Jump to content

Jane_Doe

Members
  • Content Count

    969
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jane_Doe

  1. Some jobs do require 7 days/week work -- like hospitals, emergency services, and transportation. That's just the nature of life. If a person is in such a field, then some Sundays will need to be worked-- maybe you could minimize some, but somebody has to work. And I don't find such to be inherently bad, though it does obviously mean that you'll be missing the benefit of the traditional community day of worship. In such cases, set apart another day for your day of rest: having scheduling spiritual enrichment activity, worshiping, resting, and being with family. A person still needs that day of rest.
  2. Denver Snuffer was an LDS Christian, whom vocally veered off to extreme right positions 20-10 years ago, and got excommunicated. He's picked up a following of his own and now leads a very loosely organized group.
  3. I never said anything was borrowed. I said that there was that influence from Plato, influence of Greek philosophical style of thinking, and moves to refute/deal with some ideas. The mere concept of substance / ex nihilio shows these influences / dealing with. The influence is especially highlighting when you're having discussions with folks that don't strongly come from that background (such as LDS Christians). bingo.
  4. Plato has substances. "Substances" is even a concept. And it is also Creedal Christianity (along with the need to supersede it with ex nihilio). In LDS Christianity, this isn't even a concept. Talking about "substances" and "ex nihilism" and classes of beings and "mutable and immutable traits" are completely foreign and baffling. To understand even this concept, a person must go read Plato, and then can better understand Creedal response to it.
  5. I respect that these are your thoughts but... my thoughts very much disagree. Honestly, if a person truly wants to understand Creedal Christianity, (such as the Trinity), I find that Plato's writings are essential readings. the talk of substances, different classes of beings, the very scale you describe, the need to be ex nihilio to trump the "natural world", etc. Coming from a background that doesn't have all of that huge amount of Greek philiosphy... it's huge.
  6. It's one difference, but not the largest. The largest difference between LDS Christians and Creedal Cristians is the of course the Creedal Cristians embracing of post-Bibilical philosophical statements as foundational theology, versus LDS Christians embracing of latter-day revelations. That source of authority is HUGE.
  7. Honestly, even if I wasn't an LDS Christian, I won't partake in any of those things. They just don't appeal to me. I've been at too many work functions where people pay lots of money to look stupid and wreck their livers -- I can look stupid without aids, thank you very much. And I have much sweeter ways to wreck my health. Coffee is disgusting, and I have way too many friends that are absolute slaves to it. Smoking isn't just disgusting, smelly and wrecks your health, but it also does that to eveyone/thing else around you. No thank you.
  8. Coming from the LDS perspective, I don't really understand what you seem by "literal" adoption here. LDS Christian believe in literal sonship -- you are literally a son/daughter of God. While right now we don't remotely understand God, we will eventually completely understand and eventually completely become like Him. Literally. Creedal Christianity ... even in the eternities you're still a (metaphorical) dog. A very beloved dog, has been taught the best manners, that spends every day with the master, sleeps in His bed with Him, and has everything a beloved dog could ever dream of. But due to the Creedal doctrine of consubstantiality: they are forever a dog. There is no literally becoming completely like God. Sorry if that sounds downplaying-- I'm trying to be respectful here. But from an LDS standpoint...honestly I find that Creedal Christians have a much more negative or lesser view of man than LDS Christians (speaking both of present-day man and eventual perfected man).
  9. We are the same "type" as He is: have the same positional, and He leads us along the way. As we don't know how "spiritual genetics" work, past then is really hard to say. Another useful thing is to compare this to Creedal Christian beliefs: in Creedal Christianity, God and man are two entirely different "types" of creatures -- God being that forever immovable mover, and man being a flawed pitiful creation. In Creedal Christianity, a person isn't literally a child of God, rather they are adopted by benevolent benefactor (God)--- somewhat* similar to the way a human would adopt a dog. The master loves the dog, and fights for the dog, and even dies for the dog. But the dog's never going to be human-- it's not literally their child. It's forever only a flawed mutt that the benevolence adopted. (*somewhat = this is a very imperfect analogy). No.
