Jump to content

Joshua Valentine

Members
  • Content Count

    323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

104 Excellent

About Joshua Valentine

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    It has an "a" in it.
  • Interests
    God, Jesus, Truth, the Way, the Life more abundant, Love, disc golf, overcoming my long failure to learn to play the piano, movies, philosophy, religion, humans, ukelele (a shorter, but still too long failure), and probably some other stuff.

Recent Profile Visitors

888 profile views
  1. My bad mfbukowski. I did not mean to use the second-person as specifically you, mfbukowski, and come off as pointing my finger, but as a more general ¨LDS who may want to use Temple claims to make points when they cannot be substantiated¨. I meant it as an exploration of reasonable discussion, not in any way a claim to righteous authority and condemnation. Back to the topic. In what way are you saying that Teddy ¨was right¨? That LDS do not wear the Cross as a symbol because it is sacred? or that: Thanks.
  2. What is ¨it¨? The exact meaning of the non-disclosure oath has be debated here before - I believe there were multiple opinions of what and to the extent the oath actually barred discussion. Did you all conclude the place of the Cross was part of that as well? The number of times the Cross comes up in the rituals? The actual use of the symbol physically? Whether the Cross shares time/credit with the Garden? Too convenient. Again, better not to make claims from it at all then. So why make the claim in the first place? mfbukowski, why are you saying this to MiserereNobis and not to Teddyaware? That´s quite the change up here. Is there a connection between the symbolism of the Cross and Adams names? You are probably talking about the symbolism of the rituals in general, right? Ok. First, mfbukowski, given your philosophical perspective, I am surprised you are arguing from anything ¨literal¨. Second, Adam´s name changes to nothing like ¨that¨ in Catholicism to ¨there is no belief that we can literally become as Christ is¨? That´s hard to follow just reading, let alone logically. Just because Christians do not believe the Redeemed become ¨literally¨ the same state of being and level of authority as Christ, does not mean that there is nothing like name changes in Christianity - the whole ¨new name¨ thing in the New Testament would be something rather than nothing. Just because it is not ¨literally¨ as Christ is (still weird to hear you say such a thing) does not mean that Christians don´t believe we will become like Christ - as Paul taught. So, what do you mean by there ¨cannot be¨ anything ¨like that¨ in the Catholic Church. Again, you´re writing is unclear here. Even more so given the above evidence about names and being. Also, watch it here, mfbukowski, you´ll muddy up those responses LDS given about ¨being like God¨ when non-LDS challenge LDS teaching that they can become gods.😉 I feel like you´ve constructed your own, uncalled for, straw man here, just to come to ¨no comparison¨. In fact, given my above responses, I feel like there´s a lot of straining going on here to make the reader think there is no comparison, when that is quite untrue. Weird post, mfbukowksi, weird post.
  3. If the topic is just the use of the Cross as a symbol. Then, it is quite obvious that the LDS use it less, and most are ready to admit that. Admittedly not reviewing the OP, I believe the OP did ask why this lack of use occurs. Does it mean the Cross is less important or somehow abhorrent to the LDS religion and members? Perhaps. Would that mean Christ´s sacrifice was less important to LDS? Not at all. An action or event is quite separate from the things that people use to represent those events. If one wanted to discuss the relative importance of Christ´s sacrifice and Atonement in Mormonism (Salt Lake LDS and other LDS groups), then it would be much more appropriate to discuss the actual teachings surrounding them - what it was, what it dealt with, what exactly it resulted in, etc. So that would be a very different discussion. So, it seems the question here is if, given the lack of use of it, is the Cross less important to LDS (than other religions claiming Christ)? Again, if we keep this to the symbol - obviously yes, it is, generally, not an important symbol in Mormonism. If we try to move from the use of the symbol to the event of the Cross (and Cross only), then it would seem that - while the Cross was necessary for there to be a sacrifice unto death - given the emphasis of Jesus ¨shed blood¨ in the Garden of Gethsemane as being even just part of the blood sacrifice for Sin, then the cross is made less significant (only part instead of the whole sacrifice for sin). Again, this says nothing about the import of Christ´s sacrifice or Atonement, only the significance of the Cross in that sacrifice and Atonement. So for Christians, the Cross is important because it is the primary place of sacrifice, atonement, and death, instead of the secondary place of sacrifice and atonement, and the place of death. Here is where we cannot simply take LDS´ word for it about Temple rituals and the place of the Cross in them @Bernard Gui. One can say that the Cross is central to LDS religion and evidenced so by its central place in Temple rituals. But, much like the issue of three gods being God rather than One God being God, the Cross can be both central to these rituals and yet be partially displaced by the addition of emphasis on the Garden of Gethsemane in those same rituals. So, I think it is quite clear that the Cross is not ¨as important¨ in the LDS religion as it is in non-LDS Christian traditions, simply because it is sharing air time and at least part (if not the majority) of the Atonement with the Garden of Gethsemane. Again, this means nothing about the Atonement being less important to LDS. One could argue that it hints at such, but the evidence for whether the Atonement actually means less in Mormonism than in Christianity would be in the teachings and beliefs, not the symbols and their use, of the religions. Lastly, what about the blood of the whipping, the crown of thorns, the nails, the spear, etc?
