it was just great! I expect it would help investigators too. I followed several of the suggestions and they helped a lot. Let me see if I can find that article on the church website and link you to it.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'd be interested in reading that article, Tatiana. Thanks. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm not having much luck in my website search. Maybe I'll just flip through my paper copies to see if I can come up with the issue it was in. That should help me locate it online. I would like to read it again, too. I might find some more good suggestions I can try. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well best of luck in finding it. I look forward to reading it whenever you find it.
Side note: Post 999. Landmark in preparation. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Just to give another perspective, I have family members who have a problem with the LDS church. I've been going to the LDS church since I was very young whenever my mother took us, but couldn't be baptized since my father was opposed to the church (violently so). I and my sister were baptized after my father had brain aneurisms, wasn't expected to live or have any brains if he did, so he could no longer stand in the way. My sister has long since joined another church and my mother - well, she never was a very good member.
My oldest brother is atheist and the second brother is baptist. Baptist brother things - and says quite vocally at every available opportunity - that I will burn in hell, I'm a satan worshipper, my church is a cult, and I (personally and specifically me) am The AntiChrist. Atheist brother doesn't care - he gets picked on for being atheist. Sister and I don't discuss religion, which is perfectly fine. We just respect that we have differing beliefs.
Other family members - aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents - have ranged wildly from having respect for what I believe to the whole burning in hell bit. Some are vocal, vicious, and downright mean and nasty. Others are very much live and let live.
I'm just pointing out that the happiness scenario that some people have of family members coming around doesn't always happen. If you reach the point where you're serious about being baptized, you need to understand and prepare for this possibility.
[/wet blanket]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My aunt in Houston works in a dental office right next to the mission office for her area. One day, she met the elders on the street and excitedly asked them if they knew my brother, who was also a missionary. In Mexico City.
They said no. And then asked if she was interested in learing about the church.
She said absolutely not. Emphatically. She thinks the church is wildly wrong and we are all horribly misguided. However, she loves us very much and wants us to be happy in it. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
My father's initial reaction when I mentioned it in a sort of oblique way was a) "you're an adult and can make your own decisions about your life, but I don't really agree with this one" and b) "are you sure you are looking at that church for the right reasons?". That's not a horribly negative reaction or anything. I think my mother and brother will have worse reactions if I ever have to tell them about it. Not really looking forward to that if it has to happen.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Sounds like some very good issues to raise rather than freaking out. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
That's cool pfresh, thanks for the chronicle.
I had a thought about your question about God and the reason for an Atonement. What beverly said about God following the rules is absolutely supported by the scriptures.
So what's the rule? Mormon doctrine teaches that we have the ability to become like God and that this life is a time to be tested and tried that we might learn and progress. This life is only the beginning and if we 'pass', we'll continue on the journey to becoming Gods ourselves.
Well, we can't 'pass' and return to the presence of God having sinned. Being physical beings here on this earth, it's impossible for us NOT to sin. We can't pay the price for sin even if we do the very best we can. Hm. Problem. This is a problem that even God can't get around, no matter how merciful He is. Justice must be done and we have to fully pay the price. We can't. So, there had to be an ultimate holy sacrifice to pay off justice and make up for our human weaknesses.
God is perfectly just and in being perfectly just, He would have to damn us all to hell fire eternal just for being human. That's why we need the atonement.
This is pretty much the same thing other folks have said, I just wanted to expand a bit. Mere Christianity is a fantastic book, I'd love to hear what you think of it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:This is a problem that even God can't get around, no matter how merciful He is. Justice must be done and we have to fully pay the price.
The problem I have with this is that I'm apparently more powerful than God. When somebody wrongs me, I have the ability to forgive them without a blood sacrifice.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yes you do. But you don't have the responsibility for upholding Order in all of creation. Your forgiveness, or lack thereof affects nothing of your offender's eternal state.
A simple analogy follows. Say for example someone beats you up badly. You have the power to forgive the offender. The prosecutor however must enforce the law and send the person to prison. Would you say you are more powerful than the prosecutor in determining this person's fate? Please don't stretch the analogy further or deeper than it was intended.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Bao, I know you threw a caveat in there, but the analogy doesn't apply. There are very few cases where the prosecuter can bring a case, without the victim's [EDIT: explicit] approval.
For instance, in the Dick Cheney shooting situation, which seems to be exactly like your analogy, the victim didn't wish to press charges, and was willing to "forgive" VP Cheney; as a result no charges were filed directly related to the assault itself (a minor violation was issued due to a lack of proper licensing, but that was technically independent of the incident itself). In this case, the victim WAS more powerful than any prosecuter in determining the fate of the transgressor.
I do understand your larger point about responsibility and such, though. Your analogy, with caveat, doesn't seem to really illuminate your original point, IMO.
-Bok
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I think the explanation (involving justice) that the Mormon missionaries gave sort of made sense to me. If there was no justice, then there'd really be no sense of right and wrong. If there's no right and wrong, there's no happiness and/or sadness. If there's no happiness and sadness, there's no real life. Life, as they sort of said, is about the oppositions that exist. Happiness and sadness, good and evil, right and wrong. It's like there's a long chain, and if you break one part of the chain the whole rest of it falls apart. At least that's how I took it. *shrugs* I could be totally off.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think that's one way to look at it. I don't want to mess with the current tone of this thread, but you may want to go through each of your "Ifs" and decide if they really are contingent on each other, and if so, are there different ways to decide which and how they are all contingent. From an non-theistic, or even an existentialist POV, The happy/sad could be argued to not follow the right/wrong. From other POVs, including theological ones, you could argue that perhaps you have the Justice and right/wrong reversered. Not saying you will find these ideas satisfying, or correct to you, but think more on it.
And this is aside from the fact that there are POV that grow out from completely different first principles.
-Bok
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:We do believe that God is omniscient.
I've always thought that true omniscience implies omnipotence.
If you truly know everything, you necessarily would know how to do anything. There's a universal law which is stopping you from doing it? Then you know how to get around that. You also know how to remove that law. If you know how to do something, you can do it.
But if you define omnipotence as "having all power that is possible to have", you can similarly define omniscience as "knowing everything it is possible to know" and get around this.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:But you don't have the responsibility for upholding Order in all of creation. Your forgiveness, or lack thereof affects nothing of your offender's eternal state.
I have the responsibility for upholding order in all of the areas that I have dominion over. Forgiveness does nothing to deteriorate this order, and quite frequently it creates order. Why does God's forgiveness in areas he has dominion over create chaos?
quote: If there was no justice, then there'd really be no sense of right and wrong. If there's no right and wrong, there's no happiness and/or sadness. If there's no happiness and sadness, there's no real life.
I don't buy the premise that without justice there's no sense of right and wrong. Justice only means something after you've established what right and wrong is. I think that pain and growth are better prerequisites to right and wrong. It's wrong to beat up my neighbor because it causes him unneeded pain, not because of some vague notion of justice.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote:But you don't have the responsibility for upholding Order in all of creation. Your forgiveness, or lack thereof affects nothing of your offender's eternal state.
I have the responsibility for upholding order in all of the areas that I have dominion over. Forgiveness does nothing to deteriorate this order, and quite frequently it creates order. Why does God's forgiveness in areas he has dominion over create chaos?
Here's an idea, although I don't know how it fits into Mormon (or any religion's) teachings.
Suppose that God created the laws of the universe consisting of both the physical laws (like gravity) and the moral laws (like justice). If God's moral laws are breakable, then that would mean the physical laws would be breakable as well, since both are created by God and depend upon God's infallibility. The entire order of the universe relies on the premise that none of God's laws can be broken.
(This idea reminds me vaguely of Dogma)
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Suppose that God created the laws of the universe consisting of both the physical laws (like gravity) and the moral laws (like justice). If God's moral laws are breakable, then that would mean the physical laws would be breakable as well, since both are created by God and depend upon God's infallibility. The entire order of the universe relies on the premise that none of God's laws can be broken.
I understand that premise. Under it, God and us humans are bound by the same rules. That is why I don't understand how it's a slight of Justice for God to forgive somebody, but it's not when I do the same thing.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Bok- Change the charge then, I'm sure someone can come up with something, arson maybe? IDK. Anyone can come up with a number of analogies to refute mine, thats not the point. The point was to use an idea somewhat familiar in Amanecer's experience to describe an theological/eternal principle. I realize my analogy was lacking (due in part to my own ignorance of the criminal justice system), but I think you see the point I was trying to make.
quote: I have the responsibility for upholding order in all of the areas that I have dominion over. Forgiveness does nothing to deteriorate this order, and quite frequently it creates order. Why does God's forgiveness in areas he has dominion over create chaos?
Amanecer- I had written a lengthy reply to this, but then stopped. It was not my intention to get into an argument over religious matters, but simply to answer your question. We could go back and forth on this all day, and get nowhere. If you're interested in what I think on the matter, there is a fascinating speech written by Cleon Skousen called the Atonement(nondoctrinal) that is pretty close in line with what I think and can do a much better job of explaining than me bantering back and forth with you. I'd be happy to read something that explains your position if you would like. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I understand that premise. Under it, God and us humans are bound by the same rules. That is why I don't understand how it's a slight of Justice for God to forgive somebody, but it's not when I do the same thing.
Okay, here's me trying another hit at it. There's the idea that nothing unclean can come into God's sight. This is what I'd dub as a celestial law of sorts, something that is a limit on God. God needs a way to get around this law. Maybe he has several options of how to do this (how to forgive someone for being unclean and thus allow that person to be in God's presence). Maybe he doesn't. It's hard to say since we don't really know about God and what sort of options are open within the system of rules that are in place. Sacrificing his son is apparently the best option (or maybe the lesser evil) to do this.
The real question then is why is there this celestial law in place, why is there a limit on God. The only explanation I came up with on my own was that it was a side effect of creating life. Life as it exists could only exist if certain things were in place, and these laws must have been one of them. The Mormons offered some similar ideas, at one point one of them said something that made me think of deism and the idea of God as a clockmaker.
I don't know. Maybe I'm not getting anywhere with this. I've come to terms with the idea of necessary sacrifice though myself, and I think that was part of the reason I asked the Mormons the question in the first place.
Posted by Julia (Member # 9244) on :
I think you're right, and I think those are good explanations. I think you're getting somewhere. But I don't think you should listen too much to what people say on these forums. They come up with odd ideas that lead to downward spirals. You are making more sense than anyone else on here.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think people are looking to narrowly at the atonement. While I believe that somehow Christ's sacrifice fullfills a universial law of justice, I don't think this is the only or even the most imporant result of Christ's sacrifice. I have found the atonement of Jesus Christ has an great enable power which makes it possible for us to change. Without it we could never be truly cleaned from our sins, because we could never change fully enough to be new again.
To me the most amaizing power of God, is the power to redeem. By that I mean the power to take bad stuff and turn it into good stuff. The sacrifice of Jesus is the most obvious example of this. God sent his son into the world to love us and teach us, and we not only rejected him, we tortured him to death. What could be more horrible. Yet through the amaizing power of God, that act of evil has been transformed into the most wonderous blessing for all humanity. To be redeemed isn't simply to be forgiven, it is to be changed. Redemption is a processes in which the bad parts of the individual, through the work and faith of the individual and the power of God, are transformed to good.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I would like to add that if God is omnipotent in the literal sense that he has ALL POWER, that necessarily means that no other being can have any power.
For example, if you believe that humans have free will, that we have the power to resist or even defy the will of God, well then God can't have the power to force us. The two are mutually exclusive. A God who had ALL POWER, would be very undesirable from my perspective since that would mean that none of us could power over anything at all, even our own hearts and minds.
I prefer to think of God as optimally powerful rather than all powerful. For me it is enough to realize that God has enough power to redeem me (and everyone else) if I choose that path.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Well said, Rabbit. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For example, if you believe that humans have free will, that we have the power to resist or even defy the will of God, well then God can't have the power to force us. The two are mutually exclusive. A God who had ALL POWER, would be very undesirable from my perspective since that would mean that none of us could power over anything at all, even our own hearts and minds.
They're not mutually exclusive. What God can do and what God chooses not to do are different things.
God could force us to do things. He chooses not to. That doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. It means free will is something so valued by God that he chooses to limit himself in enormous ways, even to tolerating great evil, in order to preserve that free will.
This makes free will more precious and more of a gift, because it doesn't have to be. It is because God wills it to be so, and it is preserved because of the great care He takes in interacting with us.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm sorry Dag, but that is a logical contradiction. If God has the power to force us, then we do not have the power to resist his will. God could have the power and choose not to use it, but that would not give us the power to resist him. Either he has the power or we do -- this is a mutually exclusive situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sorry Dag, but that is a logical contradiction. If God has the power to force us, then we do not have the power to resist his will. God could have the power and choose not to use it, but that would not give us the power to resist him. If he has the power or we do -- this is a mutually exclusive situation.
Unless you are tautologically defining free will as something that doesn't exist if omnipotence exists, the two are not contradictory. Free will is the ability to choose. Omnipotence carries with it the possibility of overriding a person's will. Our will is free - present tense - because God is not overriding it. It will continue to be free because God will not commence overriding it.
A blue house does not stop being blue because I might paint it red someday.
Free will does not mean no limitations. It means we are free to choose. Whether we are free to choose because God let's us choose or because God can't stop us from choosing, it's still free.
Further, God's knowledge of the conditional is absolute. He knows what any given being endowed with free will would freely choose to do given any complete set of preconditions. He is also capable of setting conditions in any way he wishes. However, this does not contradict free will, any more than a parent placing chocolate and broccoli on a table contradicts a kindergartner's free will, even though the parent knows the kid will choose the chocolate.
This, of course, presupposes that physical limitations are distinct from whether a person's will is free. But that's a whole 'nother discussion.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Dag, I really liked your explanation. It was very clear and I got a lot out of it. Thanks for posting it. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:If you're interested in what I think on the matter, there is a fascinating speech written by Cleon Skousen called the Atonement(nondoctrinal) that is pretty close in line with what I think and can do a much better job of explaining than me bantering back and forth with you. I'd be happy to read something that explains your position if you would like.
I appreciate your gracious offer. I found an excerpt from Skousen's "A Personal Search for the Meaning of the Atonement", however I can not find a place to get the full text without purchasing the DVD or audio of it. If you could link me to the text (or free audio), I would read it. I do not have anything for you to read. I don't know that I've ever read something that expressed how I feel about this. I'm certain such texts exist, I've just never been exposed to them.
The necessity of Christ's death just doesn't make sense to me and I doubt that it ever will. When it comes down to it, I don't believe it can make sense without faith. All of you appear to have faith that it was necessary and that this was the best option God had available. All of the explanations seem to start with that premise. I do not have that faith and thus I also lack that premise. I think that wonderful explanations of how it could all be logical have been presented. But they are not convincing in and of themselves.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Isn't that what it usually boils down to though? You always seem to need just a little bit of faith to get you started. At least that's how it seems to me.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I think of explaining the Atonement as the "hot stove principle," where you could tell a child the physics of heat, the cause/effect relationship of electricity as it applies to turning a knob, and the physical changes along the skin as intense heat makes a connection, the damage to nerve endings, and the body's complex reaction to actual contact.
But the kid ain't gonna get all that, so we say "No touchie! Stove hot!"
I figure issues like the Atonement will be covered in "Celestial Dynamics 201," taught sometime after our passing onto the next sphere. In the afternoon, I might take "Debunking Urban Myths 101" and the ever-popular "Why?" lecture series.
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
Ya know, this is a great discussion. I like the differing points of view being offered up here. So perhaps I can add to the discussion.
One of my favorite scriptural sayings (being mormon myself, at the moment I don't know what scripture it comes from) is "My house is a house of order". I love that saying because in the debate concerning why was the sacrifice and atonement necessary, it is very relevant.
Creation is the act of establishing order from chaos. For that order to be maintained rules and laws must be established that cannot be broken by anyone, not even the creator. If the creator broke the laws of order, then those things that he created would slip back into chaos and he would cease to be a/the creator. By creating order and the laws that govern it, the creator then binds himself to follow those rules to maintain the order he has created.
The rules and laws that govern our universe are exact and can be easily defined, even if we don't fully understand all of them yet. However everything that happens in the universe can be defined as an action or a reaction. To maintain order, the universe has to have an equal balance of action and reaction. This concept is a base premise of physics.
God is omnipotent because he had the power to create order out of chaos in the first place. However, he remains God because he maintains the order that he has created.
Okay, justice vs mercy now. Someone above gave the example of the guy beating up his neighbor and then the proscutor has to send the offender to prison. Both the victim and the proscutor are equally powerful in determining the offender's fate. From the side of the proscutor, he/she is bound by the law to proscutor the offender to satisfy the demands of justice. I would like to point out that under our system of government (United States), a proscutor can press charges even if a victim does not or does not want to. Cases of Statutory Rape give prime examples of where a victim would completely oppose the proscution of an offender, but the law ignores the wishes of the victim and convicts the offender anyway. The law in all cases demands justice and justice must be fulfilled.
Now in the case of our offender, the victim can be equally powerful in deciding the fate of the offender. The victim who decides not to proscute fulfills the similar role that Christ does in the atonement. If the victim chooses not to press charges against the offender, the proscutor, who represents justice, can decide that, due to the mercy of the victim, that justice has been fulfilled and the offender can go free.
Now it is important to point out that justice must be satisfied, even under man's law, corrupt or fair. In order for the offender not to suffer the demands of justice, it takes a mediator, someone to step in the place of the offender and satisfy the demands of justice and extend the offender mercy. In the case of your example of both the beating up of the neighbor and of Dick Cheney, someone had to step in, satisfy justice, and extend mercy to the offender. In the case of the neighbor beater it was the victim. In the case of the the VP, it was the sheriff and the friend of Cheney.
