501 replies to this topic

[Log]

volgadon, on 12 April 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Look at the plodding sequence of verbs in the text, hardly an Abraham rushing out eagerly to slay his son.

Well, I don't recall Tal Bachman (sp?) saying he'd joyfully sprint to his target destination wearing the C-4 vest either.

[Evangeline]

Log, on 12 April 2012 - 09:31 AM, said:

What shall one say of Abraham, commanded to sacrifice his only son?

Well, since I believe Abraham was a prophet and very close to God, I can believe that God could have tested him in that manner.  In most other circumstances, however, I wouldn't believe this kind of justification for a second.

[why me]

Hamilton Porter, on 12 April 2012 - 09:15 AM, said:

I've always felt that the treasure digging in Joseph Smith-History was interesting. We should tell primary children about the treasure hunting. Wait tiil they grow up, and they will be offended at the Church for not telling them.

Children would like the treasure hunting story. They would think it exciting and cool. I don't know if people are that concerned with JS's treasure hunting. It was rather common back then and he was a very young man when he did it. But yea...the lds church could mention it.

[thesometimesaint]

Overall pretty good.
http://www.rawstory....hat-comes-next/

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

No.

[why me]

Hamilton Porter, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Tal Bachmann (bitter anti-) said when he was LDS he'd strap himself to a bomb and blow himself up if the prophet told him to.

I am not surprised but perhaps he is overstating it a bit.

I think that many hardcore antis were 140 percenters when they were members and had no tolerance for people who weren't like them. They tend to bring over that dedication when they leave the lds church as a bitter anti. What Tal said sounds like a 140 percenter to me and very extreme. And I  am sure that he is just as dedicated as a antimormon.

[Kenngo1969]

1.  Doctrinal Mistakes – Neither my testimony nor my salvation hinge of the particulars regarding evolution, the age of the earth, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks, the ancestry of native peoples, light-skinned Lamanites, the Adam-God theory, or whether the great and abominable church refers to any specific organization.  For me, if the adversary can get me to discount the spiritual witnesses I have received in favor of straining on these gnats in order to swallow the camel that the Church isn’t true, then he’s won.  I’d rather not concede the battle over things that don’t form the foundation of my testimony.

2.  Not Providing What Some Believe to be Adequate Focus on Certain Historical Issues – For me, the issue of how the Book of Mormon came to be is secondary.  Even if Joseph Smith dictated all or part of it to his scribes while standing on his head, rubbing his tummy in a counterclockwise direction and clucking like a chicken, that does nothing to account for the facts that (1) the Book of Mormon still exists, and (2) for me (certain glaring imperfections of mine notwithstanding, which I continue to labor to overcome) it has succeeded very well in its stated mission of bringing people to Christ.

Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling succeeds very well at putting Joseph Smith into the context of his time while still allowing his story to speak for itself.  And just because Rough Stone Rolling isn’t Sunday School curriculum or the Ensign doesn’t mean I can’t resort to it to supplement my knowledge on a given subject.  I try not to go to Sunday School an empty vessel, waiting to be “filled” in some manner that’s “Church-approved” (and if I do that, it’s my own fault).  I try to follow the admonitions of the scriptures to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom,” to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,” and to seek out things that are “virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy.”

3.  Following/Not Following the Prophets – In order to contextualize this particular allegation, you’d have to bring forth an instance in which you followed prophetic counsel, to your detriment.  Any time I have questioned a prophetic pronouncement by appealing to its purported source (something we’re supposed to do, by the way), that prophetic pronouncement has been ratified as having come from that source.  I have also received specific guidance as to how to apply that prophetic pronouncement to my own benefit.  I do what I do not because Joseph Smith did (or did not) translate the Book of Mormon in a certain way; not because Brigham Young taught (or did not) teach the Adam-God theory/doctrine; not because Lamanite skin did (or did not) become lighter; I do it because it bears good fruit in my life and fills my soul.  Your mileage may vary.