  4. This is completely irrelevant to what MiserereNobis said. You are even saying the very things he said. Perhaps, I am wrong that your reply is in opposition to what MiserereNobis said. But then, that´s would be some weird writing. Otherwise, red herring.
  5. If you cannot CFR, then the correct action would be not to make the claim at all. It´s a bit rich and disingenuous to attempt to ¨engage¨ while having a bunch of claims and extents/depths of belief be off-limits to challenges, simply because you can´t talk about them. If you can´t talk about them, maybe you should not make claims about them, at least with non-LDS. Make them all you want with LDS, but not non-LDS participants. If a non-LDS challenges what you said to LDS, simply state you were speaking to LDS, not making claims to non-LDS. More generously, perhaps if you are going to make a CFR-impervious claim to a non-LDS poster you should admit, in an at least somewhat embarrassed way, that you are making an unsupportable claim. Then you should just accept that those you are making these unsupportable claims will not give them much weight, nor CFRs. So the solution seems to be two-fold: Temple-experienced LDS should not make Temple-experience-based claims toward non-LDS and non-LDS should either not respond to unsupportable claims (not made to them anyways) or simply and decisively point them out as useless unsupportable claims (as directed at non-LDS). And then the LDS should simply not reply, implicitly accepting that the claim was unsupportable and not worthy of engagement. You can't CFR sacred temple content here. Skylla
  6. Teddyaware, you could have just said ¨I´m right!¨ for all the attempt to actually engage in my comment you display in this reply. @Calm kudos for the replies you have given Teddyaware. I appreciate the push-back you´ve given to someone in your own community. In an attempt not to have to organize a bunch of previous quotes from this thread: Teddyaware you said that some significant portion of LDS may not realize how important the Cross is to the LDS Religion - that is what I was referring to (as I quoted at the time) as being self-contradictory. If a near/majority of the religion do not realize its great significance within the religion, can it really be so significant? (That is, that a majority of LDS membership have never been to Temple ordinances - at least beyond Proxy Baptisms). Maybe God recognizes it this way in your religion technically (if the LDS Religion is true/of Him), but it is self-contradictory to say that the religion (made up of members) finds it significant and, at the same time, that a large portion/majority of the members aren´t aware of this great significance. You made this statement, not I. It seems at least highly probable of being self-contradictory. So for you to just reply ¨My claim is absolutely correct¨, let alone without engaging my comment and quote of you, seems, at best, lacking to a fault. More pointedly, your comments about non-LDS ¨Oblique¨ references to the Cross in Protestant and Catholic rituals while touting your sacred and secret ceremonies that the majority of your religion have never experienced seem disingenuous. They also indicate a lack of engagement with these religious traditions which not only reinforces the need for a CFR, but you manage to doube-down on the self-righteousness by offering MiserereNobis a non-reply reply (more on this later). Your comments reek of religio-centrism (anyone found a word for the religious equivalent of ethnocentrism, yet?) and double-standard and blindness to your own myopia, as your replies (so far) to Calm have only confirmed. Almost lastly, yes the Temple ceremonies are sacred to the LDS, but so are the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Yet the latter are not kept secret. If the Cross is brought to the forefront in LDS Temple rituals (as you claim in your off-putting offer to MiserereNobis that if he ever gets a chance to be in an LDS Temple ritual [which obviously would require him to convert, be a member of good standing for 1 year, and honestly answer Temple Recommend questions correctly - yet you speak of it as if it is something he could do on a whim and without betraying everything he believes in]- way to go on your authenticity again, btw) it is still kept from the majority of LDS members that have never been thru those rituals. Withholding the truth of the Cross from members of your own church does not seem like it would be pleasing to the God you claim originated both. Finally, for now, just as your replies do not show true engagement with me, MiserereNobis, or Calm, your descriptions of non-LDS Christianity do not indicate real engagement with the religion either. Your mention of only rituals of Christianity as evidence of the place of the Cross in non-LDS Christianity (as opposed to the plethora of songs, books, sermons, symbols, etc) indicates your religio-centric assumption that rituals are so much higher and out of the league of such other practices that they can make up for the relative lack of the Cross in all those others in the LDS religion. Again, this harms the apparent authenticity of your comments. I am sure you do not wish to come off so myopically high and righteous, so maybe this feedback will help you try to show more consideration and understanding of others and more humble about your own religion even as you express your beliefs in your religion´s truth, significance, and power.