Now let's go back to the concept of God, order, and chaos. In order for God to maintain order perfectly, he must also be perfect. Any imperfection would create chaos and chaos is the opposite of order. God maintains order and is therefore a perfect being. In order to live in God's presence, one must also be perfect as well. The scriptures confirm this to us by saying that man is imperfect and that god cannot look upon sin with the least degree of tolerance. Sin is, in its simplest definition, imperfection. So since God is perfect and man is not, how can man enter into God's presence? The answer is Christ. Christ is our bridge into the presence of God.
Now Christ himself was perfect. This is also confirmed by the scriptures, but we can assume that because if he had any imperfections then he too would not be able to stand in the presence of perfection. In order to build this bridge Christ had to do what God, being perfect and perfectly committed to maintaining the order of the universe, could not do himself. In other words, God already had a job. Christ had to be the one to build the bridge to God and pay the toll for our imperfections that we could not. Order demands perfection. Man by the nature of his existance commits sin and therefore becomes imperfect. We cannot undo the sin that we have committed. We can strive to live perfectly, but just one sin makes us imperfect and all of us will commit many sins over the course of our lifetime. Christ was able bridge the gap because he was perfect and able to live a life without sin. Since Christ lived a life without sin, only he could accept the sins of man, or the man's imperfections and still be able to enter back into the presence of perfection. Justice/order demands that only those who are perfect can live with God. Christ was perfect, but accepted the imperfections of man of his own free will. Because Christ was without sin and freely accepted the sins of others, justice is satified and order maintained. Christ's own perfection nullified the imperfections that he freely accepted, thus creating the bridge by which man can be perfected and live with god. If we choose freely to accept Christ as our mediator/bridge/savior, then his choice applies to us.
Free will is important here, because choice is essential. We must choose as Christ did to accept God's order and live by those laws. However if we do choose order over chaos, we, like God, are bound by those laws to maintain order. The big difference here though is if we choose chaos, then only we are affected, but if God chooses chaos, then everything ceases to exist. This binding does not limit God's Omnipotence, because he, like us has the power to choose. However, he will always choose order because if he did not he would cease to be God. Since God is perfect, he would never choose to be anything else.
Okay, that is about all I want to add at the moment. Go ahead and tell me where my logic fails, but please realize I am making my conclusions based on the idea that we share a common belief in Juedo-Christianity. I really am not presenting this as a arguement of faith vs atheisism, but rather as a statement of the necessity of the atonement of Jesus Christ in the context of this thread.
[ March 16, 2006, 03:37 AM: Message edited by: ReddwarfVII ]
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I 've been following this thread with interest (like all religion-related threads.) I don't have time to read all of the recent posts (I'm already late for class) related to the ideas of Justice versus Mercy, so I'll just link to a talk given by the Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer on the subject: The Mediator Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
In the case of statutory rape, the victim technically isn't a full adult in the legal sense, and therefore is essentially (helpless). This is analogous to someone who is murdered; they are "helpless", legally, to press charges, therefore we require our law-enforcing agents to presume defense. For instance, I think if a victim of statutory rape's parents decides not to prss charges, there isn't much that can be done.
Dagonee can of course correct us
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For instance, I think if a victim of statutory rape's parents decides not to prss charges, there isn't much that can be done.
Nope. We just did a case where a 14 year old had consensual sex with a 28-year old and got her pregnant. The parents didn't want charges pressed because he was going to marry her (she's 15 now).
Subsequent marriage used to be a defense against statutory rape charges in some states. It still might be.
We do a fair bit of prosecution against the wishes of the victim. At least a third of my domestic violence cases are like that. In some of the cases where proceed against vitim wishes, we are doing so because of future danger to others. In some cases, though, we are acting on the basis of the victim being unable to truly choose. It's rather paternalistic, but when you get a chance to go after a serial abuser whose wife has changed her mind on 6 previous prosecutions, you go for it.
P.S., I'm using "statutory rape" in the generic sense of sex with an underage girl. Most such statutes are no longer "statutory rape."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I stand corrected.
-Bok
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Amanecer-
I'm afraid I don't have the full text other than on some photocopies in a box somewhere. Like I said before, it's not the official doctrine of the church, but there is some scriptural basis to what he's saying. In reading Children of the Mind and Xenocide I wondered if Card was influenced by Skousen's (or similar) ideas.
You are right about faith. At some point faith will be required, no matter how detailed or logical the explanation. And again, it's really a lot of conjecture. Believers know the atonement is absolutely necessary and we have some basic reasoning as to why. And really, that's all we need to know at this point in time. Sometimes it's just fun to wonder what if.
Edit: I found a link to the complete audio. I think it should be find since it sounds like it was a live recording. I apologize for not being able to find text, I'm a bit more visually oriented myself, but this is better than nothing.
[ March 16, 2006, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Here's an analogy that illustrates a little bit how I feel about the Atonement. What if your child had some horrible form of terminal cancer, and medical science came up with a way for you to take it instead. The procedure cures the child totally, while giving the cancer to you, the parent, instead. The doctors won't do it without full consent of both parties. If you take it on you, you're gonna die but your child will be totally cured of this disease. Would you do it? I think a lot of parents would want to. Their love is such that they would gladly die to save their child.
What if you were the child? Would you accept that gift from your parent? (Assume you're old enough to make serious moral decisions.) What would you do? I think most kids would say no, they wouldn't let their parent die to save them. That just wouldn't be right.
Now what if you were the parent and you had to decide yes or no, but you didn't know whether or not the child would accept? In other words, you commit 100% and will get the cancer and die regardless of whether or not the child accepts your gift and becomes healed. Isn't that really the only chance you have of the child accepting since they love you and don't want you to die to give them life? What would you do then?
If you were Christ, you answered "yes" to that question. It's done. He already took the disease, all we have to do is accept the cure.
Then comes the miracle part. That was such a crazy wonderful pure elevated and totally selfless thing to do that it altered the laws of creation. The universe changed to one in which life eternal becomes an option. Christ's act turned the key in this level of creation, to allow access to the next one. It's as though he beat this level of the RPG we're all playing (in which the characters we play are ourselves), and though he died on this level, he came back in the level above.
Now if we follow him and do our best to do just what he did, we can gain access to the next level by that same path. He opened the way, and we accept his loving gift to follow him on through. People who don't find any key to the next level use up all their lives here on this level and then their game is over.
A mixed up analogy, that's not the official theology of any church I know of (though I'm LDS, and I don't think it's incompatible with LDS teachings), but just the way that I think of the Atonement.
When you realize what he did for us, and that the correct answer for us to make is "yes" (I had a very very hard time thinking it was okay for me to let Him accept the evil consequences that I deserved) there's just this total breakthrough, a feeling of joy and liberation and anything-is-possible-now-ism. Honestly, there's no possible way that I could ever have found that on my own, not in 1000 years. But he solved this level, so all we have to do is pay attention to what he did and do the same thing.
The next level will be harder. Each level all the way up will be harder, and everything we gain just gives us the power to tackle the really tough stuff that's coming up. But there's a baseline of joy and committment and fulfillment that we attain here that we shall never lose. It comes about when we realize what he did, and we accept his gift.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:though I'm LDS, and I don't think it's not incompatible with LDS teachings
I think you've got one more negative there than you want.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
dkw, you're right! Thanks! I fixed it. I always reword stuff about 10 times when I'm writing it. Lol!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That was such a crazy wonderful pure elevated and totally selfless thing to do that it altered the laws of creation.
Where did the Laws of Creation come from in the first place?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Tom, one of the things I have learned is that arguing about stuff like this isn't the right path. It's like the monk who asked if a dog had a Buddha nature. The answer is mu, neither yes nor no. Mu is the answer that unasks the question.
The first thousand times we talked about this, I was thinking you were actually curious to know what I thought, of course. In that situation it can be helpful to discuss. But as things are, since I am fairly certain you only are interested in trying to refute, then I think I will decline to engage you on this. I'm telling my feelings and experiences. It's not really something that can be refuted, since I exist and I'm me.
If you would tell your own feelings and experiences, that would be cool, I think.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
BaoQingTian-
I finished listening to the entire talk. I enjoyed it. I loved his passion and I found the bit about intelligences very interesting. I remember Beverly speaking about that before, and I think I now understand the concept a lot better. Yet as we've both agreed, it all still rests on faith.
This talk reminded me of everything I love about religion and everything that makes me feel alienated from it.
Brian, I'll read the talk you linked to, but it might take me another day. I'm feeling a bit burnt out on the subject right now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's like the monk who asked if a dog had a Buddha nature. The answer is mu, neither yes nor no.
And yet that's the essence of a philosophical cop-out, isn't it? Because if the dog does have a Buddha nature, wouldn't that be incredibly relevant to our understanding of the nature of the Buddha? You have a curious, analytical, and scientific mind; how can you not, metaphorically speaking, wonder why you're supposed to overlook the matter of the dog's nature in favor of a hypothetical "big picture?"
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
Wow, no comments on my post. Was I being too abstract? Did no one understand it? Did that not help at all?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I feel that arguing about the nature and qualities of God is just a very low-benefit activity (or even negative-benefit) compared to experiencing his company. The monk was so hung up on this question of what did and didn't have a buddha nature, that he could not progress. The "mu" was a way to deliberately break the mind of logic, so to speak. A way to direct our attention to those things that can't be said using words.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I feel that arguing about the nature and qualities of God is just a very low-benefit activity (or even negative-benefit) compared to experiencing his company.
I would agree. But I think you have to demonstrate why investigating the qualities of God is necessarily an impediment to experiencing his company.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Careful. TomDavison is doing his usual fishing expedition by making an argument out of a non-argument.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree with Tom. But then, I'm a theologian, so obviously I'm in favor of investigating (discussing, and even arguing about) the nature and qualities of God.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like it too, but I think it depends on what the other person is going for. If both people aren't looking for that in the conversation, it's rude to push it.
It's insisting on having a different conversation that the other one started, without their consent.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think what Tatiana may be getting at is that either she's been down this road before with Tom, or witnessed others do the same. She seems to be implying that (for Tom at least) the point of productive, informative discussion is past- i.e. faith would really be necessary to any deeper understanding of the nature of God, since Tom seems to have a very good intellectual grasp as to what Mormons believe to be the nature of God.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Hooray for long discussions spinning off.
I'm kind of worried/nervous about the Mormons coming back on Sunday. I'm not positive I want to go back to the church, and I'm sure they'll be pressuring me to go (and I will probably cave to pressure). Worries piling up.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Yes, Tom and I have been talking about religion with each other (or past each other ) for seven or eight years now. Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
If you are worried, take your time. Here is an article on Missionary Tactics. Since OSC is Mormon and many of the established personalities here are Mormon, I hesitate to post this link.
I already left the church and so I may very well have feelings that are anti-Mormon. I like to think I am neutral--but personal change takes personal reasons for the change. The only reason I am posting this link is because there have been sincere testimony that has been expressed, so I feel free to present an article about how I feel about the conversion process—even if I didn't write it..
However, the above link is not malicious. I feel it takes a neutral view of missionary work. As a RM (return missionary), I can confidently say that what they present about he missionary goals and book is true. I don't find it snarky.
quote: And just as a judicious juror needs to be aware of the techniques that lawyers use to make their cases, a shrewd investigator needs to know the techniques that missionaries use to make their cases. Again, this is true even if the missionaries are teaching the truth.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Door-to-door religion salesman can be quite entertaining people. When I had more time I used to like to argue with them.
Then I made a game of trying to trade their literature for the stuff the last guys left.
Alas and alack, although Mormons are thick in these parts, they seem to be aware of my family's status vis-a-vis the LDS church, so they never talk to me.
Not like they were gonna get a convert, anyway, so I guess I should commend them for being up on their stuff.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
quote: "Why study the missionaries strategy and tactics? The missionaries' objective is to baptize you--not to assist you in learning the whole truth about the church. "
I haven't read the entire link but I will a bit later but before RL calls, I'd like to respond to the above quote.
I think that it's true and not so true. Of course an objective of a missionary is to baptize and they DO want someone to learn the whole truth.
I've been a member of the LDS church my whole life and I find that I am still discovering parts of that truth. I don't know it all yet. Have I learned things that were disturbing to me? Sure.
I heard an analogy that the gospel is like a puzzle. When you are putting it together, first you might turn all the pieces right side up so you can examine them. Then you start grouping the edge pieces in a pile, a blue pile, red pile, etc...
Once the grouping is done it's time to start trying to put the blue picture together and suddenly you can see a part of the whole picture. The more you put together, the clearer the image is.
I've put puzzles together before that have had a piece or two missing. I didn't immediately throw the puzzle away, I looked under the table, looked in the box for it. Sometimes a piece was missing until I finished the puzzle and I found it in one of the other color piles.
I compare this to gaining a testimony. There might be things that make sense immediately. But the missing pieces might take a long time to resolve. Does that mean you focus on that missing piece? I guess that depends. But I don't because it hasn't been a bit enough of a deal to me and I think that my questions will be resolved (back to the faith that Tatiana has been talking about).
So, do missionaries want people to know the whole truth. Of course. Is it realistic? No. They want to give investigators enough tools to discover truths for themselves and to progress in getting the entire puzzle together.
EDIT to fix quote
[ March 18, 2006, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: sweetbaboo ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I'm kind of worried/nervous about the Mormons coming back on Sunday. I'm not positive I want to go back to the church, and I'm sure they'll be pressuring me to go (and I will probably cave to pressure). Worries piling up.
If you are worried, make sure someone else is with you when you talk to them, and let that person know up front that you are worried.
When I briefly investigated the LDS church and went through their six visits (I was thinking of joining at the time, but in the end, decided against) -- it was intimidating even to ME (an outgoing person) to have so many of "them" vs. "me" when I asked questions. Because I would have the two elders in the room, plus another couple (who were LDS friends of mine) and the pressure to agree with them was dramatic.
So take another non-LDS person with you to help keep the balance and maybe that will help you with the worries.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Alas and alack, although Mormons are thick in these parts, they seem to be aware of my family's status vis-a-vis the LDS church, so they never talk to me.
The missionaries change every few months, and they do not keep records of people in the town that don't like them.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
True! I would totally chalk it up to not enough time and people to get around to everyone.
I was hoping the missionaries would tract into me for a whole year, during which time I had made up my mind to join the church, but was procrastinating about making the time commitment. They tracted into my mom at her house but never to mine. Finally I ended up calling them and telling them I was ready to take the lessons and be baptized. They were ecstatic about that! I laugh to remember it.
My missionaries were so great! Another reason they shift them around is so we don't get too attached to the individuals, I think. But Elder Mooney and I still keep up with each other online, which makes me glad. He's such a great guy! You guys met him when he posted here once looking for me when he lost my sn, didn't you?
There have been four or five sister missionaries in my ward in the last year that I've made good friends with, too. I got their email addresses so when they get done with their missions, hopefully we can also stay in touch. They are some of the greatest friends I've made in the church.
[ March 18, 2006, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote:The missionaries change every few months, and they do not keep records of people in the town that don't like them.
Well, it is slightly more complicated than that. My family has a long history with LDS going back to when my great-great-maybe-one-more-great-grandparents came over with Brigham Young. We've had a bit of a falling-out since then, in an incident that varies somewhat depending on who's telling the story... but my dad did find it remarkable that all the Mormons stopped talking to him the day he married my mother.
I'm not exactly sure how this works on the LDS end of things but I suspect it's something like "excommunicated for seven generations" or something equally goofy.
Not that I'm objecting. Gives me more time to torment the Jehovah's Witnesses. Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well I now have a sort of made up excuse if I don't feel comfortable going to church with them. I have "plans" with a friend at that time. Whether said "plans" actually happen or not depends on how comfortable I am with the missionaries and going to church with them.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
I think that's a good idea pfresh85. However, if they push too hard, I think you should let them know.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Eh, if they push me too hard, I'll let them know. I'm not one to get pushed around a lot without at least speaking up. Thanks for the concern though, sweetbaboo.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: So, do missionaries want people to know the whole truth. Of course. Is it realistic? No. They want to give investigators enough tools to discover truths for themselves and to progress in getting the entire puzzle together.
It's my understanding that missionaries push for Baptism long before they try to teach the entire Doctrine. To me this seems a little bit like trying to get somebody to commit without telling them exactly what they're commiting too. It strikes me as deceptive.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I've heard the same thing (about pushing for baptism before teaching everything doctrine-related). That was why I tried to read as much as I could about LDS doctrine before even first speaking with the missionaries. I wanted to have a good footing to discuss stuff.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
You have to understand, for LDS baptism is more than a way to express membership. It is a saving ordinance. Ideally, a person should feel the Spirit of the Lord telling them the Church is true. That can come at any time, regardless of what you might know about the teachings of the Church. The main job of an LDS missionary, regardless of the importance of teaching, is to get the person to focus on communicating with God and finding things out for themselves.
Besides, Mormonism is a religion where learning is constant and never finished. There is no "everything doctrine-related." Get the idea of "entire Doctrine" out of your head if you are ever going to understand Mormon teachings. Although it has plenty of teachings that can be roughly translated as orthodoxy, Mormonism is mostly an experimental theology open to various and personal interpretations. The best you can do is learn the "basics" and work from that.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I have a slight problem, Occasional, with the idea of the missionaries trying to get me communicating with God. I'm all for trying to teach communication with God; that's fine. It's the answers I get when I tell the missionaries that I don't hear anything back from God that bother me. I rarely get a "it takes time; just keep at it." It's more of a "you aren't praying the right way then." To me, that's not an encouraging response, and it's part of the reason I'm always unsure about joining the Mormon religion.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
In that case, I don't feel you are seeing the missionaries for the right reasons. On the other hand, I don't think the missionaries are doing THEIR jobs when they say that. Next time they say that, ask them what the RIGHT WAY is and see if they have any answers. Frankly, I agree with you about the real answer being "it takes time; just keep at it."