Neither doubt nor faith are things that creep upon us like a thief in the night, capturing us unawares.  (Or at least, they need not be.)  Rather, both of them are choices.  Faith isn’t just some harbor in which one puts down anchor and is thereby permanently and comfortably ensconced.  It’s a choice.  If I am to stay there, it requires work on my part to continually adjust to currents that would sweep me out of the harbor if I let them.  My faith, contrary to the allegation of some against me and those who are similarly situated, spiritually speaking, is not rooted in blissful ignorance.  It’s not as if I, or any other person who has chosen faith, have never asked myself any of the questions you pose.  I’ve found what I consider to be satisfactory answers to many of them.  People who have forgotten more about the background underlying the challenging issues you raise than you or I will ever know have, nonetheless, remained faithful.  That tells me something; again, your mileage may vary.

Edited by Kenngo1969, 12 April 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[DBMormon]

The issues themselves never really troubled me much....kinderhook, book of abraham, masonry in temples, ect...  never really bothered me.  What has always been the focus of my struggles at times has been what felt to me like lack of full disclosure.  Like no one really wants to go out of their way to tell the full story.  I get answers if I wade myself into troubling information but the church doesn't seem (to me I am saying) to want all members to be aware of controversial issues even when they are factual and historical.  While I am active and have been aware of these issues for many many years it is the lack of info from church sources especially those we use on Sunday that seems to bother me.

[Kenngo1969]

Hamilton Porter, on 12 April 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Tal Bachmann (bitter anti-) said when he was LDS he'd strap himself to a bomb and blow himself up if the prophet told him to.

As I once put in my signature line regarding Mr. Bachmann's pronouncement, "Read your scriptures, strap on a bomb; it's all the same to us!"

[DBMormon]

1. Doctrinal Mistakes – Neither my testimony nor my salvation hinge of the particulars regarding evolution, the age of the earth, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks, the ancestry of native peoples, light-skinned Lamanites, the Adam-God theory, or whether the great and abominable church refers to any specific organization. For me, if the adversary can get me to discount the spiritual witnesses I have received in favor of straining on these gnats in order to swallow the camel that the Church isn’t true, then he’s won. I’d rather not concede the battle over things that don’t form the foundation of my testimony.

the above quotewas froma  reply above..... to me this quote is hard to swallow.  Every believer of some religious belief has spiritual feelings and a testimony.  Doesn't mean they are right or it is true.  If we are not asked to confront false things in our beliefs then we get no converts as others can't be asked to do the same.  Feelings do not make things absolutely true.  on some level they do but not absolutely.  Buddhist get feelings, muslims get feelings, jehovah witnnesses get feelings

[Log]

Tss,

That you are denying the definition of evolution indicates how you've managed to reconcile the irreconcilable truth claims of the gospel with evolution.  You've denied evolution.  Now, it remains to be explained why you adhere to the form, while denying the power thereof.

[Kenngo1969]

reelmormon, on 12 April 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

The issues themselves never really troubled me much....kinderhook, book of abraham, masonry in temples, ect...  never really bothered me.  What has always been the focus of my struggles at times has been what felt to me like lack of full disclosure.  Like no one really wants to go out of their way to tell the full story.  I get answers if I wade myself into troubling information but the church doesn't seem (to me I am saying) to want all members to be aware of controversial issues even when they are factual and historical.  While I am active and have been aware of these issues for many many years it is the lack of info from church sources especially those we use on Sunday that seems to bother me.

Allowing such issues to be tackled in a devotional setting would be a good way for the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, and its members to lose sight of the forest for the trees.  If the Church's mission is to bring people to Christ, I fail to see how this would be accomplished by such a shift in focus.  Could the Church, and those associated with it, do a better job dealing with such issues in appropriate fora?  Yes, and it's moving in that direction, as evidenced by the increasing visibility of such organs as FAIR, the Maxwell Institute, and even the Church itself with the publication and on-line availability of the Joseph Smith papers.