  10. <Writing this as survivor of sexual abuse.> 1) If you wish to crusade against pedophiles and increase protection for young ones (both of which are very noble goals), then fight against pedophiles and to increase protection for young ones! Quit going after the boogyman, and instead fight the real villains, villains which are hiding everywhere. Your irrational attacks against a personal boogeyman distract and make people dismiss the real fight. 2) Every survivor desperately needs therapy. Sexual abuse is soul shattering, and it take a lot of work and theory to put it back together. Right now, your soul is still in a million pieces, but it doesn't have to stay that way.
  11. Anybody who knows me at work knows I love my family and I love God-- I talk about them lot with much enthusiasm and love. My desk doesn't have to be decorated to somehow "prove" my love to them. I don't need to have a decorative picture of my daughter on my desk to "prove" I love her, nor do I need a decorative picture of a cross to "prove" I love God. That's my point. If your point was simply to talk about the importance of external decorations (separated from the symbolism/meaning/significance, just the decoration itself as a decoration ).... yeah LDS Christians don't put a lot of emphasis there. Certainly a lot less than iconography heavy faiths like Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians. LDS Christians don't do a lot of outward displays of inward devotions.
  12. I worked in the same office for 7 years. Most people have pictures up of their families, religious symbols, or other things they consider to be of value. After 7 years, my desk area is barren of pictures of my family, or religious symbols, or anything else. Does that mean I love my family or God less than those which did decorate their desk space? No, of course not. I don't think anyone's devotion to God or anything else is measuring by how they physically decorate themselves or their spaces. Note: I'm not going to argue that any group of Christians values Christ or His sacrifice more than any other-- honestly I find such arguments to be very silly. Equally silly is the idea that how a person/apce is physically decorated is indicative to their love or inward devotion to Christ.
  13. There are ex-mormon pedophiles. Don't be so naive as to think that being ex-Mormon cures anyone of those crooked desires or that you can instantly trust every ex-mormon. (You shouldn't instantly trust anyone in that regard). I understand that you're traumatized by your experience -- I'm also the product of a pedophile horror story. But if we only think that people in churches can be pedophiles, then that's leaving ourselves and our children woefully ungaurded.
  14. No one is making excuses for pedophiles. But we also need to see the WHOLE picture and not pretend that this is something isolated to churches, cause it's not. If you want to do your best to protect your kids from pedophiles, then educated them and build communication bridges. So that way if their grandpa is crocked, or the neighborhood babysitter, or your best friend's husband, or a school teacher, or the neighborhood kid, etc -- that way your kids know the words to express things and get help. Don't depend on any system to protect your kids for you.
  15. And that ex-mormon group you love so much: what do you say about all the pedophile predators laying there? Shall you likewise decry the entirety of that group to be evil?
  16. Changed, if you are looking for an group that does not involve majorly flawed humans, then... well you're out of luck because all humans are messed up. LDS Christians have people that make mistakes innocently and people that are purposefully hurting others. Ex-LDS Christians have people that make mistakes innocently and people that are purposefully hurting others (including that group you yourself are celebrating in currently). Never-LDS Christians have people that make mistakes innocently and people that are purposefully hurting others. Trying to look for a people that does not involve these peoples means that you are looking for a group that is not human- and hence yourself would be disqualified. Because each of us is a messed up human being.
  17. A marriage (in time or eternity) has to include two willing participants. If one wishes to leave, neither the laws of the land or God will hold them caged. You agreed to the civil divorce, and God will not hold her caged in a relationship she does not want to be in.
  18. It's not supposed to make logical sense, even Trinitarian will tell you that. I had a longer answer typed up but then it got deleted. I'll type more later.
  19. (Just explaining some LDS Christian experience here) I actually appreciate it when Trinitarian Christians do acknowledge that they don't understand how the Athanasian Trinity works. It makes me 1) feel better about the fact that I don't either, and 2) I feel it's... honest? Rather than trying to say "this is a square peg and it fits in square holes", acknowledging that this is a peg that not remotely square on any human-understandable shape. Ironically, acknowledging "you're not supposed to deeply understand it" makes the very vague understanding easier. Also Catholic acknowledgement that this is not a sola-scriptura doctrine helps too. What is frustrating though: when I get yelled (usually by an "anti-cultist") who says essentially: "it's doesn't matter if it doesn't make any sense or it's clearly stated in the Bible- shut up and believe it anyways!! Else you're going to burn in Hell and ain't a real Christian!". That is... a time to smile politely & nod & walk away. Not really.