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well it's something I'll think about bringing up tomorrow. I can tell you that I pray about a lot of this stuff, about whether this is the right move for me, whether this is the truth and such. I really don't hear anything back from God though. It may be something to bring up tomorrow.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I will give you a suggestion I learned at the time I gained what I consider a testimony of the Mormon faith. Don't just learn and pray; but actually put what you learn into action. Doing something often opens up answers from God where simple prayer might be only an aknowledgment of need. They may not say it in so many words, but Mormons are big on God helps those who help themselves.
What I mean is, lets say the lesson is about Christ overcoming sin and death. From that, try to live a life closer to the teachings of Jesus as you know them. Or, comfort those who might be grieving about a loss or some kind of sorrow. Another more Mormon specific teaching might be how Joseph Smith got answers from his prayer about religious questions. From that you might also decide to have a specific question to take to God and then both research and pray about it. The point is, find something to DO with what you learn more than just Hear and Pray.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I too served an LDS mission and I even taught missionaries for two years, so I am both 1) obviously biased and 2) familiar with "how things really work" with the process.
Occasional is right on here. Remember that you're dealing with missionaries, and their mission is to teach those who have a genuine desire to know truth for themselves. Any pressure you might feel may be the result of the individual missionaries, but it is neither church policy nor particularly helpful in the conversion process. Besides, look at it logically: pressuring people into baptism doesn't serve the church in the least. It defeats the purpose of the gospel. Any sales-like "tactics" or supposed pressure defeats the purpose of true conversion––it's a spiritual process, not a sale. If that's how this process feels, well, it's time to be honest and share your concerns with them.
It's not like they're going to lose a commission.
Now you need to ask yourself some hard questions. If you do not have a genuine desire to know for yourself, then what's keeping you involved? And if you do have a real desire, then live it first. THAT'S why reading scriptures and struggling with committed prayer over the process of time is the best course of action. The LDS Church teaches that one gains a witness "after the trial of your faith," and the word trial implies work, effort and possibly some discomfort.
And let's be honest here––the earlier link to uncovering the "tactics" of the missionaries to "convert" you is a very subtle but clear attempt to debunk the LDS Church's approach. Do not be fooled by the so-called "neutral" approach there. It isn't neutral. Its use of language implies that there is a underlying attempt to manipulate, trick, smooth-talk or lure you into conversion. That is a lie. Missionaries are taught that without the Spirit, "...ye cannot teach," so a purely intellectual approach is a failure from the get-go.
Your spiritual experience is personal and unique, and you should only commit and attend when YOU feel it is right. "Showing up" or going through the motions isn't conversion; it's insincere, and it's tough to get answers to prayer that way.
Have fun! This is an opportunity, not an obligation!
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Now you need to ask yourself some hard questions. If you do not have a genuine desire to know for yourself, then what's keeping you involved? And if you do have a real desire, then live it first. THAT'S why reading scriptures and struggling with committed prayer over the process of time is the best course of action. The LDS Church teaches that one gains a witness "after the trial of your faith," and the word trial implies work, effort and possibly some discomfort.
I have a desire to know the truth, but that's not the only desire that keeps me involved (and I think that's been mentioned here before). I do read the scriptures (I've read a good deal of the Book of Mormon since my first visit with the missionaries). I pray nightly, asking about what is the truth and what is right for me. There is a measure of discomfort in the whole thing (talking to the missionaries, reading the Book of Mormon, and even praying about it). My family (for the most part) is staunchly anti-Mormon, and so for me to even be looking at the church brings about discomfort. I keep thinking that eventually I will get some sort of feedback for my efforts, that my faith will be affirmed. Instead, I feel like my efforts are futile gestures. My faith wanes with each passing day that I don't feel confirmation. I only had so much faith to start with, and to feel it chipped away little by little isn't so good.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:It's not like they're going to lose a commission.
Wait, you didn't get paid per baptism? You must not have served in Europe.
I'm kidding, of course, but actually I had people offer me money several times on my mission (which, naturally, we turned down). I remember talking to one sharp-looking business-type guy in Reggio Emilia and asking if we could come visit him. He said no, and offered us a donation, instead (around $50, as I recall). I told him we'd rather have an hour of his time. He was actually really nice; I remember being disappointed that he was willing to part with some money but not some time.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
I served in Switzerland, and I think my bank account's still teeming.
pfresh: We live in a world that provides instantaneous gratification, but the Lord himself talked about spiritual growth as "a seed" and uses garden allegories all the time. Conversion is never instantaneous, and it takes time.
Your description of prayer is very familiar to me. I've struggled at times, and I've learned that a lack of an immediate answer is not in and of itself proof your faith is failing. Here is a great talk on the subject that helped me when I was feeling much the same way. I liked its honest approach, so hopefully it might serve.
Your experience should be a fun, positive, enlightening experience. If it's not, it's time to tell the missionaries straight up. If you're finding yourself making excuses not to be involved––yet you have a desire to know––then it's time to ask yourself "why."
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The thing is I'm not expecting an instantaneous answer. It's just that I've been researching and praying on the subject since November (back when I first met with the missionaries). I feel like I've put forth a lot of effort and that it's been a decent amount of time, and it's like there's still nothing.
The lack of an immediate answer isn't the sole reason I feel my faith is failing. My day to day life provides me at times with reasons to feel a decrease in my faith. There's a yearning deep inside me for a deep faith, for something to believe in. This yearning though seems unanswered every day, which is both frustrating and bad for my faith.
My experience with the missionaries is always stressful (even when we might be having an enlightening discussion, I am stressing about the fact that I'm meeting with them and such). As for the second part, I find it more like I'm making up excuses to be involved when each day I find myself more and more apart from it. I ask myself why that is, but I don't have an answer.
Someone once said two very true (and very hurtful) things to me. First, my self-loathing for the most part comes from the fact that I isolate myself. More or less, I hate myself because I keep myself separate from everyone else. The second thing was this: most people live their lives and take the good with the bad and are happy with it. I on the other hand live my life, and I'm constantly unhappy.
One would think that knowing these things I could fix what I'm not satisfied with. That hasn't happened. When I try to de-isolate myself, I find myself in situations that I'm still not happy with and that I don't feel are right. This situation is one such thing. Looking into the Mormon church (and possibly joining) was to be a way to find people with similar beliefs, to stop myself from being an isolated hermit. Instead though, I find that my beliefs may not totally line up with theirs, that I'm not positive that there is truth in what they say, and that my own faith is just fading away. I feel like I'm returning to isolation again now, and that just makes me hate myself all the more.
EDIT: I apologize to anyone who read this. It's depressing drivel. It's a clear sign that I need to take some medicine and get some sleep.
[ March 18, 2006, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: pfresh85 ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
As much as I believe the gospel to be true, it cannot immediately solve feelings of loathing or self-hatred. In time it can bring balance to one's life, but it's not an immediate solution to more serious issues. And associating oneself with a group of like-minded people can be nice, but again ultimately fruitless if you're not converted to the core reasons why they gather in the first place.
It may be helpful to go back to the beginning and ask yourself: Do I genuinely want to know if it's true or not? If so, am I prepared to act when I know? Will you "test-drive" the missionaries' testimonies by following their suggestions––not out of obligation, but genuine interest to learn if it's right?
And if you still feel this is one of those situations where you're still not happy and you don't feel it is right, then maybe it's time to take a step back and re-examine why you're doing it. All those in my experience who accepted the gospel did it because they felt happy about it, and that it would be a positive change in their life. If you're not happy––would you feel this way, regardless of what faith you were investigating?
The advantage to prayer is that you are never a hermit, but it's a learned skill like anything else. Read that link I provided!
EDIT: Having come form a long line of family members who are either bipolar or manic/depressive, hopefully you are considering that your feelings may be more physical in nature. I like how my brother puts it:
"Say your prayers, but keep your lithium handy."
Good advice. Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote:One would think that knowing these things I could fix what I'm not satisfied with.
Pfresh: I doubt anybody actually thinks that. Most of us find ourselves feeling isolated and alone... we're each of us enough different from the other that that feeling of cameraderie that comes with sharing anything with anybody can be fleeting in the best of times.
If I had a solution to that, I'd be a happier person myself. I would simply caution you: people who advertise that they have the answers to life's problems very nearly always want something from you. Find out what that is before you drink the Kool-Aid.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
pfresh,
Reading over some of your recent posts, I think that I understand your struggles, at least to some extent.
I have never had a really strong experience that showed me in no uncertain terms that, yes, in fact God exists and loves me and that there is truth in any religion. At the same time, I have for many years felt a strong yearning for God, a desire to have that deep faith. When I was discerning my future and thinking about what I wanted to do with my life, I waited for God to send a lightning bolt. I didn't want to do anything until I KNEW it was the right thing. After sitting around for a few years waiting for lightning to strike, I realized, that perhaps it would never come. After a really good prayer/reflection experience, I finally felt that God HAD been speaking to me the whole time. There was no great neon sign, but that God had sent things into my life to help show the way... conversations with people, friends saying just the right thing at just the right time, the deep yearnings in my heart... I believe they all came from God. I think your desire, your yearning for faith, is already the sign of faith stronger than that of some of the very "religious" people that I know. This may not make any sense at all, and is probably not helpful in the least, but I just felt I needed to say it. Good luck in discernment with this religious group. Remember that the will of God will never lead you where the grace of God can't keep you. Trust yourself, trust those guiding you and trust in God.
Kat
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: EDIT: Having come form a long line of family members who are either bipolar or manic/depressive, hopefully you are considering that your feelings may be more physical in nature. I like how my brother puts it:
"Say your prayers, but keep your lithium handy."
Good advice.
I'm the first in my family (whole extended family even) to be diagnosed with a psychological problem. I suffer from anxiety (particularly social anxiety), which in turns leads to depression. When I wrote my message earlier (the one at the top of the page), I hadn't taken my anxiety medicine for the day. So therefore it was logical that I was worried and starting to get depressed. I have since then taken my anxiety medicine and I feel at least slightly better.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Not to mention alcohol is a depressant.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Yeah, but the alcohol was a while ago. I wouldn't think it's effects would extend over 12 hours.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There was no great neon sign, but that God had sent things into my life to help show the way... conversations with people, friends saying just the right thing at just the right time, the deep yearnings in my heart... I believe they all came from God.
And I believe they come from a vast reservoir of caring and sensitivity inside you. I know personally the deep desire for faith in a higher power -- but faith in your fellow man is both deeper and more satisfying.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Actually, TomD, faith in humanity is the essense of Faith in God. Love God, Love your Neighbor. When you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God. Men shall know ye are my desciples if you love one another.
Your comment only shows the extent of your ignorance about Faith, Religion, and God.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Actually, TomD, faith in humanity is the essense of Faith in God.
Well, then, I've got a leg up on you, don't I? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps you're already aware of it, but you might find this a helpful site; the people there are generally quite friendly, except for me of course. But I generally post in the Evolution/Creation forum, and I don't think we disagree on that.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Not really TomD, because religiously speaking faith in God can save. Faith in only humanity will damn you.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I talked with the missionaries again this morning. I talked to them about praying and not hearing an answer. They actually offered the "it takes time sometimes" response this time, which I liked better. I talked to them about waning faith (and its relation to my anxiety and depression). They talked about having to endure trials and chastisement to be able to walk in God's sight. It was at least a sort of interesting conversation. At the very end of it, they took out a notecard. They told me at the top to write down what my ultimate goal was and then to list ways that I could try and go towards that goal. They offered to help in any way they could in reaching this goal. So that was good. That's about all I really have to say about this meeting.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strange, Occasional, that seems a decidedly non-LDS viewpoint. From what others on this board have said, getting damned in mormon theology takes more than just not believing in the correct God.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Strange, Occasional, that seems a decidedly non-LDS viewpoint. From what others on this board have said, getting damned in mormon theology takes more than just not believing in the correct God.
Not really Fugu13. Occasional gave a VERY Mormonish viewpoint. In LDS theology damn means nothing more then not being able to progress. There are saving ordinances that are needed to progress--baptism, endowments, temple marriage, et cetera.
Not believing in God, not accepting His "one true church," and not getting your saving ordinances through the "restored priesthood" are all reasons to be damned.
If you are just a good person in LDS theology, then you will await in “Spirit Prison” after you die until you accept the gospel and and receive your ordinances through proxy temple work. That is why temple work is so important to LDS members--it is a chance for them to save good people like Tom who did not accept the gospel in this life.
He is damned (not progressing) until he accepts the gospel and the proxy temple work done for him after his future death. Proxy work so people can progress is the biggest reason genealogy is so important in Mormonism.
EDITED to fix a word.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Honestly, I'd suggest dealing with faith and anxiety/depression as two entirely separate things. The church I went to through my mid-teens tried to connect the two, and it just made things worse. Like basically, they said that if I was REALLY saved and REALLY faithful, then I wouldn't have these issues at all, and the fact that I was still having them (after having taken two months out of school and spending a LOT of time trying to get answers out of my church and youth pastor) meant that there was something wrong with my faith. Which, looking back, is quite ridiculous. I mean, if I'd had diabetes or something and didn't completely heal from prayer, nobody would ever claim that it was because I was a bad Christian.
Anyways. The point is, try not to link depression, anxiety, and faith so closely that you think your anxiety or psychological issues will just go away once you have the "right" faith.
-pH
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
BUt could he create a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it? lol i know i know logic dictates their can never be two absolutes power in the universe but its still fun to keep religion light and breezy, as for Buddy who had the Mezusah on his door, i invite you to join the Judean Peoples Liberation Front and stick it to those missionaries who jilted u at the door
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
just so i dont get a bunch of people breaking out the protocols of zion on me the Judean Peoples Liberation Front is a tribute to the movie life of brian
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
They didn't try and say that if I was more faithful or something that my depression/anxiety would be cured. In fact, they just seemed to agree with my assessment that my anxiety could cause problems with my faith (not the other way around).
I don't in any way think that my psychological problems will go away once I have the right faith. They aren't tied in that way. My psychological problems will always be there. It's more of acknowledging that they might get in the way of my faith growing larger.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Interesting; that's a pretty radical definition of damnation.
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
Not really fugu13. I was told this once by someone that I respected highly and trusted his information. Consquently, this is heresay, so take it for what it's worth. This individual, who was studying theogy and languages, said that the correct translation for damnation from ancient hebrew means just that. A stop in progression. That would make sense wouldn't it? When it comes to faith we are never really holding still. If we are not doing things to increase our faith, then our faith begins to fade.
I always compare belief in God and the principles of religion like swimming upstream. It takes effort and can be very difficult. If we stop trying we will start to lose the progression that we have made, however if we keep at it, not only we reach our goal at the of the swim (whatever that goal may be) but we will also have far greater strength than we did at the beginning of the swim.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I would say the correct translation for the hebrew word commonly translated as damnation would then not be the word damnation, but some other word. But it does not mean that the definition of damnation is incorrect, merely that a translation is incorrect. As for the usage of the word damnation itself in a religious context, that is used extensively to mean being sent to hell.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There exists an ancient Hebrew word commonly translated as damnation? Do tell.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
rivka: I was assuming such a word existed, for otherwise Reddwardf's post doesn't make much sense.
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
Well, it has evolved to mean that. Obviously I am inferring that in order to understand the true meaning of the term it is better to look back at its original context, rather than running with its modern interpretation. Since much of the christian world does not believe that true prophets exist today and the scriptures are now locked with nothing more to add, I would say that it would be foolish to accept modern interpretations of religious concepts without considering the ancient context as well.
Yes, today, many teachers of religion use the term damnation to mean burning in hell, however the thing to consider here is whether or not that is God's meaning for the concept. Now since most do not believe in modern prophecy and therefore cannot turn to a modern prophet for the answer, we have to look at sources of the concepts and use what we know of ancient languages to understand what the original writers of the bible intended the concept to mean.
I have to admit, that can be very difficult. The modern concept of damnation has been taught to mean what it currently does since the dark ages. So if an error in translation occured to create this misinterpretation of the concept of damnation, then is likely that it happened between the translation of the concept from the hebrew texts into the latin based texts that would become the main language of the Christian Church of the time. All of this also depends on what you believe about heaven and hell as well.
I got this from an LDS seminary teacher that I had in high school that was working on his Masters Degree in Ancient Languages, I think. Or he could have been studing just ancient hebrew. I'm not sure which. He gave us this example as part of a lesson on the importance of modern revelation. Mormons are almost unique in their belief in modern day prophecy and revelation as a source of answers to the confusion that challenges modern christianity today. We of course also believe that the scriptures can be interpreted correctly or interpreted to understand God's correct meaning.
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
To my knowledge it does, but again I am using someone else as a source of my knowledge. At the moment, I wouldn't even know where to tell you go to confirm or deny my premise.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"From what others on this board have said, getting damned in mormon theology takes more than just not believing in the correct God."
True, to a point. But, specifically in relation to what TomD. has said, trusting in the arm of flesh (i.e. having faith in humanity without God in your life) is a sure way of getting damned. In fact, it is one of the fastest ways to damn yourself.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But, specifically in relation to what TomD. has said, trusting in the arm of flesh (i.e. having faith in humanity without God in your life) is a sure way of getting damned. In fact, it is one of the fastest ways to damn yourself.
There's a difference between having faith in humanity (I interpret this to mean, "People will usually do what's good") and putting your trust in the arm of flesh. They are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But, specifically in relation to what TomD. has said, trusting in the arm of flesh (i.e. having faith in humanity without God in your life) is a sure way of getting damned.
Or not. In fact, I submit that trusting in man and not desperately seeking solace in false Gods is a far, far healthier and happier way to live.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The key phrase being 'false Gods.'