[GingerRed]

Kenngo1969, on 12 April 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

1.  Doctrinal Mistakes – Neither my testimony nor my salvation hinge of the particulars regarding evolution, the age of the earth, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks, the ancestry of native peoples, light-skinned Lamanites, the Adam-God theory, or whether the great and abominable church refers to any specific organization.  For me, if the adversary can get me to discount the spiritual witnesses I have received in favor of straining on these gnats in order to swallow the camel that the Church isn’t true, then he’s won.  I’d rather not concede the battle over things that don’t form the foundation of my testimony.

2.  Not Providing What Some Believe to be Adequate Focus on Certain Historical Issues – For me, the issue of how the Book of Mormon came to be is secondary.  Even if Joseph Smith dictated all or part of it to his scribes while standing on his head, rubbing his tummy in a counterclockwise direction and clucking like a chicken, that does nothing to account for the facts that (1) the Book of Mormon still exists, and (2) for me (certain glaring imperfections of mine notwithstanding, which I continue to labor to overcome) it has succeeded very well in its stated mission of bringing people to Christ.

Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling succeeds very well at putting Joseph Smith into the context of his time while still allowing his story to speak for itself.  And just because Rough Stone Rolling isn’t Sunday School curriculum or the Ensign doesn’t mean I can’t resort to it to supplement my knowledge on a given subject.  I try not to go to Sunday School an empty vessel, waiting to be “filled” in some manner that’s “Church-approved” (and if I do that, it’s my own fault).  I try to follow the admonitions of the scriptures to “seek out of the best books words of wisdom,” to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith,” and to seek out things that are “virtuous, lovely, of good report, or praiseworthy.”

3.  Following/Not Following the Prophets – In order to contextualize this particular allegation, you’d have to bring forth an instance in which you followed prophetic counsel, to your detriment.  Any time I have questioned a prophetic pronouncement by appealing to its purported source (something we’re supposed to do, by the way), that prophetic pronouncement has been ratified as having come from that source.  I have also received specific guidance as to how to apply that prophetic pronouncement to my own benefit.  I do what I do not because Joseph Smith did (or did not) translate the Book of Mormon in a certain way; not because Brigham Young taught (or did not) teach the Adam-God theory/doctrine; not because Lamanite skin did (or did not) become lighter; I do it because it bears good fruit in my life and fills my soul.  Your mileage may vary.

Neither doubt nor faith are things that creep upon us like a thief in the night, capturing us unawares.  (Or at least, they need not be.)  Rather, both of them are choices.  Faith isn’t just some harbor in which one puts down anchor and is thereby permanently and comfortably ensconced.  It’s a choice.  If I am to stay there, it requires work on my part to continually adjust to currents that would sweep me out of the harbor if I let them.  My faith, contrary to the allegation of some against me and those who are similarly situated, spiritually speaking, is not rooted in blissful ignorance.  It’s not as if I, or any other person who has chosen faith, have never asked myself any of the questions you pose.  I’ve found what I consider to be satisfactory answers to many of them.  People who have forgotten more about the background underlying the challenging issues you raise than you or I will ever know have, nonetheless, remained faithful.  That tells me something; again, your mileage may vary.

Well said!!    

I think the majority of Mormons feel this way, too.

[Kenngo1969]

Quote

[Kenngo1969]
1. Doctrinal Mistakes – Neither my testimony nor my salvation hinge of the particulars regarding evolution, the age of the earth, why the priesthood was withheld from blacks, the ancestry of native peoples, light-skinned Lamanites, the Adam-God theory, or whether the great and abominable church refers to any specific organization. For me, if the adversary can get me to discount the spiritual witnesses I have received in favor of straining on these gnats in order to swallow the camel that the Church isn’t true, then he’s won. I’d rather not concede the battle over things that don’t form the foundation of my testimony.