  20. Thanks. I quickly y read over this and have in=depth studied many similar in the past.
  21. (Disclaimer: I am NOT a Trinitarian. I'm just a person who best tries to understand what it is Trinitarians believe. I COMPLETELY welcome any actual Trinitarians to answer this question). The actual Trinity (not modalism) acknowledges that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons. Christ doesn't pray to Himself, nor does He pat Himself on the back with "Behold my beloved Son". It's the Father saying that line, and to whom the Son is praying to. They are 3 different persons, a point that LDS Christians agree with. The point of disagreement is the *how* 3 are 1: LDS Christians pointing to unity. Trinitarian Christians point to ontological oneness through a shared substance (wherein they differentiate between a 'person' and a being') -- yes this is extremely confusing for all folks, hence the difficult in explanations for all involved. As to the First Vision: a Trinitarian isn't going to have any issue with the fact that the Father and Son are different persons. What they are going to have an issue with is the Father (like the Son) wearing a tabernacle of perfected flesh, versus being spirit like the Holy Ghost. And that then consumes the discussion.
  22. I'm going to come out here and say this: a LOT of LDS Christians misunderstand Athanasian Christians (aka Christians that adhere to the Athanasian Creed) and mistakenly think that the Athanasian "trinity" = modalism. It is a tragically common misconception. As to how it originated / continues to be, in my observation it seems to be correlated with a few things-- 1) A lot of people sitting in Trinitarian pews nowadays are not well studied and actually believe modalism. Many Protestants haven't even read the Creeds. An LDS Christian asks their Trinitarian friend "hey what do you believe?" and they answer explaining modalism. Or just accidentally give a modalist explanation. 2) Low-quality apologetic efforts (such as "anti-cult" preachers) continually deride LDS Christians for believing that the Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 different persons/beings. Hence, the LDS Christian comes to the conclusion that the 'Trinity' is modalism (belief in 1 person/being). The louder the "anti-cult" preacher shouts, the more and more cemented idea that Trinity = modalism becomes. Hence yet another example of how low-quality apologetics are damaging to everyone. 3) Once an idea becomes implanted in a group's collective head (like Trinity = modalism), it is just really hard to get out. The way to better address this and improve things all around: it requires true Christ-like love, fellowship, and high-quality explanations. I admire your stance and progress in that regard @3DOP, as well as @MiserereNobis, and try to be such an ambassador myself. It's not an easy task, as the low-quality path of falling is some such easier and well traveled by people from both camps.
  23. As usual, LDS Christians are less into specific categories/labels than Catholic Christians. Hence that lack of specific categorization/labeling here. In the LDS Christian theology: Christ tells us to pray to Father in the Son's name. So we do that. To do otherwise would be not doing what Christ asked of us. If somebody were to be openly doing otherwise, it would perhaps be something that a friend/advisor could gently correct them on- after all we do want to do as Christ asks of us. But there isn't a formal "disciplinary" process dealing with it (such isn't really LDS Christian way of doing things). As to the example of praying to Heavenly Mother: back several decades ago, there were several people whom very publicly advocated that people should do this. In other words: they were very publicly advocating that people should do something contrary to what Christ asks of us. Such advocating/teaching is a problem, and they did not listen to their local leaders whom correct them on this. Hence it became a bigger deal, with President Hinkley openly came out reminding us to do as Christ told us to do. I don't remember what happened to the ringleaders advocating otherwise... they might have been excommunicated, honestly I don't remember.
  24. Answering as somebody who's always seems to attend open houses when it's raining...
  25. In regard to this room, it literally does have the name "Instruction Room". As to making things understandable in general: I've always living in places where LDS Christians are a small minority. As a teenager, I could 1) say "I'm going to Mutual" and have my friends go "huh?" and spend the entire short conversation defining terms, or 2) say "I'm going to Youth Group" and have my friends go "Cool, what you doing there tonight?" Having good communication with terms people understand is just a good thing in general. It's more important to have the meaning of something understood & convey the important stuff, rather than focus on learning Mormon-ese when we don't have to. When the term is LDS-Christian-specific and there isn't a mainstream equivalent, then I'll explain things. But when a simple analogous term does exist, why not use it to facilitate better communication?
×
×
  • Create New...