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yep. The problem with false gods is that they look and sound just like the real ones.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Or not. [Smile] In fact, I submit that trusting in man and not desperately seeking solace in false Gods is a far, far healthier and happier way to live.
Well Tom, it sounds like you would fit right in as being Mormon. They put a lot of trust in "Prophets and men" (flesh) who hold the priesthood. Last year they celebrated Josheph Smith's birthday so much that it almost overshadowed Christmas.
Wait...
quote: trusting in the arm of flesh (i.e. having faith in humanity without God in your life) is a sure way of getting damned
I guess Occasional already debunked my snarkyness.
Now to something more productive: If you want to understand how damnation works in Mormonism, you need to understand "degrees if glory." The following quote is from wikipedia and seems mostly accurate--I think they are missing some of the other ordinances besides baptism needed to get into the Celestial Kingdom.
quote: The Celestial Kingdom (whose glory is compared to the brightness of the sun in the sky, as its inhabitants have all truth and light) is where the righteous will live with God and with their families. This kingdom includes multiple degrees of glory, the highest of which is exaltation. Those who have had the ordinances of eternal marriage, which is performed in Temples, and baptism may be exalted if they are found worthy by God. Accountable individuals must be baptized and repent to gain entrance to the Celestial Kingdom; Latter-day Saints profess that all children who die before the age of accountability automatically inherit a celestial glory.
Those good people who are not valiant in following Jesus or who do not accept the Gospel do not qualify for exaltation and will be consigned to the Terrestrial Kingdom (whose glory is compared to the brightness of the moon in the sky). This kingdom is one of great glory, but without the presence of God the Father. An ultimate willingness to keep the "law of carnal commandments" (the Ten Commandments) is considered essential to enter this kingdom.
Murderers, other criminals, and the like who do not accept the Atonement of Jesus Christ will eventually spend eternity with people of like intent in the Telestial Kingdom, and their glory will be as that of the stars in the night sky. This is also considered a kingdom of glory and has been described as being much better than earthly life. All those who do not qualify for a higher degree of glory will automatically enter this kingdom unless they deny the Holy Ghost, a sin it is believed very few people are able to commit.
Those few people who do, after gaining a full knowledge of the Gospel, willfully deny and contend against the Holy Ghost, are believed to inherit no glory. Most members of the Church refer to this place as Outer Darkness; this is not to be confused with traditional Christianity's definition of the term. An individual so banished is called a Son of Perdition. Forgiveness is not possible for these souls, though they will be resurrected. There is debate within the church as to whether or not a female is a capable of committing the sins necessitating inheritance of a kingdom without glory.[citation needed]
Before people dwell eternally in their assigned kingdom of glory, they go through resurrection and Judgement.
The thing to note is that all three kingdoms are degrees of glory. I heard in church, from a non official, that Brigham Young said that if we could have a vision of the lowest degree of glory (Telestial Kingdom) then we would kill ourselves to get there.
What makes it damnation is that we are eternally stuck without progression. I interpret that to mean we 1: can not become like Gods and 2: can not continue to make eternal families.
Telestial and Terestial are degrees of glory, tho they are also damnation. Perdition it the closest thing to traditional hell in Mormon theology. It is described as outer darkness. Satan/Lucifer goes there--along with the souls that followed Lucifer instead of choosing to come to earth.
You have to have a perfect knowledge that the gospel is true and then deny it in order to qualify for Outer Darkness. Because of that--most people (even Hitler) do no qualify for that type of damnation. I heard debate whether even Judas will go to Perdition. He is the most likely mortal candidate.
One more note for Mormons: Wikipedia says that those in Outer Darkness will be resurrected. I always thought they would never be resurrected. Am I wrong does wikipedia need to be corrected?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The problem with false gods is that they look and sound just like the real ones.
You mean... you recognize that there are REAL gods?
I admit being pleasantly startled...
quote:They put a lot of trust in "Prophets and men" (flesh) who hold the priesthood.
Would you concede that the trust isn't in the men themselves but in the idea that God has appointed them? (There's a big difference to me...)
quote: Last year they celebrated Josheph Smith's birthday so much that it almost overshadowed Christmas.
Well...Joseph Smith WAS actually born on Dec. 23; Christ almost certainly was NOT born on Dec. 25.
So there's a good reason...well, not GOOD, but anyway...
And I didn't notice that JS' birthday was celebrated more. And I'm Activities Chairperson for our ward; we didn't do anything special for it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: rivka: I was assuming such a word existed, for otherwise Reddwardf's post doesn't make much sense.
I know. My query was not directed at you.
I would love to know what this supposed word is, but alas! It seems it is not to be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You mean... you recognize that there are REAL gods?
I recognize that there MAY be real ones. Or they could ALL be false. They could also ALL be real, although that possibility boggles the mind. Regardless, from the viewpoint of an unbiased observer, they all look pretty much alike.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There's no way you could know that. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In order to be an observer in the manner you suggest, Katie, one would by definition have to be biased. So, yes, I DO know that. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You are not unbiased, Tom.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Wikipedia says that those in Outer Darkness will be resurrected. I always thought they would never be resurrected. Am I wrong does wikipedia need to be corrected?
It depends on a lot of interpretations/extrapolations of doctrine.
Outer Darkness, for you non-Mo's, is the Mormon version of Hell, or as near as we get to it. The only people that (theorhetically) get sent there are people who had a real knowledge of Christ (differentiated from faith) and would still kill him, or cause him to suffer, anyway. What happens in Outer Darkness is entirely speculative; I think God says somewhere that He doesn't let anyone not subject to OD see what it's like.
Back on to lem's question-- will souls destined for OD be ressurrected? The answer, at least relying on scripture, is a bit muddled. The Book of Mormon and the Mormon interpretation of the Bible says that everyone that is born will be ressurrected (thanks to Christ's atonement); and that after ressurrection, the spirit and the perfected body cannot be seperated. Doctrine and Covenants (an additional set of revelations given to Joseph Smith) implies in chapter 76 that souls consigned to outer darkness will NOT be ressurrected.
There's a bit of Mormon mythology that says that Cain will rule over Lucifer in OD, because Cain had/has a body...
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Thanks ScottR. That is really interesting. I never thougth about resurrection for OD because I assumed that no mortal would have enough knowledge to go there. I thought it was reserved for Lucifer and the 1/3 host who followed him.
quote: There's a bit of Mormon mythology that says that Cain will rule over Lucifer in OD, because Cain had/has a body...
That is just cool. One of the things I LOVE about Mormon doctrine is the concept of "estates."
Since we "followed God's Plan" and got a body, we are more powerful then Satan. He is a snake. He can bite our heels, but we can crush his head.
Altho I no longer believe, I think it is very healthy and positive when religion gives you more power then evil. I believe the spirit of that doctrine completely.
I am always bothered in horror movies when the devil and his minions have more power over an individual then that person's own mind/faith.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I am always bothered in horror movies when the devil and his minions have more power over an individual then that person's own mind/faith.
This was one of the things that I thought Pullman did really well with in 'His Dark Materials:' the mortals are stronger than the angels because they have physical bodies.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Would you concede that the trust isn't in the men themselves but in the idea that God has appointed them? (There's a big difference to me...)
I would. I don't actually need to concede-I recognize faith in God appointing them is intregal to Mormon belief. That is why I stated Occasional already debunked me.
I just wanted to point out that there are different ways to read that scripture.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: This was one of the things that I thought Pullman did really well with in 'His Dark Materials:' the mortals are stronger than the angels because they have physical bodies.
I was justing reading up on 'His Dark Materials' in wikipedia. I will have to check out these books.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I loved 'em, despite Pullman's obvious antagonism toward religion.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
CS Lewis made some interesting observations about devils vs. mortals in Book 2 of the "Out of the Silent Planet" series.
**************SPOILER******************
Ransom (the protagonist) was able to physically beat up and eventually kill a man possessed by a devil. Although the devil could control the body, it was more as a puppet is controlled, not like the seamless integration of body and soul.
The devil was not able to possess him, because he hadn't invited it in.
The devil, although possessing extreme intelligence did not love it. He simply used it as a tool when he had to, and as soon as he could reverted to using base cruelty as a weapon.
Although the series of books wasn't that well-written of a story, there were some interesting points.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You are not unbiased, Tom
You know, I'm going to dispute this. Towards which hypothetical god do you think I'm biased, at least insofar as it would affect my ability to perceive differences between them?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
quote: Mormons are almost unique in their belief in modern day prophecy and revelation as a source of answers to the confusion that challenges modern christianity today.
Almost unique among Protestants. But protestant Christians seem almost unique in the context of world religions in NOT following any modern day leader or interpreter of their religion.
Sikhs, I believe, also currently look to scriptures as their final word. But almost every other religion seems to have a Pope, Prophet, Guru, Imam, Lama, or other leader who is designated as the one who receives revelation for their followers and clarifies difficulties.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I think my time with the Mormons will end with the next visit (if it even happens). After much thinking and even more prayer, I don't feel like it is the right direction for me. I think the reasons I was leaning towards the church weren't the right kind of reasons. The church was a temporary solution to permanent problems I have. I have come to the conclusion that I need to work on my own tolerance of others and my ability to forgive others and forgive myself for the mistakes that are made in every day life. This is something beyond the church and beyond religion.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
pfresh, I hope you find what it is you seek. Best of luck with everything in your life. I encourage you to continue to pray for guidance, along whatever path it is you choose throughout your life. And to realize that you are greatly loved, and precious in the sight of God. Remember who you are, that you are of inestimable worth, that you are heir to the kingdom. Treat yourself with the same care and love that you would give to the Christ child, were he in your care. Never forget that you are the one who is to grow up into the ruler of universes, so invest much care into the education of your heart, mind, and spirit. May the blessings and grace of our Heavenly Father be with you always, Amen. Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana:
quote: Mormons are almost unique in their belief in modern day prophecy and revelation as a source of answers to the confusion that challenges modern christianity today.
Almost unique among Protestants. But protestant Christians seem almost unique in the context of world religions in NOT following any modern day leader or interpreter of their religion.
Sikhs, I believe, also currently look to scriptures as their final word. But almost every other religion seems to have a Pope, Prophet, Guru, Imam, Lama, or other leader who is designated as the one who receives revelation for their followers and clarifies difficulties.
This is very true Tatiana. Thanks for reminding me of that! Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The last meeting with the Mormon missionaries occurs this afternoon. I'll be sure to post what happens later today/tonight. Hopefully things will go over well.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well it turns out this wasn't the last meeting, as they asked for another one (which surprised me after some of the issues I brought up). Regardless, here's a nice little summary of what happened.
I told them that after much thought and prayer that I had come to a conclusion of sorts. My interest in the LDS church had been more of a temporary, makeshift solution to larger, more permanent problems. I told them about being overly judgmental, of being critical of everyone (and in particular being critical of myself). I told them that I had thought that maybe by finding like minded people that the problem might fade away. I then told them that I realized this wasn't the right way to treat the problems. A temporary quick fix isn't good for issues like this.
They sort of nodded at this, saying they understood. I then went into some of the problems I have with the writings of Joseph Smith. I talked about misogynistic language in the Doctrine and Covenants. I talked about how some of the D&C just seemed like quick fixes for problems in Joseph Smith's life (like him saying "Oh, I have this problem now. Maybe I can say the Lord said this to me, and it'll fix that problem"). I also brought up the whole thing about poligamy being an everlasting covenant, and how this was only changed by "revelation" after the U.S. put pressure on the Mormons. I basically threw out any and all problems I had, things that bothered me about the church or about the scriptures.
They nodded and then tried to either explain reasons for some of this or offer some other explanation. At one point, I had both missionaries quite stumbled, so much so that all they could say is that "sometimes religion can't be a fully intellectual endeavor. Sometimes it has to just come down to faith." I reassured them that I wasn't trying to attack their faith or make them have their own doubts. I was just trying to explain why I thought their faith could not be my faith. I think the main point they kept repeating to me was that I needed to continue reading/studying the scriptures and praying about it.
At the end (after about 2 hours of thorough discussion), they tried to convince me to come to a baptism at 4PM tomorrow. I told them that I couldn't. One of them asked me why I couldn't, what was stopping me. I then brought up my experience from my last time at the Mormon church; how I felt isolated and like I was never going to be as spiritual as the people around me. They tried to tell me that I felt that way because it was the first time at a new church. I countered that I had had a first experience at a Methodist church that was totally different; where I felt almost immediately like I was in the right place and that I was on the same level as other people. They really couldn't explain why there was such a difference between the two experiences, so they just let the subject of the baptism drop.
They finally asked if they could come back again. I told them that I didn't mind, but that I might have more arguments for them by the time they came back. They said that was okay. They both said they enjoy talking to me because it's usually something that pushes them intellectually. I said I didn't mind talking as long as we all remained respectful of each others' ideas and faith. That seemed agreed upon. So they scheduled a time to meet me in the coming week and then headed off. And that was my experience with the Mormon missionaries this week.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Cool! I'm so glad you're meeting with them again.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well done; with a bit of luck, you'll be deconverting them.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
My goal isn't to deconvert them. I have nothing against them or their faith (I think I've made that abundantly clear). I just have to explain what problems I have with it, what things keep me from believing in it.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
I think KoM was just kidding pfresh :-P
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Well I never can tell with him whether he's being serious or if he's joking.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I was quite serious. I don't see where it matters what pfresh's goal was; deconversions usually happen when people are exposed to unanswerable questions from a source they do not see as being an enemy.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Why would he want to deconvert them? I don't see how that would be something you'd want to achieve. If anything it seems a bit cruel, even if you think their beliefs are absurd, you gain nothing by trying to take something they value away from them, no matter how silly it might seem to you.
This isn't like telling a child that Santa doesn't exist, we know that for a fact. With religion there's always the chance that you could be wrong in your belief that God doesn't exist, so to try to take their faith from them when you have nothing to offer them seems little more than an exercise in cruelty.
Not to offend you or anything KoM, I'm just very puzzled as to why you'd consider that a good thing. Care to shed some light as to why you see it that way?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because adults who believe in Santa Claus are bloody dangerous, and the fewer of them we have around, the better. And since the good guys are at the moment unlikely to win a civil war, deconversion is the current best tactic.
And you should noite, I never claimed that pfresh would want to deconvert anyone; I said, 'with a bit of luck', it would happen. Not luck for pfresh, necessarily.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I don't understand why you would want to deconvert anyone. Is someone else believing in something you don't believe in that bad? Particularly with a group like the Mormons who don't do anything bad and actually do good with their beliefs (disagree with them though you may)? I just can't understand why you'd want to pull someone's beliefs from them.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Luck for you, I take it then
I'm also not sure how someone being LDS is dangerous. From my personal experience, I have found them all to be wonderful and caring people with some decent moral values. I may just be lucky in that regard and my experience is limited, but to make such a sweeping statement that could be just as easily turned against you seems somewhat silly.
I'm not a theist by the way so I am not defending beliefs, rather I am questioning the morality of deconverting a theist so that you can feel like you have more people on your side.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: . I don't see where it matters what pfresh's goal was; deconversions usually happen when people are exposed to unanswerable questions from a source they do not see as being an enemy.
There are a couple problems with that statement/belief. First off, you are assuming there are "unanswerable quesitons." I find most of the Mormon questions are answerable--just not to my satisfaction. However many missionaries are satisfied. More power to them.
Second, if these quesions are unaswerable and potential converts are not an enemy to missionaries, then more missionaries would be deconverted.
As far as being dangerous--only if they try to establish a theocracy. I think the church is past that history where they feel a need to create a theocratic government--even tho Joseph Smith taught that a theocracy would be the most just system.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
pfresh:
Though I'm a little sad (since this is my faith we're talking about) that you've made your decision the way you have, it's good that you did not make a committment under false pretences. It's never a good sign when you find yourself making excuses to do/not do something.
Despite KOM's usual saber-rattling, we all believe something and live our lives accordingly. I hope you find whatever it is you are really seeking. If religion and Christianity is your interest, reading scriptures and daily prayer is always a fine idea, regardless where you finally make your home.
Good luck.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Iem, I wouldn't even say they are dangerous if they try to establish a theocracy, as long as they did it within the current political system we have (which would be difficult to do). They would only be dangerous if they tried to install a theocracy by force, but I don't see the LDS church doing that any time soon.
estavares, I'm not sure I get why you're sad (you say it's because I made my decision the way I did, but that could be taken at least two different ways). As for what I'm seeking, I'm seeking truth, truth enough to strengthen my faith. I'm also seeking a more permanent solutions to problems in my life (although this is mostly separate from religion).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Despite KOM's usual saber-rattling, we all believe something and live our lives accordingly.
While this is true, believers in, say, the superiority of Linux over Windows somehow rarely find themselves inspired to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up buses. Weird, that.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Funny. I don't remember the last time a Mormon strapped explosives to his/her body and blew up a bus for the sake of faith.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
On the other hand, they were certainly prepared to fight a minor civil war, back in the 1830s. Not to mention the Mountain Meadows massacre. Not very nice, really.
[ March 27, 2006, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
KOM, that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Yes the Mountain Meadows Massacre was terrible thing and yes the pioneers were ready to fight to protect their homes from attacking mobs. But here is the very important difference. They were attacked first. The early members of the church were driven from their homes multiple times. Their women were raped, their men killed, and their homes and property were illegally confiscated. The idiot governor of Missouri even signed an extermination order, which was illegal even then. As a people they had been pushed to the brink.
So what? Are you saying that after all that, they are religious nuts because they FINALLY decided to take up arms and defend themselves. You seem to conviently forget that it had not been very long after the Revolutionary War had been fought. Some of those people had parents and grandparents that fought in the war. They still remembered the sting of the whip of the British. Of course they wanted to fight back, but yet, with few exceptions, they didn't.