Quote

[reelmormon]... Every believer of some religious belief has spiritual feelings and a testimony.  Doesn't mean they are right or it is true.  If we are not asked to confront false things in our beliefs then we get no converts as others can't be asked to do the same.  Feelings do not make things absolutely true.  on some level they do but not absolutely.  Buddhist get feelings, muslims get feelings, jehovah witnnesses get feelings

I don't see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis other religions in such binary, black-and-white terms as you apparently do.  "Inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 56:26).  This applies to people of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no religious persuasion whatsoever.  The scriptures tell us that good trees don't bring forth evil fruit, whether those "good trees" are "Buddhist trees" or "Muslim trees" or "Catholic trees" or "Protestant trees" or some other species of tree.  I believe that good trees are good trees, and good fruit is good fruit.  I don't think that God gives me grapes and figs while giving people of other religious persuasions thorns and thistles; I don't think that God gives me bread while giving them stones, or that He gives me fish while giving them serpents.  I believe He gives good gifts to all of His children who ask Him.

Now, having said all of that, do all good trees bring forth the same amount of good fruit?  I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because I believe that it brings forth a hundredfold of good fruit.  Does that justify me in condemning people who are members of other faiths because they "only" receive sixtyfold or thirtyfold?  Of course not.  When it comes right down to it, the only reason for anyone to associate him- or herself with any particular religion is because that belief system bears good fruit in the person's life.  Do we tell people, when they come into the Church, "Yes, we know you've got all of this good fruit from elsewhere, but you're just going to have to throw it away"?  No, of course not.  In the words of President Hinckley (and I believe he got it from Brigham Young), we tell them to bring the good that they have and let us see if we can add to it.

Edited by Kenngo1969, 12 April 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[Evangeline]

Kenngo1969, on 12 April 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

I don't see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis other religions in such binary, black-and-white terms as you apparently do.  "Inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward" (Doctrine & Covenants 56:26).  This applies to people of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no religious persuasion whatsoever.  The scriptures tell us that good trees don't bring forth evil fruit, whether those "good trees" are "Buddhist trees" or "Muslim trees" or "Catholic trees" or "Protestant trees" or some other species of tree.  I believe that good trees are good trees, and good fruit is good fruit.  I don't think that God gives me grapes and figs while giving people of other religious persuasions thorns and thistles; I don't think that God gives me bread while giving them stones, or that He gives me fish while giving them serpents.  I believe He gives good gifts to all of His children who ask Him.

You're on a roll today, Kenngo.

Edited by Evangeline, 12 April 2012 - 11:04 AM.

[Kenngo1969]

Log, on 12 April 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Well, I don't recall Tal Bachman (sp?) saying he'd joyfully sprint to his target destination wearing the C-4 vest either.

Oh, he of little faith!  Is Thomas S. Monson God's prophet, or not?

[Kenngo1969]

GingerRed, on 12 April 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Well said!!    

I think the majority of Mormons feel this way, too.

Evangeline, on 12 April 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

You're on a roll today, Kenngo.

Thank you both, but give God the praise.  I'm a sinner!

[thesometimesaint]

Log:

This is really going off the OP, but here goes. My testimony of the Restored Gospel is not dependent on your lack of understanding of science. I have a testimony of whom I consider the prophets of God to instruct me in the ways I need to comport my life in order to be a faithfull follower of Christ. Whatever their own personal opinions of science, of men being on the moon or on the sun, the age of the earth, what makes for a beautiful woman, or the best thing they ever ate, it has absolutely no bearing on my testimony.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 12 April 2012 - 11:22 AM.

[Log]

thesometimesaint, on 12 April 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

This is really going off the OP, but here goes. My testimony of the Restored Gospel is not dependent on your lack of understanding of science.

I agree, personal insults are OP.

And, in any event, your perception of our respective understandings of science is, in reality, the reverse of reality.

To wit: random mutation entails undirected mutation, and natural selection excludes intelligent or artificial selection.

Edited by Log, 12 April 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Tell me is Pi equal to exactly 3?