posted
oh man i really want to read an excerpt about the importance of our bodies from Miracle of Forgiveness by spencer w. kimball! i'll look it up either tonite and tomorrow morning and post it. stay tuned.
Posts: 3936 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, this isn't a question, this is a request for help. I want to ask, but it takes some building up to. I just want some help preparing to do it. Why is it scary? Well, it's scary to me because which ever answer I get implies a lot. If I get the answer that the Mormon Faith is true, then that means a lot of changes, a lot of new beliefs, and a lot of wading through consequences with other people (especiialy my family). If I don't get any answer then it means that it is a good chance that there is no special thing about humans, or anything else. I can probably live with that, but it would still be scary. Anyways, this is a totally selfish cry for encourgment.
[EDIT: because I'm impatient, I'm posting this on it's own thread ]
quote: I want to ask, but it takes some building up to.
You mean ask the Lord? It isn't scary - this is a big thing for him too. I can see how it would take building up, though.
Hobbes, I don't know what kind of experience you'll have, but I can tell you what mine was like.
Mine came while reading the Book of Mormon, not during the prayer directly. It also wasn't all at once, but it was as much a change in me as anything. When I read, and when I prayed, and when I took that leap of faith, I felt... enclapsed. I felt the empty corners of me fill up, and it felt right. Also, I noticed the difference in me. When I read the Book of Mormon and prayed, I was a better person. I didn't fight with my brother. I had hope. And I felt (feel) completely loved. It gave me strength.
My biggest single moment didn't come from the Book of Mormon, though. Growing up in the church, it was just one of the things I didn't question as much. But I can remember vividly the General Conference I gained a testimony of the living prophet. On Saturday afternoons, we sustain the First Presidency. Someone reads the names, and asks for a sustaining vote. Watching over satellite, you do it then, too. I had been struggling with some questions, and I had been seriously wondering about many things, and I felt this was a choice time. I needed to decide, and I was scared to death. When whoever it was read the names, I was watching in my living room, and I thought, "This is it. This is where I take a stand, because I can't fake this. I have to do it for real, and I need to decide." I didn't think of OSC's quote, but the it was the same principle. Time to take a leap. I raised my hand, and I knew what it meant.
It changed everything for me. From then on, I was committed. And not committed in that trapped way you feel when you are in something you aren't sure about, but committed in the whole-hearted, I want this, it's worth everything, and the rewards are incredible way that I want to feel when I'm getting married.
Hobbes, my faith is hands-down the most important, and the only constant thing in my life. I love it. It's true. I've felt it, and I believe it. And yeah, it's worth everything. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I get the answer that the Mormon Faith is true, then that means a lot of changes, a lot of new beliefs, and a lot of wading through consequences with other people (especiialy my family).
It would. It would take a lot of committment from you, and it might cause quite interesting ripples in your family. You're strong, though. You'll be fine.
quote:If I don't get any answer then it means that it is a good chance that there is no special thing about humans, or anything else. I can probably live with that, but it would still be scary.
Ah, I've felt this. When I had my huge year-long question, I was completely torn because both of my options were dreadful. I simply coudln't believe either of them, and it was hard. Part of my answer to the question came with a calm assurance that there was a third option. That, somehow, there was a bigger answer. I didn't know what it was, but I knew, I felt it, I knew that there WERE answers that I didn't understand. It was great.
I don't know if that was terribly helpful, but I do understand.
Hobbes, I'll be praying for you. I don't know how or when the Lord will answer you, but I promise, I swear, I know he will.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow Hobbes. I totally admire anyone who can search for the answers to eternal questions and be willing to risk all to do the right thing. Keep going. You're almost there. And even though I don't know you that well, I'm praying for you.
Matt. 10: 35
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
posted
I want to give a special thanks to a few people:
Geoff for being a virtual encyclopedia of knowledge and being willing to share.
Everyone else who answered questions on this thread.
Kat, for just being open and freindly.
Pat for his last, really encouraging remark.