The massacre at Mountain Meadows happened because there were many pioneers that were still angry. The people in the wagon train that was killed said and did things that reopened old wounds and they were killed for it. Does that make it right? No. However I am amazed that after EVERYTHING the early church members went through that they did not fight back and make the rivers run with blood. Thank goodness they did not. So before you start accusing mormons of being these violent war mongers, you should look at the facts.
I don't care if you agree with the beliefs of the LDS church or not, but this kind of crap makes me angry. As a member of the church am I proud of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? No way. But don't you dare try use that sad incident to compare a group of people that, as a whole, believe in peace, patrotism, and love for their fellow man to religious zealots who try use their beliefs as a weapon to cause terror.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Reddwarf, I think that you need to do some more research. I sincerely doubt that most of your fellow church members would agree with your assessment of the situation. Murdering the wagon train did NOT constitute "fighting back." That's why it's a massacre. Those that caused the massacre were most certainly violent religous zealots that are comparable to any other violent religous zealot. They are as representative of Mormonism as the Islamic terrorists are representative of Islam. In other words, not very.
I think KOM is wrong because it is not just religious ideals that lead people to violence. The Oklahoma City bombing was fueled by political ideals. Riots have been fueled by racial tension. Any subject that is very close to people's hearts (and I submit that Windows vs. Linux is not) has the capacity to lead violent people to make violent choices. That alone says nothing of the subject, it only says something about the people that commit such acts.
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
Amanecer, I was not saying that the MMM was fighting back. It was a massacre and is very sad sad chapter of LDS history. However, the those that were killed were not killed because religious zealots decided that they should pay for their sins through a notion of blood atonement. Brigham Young did teach that concept yes, but that was not the reason the massacre happened. It happened because those that were killed pushed the wrong buttons in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those people were killed because some of the church members wanted revenge for the atrocities they had suffered. Those people were killed for vengence, not religous principle. It's still not the same and still a very unfair comparison.
Edit: The blood atonement concept was probably used later on by those that particpated in the massacre to justify their actions. This is speculation of course, but so is the notion that the massacre occured in order to fulfill a blood atonement. The only historical fact that can be confirmed is that the massacre took place. The true motives of the killers are all but lost to time.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:The true motives of the killers are all but lost to time.
I don't know that that's entirely true. In 1857, US troops were marching on Utah. Young declared martial law and gave instructions that people should prepare to defend themselves against invasions. I do not think that the party was killed because of vegeance so much as emotions stirred up by the threat of all out war. Someone could say that it was not a religious war and was merely political, but I would disagree.
Here's a couple of FAIR LDS articles on the subject. These articles try to paint the perpetrators of the massacre as extremists. Why is that a difficult thing to say? If they're not extremists that would make them representative of average Mormons. I don't think you're trying to say that, so I don't really understand why you're arguing this specific point. The MMM has plenty of controversy surrounding it, but I don't think that the religious fanaticism of the murderers is really in question.
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
Thanks for the link to those articles Amanecer. The problem is that the articles you pointed me too dispute your premise that religion had anything to do with this. Especially the speech given by Gene Sessions. Here is an especially enlighting quote.
"Q: You said that it was fear basically that caused the September 11 executions. They were afraid the wagon trains would get back to California and say it was the Mormons. But what caused the initial attack that started off the whole thing?
SESSIONS: Good question. As I was answering the other question I realized I was skipping past that.
There was a meeting held on Sunday, the High Council met, and the initial decision was not to attack and there had been a lot of trouble with these folks coming down the road and the same motivation, it seems to me, was involved: 'If they get to California and tell the Californians how weak we are and how poorly defended we are, we're in big trouble.'
I think that also provoked the initial attack. There was a sense of anger at these folks for what they'd done but there was also this sense of, 'Gosh, if they get out of here and tell the folks in California, 'Yeah we went through there and we can do whatever we want. We think they're poorly armed, they're poor, they're living in 10x10 dugouts--no problem."
Now I will admit that these articles do discount my conclusions about the killers intentions. Looks like that history has been able to discover their motivations after all. Still I don't see how you are getting that this was a crime motivated by religious beliefs in any way.
Now may I suggest that we stop hijacking this thread over this topic? If everyone would like to discuss this further, I suggest that someone create a different thread dedicated to it. I make this suggestion because I know that I am the biggest perpetrator of the hijacking.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It happened because those that were killed pushed the wrong buttons in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those people were killed because some of the church members wanted revenge for the atrocities they had suffered.
It's worth noting that, despite the contrast you've attempted to draw here, it's arguable that many suicide bombers are acting from a similar motivation and, like the MMMs, are merely using scripture incorrectly to lend a veener of divine justification to their actions.
That said, I don't think any reasonable person can draw a particularly close comparison between the behavior of 19th-century Mormon extremists and modern Islamic extremists, except to perhaps make the broad generalization that armed extremists are dangerous.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Reddwarf, I get the impression that you are saying that they were extremists, just not religious extremists. I thought your earlier position was that they were not extremists. In that case, I think we have a lot more common ground then I previously thought.
Tom- I think KOM was drawing the comparison trying to say that religious views lead to extremism which led to both events. I'm saying that deeply held views lead extreme people to extreme events. I think that the comparison between the two events is valid in the context of this argument.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Because adults who believe in Santa Claus are bloody dangerous, and the fewer of them we have around, the better. And since the good guys are at the moment unlikely to win a civil war, deconversion is the current best tactic.
Chairman Mao thought the same thing. Luckily for China, the "good guys" were able to win that civil war. Yippee.
On a lighter note, good luck with the missionaries, pfresh. I'd be glad to respond to any of your concerns if you're interested.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see your point. Just because Mao thought 'X is a good tactic', it doesn't follow that X is evil. And anyway, Mao was the best thing that happened to China since the Great Wall; just ask Blayne.
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
Amanecer, I guess that maybe we are looking at the word extremist differently. I think that we are probably arguing the same thing, just from different angles. To me an extremist is a person that uses a system of beliefs as an excuse to do evil things. To me, the MMM was not an example of extremism, but more of an example of an angry mob mentality. Extremists, motivated by belief, will use violent tactics over and over again to accomplish their purposes. The MMM was more of an incident than a tactic. Fear is what turns normal rational thinking people into an angry mob. While the MMM was definately well planned and well executed, that planning and execution happened at the spur of the moment.
The information you gave me to read I think shows that the people involved were not necessarily acting upon a system of beliefs to accomplish a set of political or ideological goals, but rather they were reacting to perceptions of what would happen to them if that particular wagon train reached California. In that sense, I am definately arguing that they were not extremists, but normal people, given a different set of circumstances, probably would not have made the same choice.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'll give the Mormons this: you can't take the wind from their sails too easily. I more or less told them that I'm not going to their church (and then outline reasons why), and they just smiled about it and offered scripture advice (both from the Bible and from the Book of Mormon). Then they sung a hymn, which was just totally random (and I felt sort of embarassed for them). I then told them my whole thing saying why I can't believe their stuff using logical constructs (if p then q, if not q then not p) and such. They really couldn't argue that. They then had some chips and cheese dip (which my roommate made). They then prayed and then tried to plan a meeting with me. Apparently at some point they want me to fast (they think maybe this "will be enough of a sacrifice to show me the truth of the gospel"). Personally, I don't believe it, and I told them as much. They're bound and determined though. *shrugs* What are you going to do?
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: estavares, I'm not sure I get why you're sad (you say it's because I made my decision the way I did, but that could be taken at least two different ways). As for what I'm seeking, I'm seeking truth, truth enough to strengthen my faith. I'm also seeking a more permanent solutions to problems in my life (although this is mostly separate from religion).
Pfresh, I meant that I believe in that doctrine so I feel it's unfortunate you're not having a better experience. It's like seeing a movie you love and telling someone about it, then they see it and claim it really wasn't their thing.
At the same time, you will never get any kind of solid answer on spiritual/religious questions by approaching it only with logic. It's "apples and oranges" really, because spirituality is based on the notion that there are forces and circumstances and experiences that are NOT measurable by current scientific means. Results are measured in much different ways.
You say you're searching for truth yet you have dismissed the LDS faith (evident by your increasingly sour perspective) by approaching it with the wrong measuring stick, IMHO. I have always been of the opinion that discovering spiritual truth requires learning a new language––a sensitivity that realizes truth even when our flawed, incomplete logic can't always figure it out. It takes time to learn a new language.
My grandparents have a set of encyclopedias from 1960, I think, still on their shelf. You open those up and half of what's there is already outdated. Temporal truth changes rapidly, with errors being made every single day. I submit, when it comes to personal faith and spirituality, there's a better way.
I wonder if any religion, regardless of your desire, will meet your criteria. I personally want to hear these big questions that the missionaries can't seem to answer...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You say you're searching for truth yet you have dismissed the LDS faith (evident by your increasingly sour perspective) by approaching it with the wrong measuring stick, IMHO.
Be careful with this. The "measuring stick" in question requires you to suspend your disbelief in order to begin receiving evidence. This is fertile ground for self-deception.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
It can be said as such, but all truth gathering has the potential for self-deception.
There are controls and variables and data gathering in spiritual affairs, just as much as temporal. Gaining spiritual knowledge is not completely intangible, hence the concept of "by their fruits, ye shall know them." I believe, for example, both by subtle but clear spiritual impressions and consistent reinforcement again and again it is true. This so-called suspension of disbelief is a willingness to accept the notion that something could be true...and this open-mind policy provides the seeker a chance to recieve independent confirmation. I've seen it happen over and over again.
That's one of the reasons I believe the way I do. My faith consistently asks people to find out for themselves. I've never had to take's someone's word something was true. I could find out for myself, and I'd like to think I'm savvy enough to know when I'm being duped.
At the same time, I firmly believe that if someone approaches such a process, fully expecting it to be false, they will get nothing. It's like switching the radio off because the idea of radio waves is too absurd to believe. A good scientist must work with eyes wide open, and so should a seeker of spiritual truth...
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:At the same time, I firmly believe that if someone approaches such a process, fully expecting it to be false, they will get nothing.
In much the same vain that if someone approaches such a process, fully expecting it to be true, they will get their answer.--whether it is Mormonism, fundamental Mormanism, Islam, Scientology, Catholicism, Baptist Doctcrine, et cetera.
There is no measuring stick that gets consitent results across diverse people.
EDIT: spelling and added Islam.
[ March 30, 2006, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Wrong. My measuring stick gets me consistent results-- people bow to my every whim.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: There is no measuring stick that gets consitent results across diverse people.
I strongly disagree.
This process of spiritual confirmation works in every country, with every class and race and age and circumstance of person imaginable. The commonality with all of those who get their answer is that they wanted to know for themselves it was true (or not) and practiced the faith to some degree to see for themselves if it was right for them.
I've seen people from Brazil, Zaire, China, Switzerland and numerous other countries get this confirmation. There was no way I or anyone else could convince them.
Does initial inclination influence this? Sure. Does it make something false (or true, for that matter) knowing this? Nope. The process is subjective, which makes sense to me but infuriates those who rely only on their five senses.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This process of spiritual confirmation works in every country, with every class and race and age and circumstance of person imaginable.
On Hatrack alone, you will find at least six people who claim to have gone through this process with an open mind and emerged without confirmation. It clearly does not work for all people, unless these six are liars.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: On Hatrack alone, you will find at least six people who claim to have gone through this process with an open mind and emerged without confirmation. It clearly does not work for all people, unless these six are liars.
Except that more than simply "an open mind" is requred; for instance the scriptures speak of a broken heart and contrite spirit. There's the requirement that the person have a sincere desire to know and commitment to change their life if the answer dictates. And lots of other requirements for the experiment to work. Just because a difficult and complicated experiment isn't successfully completed 100% of the time doesn't necessarily indicate the experiment is flawed or that the failed investigators are liars.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Except that more than simply "an open mind" is requred; for instance the scriptures speak of a broken heart and contrite spirit.
And there are people here who claim to have received a confirmation who did NOT have a broken heart at the time.
I submit that these unknown variables conspire to make the "confirmation" a completely unreliable test.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: And there are people here who claim to have received a confirmation who did NOT have a broken heart at the time.
Of course there's a semantical issue about what "broken heart" means. The difficulty with a spiritual experiment (or, at least, this spiritual experiment) is that the requirements can't be quantified in the way they can for a physical experiment.
quote:I submit that these unknown variables conspire to make the "confirmation" a completely unreliable test.
I can understand why you would come to that conclusion. I disagree (but then, you already knew that). <edit> And I think that "unquantifiable variables" is a more accurate term than "unknown variables" </edit>
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I would say when I first came looking at the LDS Church and the Book of Mormon, I came with a broken heart and contrite spirit. I also came seeking knowledge about the truth (as far as it relates to religious matters). I have yet to receive any sort of confirmation. Instead, I find my analytical mind bringing up things that would keep me from a confirmation. The missionaries just seem to think it will take time, but I've already spent months on reading and studying the scriptures and the history surrounding them. Instead of feeling myself moved closer towards the church, I've felt like each day is a move away from the church. So I'm not sure how good the confirmation test really is if I'm an indication of results.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: This process of spiritual confirmation works in every country, with every class and race and age and circumstance of person imaginable. The commonality with all of those who get their answer is that they wanted to know for themselves it was true (or not) and practiced the faith to some degree to see for themselves if it was right for them.
Seems to me you are rather cherry-picking your data, here. Unless you really meant to imply that your criterion for consistency was 'it works for some and not others, and that's true for all nationalities?'
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
Based on my experience I have come to the conclusion that sincere investigators do recieve their confirmation from the spirit, but many fail to act on it out of fear, pride, overdependance on their own intellect, etc. Consequently, their "window of opportunity" passes, and the sprit leaves their life.
This is described in both the New Testiment with the parable of the sower and in the Book of Mormon with the "seed of faith" analagy.
On a side note, one of the great errors that is often perpetuated as doctrine by LDS members is that all people receive their confirmation by a strong spritual manifestation (e.g. a "burning in the bosom"). However the Doctrine and Convenets clearly states that not everyone needs to have this experience.
From section 46:
11 For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.
12 To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby.
13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.
I must admit that "logically" there are many aspects of my religion that don't make perfect sense. But then again, human logic is flawed and imperfect. On the other hand, I have had too many events in my life that positivly support the position that God is real and LDS church is his temporal orginzation to execute his plan.
Anyway, other than King of Men's snarky comments, this has been an interesting thread to see the investigative process from the other side.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Based on my experience I have come to the conclusion that sincere investigators do recieve their confirmation from the spirit...
Based on your experience? At best, you could have come to this conclusion based on your observations.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My husband converted before we got married. I don't think he ever had a "confirmation" so to speak. He kept coming up with more and more questions then we would research them until we found answers. It took him a very long time to come up with answers to all his questions, but after like a year or so of research, he decided he had no more objections therefore, it must be good. Five years later, he still has no regrets. A much more intellectual (and slow) conversion than what the missionaries expected him to have, but what he needed.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Based on my experience I have come to the conclusion that sincere investigators do recieve their confirmation from the spirit, but many fail to act on it out of fear, pride, overdependance on their own intellect, etc. Consequently, their "window of opportunity" passes, and the sprit leaves their life.
I find this notion arrogant to the point of offensiveness. You have absolutely no way to tell whether another person is sincere or has recieved confirmation. You are also indirectly calling many people on this board either insincere or liars, neither of which do I think is true.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have had many prayers where I really wanted to get an answer, and I didn't get anything.
I have also had many prayers where the answered poured forth. As far as I can tell, I was neither more worthy nor more spiritual nor more open when the answers came than when they didn't.
I don't know why it doesn't always work. I know that it certainly does a lot of the time, and sometimes it takes a very long time for answers to come. Sometimes I probably gave up too soon. Other times, I didn't have to wait.
I absolutely believe that the Lord hears all our prayers, and that he answers them. I don't know the reasons for the variation in response, but I believe that people can try and not get it anything. Which is a bummer. I don't know why that happens.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Katie, I believe the same thing, and have had the same experience. Sometimes the heavens are opened and the answers pour forth. Other times I don't understand what I'm doing wrong or why things are different but I feel unsure and unanswered.
The confirmation has come through enough times in enough circumstances that I know that every single thought and act is important and that I'm never left without loving concern and oversight. I think there must be times when I need to, on my own, come up with the next step. It's important that it come from inside me, rather than me just being a passive follower. Other times, I'm not sure why things happen as they do. I don't know why I've been given such a privilege, the companionship of a living God, when surely I deserve it far less than many people who seek and do not find it. I do know it makes sense, though. There is a whole lot of ignorance here about how the universe works and what is important and what isn't. I've got to learn all the whys and wherefores eventually. I have no doubt at all that this path is the best way to learn it. There has to be a certain amount of floundering around and being stuck before you can figure out complicated stuff. It's true for calculus and engine control systems, and everything else hard that I have learned in my life. I'm profoundly aware of how ignorant I actually am about life, the universe, and everything. There are a zillion possible good reasons why everything has to be this way.
The thing I have no doubt of is that we are each of us greatly loved, and that what we choose matters immensely in the overall scheme of things. I pray for everyone who lacks that knowledge and feels the lack, that they may find it. I've been told that if we seek earnestly we will find, and if we knock the door will be opened. Take one step toward God and God will take two steps toward you. Why it's harder or slower for some people than others is a mystery. Why we feel it sometimes and others not is too. Why I had to wait 45 years to know what I was supposed to do in life, I don't know. I'm just grateful that now I see.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Pfresh, I don't know why you're having the experience you're having, but you shared the following near the beginning of this thread:
quote: So I had prepared a sort of mental list of questions to ask or subjects to discuss (I have yet to let a Mormon missionary give me a lesson).
Have you ever allowed them to share the gospel basics? The discussion is designed to build a foundation and give you tools to learn for yourself. I mean no disrespect, (hey, I wasn't there) but the impression I've gotten is you don't want them to teach you. You want them to fix you, but on your terms. You might find that the gospel basics will answer your questions.