  7. Title - works for other positions besides bishop No indication of A) men or B) men called to be bishops or leadership positions Here I finally bring up bishops and specify that I am (no assuming) with the intro ¨Specifically...¨. I make no claim to addressing all leadership position (and thus assuming men only). This is continuing from the previous statement particularly dealing with bishops - who are men - and all those who are responsible for doctrinal integrity (could be argued that women are involved somewhere in the communication of such, but it originates with men). 1. I think the above shows that it is more curious why you thought I was assuming such. I only brought up bishops and men at that end, and did so because they seem likely candidates to be congratulated and because they were specifically brought up by the comment immediately preceding mine. 2. You congratulating your husband because he loves subbing seems an explanation in itself. You know he loves it, so you congratulate him on his good fortune/blessing. While this is a reason to congratulate someone it is very specific and does not deal with why congratulations may be given generally to those given callings (of all types), which is what I was addressing with my first two points. 1. As above, I brought up bishops because of the comment previous to mine and because it exemplified my first two general points while naturally allowing the side note. 2. I´m not totally sure what exactly you mean about the overly pessimistic assumptions. But I was not giving a full treatise on all the possible reasons for congratulations. No comments here attempt to do such, so it could be said that anyone´s comment is overly whatever in what they choose to treat and not treat. 3. I suspect you could only be referring to: ¨not tempted solely by money, but by titles and prestige and admiration and standing in a community, as I have mentioned elsewhere.¨ However, I get nowhere near mentioning ¨a power trip¨ of any kind. Also, if this is the statement you are referring to in this last part of your comment, it is a side-note for a reason. I am referring (as I tried to make clear with the mention of money - perhaps I should have said ¨filthy lucre¨) to the LDS official prejudice against Christian/paid ministers and justification for a confidence in its leadership (unpaid ministry). It is something I have brought up elsewhere and, here, mainly for those who interacted with me then. I apologize for the lack of clarity. 4. Toward that idea in the side note, place in the community can certainly be a non-monetary source of temptation that could lead to leaders compromising on what they teach in order to keep/increase their place in the community.
  8. Simplest Answer: Title and prestige Likely Answer: assumptions that being called to a position indicate that you are ¨worthy¨ of that position (rather than another view that you are not worthy or ready for it but that you are going to grow from it (because you have growing to do)) Specifically, for bishops its all of the above. LDS leadership is not going to put someone (and their family) in a bishop position who they do not respect and find capable. The position will try men´s souls though, so, if God did direct it, I´m sure part of the plan recognizes that you are not ready for it and that you will grow. On a side note: this is an instance evidencing how men´s ecclesiastical integrity is not tempted solely by money, but by titles and prestige and admiration and standing in a community, as I have mentioned elsewhere.
  9. 1. Didn´t someone recently start an OP on a limited (matter?) question recently? 2. It does get a little troublesome if we assume that it will be our bodies (now/at the time of death/translation) that will have a direct connection with our resurrected bodies (whether in LDS view or non-LDS Christian view) because our bodies are certain to have some atoms that were in previous people´s bodies and very likely only more and more as time passes and generations after generations live and die in the same areas. 3. Technically, the words ¨resurrection¨ and ¨glorified¨ indicate that such a connection (as in #2) will exist between our dead body and our new one. This does raise the specter of possibly limited supply, particularly with the LDS teachings of ¨eternal increase¨ and physical (matter) bodies. But if there never was a time that there weren´t gods and men, then it would seem that the LDS theology assumes a similarly unlimited amount of matter. Infinite matter seems problematic for matter never being created and non-ex-nihilo-ism, though...