KCard for sending me stuff and for a really good response to something I wrote.
And Khavanon for our really good talk on AIM.
Thank-you all.
I'm feeling much better about it. I'm not sure when I'll ask, but I feel much more prepared, maybe tonight, maybe not, but soon. You guys made it possible. Thank-you.
Contrary to appearances on occasion I really am a nice guy and I would love to answer any questions you have. I'm happy to hear you are considering trying out Moroni's promise. I know God will answer your heart-felt and sincere prayers. Feel free to email me anytime you have a doubt or a question (JohnBinder@aol.com).
Posts: 398 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I can probably live with that, but it would still be scary."
Speaking as someone who tried the Question and got no answer -- from a LOT of religions, over years -- it IS kind of scary. But you eventually discover that there's a big difference between not hearing from God and not thinking that there's anything "special" about other humans -- and there's a kind of beauty in that, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I’ve come back with a few more biggies. By far the most important one is about Jesus Christ. This question could really be addressed to all Christians, but….I think only Mormons are reading.
I understand that Christ died for our sins, but why was it necessary that he died for our sins to be atoned?
Do all things contain spirits or just humans (i.e. Ender books and Alvin books universes)?
I had some more, but as usual, I didn’t write them down and forgot them. So I guess I’ll leave you with these two now. Thanks.
posted
No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God. We would not be worthy of living with God if we were stained with sin. Somehow, those sins had to be erased. Christ was the only one who could've made it back to heaven without an atonement, because He was the only one worthy. Sins were committed, and law of justice demanded that a price be paid. So He acted as a mediator, paying the price for our sins and giving us the opportunity to come back to heaven. He took the sins and sufferings of the world upon Himself, and then He died so that He could conquer death, too. From what I understand, His death wasn't part of atoning for our sins—it was part of preparing the way for the Resurrection (including our own).
As I undertand it, all living things have spirits. But they're not all the same. My cats don't have the same kind of spirit that I have. They're just cats. I'm a child of God. I'm not sure if non-living things have spirits, though I seem to remember hearing about things like "the spirit of the earth." I'm not sure.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LDS concept of God is slightly different from the common Christian one. Well, and as I say it even some Mormon folks might disagree with me, but here goes.
God is not omnipotent. Not in the paradoxical sense. The laws of justice are naturally causal, universal and God must live by them.
Jesus is completely innocent, sinless. By this virtue, he himself could live with God on his own power. He could dwell on the same level of existance.
We are not. Justice decrees that there must be some kind of restitution or a balancing out. We simply would not be recognized as able to obtain the level of existance required to be with God.
So Jesus paid for it, he suffered, he brought things to a balance. It was not so much God that recognized the price as being paid, but the natural laws of the universe. Jesus had to suffer every pain that went with sin, including spiritual death, which is defined as seperation from God. Remember when he cried, "Oh God, why has thou forsaken me?" That was his seperation from God, God had to leave for a space to complete the Atonement. But by those very same laws, Jesus is still innocent and can himself dwell with God.
And as Jon Boy said, his death was the precursor for the Ressurection which paved the way for our own ressurection.
I think everything has a spirit. Even inanimate objects. OSC's auia explanation comes pretty close to my idea of the matter. (No pun here, move along, move along)
posted
I agree with Amka, and add: because according to Joseph Smith spirit *is* matter, but matter more refined (and thus not discernible to us who are stuck in physical, time-bound existence).
And spirit is also intelligence and light and truth so I think it's safe to say that *all* physical matter has its spiritual counterpart, but that those 'spirits' vary in intelligence and organization.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, one clarification then. If the spirits that are part of other things aren't like us, how are they different?
Two more (different for once ) questions.
Basically I came up with analogy for my understanding of what happens to get us to this life (in a body and whatnot). Since my understanding is obviously flawed (as I really don’t know that much ) I hoped you guys could help show me where.
Of course my analogy is with computer games.