As a teacher I am responsible to teach correct information and provide the foundation of knowledge for my students. If they want to go beyond that, that's great, but I cannot afford to have them simply decide our agenda and ask hypothetical after hypothetical. There comes a time when a student needs to be a student...otherwise, their learning is diminished.
I hope you might reflect on your motives from the get-go, and ask yourself if you were genuinely willing to listen and do as they suggest, or if you're tried this process in a way that is far less productive. I've seen people who sought and felt nothing, but I don't think it means the process is false. It's like saying breaking the sound barrier was impossible because one plane after another blew up before getting there.
It just means that sometimes we need to rethink our approach.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
quote: Seems to me you are rather cherry-picking your data, here. Unless you really meant to imply that your criterion for consistency was 'it works for some and not others, and that's true for all nationalities?'
I'm just sharing what I've seen for myself.
I do believe that such confirmation can and will come to anyone and everyone...if certain conditions are met. You cannot test a hypothesis without following certain conditions, and the same goes for spiritual experimentation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah so. I have here beside me a rock; it is a greyish type, with whiter striations. If you pray tot his rock, you will have a spiritual revelation which will make you feel much better. Won't you try praying? But you must have an open heart and a contrite mind.
...
It didn't work? Well, clearly then you must not have been doing it right. Perhaps your mind wasn't open enough. Because I do earnestly believe that this enlightenment can come to anyone - if certain conditions are met.
Do you see my point?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Have you ever allowed them to share the gospel basics? The discussion is designed to build a foundation and give you tools to learn for yourself. I mean no disrespect, (hey, I wasn't there) but the impression I've gotten is you don't want them to teach you. You want them to fix you, but on your terms. You might find that the gospel basics will answer your questions.
There was never a need to share the gospel basics. I've read the Book of Mormon (for the most part) and most of the D&C. They've brought up certain passages of the "basics" in answer to my questions at times. To be honest, I've never needed to hear the basics, and they've told me they are glad I'm not someone who just takes the lessons they give. They feel like they learn from talking to me, because we are talking about things beyond the basics. As for the teach vs fix thing, I think that's debatable. I've already said in this thread (I think) that for me joining the church would have been a quick fix to more permanent problems I have. Meeting with the missionaries though has never been about that quick fix; it has always been about seeking the truth.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
King of Men:
You crack me up. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Well...except for this one.
Pfresh:
I do agree that your issues seem to need solutions beyond religion. I'm all for deep discussions myself, but I wonder if you went about this in a way that was less conductive to a more positive experience.
But hey, that's just me. One guy's opinion. Hopefully you'll find what you're looking for. I figure you'll land on your feet, regardless.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:There was never a need to share the gospel basics. I've read the Book of Mormon (for the most part) and most of the D&C.
As someone who read 'most of the Book of Mormon' and 'Most of the D&C' with originally the intent to find problems with it, I can say, from personal experience, that it can be very, very easy to get into a 'can't see the forest through the trees' mindset.
By the time I took the Missionary discussions, I had gone back and read the entire Bible, BoM (not just 'for the most part'), and PoGP, and the D&C (again, the whole thing). The missionaries hadn't even done all that. But their 'Basics' lessons were still powerful, simple, and profound. It was a way to bring the most important elements to the forefront, where for me, oftentimes the trappings would get in the way.
quote:They've brought up certain passages of the "basics" in answer to my questions at times. To be honest, I've never needed to hear the basics,
As a ward missionary, I attend the Gospel Essentials Sunday School class - the class designed for Investigators and New Converts. Prior to this, I taught the 13-14 year old Sunday School class. Each of those teaches nothing more than what you would call 'the basics'. Since joining 2 years ago, I have never regularly been able to attend the 'regular' Sunday School class. but I keep finding new power and application in these 'basic' classes and lessons. It's easy to get to wrapped up in deep doctrine, and speculative matters, that one misses the true simplicity of the Core of the Restored Gospel.
I love history and deep doctrine as much as the next guy. Actually, probably a lot more than many. My research and study into the intricacies of religious and secular history (and human nature) never end - and each level of study has amazingly increased my faith and understanding in the Scriptures.
quote:Meeting with the missionaries though has never been about that quick fix; it has always been about seeking the truth.
Which in itself is a fantastic mindset. Just keep in mind the principal that just because those two missionaries don't have an answer that works well for you, it doesn't mean that a proper answer doesn't exist. Sometimes, admittedly, it doesn't. But in many cases, most cases, there is an answer.
I've read every substantial piece of anti-Mormon rhetoric you can find, online and off. That's not too hard, because much of them repeat each other. The point is, I have come to view elements that come up that I don't understand as being that - elements I don't understand. I don't shrug them over, I research, ponder, and pray over them before I am satisfied with a proper response - whether intellectual, or spiritual. Both combined are the ideal.
This is how things worked, and continue to work for me. And I guess that is all that I can say.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: You crack me up. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Well...except for this one.
Indeed? How extremely surprising. It appears that you feel your example is highly different from mine in some completely obvious way. Perhaps you would care to tell me what the difference is?
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Would it matter?
Your views on such matters are no secret, so I'm not about to debate them with you. It's that whole "pearls before swine" thing (no offense).
Mock it if you will, but as for me I believe God is real, that prayer works, that it is an independent source of knowledge, and that it can be verified. I believe that anyone who is sincere and willing to do what it takes will get that answer eventually. I firmly believe that we are all capable of it.
Heck, even you.
Come on King, you want to pray...don'chya?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Taalcon, I followed your link and I was curious about verse 17:
quote:And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.
Do Mormons believe that suicide results in outer darkness or the lowest level of glory (Terrestial?) as this seems to suggest? This really isn't a set up or anything, I just didn't know that and wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly.
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
Amanecer, that is actually a very complicated questions. However I will give you what I think to be the best answer.
LDS doctrine states clearly that only one sin gives an individual entrance to outer darkness. That level of hell is reserved for those that sin against the Holy Ghost. In other words, gain a perfect or near perfect understanding/knowledge of God and Christ and then walk away and fight against the lamb. Since it is only this sin that gains you entrance into outer darkness, a mere suicide would not take you there.
Now for the complicated part of the question, where then do they end up? The best answer is that God will decide. Because we will be judged based on how we have lived our life and how hard we strove to live a Christlike life, I would submit that we cannot judge as to which level of glory that a person who commits suicide could attain. I have a very strong belief in the power of forgiveness and I know that Christ has the capacity to give every person the full opportunity to accept or reject his atonement. I am sure that you know of course that Mormons believe in work for the dead. I believe that this work gives all of God's children, no matter when they lived the opportunity to attain the full glory of god. Because God is infinately just and Christ is infinately merciful, I feel comforted in the fact that there is no blanket answer to your question, except the part about outer darkness. God will judge them and give them the glory that they deserve.
Incidentally, the scripture you quoted mainly talks to those who have accepted Christ's gospel and choose not to follow his teachings. In other words, they give up and turn away.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It is also said, and I believe it, that in the end everyone will decide for themselves where they want to be, where they feel comfortable. Those in outer darkness will be there because that is what they wanted. It's extremely sad, so much so that I can't even talk about it, but I know what it feels like to wish that for oneself.
God is doing everything he possibly can do to persuade everyone to accept a brighter future than that. But he won't force us, for that would be worse.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Do Mormons believe that suicide results in outer darkness or the lowest level of glory (Terrestial?) as this seems to suggest? This really isn't a set up or anything, I just didn't know that and wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly.
I think the more correct reading would be the one Taalcon gave: "enduring" means continuing to follow God's commandments until "the end," judgement day (if there is such an end. IIRC, at least one LDS apostle has asserted that there is no final judgement, just a beginning of kingdoms).
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Taalcon: The point is, I have come to view elements that come up that I don't understand as being that - elements I don't understand. I don't shrug them over, I research, ponder, and pray over them before I am satisfied with a proper response - whether intellectual, or spiritual. Both combined are the ideal.
I've been thinking a lot about this since yesterday, when the discussion of the requirements for confirmation were being discussed, and I ended up in a similar line of thought. There are things I don't yet understand in the gospel, things I can't yet reconcile logically. But that doesn't indicate that I can't believe those concerns will eventually be resolved.
I thought about a pro-evolution argument I heard about irreducible complexity, that all it was doing was pointing out yet-to-be resolved details. The annoying thing about the arguments (and this is paraphrasing someone else, I don't follow the debate closely myself) is that each time one of the "irreducible complexities" is shown to be reducible, the complainers can simply move on to a different example that they consider hasn't been fully explained/demonstrated. Such arguments don't sway pro-evolutionists because they feel the evidence supporting the theory outweighs the temporary lack of knowledge of all the details. The same could be said of my faith, I suppose.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:King of Men: You crack me up. I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Well...except for this one. ... Your views on such matters are no secret, so I'm not about to debate them with you. It's that whole "pearls before swine" thing (no offense). ... Mock it if you will, but as for me I believe God is real, that prayer works, that it is an independent source of knowledge, and that it can be verified.
estavares, why can't you dignify that with a response? I think KoM makes a very valid point. KoM's views may be no secrete, but neither are yours, mine, or most of us on hatrack.
He wasn't asking you to debate "such matters" as gospel doctrine. He is not asking about temple marriage ceremonies. He seems to be asking about epistemology.
I am glad you can verify that knowledge that the LDS church is true. I remember my testimony; it seemed so sweet. I read the BoM twice in the MTC. I highlighted in yellow every name for God/Christ. I was amazed at how the book testified of Christ. I wrote a burning testimony in the book. I read it 17 more times in the mission field. I LOVED that book.
And yet when I realized the church was false, it was a more pure testimony of Gods love then anything I experienced in the church. It was a weight off of my shoulders. The church teaches we should continue to nourish our testimonies--so when I looked around and started to see things that did not square with how I was raised or what I was taught, I was troubled and put the church to the test.
It feels so good to be away from the church. My feelings are more powerful then any 'point by point' discussion/response I get about the priesthood, polygamy, DNA, evolution of church doctrine, changes in the BoM, or how the church spends money.
I recognize my feelings come from personal experiences--as do yours. There is an inherint arrogances to a belief system that says "YOU" did something wrong if you don't emotionally understand what "I" understand.
As a Mormon I never saw the arrogance, and it is possible I never would have seen it. For me it was about "love" and "concern" for my fellow man/woman.
However, I understood Amanecer's feelings of finding "this notion arrogant to the point of offensiveness" the first time a ward member said she "weeps for me."
Oops, I got on a tangent. The point is my feelings say it is false. I applied the test and lived the doctrine. So there must be something wrong with me--right? Why is KoM's contention about his rock, on an epistemological level for validating truth, any different then yours? Or mine?
If people pray and get different (or no) answers, and you say that they did not meet personal conditions like a contrite heart, then how is that different the KoM's scenario?
Here is a recap of what he said:
quote: If you pray tot his rock, you will have a spiritual revelation which will make you feel much better. Won't you try praying? But you must have an open heart and a contrite mind.
...
It didn't work? Well, clearly then you must not have been doing it right. Perhaps your mind wasn't open enough. Because I do earnestly believe that this enlightenment can come to anyone - if certain conditions are met.
EDIT: Grammer.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Do Mormons believe that suicide results in outer darkness or the lowest level of glory (Terrestial?) as this seems to suggest? This really isn't a set up or anything, I just didn't know that and wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly.
I would like to take a shot at this. Other hatrackers have done a good job of answering this question. I want to throw in my 2 cents that the scripture is about "enduring to the end." I think this should also be mentioned: There is an LDS belief that God will not test you beyond what you can bare.
At the beginning of the church, there was little understanding about psychology--this was certainly not the churches fault. There was a belief that if you followed the gospel, then there would be no mental illness. Since the pioneer trek to the west was so hazardous, most of the sick people didn't survive. There was little report of mental illness in the Salt Lake Valley (most had died) and this belief was reinforced. There was a culture of blaming illness on sin.
With strides in psychology and physiology, the church has come to recognize mental illness as something some people are burdened with by no fault of their own. The church has set up quite a comprehensive social and mental service support program.
If someone has committed suicide, there is a growing tendency to see them as victims of a mental illness. You can't be judged if you have no free agency--that is why children before age 8 can't sin. Someone who commits suicide obviously has some severe emotional and chemical things going on that might exempt them from their actions.
If someone takes mind altering illicit drugs and does something awful, then they are responsible for their behavior because they chose to tamper with their body/temple. If someone has a natural imbalance in their brain, there is a growing tendency to recognize that they may be judged by a different standard then the rest of "God's Children."
It is a good move I recognize in the church. I can see the shift through reading my wife's Ensign (church magazine) over time.
EDIT to add "and this belief was reinforced."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You can't be judged if you have no free agency--that is why children before age 8 can't sin.
In the sense that the level of one's agency is correlated to one's knowledge of right and wrong, this is a correct statement.
However, I would rather say that children are not held accountable for their mistakes until they know right from wrong. The quoted statement seems to hold that children have no free agency, which isn't incorrect (if free agency <--> knowledge), but still makes me squirm.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:In the sense that the level of one's agency is correlated to one's knowledge of right and wrong, this is a correct statement.
However, I would rather say that children are not held accountable for their mistakes until they know right from wrong. The quoted statement seems to hold that children have no free agency, which isn't incorrect (if free agency <--> knowledge), but still makes me squirm.
Interesting. I never thought of it that way. I always assumed free agency was tied to the knowledge of knowing good and evil, and kids minds are not mature enough to have that knowledge.
I guess I just assumed kids don't have free agency in Mormon Doctrine because I associate free agency with accountability, but I can see your point. I was only tying to show that there are different standards God uses to judge people. Thank you for the other perspective.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:I was only tying to show that there are different standards God uses to judge people.
And that's the important bit to me, too.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Thanks to all responded to that question and especially Taalcon for that link. I think I understand that view better now. Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Iem:
KoM's question is a dishonest one at its core, because it falsely summarizes my concept of spiritual confirmation as A) self-generated, since a "rock" is in no way divine, and such effort is therefore fruitless from the outset, B) fueled by the motive to "feel better" as if the seeker is unable to cope or think things through for themselves, and C) failure is justified by a glib response of "you're not doing it right" which makes success ultimately impossible.
I try not to argue with snarkmongers, especially when they change something into a false statement. The Anti-Mormon link about missionary tactics you offered earlier in this thread is another example of a subtle but insidious practice to redefine definitions from the get-go. Taking someone's words and altering them just enough to redefine it completely?
That's dishonest to me, and its tough to debate a lie.
That being said, I think there is nothing arrogant in believing that there is a method to recieve spiritual confirmation. It's like saying I'm arrogant because there is a best way to create water. I wish I could use helium and iron, but it's not going to work as well as hydrogen and oxygen.
Am I biased in favor of my own faith? Of course I am, because I know only what I've experienced and what I've seen in the last thirty-something years––the people I've known who have accepted, rejected, returned, or left the faith. Time after time the gospel I've been taught has proven true. But that's just me.
Prayer is a personal experience, and it varies from person to person, but the doctrine is clear: "Knock, and it shall be opened." It requires work and effort and a willingness to do things a certain way to get the best results. If someone takes a radio and drops it in water and unplugs the cord (hopefully not in that order) they're not going to get a signal. And if someone chooses to approach prayer believing God (or a particular faith) is a lie and that their behavior and mental focus has no bearing on the answer––they're not going to get the confirmation they seek.
As for yourself, do you assume your initial experience was a false testimony, then? If so, how can you be trusted that your current impression is correct? Were you duped?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:A) self-generated, since a "rock" is in no way divine, and such effort is therefore fruitless from the outset
But this is exactly what I think of your god! How do you know that a rock is not divine? Many people have believed just that.
Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
Actually, since God created the earth and everything in it, the rock is divine, because he created it. However, I agree that praying to it probably won't help you too much. Posted by ReddwarfVII (Member # 8879) on :
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Iem: As for yourself, do you assume your initial experience was a false testimony, then? If so, how can you be trusted that your current impression is correct? Were you duped?
Actually Lem, I have been wondering that myself. If, in the early years of your life, believed so strongly as you did, what would make you suddenly stop believing and think that it's all false. If you answer is too long to put here, then don't worry about it, but I am curious as to why you would do a 180 like after believing so strongly. What changed your mind?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I feel very much the same way that lem does. I was raised in the LDS church, went on a mission and was married in the temple, and while I still respect many aspects of the church and its members, I don't believe it to be literally true.
I'm sure lem can answer the question about what made him lose his faith personally, but I'll tell you one of many experiences that led me to question my faith.
I remember growing up in a strong Mormon family, going to church, and living a fairly clean religious life. I read the scriptures and prayed, never kissed a girl until I was 19 years old, never drank or smoked or took the Lord's name in vain and always paid my tithing. I was occasionally a bit of a smart-ass, but I had read and prayed about the Book of Mormon from an early age and got a witness powerful enough to keep me in line. And, seeing how some of my friends' lives turned out who didn't have that in their lives, I'm still glad that I had that testimony to guide me.
When I was in my early teens, I had a Sunday School teacher and scoutmaster I'll call R~. R~ was the coolest guy ever. He was hardworking and owned his own business, had a nice family, and took all his callings seriously. All the kids in the ward loved him, and their parents did, too. He always bore strong testimony of the church, and had one of the most wonderfully loving households I've ever seen. He was more than just a great teacher, he was a close friend to every kid in the ward. We'd all hang out with his family just like we would with kids our own age, and we never felt unwanted or out of place.
After I'd known R~ for a few years, he moved from the suburb we were living in to a house in a deserted area past the outskirts of the city. By then, most of the kids that knew him from the ward had drivers' licenses, and we'd all still go over there just as often as we would when he lived near us. He started getting more interested in outdoorsmanship and survival, and the way he talked about life and religion changed very subtly as time passed.