  10. 1. Didn´t someone recently start an OP on a limited (matter?) question recently? 2. It does get a little troublesome if we assume that it will be our bodies (now/at the time of death/translation) that will have a direct connection with our resurrected bodies (whether in LDS view or non-LDS Christian view) because our bodies are certain to have some atoms that were in previous people´s bodies and very likely only more and more as time passes and generations after generations live and die in the same areas. 3. Technically, the words ¨resurrection¨ and ¨glorified¨ indicate that such a connection (as in #2) will exist between our dead body and our new one. This does raise the specter of possibly limited supply, particularly with the LDS teachings of ¨eternal increase¨ and physical (matter) bodies. But if there never was a time that there weren´t gods and men, then it would seem that the LDS theology assumes a similarly unlimited amount of matter. Infinite matter seems problematic for matter never being created and non-ex-nihilo-ism, though...
  11. 1. Didn´t someone recently ask a limited (matter?) question recently? 2. It does get a little troublesome if we assume that it will be our bodies (now/at the time of death/translation) that will have a direct connection with our resurrected bodies (whether in LDS view or non-LDS Christian view) because our bodies are certain to have some atoms that were in previous people´s bodies and very likely only more and more as time passes and generation after generations lives and dies in the same areas. 3. Technically, the words ¨resurrection¨ and ¨glorified¨ indicate that such a connection (as in #2) will exist between our dead body and our new one. This does raise the specter of possibly limited supply, especially with ¨eternal increase¨. But if there never was a time that there weren´t gods and men, then it would seem that the LDS theology assumes a similarly unlimited amount of matter. Definitely problematic for matter never being created and non-ex-nihilo-ism, though...
  12. While I agree with you and others about how we end up where we ¨fit¨ or have chosen and think it is an important truth that changed´s view seems to need reminding of, in Mormonism, there is definitely a significant aspect of ¨reward¨. While the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial are places where one can have ¨careers¨ as you put it, there are absolute limits on whether or not you interact with Jesus (the Terrestrial Limit) and Heavenly Father (the Celestial Limit). While there are other LDS definitions of damnation, this is the damnation that so many non-LDS care about - whether they live with God forever or not. How many sincere and devout non-LDS Christians will end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom forever banished by Heavenly Father? What comfort is there in the material of Terrestrial Kingdom that can make up for the eternal loss of the Father? Does it make such a difference between Outer Darkness and the Terrestrial Kingdom? [There are more or less answers to these questions (that assume that Mormonism is true). It would seem many assumptions about how ¨they must not really have wanted Heavenly Father (at all)¨ would have to be made. Some talk about how the beauty and pleasures of each kingdom are derivatives of Heavenly Father, while technically true, would be certainly lacking. In a similar vein, some talk about Jesus being some level of Heavenly Father, while a better ¨portion¨, leads to some disturbing issues - not least of which would be the objectifying of Heavenly Father, that he is exchangeable.] But, nonetheless, the reward is there.
  13. As an outsider, I do not find your interest in reincarnation very surprising. To an extent Mormonism includes reincarnation or something similar to it, and the logic that supports its reason in Mormonism would support it out of Mormonism as well. The First Estate is one life, one´s performance in which determines/explains/influences one´s place in the next life - The Second Estate. The Second Estate even includes a ¨forgetting¨ of the previous life/estate, and one´s performance in it determines/explains/influences one´s place in the next life - The Third Estate. Only here, in the Third Estate, is the series of reincarnation ended but replaced with a single immortal life in which eternal progression (with success and failure but without sin?) eventually results in the student´s receiving an A because they earned it, eventually. @changed
  14. This would be reasonable if independence were God´s goal. While nuances can be argued, in Mormonism independence seems at least a significant part of the goal. In traditional Christianity, it is not.
  15. 1) Does not LDS theology teach that God does indeed lead us into temptation? Isn´t the 2nd Estate one big leading into temptation? That we come willingly does not mean that Heavenly Father did not lead us here. 2) A light treatment: https://theconversation.com/lead-us-not-into-temptation-why-pope-francis-is-wrong-about-the-lords-prayer-88886 3) A thorough treatment by Spurgeon: https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/lead-us-not-into-temptation#flipbook/ A reminder for Jorge: Let us always be afraid of attempting improvements on God's perfect Word, and when our theories will not stand with divinely revealed truth let us alter our theories, but let us never attempt for one single moment to put one word of God out of its place. - Spurgeon
×
×
  • Create New...