We start off just normal, knowing what’s going on and whatnot, but not really doing anything. Then God comes along and gives us our spirit bodies: the joystick and other necessary interfaces. Then we get our bodies, hook up that interface to the computer and start playing. How’s that?
My other question is to clarify something I read (in The Book of Mormon) about what happens after death. The way I understand it now is that when we die we either go to Paradise or to an outer place (I don’t think it’s outer darkness?) and wait for the Second Coming. Then comes the three Heavens.
posted
I'm not quite sure exactly what the difference is between human spirits and other spirits, but I know that human spirits are the spiritual offspring of God, while other (animal/plant/etc.) spirits are not.
I think your computer game analogy works.
You are correct about people going to either paradise or prison after death to await the Second Coming, resurrection, final judgement, and the three heavens (or outer darkness - where those who reject Christ and God when they know better will go - to be with Satan and his other non-corporeal followers).
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a specific scenario here, mostly just to clarify some things. If someone lives a good life (worthy of entering the Celestial Kingdom) but rejects Mormonism, what happens?
Also, lately I’ve been avoiding caffeine, but the only two IRL Mormon people I know (only on is a friends btw ) say that caffeine is fine. Where do you guys stand on this?
quote:If someone lives a good life (worthy of entering the Celestial Kingdom) but rejects Mormonism, what happens?
I don't know. I don't really think that it's something I need to be concerned about. I am too concerned about doing what I need to do to worry about other people. God will be the one who judges us. He is the one who knows all of our intentions, motivations, and actions. His judgements will be perfectly fair. I am certain that we will agree with Him.
quote:Also, lately I’ve been avoiding caffeine, but the only two IRL Mormon people I know (only on is a friends btw [Wink] ) say that caffeine is fine. Where do you guys stand on this?
Some people think that caffeine should be avoided, like coffee, or tobacco, or drugs. It is my opinion that we should avoid addictions and dependencies (like those often associated with drugs or tobacco). If someone is dependant on caffeine, I think it is not a good thing. For myself, I avoid caffeine because I need it as medication to help me when I have headaches. If I get a headache and don't have my medicine (which contains caffeine) handy, I can drink a caffeinated drink to help tide me over until I can get to my medicine. If I constantly consumed them, I would not get the same benefit out of my medication or the caffeinated things.
Edit: I think, when it comes down to it, each person needs to decide what is right for themself, as it pertains to grey areas (like caffeine, the kinds of things to do or not do on Sunday, etc.). I don't think anyone else has a right to prescribe for whether someone else should or shouldn't drink caffeinated things - that is something each person needs to decide for themselves.
posted
About the whole caffeine thing. Section 89 says "hot drinks are not for the body or belly." Given in 1833, I think it was several years prior to the soda fountain. Anyway, hot drinks are widely interpreted as coffee and tea. I was raised believing it was anything with coffee beans or tea leaves, so I have to watch some of those sobe drinks that have green tea in them. As of yet, we have not been given the word that sodas are against the word of wisdom. But church members are welcome to interpret the scriptures to the best of their abilities, and some have decided not to drink caffinated drinks.
I'm just weird in that I don't like soda. The CO2 hurts my nose when I burp. I don't suppose you wanted to know that.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there an official position? I don't think there is one.
Hmm... the General Authorities do counsel to not let worldly concerns interfere with your family. In other words, don't wait until you have a house, two cars, and a boat before starting your family. But the number, regularity, and existence of children is left up to the parents.
posted
I didn't know that, Scott. This position is the one that I've heard since I started paying attention to the issue, but that's only in the last couple of years.
posted
The debate was whether or not it was a sin to use contraception.
I should ammend that this was a debate among MEMBERS (keep your dirty puns to yourself, Bob), and not among the leaders. The leaders of the Church have released several documents on the subject, which I will try to post later.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strongly encourages married couples to have children. It is against birth control. In a letter from the First Presidency to bishops and stake presidents, dated April 14, 1969, the Church’s philosophy is expressed: “We seriously regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.
“Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.”
[ April 22, 2003, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the gist of the Church's former official stance, from 1971. The Church handbook now says something to the effect that while the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force, individual couples need to counsel with the Lord about having their kids... (I don't have a copy of the Handbook of Instructions, but I remember studying this issue in an ethics class at BYU). I think this revised counsel came because some people kept on having kids even when the mother was physically and emotionally endangered by it.
You still get some people who think birth control is evil based on 1971-type statements. But we believe in ongoing revelation--what a living prophet says is more important than what past prophets have said. So while it's important to have children, I think the new counsel says that it's also important to take individual circumstances like health and sanity into consideration.
Posts: 189 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's nice. I had a comp whose mother, at one point, had seven children ages seven and younger (there was one set of twins). Can you imagine? I asked her how her mother kept her sanity with all that, and my comp said, "Well.... not so well, actually."
posted
The LDS church leaders are against birth control as a way to curtail children, but my understanding that they are not against birth control as a way to appropriately plan your family. That couples shouldn't space their children so close together that it becomes a health issue for the mother, and that the decision to have each child should be approached practically and prayerfully. In other words, don't just leave it all up to chance, but also don't use birth control selfishly.
As a sociological phenomenon, I think it's clear that a larger percentage Mormons are having smaller families. Of course, that generally still way above the national average i.e. families that might have had eight or nine are having five or six and families that might have had five are having three.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll try to throw out some canonical answers mixed with my own opinions:
quote: Do all things contain spirits or just humans (i.e. Ender books and Alvin books universes)?
D&C 88 says this: All kingdoms have a law given;
37 And there are many kingdoms•; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.
38 And unto every kingdom is given a law•; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.
What that says to me is that God has plans which pertain to pretty much everything. Each separate "kingdom" (and I have no idea what separates one kingdom from another) is governed by a set of laws tailored to the level of understanding, knowledge and freedom that a given entity might have.
It is my opinion that the different kingdoms are probably separated by the level of intelligence (ie capability, potential) that the spirits which act in those kingdoms have.
Hobbes asked what separates one type of spirit from another- I know the clear answer to that. It comes from the Book of Abraham:
quote:..as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.
19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.
So what distinguishes one spirit from another is the level of intelligence.
Now again my opinion: the major difference between spirits is clearly their level of intelligence. When the spirits are separated into different kingdoms governed by different laws it is because some spirits have greater potential than others and hence are given a greater chance to develop that potential through greater freedom. God is the most developed (ie progressed the most) of spirits and so he has the most freedom. Man has much freedom and through wise decisions may achieve the same level as God has. ANimals of one type or another have less freedom and hence less opportunity for growth but also less opportunity for failure. To use an analogy it is like the stock market- stocks with high gain potential also have high loss potential (high risk) stocks with less chance of gain also have less associated risk. This applies to those who are near the boundaries of the dividing lines. (this next part is complete guessing and not doctrinally supported at all)- if we assume that humans and say, dolphins are in different kingdoms, yet we can compare for example the dumbest of humans and the smartest of dolphins and see that their IQ (or other measure of intelligence) are about equal. SO why are they separated? I am guessing that it relates to what I said- one has accepted greater risk in the potential for greater growth while the other has accepted the safer path with limited growth.
quote:I understand that Christ died for our sins, but why was it necessary that he died for our sins to be atoned?
the best answer is in 2 Nephi 9:
quote:6 For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.
It works like this: in order for man to learn and grow he had to be subject to choices between good and evil. As man is not perfect he sometimes chooses to do evil. As god is perfect he cannot choose evil nor allow evil in his presence. In order to progress man must return to the presence of god. In order to get past the barrier erected by sin between man and god there must be a mediator- someone who can take away the effect of sin, someone who can sanctify and purify man so that man can be subject to evil choices, learn to choose the good and then be cleansed of the evil and so return to the presence of God.