Soon, rather than discussing common gospel principles with him, we'd find ourselves talking about things such as the Illuminati, the corruption of the Federal Reserve, and the way the American government had been moving away from the principles that the country had been founded on.
It sounded a little different from what we had been taught in Sunday School, but he always found ways to back these things up from the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and teachings of early church leaders. Most of the people that went to see R~ assumed that this was canonized church doctrine, but we hadn't heard much of it up to now because we were still rather young and not ready to hear it. It was very empowering to be treated like an adult, a peer of one of the most respected members of the ward.
As R~ started opening our eyes to these new and exciting elements of the LDS church that we had been unaware of, he introduced us to a member of the church from Idaho that was running for President of the United States. The man's name was Bo Gritz. None of us had ever heard of him before, but he seemed to espouse the principles that I'd grown up with, and was a very charismatic and powerful man. R~ told us that God truly wanted Bo Gritz to be president, and that if he wasn't voted into office, the country was in serious trouble.
As we learned more about Bo Gritz and his platform, R~ asked us if we honestly believed that he should lead our country. We all believed him. R~ told us that, just like every principle in the gospel, if we were to know it for ourselves, we had to pray about it.
That night I went home, after thinking about all the things that R~ had been telling us since he'd moved to his new house, and got down on my knees and prayed about whether Bo Gritz should lead our nation. I prayed with great faith, humility, and a deep desire to know the truth. It took some time, but as I prayed I got a warm feeling. I got the same reassurance that God wanted Bo Gritz to be the president that I'd received all those times I'd prayed about the truth of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church.
After I'd had that experience, I joined the Bo Gritz campaign, even though I wasn't old enough to vote myself. As I continued visiting R~, he kept telling me more things about his understanding of the gospel that I hadn't known before. He told me, with very convincing logic and meticulously documented evidence, why he believed that there should never be temples built outside of America, because non-Americans must come to America or they can't enter God's kingdom. He told me that interracial marriage is a sin, because people of different races have different Gods. He told me that the current leadership of the LDS church had long since apostasized, and that Thomas S Monson in particular was an insidious tool of Satan.
Not long after I graduated high school, R~ sold his business and moved to one of the most isolated places in the entire state of Utah. It's 2 hours from the nearest town of any size, and everyone there lives in trailers because there's no way to transport cement for homes' foundations on the roads to the town. He didn't have an address, and to mail him a letter you just put his name and the town on the envelope. I went to visit him once, about two years after he moved there. The village was one of the most pristine and beautiful places I've ever seen. He'd bought a large ranch and learned how to live under the government's radar, since he believed it a sin to pay taxes or have a drivers license. He took another wife, and performed temple ceremonies in his back yard. It was one of the most frightening things I'd ever seen. As much as I still appreciate everything he did for me growing up, I haven't seen him in over a decade.
The thing is, R~ isn't a bad guy. He's not a child molester or a devil worshiper. He's one of the kindest, most caring people I've ever met. And I'm convinced to this day that he honestly believes in his way of life, and that he was trying to share it with me out of a genuine desire to help me. And that's more frightening to me than any malicious act he could have committed.
Ever since I was in high school, that experience has festered in my mind. I enjoyed serving my mission. I did it with my whole heart, and I'd never take back anything I said to anyone I met while I was in the field. But every time I told anyone that I knew the church was true, something in the back of my mind reminded me of the time I prayed about Bo Gritz, and how, to this day, I can't distinguish the answer I got about him from the one I got concerning the Book of Mormon. And eventually I realized that, for all the good that the church has done me, I don't have the overwhelming evidence I wish I had that it is literally true.
I don't know what lem's story is, and I don't know what would happen if a Mormon prayed to a rock. But I have been in the position of a believer and a non-believer, the line between the two isn't as clear as I once believed. The only thing I know for sure is that anyone who doesn't have respect and empathy for a person on the opposite side of the fence is doing himself or herself a disservice.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Speed, what an interesting story!
I had the experience that I was positive I was meant to go to Iraq. I felt it so clearly. And then for two years I tried to find work there and it didn't happen. I don't understand these things, but they don't make me lose my faith.
I guess it's because I can tell the tree by its fruit. What eventually made you doubt your friend and Bo Gritz? (That name sounds like a joke name.) Was it that the fruits of what they taught began to go sour for you?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Since the restored gospel has been such a good thing in my life, and since the companionship of a living God is such an amazing, regenerative force for good inside me, not only do I know they are real, but I want to continue to grow and learn more all the time.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Speed:
How do you define something being "literally true"?
I don't understand why the clearly misguided influence you received, totally contrary to church doctrine, would even be a matter of prayer. Since you believed the LDS faith enough to preach it, wouldn't their behavior be a clear sign? Good ole' Bo Gritz (I remember him well) was excommunicated by the church; why presume anything he (or any of his followers) said trumped the scriptures or the teachings of the prophet?
I'd love more insight here.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Was it that the fruits of what they taught began to go sour for you?
I love that you brought that up. The Biblical tests of truth, to me, have always made a lot more sense than the Book of Mormon Promise. "By their fruits shall ye know them" and "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good" have long been some of my favorite passages in scripture. Not only do they make a lot of sense philosophically, but the LDS church really brings about a lot of good and stands up very well to those tests itself. Of course, like any organization, it's not perfect (as I'm trying to keep this positive, I won't elaborate on that). But they spend an incredible amount of money worldwide helping people, and there are also plenty of kids who never ruin their lives with drugs, or shorten them with tobacco or STDs, as well as become educated and involved in their community, largely because of the Church's influence. Some very good fruits, to be sure
However, when the Church is trying to convince people that it's true, they usually let that criterion go in favor of the one in Moroni. When I asked people whether they wanted to be baptized, I was never trained to ask them to examine the fruits of the church in making that decision. In the discussions we used, we always just asked them to pray about it and do what they felt was right, which doesn't hold up to scrutiny nearly as well.
In answer to your question, though, it actually wasn't the fruits of R~'s teachings that turned me off. To the last time I saw him, he still seemed as contented, and his family seemed as loving and functional, as any I'd ever seen. But when you try to present something as true tied in with so many obvious lies, it's hard to buy into it fully. In order to believe in his version of Mormonism, for example, I'd have had to believe that the anti-counterfeitting measures undertaken by the treasury were part of a vast government plot to monitor the movements and assetts of its enemies, and that Thomas S Monson had spent his life of service as a plot to steal the souls of gullible children. At a certain point, it just became too much to swallow, and then the whole thing fell apart.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I don't understand why the clearly misguided influence you received, totally contrary to church doctrine, would even be a matter of prayer. Since you believed the LDS faith enough to preach it, wouldn't their behavior be a clear sign? Good ole' Bo Gritz (I remember him well) was excommunicated by the church; why presume anything he (or any of his followers) said trumped the scriptures or the teachings of the prophet?
I'm happy to discuss this with you, estavares. But from what I've gathered from that post and others that you've made on this thread, I expect to have a much more heated and less respectful debate on this than with someone like Tatiana. Which is fine, but I should warn you that I'm studying for a big test and I won't have time to really get into it with you for at least a couple of days.
That being said, I do have time to at least briefly address what you said here. I have two responses to the question that you posed.
First, at the time that I prayed about Bo Gritz he hadn't been excommunicated, the man that I'd learned about him from was a highly respected member of the mainstream Mormon community, and I had no reason to believe that what they told me was in any way contrary to church doctrine. They weren't trying to "trump" the scriptures. They regularly used the scriptures to explain and buttress their doctrine.
Second, even if I had been given a reason to doubt that what they said was fully in line with church teachings, I was still well within my rights, and the limits of the Promise, to pray about it. Moroni didn't say, "The church is true and the way you can know if anything else is true is if it lines up with church teachings." (In fact it's lucky he didn't say that... it sounds more like something you'd hear from David Koresh than God.) What he did say was, "...and by the power of the Holy Ghost you may know the truth of all things." In other words, you can come from Atheism, pray about the Book of Mormon, and know that it's true. You can come from mainstream Mormonism, pray about whether Brigham Young or Joseph Smith III succeeded Joseph Smith Jr, and know what the answer is. You can pray about whether Gordon B Hinckley is still in direct succession from Joseph Smith, or whether he's apostasized and Bo Gritz or Steven Veazey should be the new head of the church, and as long as you do all these things humbly and sincerely, with pure intent, you should get the correct answer every time.
That's actually one of the things I liked about the church growing up. I thought it showed a remarkable amount of trust to say that we could know for ourselves whether anything that the Prophet said was true. We didn't have to take anyone's word for it, but if we asked sincerely, God would show us for ourselves the truth of all things.
When I prayed about Bo Gritz, I did it as sincerely as anything I'd ever prayed about. There was no cynicism in it, and I wasn't trying to test God. If the Promise is true, and Bo Gritz wasn't God's choice for President, there isn't a single reason I shouldn't have been given a bad feeling, or at the very least a stupor of thought. But I wasn't. I was given a warm and comforting feeling that everything I'd learned, studied and pondered was true, and it was just as real to me as my testimony of the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. And if you don't think that I had the right to ask under those circumstances, I guess we have a different interpretation of Moroni's Promise.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
Who say's Bo Gritz wasn't God's preferred candidate at the time? Just because he didn't win doesn't mean that God favored one of the other candidates more...
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
1) Bo Gritz is a freaking wingnut. You'll meet saner people holding urine-stained cardboard signs in the New York subway.
2) If he was God's candidate, the Mormon church as it stands today certainly isn't true. As estevares pointed out, he's been excommunicated, and the church is as proud to be associated with him as with the polygamists that have 14-year-old wives.
[ April 01, 2006, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
Maybe when he wasn't running for President he wasn't so bad? Or maybe the other candidates were just worse?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I also feel similar to Iem and Speed. I was raised in the Mormon Church and left it at age 13. At that age, my reasons for leaving were far from mature and I now realize had a lot more to do with parental issues than it did with the church itself.
I went through a time about a year and a half ago when I was seriously considering going back to the Church. One of the things that stopped me is the same thing that bothered Speed, the unreliable nature of Moroni’s Promise. When I left the Church, I prayed about it a great, great deal and I felt the warm, comforting feelings as strongly as I ever had in my life. My bosom burned and there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that that was what God wanted. I was absolutely sincere in this request.
Other incidents in my life also make me doubt the validity of the test. I remember once my dad was instituting a new cleaning system or something of the sort in the house. I thought some aspect of it was unfair. He said that he didn’t want the decision to bring about contention so we should all pray about it. I prayed for a long time until I believed that God had communicated to me that it was indeed unfair. I told my dad and he told me that I had misunderstood because he had received revelation that it was correct, so I needed to pray until I got the “correct” answer. I wasn’t allowed to go to bed until I communicated with God “correctly”. It took around two hours but as I was starting to feel exhausted, I received the answer in dramatic clarity. I knew that my dad was right. Looking back at this event, it seems hard to attribute either answer to God. Yet, the burning of the bosom was there. The absolute clarity was there.
These events and more make me believe that the feeling of a burning bosom and absolute clarity do not necessarily come from God. This makes the test feel unreliable. Further, now that I’ve left the Church I still have that same burning of the bosom regularly. When I am deeply moved emotionally I feel the same thing that I used to attribute to the Holy Ghost guiding me. At times those feelings have been caused by things that are out of alignment with the teachings of the Church. Sometimes it is from things they do teach. For example, listening to Skousen's talk that BaoQingTian linked to in this thread moved me a couple of times. This conflicting data leads me to believe that these responses are emotional in nature and really don’t constitute proof of anything. I believe they reveal more about me than they do about God. Even if some of them came from God, there is no way of differentiating them from the ones that don’t.
All of this said, I have not been disingenuous in any of my questions in this and other Mormon related threads. I do not think that at thirteen one is taught a great deal of doctrinal issues. I think that I’ve learned a great deal about the Church in the past two years that I didn’t know seven years ago and there is probably still a lot more that I don’t know.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Hey Speed, it's unfortunate you'd think our discussion would be heated and less respectful. I enjoy hearing other points of view––it's when others twist my words or get snarky that I'm less inclined to be, shall I say, subtle.
I'm passionate about my opinions. (Who isn't?) Obviously I'm not interested in anyone simply ranting or insulting beliefs I enjoy, but I also value seeing things from other perspectives. Heck, I even enjoy King of Men's perspective (until he gets mean), as it helps me see things through others' eyes.
I want to give some quality time to respond to this discussion, so I'll come back to it later. Thanks for the response.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Estaveras, it is times like this I could sit and talk. Talking goes faster and has a certain flow, but I will attempt to address your post here. Lets start here:
quote: The Anti-Mormon link about missionary tactics you offered earlier in this thread is another example of a subtle but insidious practice to redefine definitions from the get-go. Taking someone's words and altering them just enough to redefine it completely?
That's dishonest to me, and its tough to debate a lie.
I needed to go back and re-read what I wrote. Here it is for reference:
quote: However, the above link is not malicious. I feel it takes a neutral view of missionary work. As a RM (return missionary), I can confidently say that what they present about he missionary goals and book is true. I don't find it snarky.
Neutral was a poor word choice. It sounds like I am saying it is unbiased. Of course it is biased; it assumes the church is false. When I read sites like that, or Steve Benson, or the Origins of Mormonism (Grant Palmer), I am struck by how well they quote Mormon scripture, prophets, practices, and doctrine. My wife has her major in Japanese History from Japan. She is Japanese and very Mormon.
One of the things that fascinates her about Japanese History is how much is edited by the government. She never learned or believed the atrocities that Japanese soldiers committed in Korea and China—until her Masters. I have compared studying Mormon History to her study of Japanese. If she only read approved government history (which has been altered), her education would be incomplete. From reading multiple sources she was able to get a more grounded understanding of History.
I meant to express in “neutral” the willingness to not only use “anti-Mormon” literature, but to also rely on Mormon text. Usually they rely heavily on Mormon text. There is a tactic for some adamant apologetics to not address the message but to attack the character of not-friendly-to-Mormonism discussions. When you talk about being insidious and dishonest, while not addressing the content of the link, you place yourself in that camp. I am not sure if you were referring to me or the link, but I found it offensive because you do not justify your accusations.
Here is an opportunity to prove I am wrong. What definitions were redefined? What has dishonest about that link? The first page summarizes and provides a quote from Elder Packer’s talk. How was his taking the Palmer metaphor one more level being dishonest or insidious? This next quote is certainly more neutral then what you will read in the ensign. “…the investigator is unencumbered with this dilemma between exploring the whole truth and being loyal to the church. He is investigating the church because he wants to find out what the juror does: the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. To find that out, he has got to explore both sides.”
I have found more honesty in works like Palmers then in the Ensign. When Palmer provides a bibliography to all the Ensign covers that show Joseph Smith translating the BoM as a classicist would and commenting on how the majority of the translation was done by placing his head in a hat, how is that being more dishonest then the church? Obviously that is just a short example, but the “milk” before “meat” mentality has been used to hide detail.
It may be “tough to debate a lie,” but it is not difficult to expose one.
quote: KoM's question is a dishonest one at its core, because it falsely summarizes my concept of spiritual confirmation as A) self-generated, since a "rock" is in no way divine, and such effort is therefore fruitless from the outset, B) fueled by the motive to "feel better" as if the seeker is unable to cope or think things through for themselves, and C) failure is justified by a glib response of "you're not doing it right" which makes success ultimately impossible.
No it is not. He is not summarizing anything. He is talking about the method you use to arrive at your beliefs. We are debating how we receive truth. A) You assert that there is divinity. Everyone is not on the same page that divinity is a “given.” If there is a Divine, we are not in the same camp that accepts it is found in Mormonism. For you to insist he accept there is a Divine and therefore your method of learning truth is correct, then you are in a circular argument. You insist we accept your divinity so that we can use that said divinity to prove it is divine. Huh?
b) You are the one proposing that emotional revelation is more accurate then logic. I did not detect “motive” in his post, and if it was intended, it is irrelevant to the process. C) Don’t you understand the hypocrisy? You insist that others are not praying right if the truth of the church hasn’t been revealed to them, and then you accuse KoM for being glib for saying the same thing. He was showing you how glib your position is, and it worked. You see it is glib but mistakenly think it doesn’t apply to you.
quote: That being said, I think there is nothing arrogant in believing that there is a method to recieve spiritual confirmation. It's like saying I'm arrogant because there is a best way to create water. I wish I could use helium and iron, but it's not going to work as well as hydrogen and oxygen.
It is nothing like saying there is a “best way to create water.” If you insist on bringing science into this, don’t cry foul when I compare it to science. No matter what anyone believes, helium and water will all work better then helium and iron. In science we get consistent results regardless of beliefs. If the result is not duplicated, then either the hypothesis is wrong or the method was flawed.
In science we can measure method. In spirituality we can’t measure method, so it is EXTREMELY arrogant for you to assume someone else was not as sincere, pure, or honest as you. You are telling someone else they “are not doing it right,” and as KoM has shown, that is a glib response.
Speed has done better a job of expressing the error of emotional proof with his respectful and humble personal experience then I can in my argumentative state.
quote: As for yourself, do you assume your initial experience was a false testimony, then? If so, how can you be trusted that your current impression is correct? Were you duped?
I will address this in another post later. This post is too long. My short answer is “no I was not duped.” I do not believe anyone was deceitful who shared their testimony with me. People usually need to believe in something. I was raised Mormon. I am grateful I understand this new world religion. I appreciate my youth leaders, bishops, and my mission experience. I certainly wasn't duping anyone when I bore my testimony.
EDITED for clarity and changed "was" to "wasn't" at the end of the post--kinda changes the meaning .