That is the purpose of the atonement- to allow repentance, to allow man to sin without having to forever remain an outcast due to the demands of justice.
quote:What is the Curch's position on birth control?
I have heard many different stances on this. The only one that I know of which is doctrinal (ie accepted church canon) is the commandment to "be fruitful and multiply".
My own personal stance- it is foolish to have children one can't care for properly (and how one defines "care for properly" will obviously differ from person to person).
In practice the only ones who generally say anything about such things are a few nosy people (yes, there are nosy people even in the church;)) who ask "You've been married nine months, why don't you have any children yet?"
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a question: According to the LDS Church doctrine, where do non-LDS Christians go after death? Do they go Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial? (sp?)
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nick- it depends on a number of factors; did they decide to accept the gospel after they died? Were they good people while they were alive?
In LDS doctrine just belonging to the church doesn't get you much of anything- it is all about what type of person you choose to be.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mom heard this from a speaker when she was in college, I'm pretty sure. She's quoted it to my sisters plenty of times, so I thought I'd share:
The decision to use birth control should be prayerfully considered by a woman and her husband. Not a woman, her husband, and their bishop.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
1. Basically I just want a description of the devil. How he's different from other forms people describe as the devil, and what he's doing. Now I basically know that he had a pretty slothful plan ( ) and is trying to get people to not follow God's plan.
2. My Dad (for some reason that I don't know about) decided to mention that he heard that Joseph Smith would build planks just underwater and then pretend to walk on water. I just want to get this out of the way basically, is there any truth to this story?
quote:1. Basically I just want a description of the devil. How he's different from other forms people describe as the devil, and what he's doing. Now I basically know that he had a pretty slothful plan, and is trying to get people to not follow God's plan.
Well, naturally, he doesn't have horns, hooves, and a tail He's depicted in Mormon sources sometimes as a crafty old villain, and sometimes as an angry, petulant disinherited son.
His plan involved more than just slothfulness for the participants. The whole idea was for him to control everything and everyone throughout history, then reap the entire reward on judgment day. Instead, God went with His original plan (which Christ endorsed), which was to let even the weakest individual have the freedom and power to make their own choices and earn their own reward.
The devil wouldn't play ball if he couldn't make the rules. So he was denied a body and a chance at exaltation, and was instead cast to earth as a spirit, whose only real power was to manipulate others. Those who were too weak or frightened to go with God's plan, and who preferred the comfort of giving up their free will to Satan, were cast down with him.
quote:2. My Dad (for some reason that I don't know about) decided to mention that he heard that Joseph Smith would build planks just underwater and then pretend to walk on water. I just want to get this out of the way basically, is there any truth to this story?
I've read a lot of anti-Mormon literature, and that's one I've never heard. But given that there are no Mormon legends about Joseph Smith ever even attempting to walk on water, I'd have to say it's a pretty moot accusation Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not exactly He has no ambitions to dissolve the entire material world into nothingness. He also doesn't blow things up like the devil in End of Days. His only purpose is to swindle people out of the exaltation he was denied.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know (from 13 pages of experience ) that you can baptizied after death, but can you get sealed in marriage or family after death? Anything else like that?
posted
There isn't a saving ordinance on earth that cannot also be performed for the dead. That includes baptism, confirmation, the endowment, and sealing.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, given that OSC is an orthodox Mormon, a lot of the speculation that interests him is that which fits well with the world he believes in. He could sit around and speculate from a Catholic perspective, but he wouldn't feel nearly as enlightened afterwards, since he wouldn't buy any of it anyway
In Mormon theology, an angel is defined very broadly as a "messenger from the Lord". An angel could be an unborn human spirit, a departed human spirit, a resurrected being, or merely an image in a dream. They share only two things in common. First, they all have the same job — bearing messages and aid to us from the Lord. Second, they are all our brothers and sisters — all angels we might meet here will, at some point in their existence, participate in the mortal experience on earth.
Because the definition is so broad, Mormons will occasionally even refer to selfless mortals who help others as literal "angels", though this isn't as common a use of the term.