[ April 01, 2006, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: lem ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I guess I never expected or hoped that any human leadership of any church would be infallible. And I suppose the method of receiving revelation isn't infallible either for either the members or for the leadership. I really do believe that the General Authorities are just people. They may be touched with many gifts of discernment and wisdom, and certainly I expect many blessings would flow from devoting one's life to God's service, but if even Brigham Young could say some of the things about black people that he did, and on down the list, if each of the prophets' words were examined closely, then I think anyone would have to admit that they simply aren't infallible. But is there a real power of the priesthood to act in God's name? I feel it absolutely is true. I have not the least doubt of that.
But I agree that it isn't perfect. I'm not sure why not, but perhaps it's important that we continue to ponder and search and strive to figure things out ourselves, too, rather than just turn our moral agency over to either the church leadership or else the revelation we get from the spirit. And maybe it's important that the church not be seen by others to be too overwhelmingly advantageous to join, so that people end up joining for worldly reasons, or something. <laughs> Reading back over that it sounds to me like my theories are pretty silly, so I don't put any faith in them, but I put much faith in the church, and in the guidance I've received from it, and the change-of-state that I experienced when I underwent baptism and confirmation.
I'm not very active in my ward now, and have been more and less active in spurts since about a year after I joined. I find it much easier to be LDS by reading the Ensign and the scriptures, and studying other church materials like the Teachings of the Presidents books, and through my personal prayer life, than in person at a ward. I pay tithes faithfully, contribute to the PEF, fast, give to humanitarian aid, and consider myself a faithful Mormon, but I have to take actual weekly service and callings in small doses or I start to feel alienated from the church. I've been assigned visiting teaching, but I'm only managing to do it about half the time. But I totally believe in the power of the priesthood, and of the saving ordinances. I don't really even have to believe, because I just know, because I feel it directly.
I wonder, Speed, how that feeling ever left you, and if you want it back, or if you think that it was a mistake on your part, or what.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I put much faith in the church, and in the guidance I've received from it, and the change-of-state that I experienced when I underwent baptism and confirmation.
That is an awsome sentiment. It is among reasons like yours that I support my wife going to the church and taking our son. I hope you know I enjoy reading your posts.
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Iem:
Nope, I wasn't attacking you personally. Hey, we just met.
Realize I have strong opinions, but I preface my reply by saying these are meant in the spirit of good-natured discussion, and are not intention to insult, deride, or demean. But I do have the right to call attention to arguments taken out of context or misrepresented.
Here we go...
First, that site you linked earlier in this thread comes initially across as a helpful, objective site for those meeting with the missionaries––when, in fact, it is designed to twist motives, scripture, quotes and methods and advertises false conclusions to push a very specific agenda.
You wrote:
quote: There is a tactic for some adamant apologetics to not address the message but to attack the character of not-friendly-to-Mormonism discussions. When you talk about being insidious and dishonest, while not addressing the content of the link, you place yourself in that camp.
When the character of the discussion is not objective, but designed to use dishonesty to sway an argument, I feel it's important to call a spade a spade. For example, the site says the following:
quote: ...(an) obligation to defend the church supercedes educator's responsibility to present an accurate and balanced representation of the truth...
This clearly implies the missionaries are lying when they teach, or purposely "avoiding" certain topics. A website making this and many more statements certainly isn't neutral, and it is malicious in its presumption that missionaries try to lie, trick, dupe or otherwise fool people into conversion. I certainly hope that wasn't the kind of missionary you thought you should be, because that wasn't what you were taught at the MTC.
'Nuff said. Back to the question at hand. You wrote:
quote:In spirituality we can’t measure method, so it is EXTREMELY arrogant for you to assume someone else was not as sincere, pure, or honest as you. You are telling someone else they “are not doing it right,” and as KoM has shown, that is a glib response.
I never said anything about someone not being as sincere, pure or honest as myself. I never even thought such a thing...because how rude and silly would that be? What I did say was that there are conditions by which prayer is far more effective.
But let's not take things out of context. Relying only on prayer and not combining it with our own good judgment is inconsistent with doctrine. To rely only on getting a "warm feeling" isn't accurate; reading chapter seven of Moroni proves that well enough. The whole purpose is to gain independant confirmation––not because the missionaries say it's right, not because doubters say it's wrong, but for each of us to use our brains and our spirits to learn for ourselves if this faith works for them.
Consistently we're taught to do what we feel is right; sometimes we get confirmation immediately, sometimes much later. If prayer was the only means, we'd ultimately have no moral agency as we'd simply be summoning the Lord at every single crossroads in our life.
If I come across as arrogant, plying my own brand of prayer to the exclusion of others, I've been misunderstood. I can share only what I've experienced and seen myself; when the process works over and over again, I advocate it.
quote: A desire to be led by the Lord is a strength, but it needs to be accompanied by an understanding that our Heavenly Father leaves many decisions for our personal choices. Personal decision making is one of the sources of the growth we are meant to experience in mortality. ...
We should study things out in our minds, using the reasoning powers our Creator has placed within us. Then we should pray for guidance and act upon it if we receive it. If we do not receive guidance, we should act upon our best judgment.
EDIT...'cause my dang links don't seem to work right...The link I provided worked initially, but now doesn't seem to. I can reference the specific talk, if desired.
[ April 02, 2006, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: estavares ]
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
P.S. Tatiana: Well said.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Sometimes it might be harder for people who have grown up in the church, and always felt the blessings of that good guidance in their lives and in their family lives, to see the contrast fully. My family for the three generations I knew well, has always been full of people who meant well and wanted to do right. That's quite a blessing to begin with, but even given that, the fact that we didn't have the gospel in our lives is something that made a profound difference.
Without getting too personal here, I will just say that there was alcoholism, and abusiveness, and attitudes that led to a wrong approach to life, and a whole lot of unnecessary sorrow. How I wish all my great-grandparents had been exposed to the restored gospel and accepted it. There is a wholeness that it brings, if we follow it diligently, through which (as I can look back in time and see across the generations) all the little rents and shredding of the fabric of my family could have been mended and made so much stronger. From the absence of alcoholism, to the absence of the idea that people we don't like should be treated poorly, tormented and made outcast, to the money spent on cigarrettes, coffee, and booze that could have been spent on education and investment for the future. To be born in a multi-generation LDS family is to inherit something quite precious, which comes through the good guidance of the church. It comes through our personal efforts as well, of course. But unless our efforts are directed well, they don't seem to be able to do the same good.
Of course, LDS families aren't perfect either, but they have such advantages! Every time I read one of the lessons on how to treat one another with love at home, I tear up. The hymn "Love at Home" is one I can barely sing. When I see the homes of my sisters in Relief Society, and watch older children helping younger children with love and gentleness, my heart just jumps. When I read lessons about spouses treating each other with love and respect, and when I realize the truth that the gospel tells us that each individual is a precious child of God, of inestimable worth, and know that it's true because I've seen it borne out, then I know again what a huge blessing it is to have this church, and the restored gospel, in my life.
Though I find it hard to become real friends with the people in my wards (my real church friends have almost all been either online friends or missionaries), yet I still will continue trying. I know the hang up is inside me. I knew all along this would be hard, because I'm so not a joiner. But I can't see ever giving up. I just *am* a Mormon. Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
For me, I have seen the difference, because my extended family has seen so many negative consequences from living contrary to the gospel which they originally accepted to be true. Heck, I've seen it in myself.
I really understand Pfresh's issues because mood disorders run in my family (I'm one of the few who isn't bipolar) so traditional means of "feeling good" in the gospel can be elusive. I believe in the manifestations of the Spirit because I have felt independent direction when I was often inclined toward a much different end result. But I also strongly believe that we must abide by certain spiritual concepts to be in tune––again, using myself as a living experiment.
That balance is a tough one, so I can only rely on my own experiences and those around me as proof of the validity of my belief system. We each bring a different experience to the table, however, so I appreciate others' perspective.
EDIT: Grammar/spelling, 'cause there's no spell check...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
This is sort of not related to the current conversation but is related back to the main topic. The missionaries were supposed to come by at 5:30 on Wednesday. They didn't show up though. They did call after 6:30 (when I was already heading off to class and had my phone on silent). They haven't called since then though. I'm not sure if I scared them away or if they took my not answering as me not wanting to talk anymore. *shrugs*
Posted by estavares (Member # 7170) on :
Rivka:
Muchas Gracias!
I consider myslf a decent spellr but somtimes i wonder
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
pfresh, I'm not sure what happened but it might be that their previous appointment kept them late. That seems to happen to missionaries a whole lot.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Missionaries, in my experience, aren't known for being punctual.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The two I've been talking to recently have always been on time (or even a little early). This time was the only time they've failed to show up in the agreed upon time frame. *shrugs*
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
The missionaries’ ultimate goal is to "find, teach, and baptize." If you are unwilling to make the commitments that would lead to baptism, it is very likely you have shifted away from one of their top priorities. They really don’t have time to keep answering questions. The field is white and they are out there to harvest.
The church has seminaries, institute, Sunday school, BYU, publications, and outlets like the media to teach deep doctrine. A missionary’s responsibility is to bring souls to Christ through the waters of baptism.
There purpose is to educate only as far as needed to get you to make commitments they feel will aid you in achieving a testimony. If you are after pure education you may consider a different source--maybe sign up for an institute class.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The thing is I asked them about that. I said I didn't mind meeting with them, in fact I wondered if I was wasting their time. They said I wasn't and that they were always glad to talk to me because at the very least I provoked some new thoughts in them. So I doubt very much that the reason they didn't show up on Wednesday is because I've moved down on the priority list. I think something probably came up and they had to miss. That would be my guess (which is reasonable knowing some of the stuff they had going last week).
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
It has been a while since you posted. Have you heard back from the missionaries?
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I haven't heard back from them. They haven't called or come by or anything. I just assumed after a few days had went by that they had given up on me. *shrugs*
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I decided to bump up this thread rather than create a new one. I sent an e-mail to one of the Mormon guys I talked to (unfortunately not one of the missionaries, since I don't know how to get a hold of them). It's about a book I've been reading and a possible reason for why I've had difficulty with the Book of Mormon. I've pasted most of the e-mail below. Feel free to respond. I look forward to responses.
So anyways, I was recommended a book by a girl in one of my classes two weeks back. It's a book called Blue Like Jazz, and it's listed as a "nonreligious discussion of Christian spirituality." It's a little less clean than a lot of books about spirituality, but I think it still has a good message. In one part of the book, the author talks about a friend of his (I think her name is Laura, but I'm not positive and I don't have the book on hand at the moment). He says that she had real trouble accepting God. That she wanted to go about logically reasoning why there should be a God and what not. She struggled with this difficulty for a long time, at one point even crying and saying that she wanted to believe but she just couldn't make herself. It wasn't until some time later (after staying up late reading the Bible and praying) that she was finally able to get past this need for logical arguments and was able to believe on faith alone.
At first, I didn't think a whole lot of this story, other than "Well it's good that she finally found God." Then it hit me: her experience with God and the Bible in general is much like my experience with the LDS church and the Book of Mormon. Since I grew up in a Baptist family (and went to church more or less every Sunday until I was 12), I never really had a need to question God or the Bible. I mean I am a logical/rational-oriented person, but I never saw the need to make a rational question of those things. It was just something I believed, something that felt true in my heart. This basis of faith is what kept me from ever logically questioning the Bible (not that I didn't raise questions about certain things; it's just the accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible was never in doubt in my mind). With the Book of Mormon though, it was something different. Going in, I didn't know much about it, aside from exaggerated things people said about it. A good portion of my family (with the exception of me and maybe my sister) felt that Mormons were sort of silly in some of their beliefs (not to say they were bad, but just that they were different and it was a difference we didn't really understand the reason for). So coming into the Book of Mormon (reading it and thinking about it), I already had a lot of doubt built up about its truthfulness. As I read it, I tried to analyze it rationally, picking apart all the little details. If you remember my discussions with the missionaries, a lot of stuff was either nit-picking details or stuff that just didn't make sense to me. I think many people in the LDS faith are born into it, and (much like my own experience with the normal Bible) they grow up having faith with no real need to overly analyze their religious doctrines. For me, I don't have this faith, this feeling that the Book of Mormon was true and that even while questioning it I knew that it was true for sure. Instead, I started on a base of uncertainty. Much like the Laura in the story, I had problems with logically reasoning it out; somethings made logical sense but other things took a sort of leap of faith to fully trust. Also much like Laura in the story, I struggled. There were times when I really wanted to believe, but I just couldn't make myself do it. Faith isn't something you can force, it's something that has to come to you I guess. For me, my faith in the Book of Mormon hasn't come around yet. All I have is my own sort of intellectual curiosity about it.
I still pray every night, asking God to give me guidance and show me the way I need to go to live the right kind of life. I also ask for forgiveness for the mistakes that I've made and the times that I have fallen off the path. I believe at some point that God will show me the right way, and I won't feel so uncertain about some of these things. I guess until then though it is a waiting game.
Posted by DaisyMae (Member # 9722) on :
pfresh - I'm pretty new to Hatrack, been lurking for a long time, but finally got myself a voice. I'm glad you revived this thread and I've had a chance to read over it.
As a lifelong Mormon, I have to truly appreciate the things that you just said. My faith in the Book of Mormon is so strong that at times it seems difficult for me to understand how others cannot immediately see the truthfulness of it when they read it. But I think that what you said is right. I've never had a NEED to question it. That's not to say that I haven't, but I have never had to have the book "prove" itself to me, so to speak, starting from ground zero. I've also had the benefit of having insights of those around me who have read and believed the book.
I'm touched by your search for truth. Truly. I find nothing more commendable than someone who cares enough to question and is humble enough to look for answers wherever they may be found.
I haven't read this entire thread, so I don't know if I'm repeating anything anyone else has told you, but I would also add that accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God is an integral belief in the Mormon culture. I, for one, will tell you that I believe in his experience in the Sacred Grove as truth, as much as I believe my own reflection. But the basis of my belief comes from a personal experience that can only be proof enough for myself. Bottom line though, if he was a prophet, the Book of Mormon must be true. The two are inherently linked.
Whatever you find to be the truth, I thank you for sharing your search with us. It helps my own faith when I see how others view religion and God. I feel confident that God answers every prayer. That's not say that they are answered right away, or even in the manner that might be what we would choose, but I know He's hearing you. I sincerely hope that you find what you are looking for.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Thanks for the reply, DaisyMae. I'm glad you got something from my post. Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
pfresh, You articulated very well my feeling back five years ago when I investigated the LDS church for myself. I loved the people, loved many things about LDS, but it came down to whether or not I could believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. I could not, so I walked away.
But you have helped me greatly now in better understanding why it is so difficult for others to believe in the Holy Bible if they were not raised with that belief. Like you, I never doubted the existance of God or the truthfulness of the inspired Word of God. Hopefully this will help me think through some of the things I say, and some of my own paradigms, when working with unbelievers.
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:She struggled with this difficulty for a long time, at one point even crying and saying that she wanted to believe but she just couldn't make herself. It wasn't until some time later (after staying up late reading the Bible and praying) that she was finally able to get past this need for logical arguments and was able to believe on faith alone.
I have to admit that I find this deeply, deeply disturbing; the idea that it might be considered a positive outcome is more tragic than the outcome itself.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Tom, I was also a bit perplexed by the conclusions that were made. I talked a bit with pfresh yesterday about them and the conversation got me to thinking. There's an awful lot of things that people accept largely because they want to, not because there's a clear logical basis for it. I believe that people are essentially good, I believe that there's something worth loving in everybody, and I believe that redemption is always available. While there's some empirical support for these things, there's probably equal empirical support against them. But I certainly prefer to live as though they are true. I'm not sure how this differs from the Laura of the story.
Note: What I'm saying applies when logic does not negate the belief. I don't think it's remotely healthy to choose to believe in something that is demonstratably false. But I don't think that God is demonstratably false.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thank you, Amanecer.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: I believe that people are essentially good, I believe that there's something worth loving in everybody, and I believe that redemption is always available. While there's some empirical support for these things, there's probably equal empirical support against them. But I certainly prefer to live as though they are true.
That's it, exactly, Amanecer. Sometimes I have great faith and know in my heart that things are true; but sometimes I just choose to live as if they are true because they make me happier and make my life better.
Pfresh, I understand where you're coming from. I grew up in a culture where the Book of Mormon was accepted as scripture, so when I wanted to find out for myself, I had no problem accepting that it could be. I didn't have to overcome my own prejudices against it, as it were. And ultimately what I learned from the Book of Mormon meshed with what I believed from the Bible and I recognized the voice of God in its pages.
There were other things I had to overcome, though, that I couldn't solve by logic. I have struggled sometimes to prove things, and I found that every time I would find the answer to one question, another question would pop up. There is no end to questions. And if every question makes me doubt my beliefs and lifestyle, I will never be at peace. Which is why, for some issues, I have to choose to live in faith while I'm looking for the answers. I know a lot of people say they can't "choose" to live in faith, but my experience with having to do so helps me understand that book you quoted.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:I still pray every night, asking God to give me guidance and show me the way I need to go to live the right kind of life. I also ask for forgiveness for the mistakes that I've made and the times that I have fallen off the path. I believe at some point that God will show me the right way, and I won't feel so uncertain about some of these things.
This in and of itself is "living on faith" and I really admire your patience and trust. I know You'll be guided to do what's right for you, and at the right time. I'm glad you've shared your thoughts with us.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
The funny thing is if you asked me, I'd probably tell you how impatient I am.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) and then as I learned more, the things that I had thought already about many things (like your question about God and Christ and omnipotence) were exactly what the church taught. The next thing that happened is that other questions I had never asked were answered in ways that seemed very right to me. The further I investigated the church, the more things clicked and I just felt way down deep that yes, this is true, all this is real, to the extent that we can understand now, this is how things really are. I knew without knowing how I knew. It all made sense and explained so much to me. ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)