Also, those who do well in the afterlife, but fall short of full exaltation are sometimes referred to as "ministering angels", but the full significance of their position is not known, and thus far, according to the timeline, none of them exist yet, so they aren't exactly in a position to tell us any more than that Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
(Note: the joke about OSC is because it seems that a lot of his books have a good deal of Mormon philisophy in them except the one book where the charecters are Mormon. )
posted
Another question about the devil. It sounds like he can't send visitations or the like. So that all prophets are either fakes or inspired by God, not the devil. Is the true? Can the devil do much besides try to (unconsciously) convince you to not follow God's plan?
posted
Satan and his angels can very much show themselves as angels of light and do things that might be considered from God. They are, after all, spirits like anyone else. He minipulates by distorting the truth. The differences they do have is that they will never be able to come to this earth and gain either experience or a body.
Posts: 2460 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
What Adam did brought mortality and sin into the world. However, Christ's Atonement wiped away the sins of Adam through his repentance just like everyone else. Eventually, the Atonement will take care of the mortality portion of Adam and Eves' mistakes. Yet, it was their mistakes that made our ability to progress possible, so Mormons don't look down on either of them for what they did. They did it out of a realization of the need for the fall to happen than out of any kind of malice toward God.
It does bring up one of the great paradoxes of Mormonism. Because the fall had to happen, did they actually sin? Notice that Joseph Smith, as quoted above, doesn't use the word "Sin," but replaces it with "transgression" meaning a breaking of a law (not particularly a law of God).
These Chapters in the Pearl of Great Price should explain some things:
I've found that this book will answer most of the major questions you'd have about LDS beliefs. (It's even cheaper through ldscatalog.com , but they don't allow for direct links). 's a good read!
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the second Nephi, it is mentioned that there are other books from other groups that have broken off of Isreal. Have there been any discoveries of such books?
posted
OK, a lot of people of asked (almost all of them are IRL, but I figure some of you might be wondering too ) why I got interested in Mormonism. At the beginning of this thread, and in a few others I’ve hinted at it, but I guess I just want to kind of complete it.
For the past few years I have been a devoted agnostic. When I say devoted agnostic I mean I doubted everything. I doubted the existence of God and the non-existence of God. I doubted a lot of things besides God too, I decided that nothing could be known and so I wouldn’t belief anything. However, a few months ago I realized that (as I have said in a previous thread) this belief requires in-action. I must belief in something to get anything done (a little more complex, but I’ve explained this before so I’ll gloss over it).
So it seemed to me that there were 6 possible options. There was remaining an agnostic, atheism, Christian (but not Mormon), Buddhism, Islam, and Mormon.
Agnosticism has the problem that it wasn’t working or why would I be looking in the first place?
Atheism I frankly could never belief in (going of the technical definition of saying God “can not exist”. If you think this isn’t right, fine but that’s not the point, this is how I saw it). To me it seems that belief (or lack there-of) could be one of three things: complete leap of faith (nothing convincing you), God telling you (or at least hinting) that He existed, or leap of faith that he didn’t. I simply didn’t see any proof that God didn’t exist so it seems that a leap of faith is required, I just could never make a leap in that direction (because: what’s the point?).
Buddhism Christianity (excluding Mormonism) and Islam both have the same problem for me. They may be true, but there would be no way to know. I just can’t make a leap of faith without proof of some sort, so I decided that if one of these were the true faiths, something would have to happen before I could pursue them.
Mormonism has two things that I really like: one is the fact that your leap of faith doesn’t have to be without evidence, God will tell you that it is true. The second is that I have found (so far ) all the beliefs to be logical, straight-forward, and follow a lot of what I have already believed.
So this is why I’m asking all these questions, just in case you wanted to know. Thank-you all for answering them! I’m sure I still have plenty of questions left, but the way it looks to me is that it all depends on what answer I get.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
So I guess I’ll leave you with these two now. Thanks. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
]
