199 replies to this topic

[Log]

CFR that if the single most rational explanation for the Book of Mormon is Joseph's account, then there is no need to pray for a spiritual confirmation.

Seems like a big, fat non sequitur to me.

Edited by Log, 06 May 2012 - 11:29 AM.

[GingerRed]

Jaybear.....I SAID jk !!.....I apologize then if that offended you.

But...I find offense in those that say, like you, that those of us who know all about the church's past and make that 'informed decision' ...and STILL remain faithful because we've experienced our OWN witness to the truth, insinuate that we must be pretty stupid or crazy.  You think that THAT's not insulting?  It is to me.

[Log]

Let me clarify the obvious error in Jaybear's position.

Just because it happens to be the case that the simplest, most rational, and consistent explanation for the Book of Mormon is Joseph's explanation, it does not follow that spiritual confirmation is unnecessary.  Consider the following.

Quote

For these two critics of Mormonism, divine involvement in the origins of the Book of Mormon is, effectively, impossible, ruled out by their current stance toward the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith. So they’re willing to accept extraordinarily improbable just-so stories, in the absence of any even marginally serious supporting evidence, rather than to entertain the explanation that believing Latter-day Saints accept. Since they can’t believe in nothing, they’re willing, from my point of view, to believe in anything. As the late Utah historian Dale Morgan notoriously put it in a 1945 letter to the believing Latter-day Saint historian Juanita Brooks,

With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.

Clearly, just being simple, rational, and consistent with all known evidence is not enough.  Otherwise, Jaybear'd be a Mormon.

Edited by Log, 06 May 2012 - 12:31 PM.

[wenglund]

bu11fr0g, on 05 May 2012 - 04:26 AM, said:

3. Some of the members are toxic and being at church requires contact with them/

It helps me to keep in mind that one is likely to find a lot of sick people at the hospital.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 06 May 2012 - 05:13 PM.

[mentalgymnast]

Jaybear, on 06 May 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Baptism is archaic ritual. Again, hard for me to believe that an all powerful and all knowing God can't or won't award salvation to worthy souls without them first participating in an archaic ritual.

Archaic rituals theoretically (at least from the Christian/LDS POV) play a part in the organization of the human family beyond this mortal sphere of existence. Jesus said that there are many mansions in the hereafter. Degrees of glory, it could be said. Your usage of the word "salvation" is rather meaningless without also having to account for the wide variety of human inhabitants that live and have lived on the earth. Archaic rituals such as baptism guidance/help in the organizational logistics involved in creating ongoing familial and societal organizations beyond this little piece of time and space. What point, really, is there to calling something "archaic" when one considers the breadth and depth of eternity?

Of course if there isn't any continuation of human intelligence beyond the grave then I would have to concede that your argument has some merit to the extent that everyone will be awarded the same degree (or in reality, non-degree/absence) of salvation, archaic rituals or not.

Annihilation. But that's not much to look forward to is it?

BTW, who's job is it anyway to tell God how or how not He is supposed to do things? Good luck with that. It seems to me that God is perfectly able to choose/delineate the way he goes about putting into place the organizational tempate for an ongoing eternity. It's up to us whether or not we buy into it or not.


Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

mentalgymnast, on 06 May 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

tempate

Oops, I meant "template". Isn't there an editing feature on this board so you can go back and change something that was in error?

[wenglund]

GingerRed, on 04 May 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

I think you are stressing yourself needlessly.   

And, I don't think he is alone. I suspect that there are a lot of people in the Church who haven't figured out how to really enjoy the gospel and how to draw much joy from living the gospel. Even in my most intense and dark struggles, spiritual or otherwise, I could count on a warming ray of gospel sunshine to cheer my day and lighten my load, if nothing more than posts like yours and maidservant, where you genuinely whoop it up about being a daughter of God. It kind of put things into joyful and hopeful perspective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 06 May 2012 - 02:47 PM.

[calmoriah]

mentalgymnast, on 06 May 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Oops, I meant "template". Isn't there an editing feature on this board so you can go back and change something that was in error?

When you get up to 25 posts, you can edit.  This is to allow mods to catch spammers and trolls in action, I believe.

[mentalgymnast]

calmoriah, on 06 May 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

When you get up to 25 posts, you can edit.  This is to allow mods to catch spammers and trolls in action, I believe.

OK, well I'm not a spammer and I'm not a troll, so it looks like I'll just have to be practically perfect in every way (thank you Mary Poppins!) so I don't make myself out to appear  totally illiterate. Be forwarned, if I continue beyond twenty-five posts I'm going to suddenly appear to be much more in command of my grammer (oops!, grammar) and spelling.

Regards,
MG

[wenglund]

Jaybear, on 06 May 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

The point is that he should give into extreme confirmation bias?  
Look for a "sign" that you can interpret as God personally manifesting his will directly to you that "The Church is True."
When you find that sign, you can go ahead and ignore any and all red flags which tell you otherwise.

If there is a God, and this life is test,  where only those who make the "right" choice are rewarded with salvation, aren't you cheating when, instead of figuring it out for yourself based on fact, and reason, you ask God for the answer?

After a number of wonderful posts that came as a welcomed breath of cool fresh air, we are now subjected to this repelling blast of hot decomposed fish from someone minding other people's business.

I love it, because the contrast makes the cool fresh air all the more blessed and sweet.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 06 May 2012 - 02:48 PM.

[Darth_Bill]

never mind.

Edited by Darth_Bill, 06 May 2012 - 02:47 PM.

[calmoriah]

If you want to up your post count fast, go into Social Hall and keep posting in the three word story thread.  Or just start a new thread on something people might be interested in, a new movie or someplace to travel or anything (you can do that there even if not in this forum) and chat with people.  Or just keep adding to the threads that are there.  Since they are social threads, no need to say more than a few words.

[Log]

NOOOO I hate seeing fossilized threads getting bumped for no other reason than to pump someone's post count! NOOOOOOOOO!

[GingerRed]

wenglund, on 06 May 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

And, I don't think he is alone. I suspect that there are a lot of people in the Church who haven't figured out how to really enjoy the gospel and how to draw much joy from living the gospel. Even in my most intense and dark struggles, spiritual or otherwise, I could count on a warming ray of gospel sunshine to cheer my day and lighten my load, if nothing more than posts like yours and maidservant, where you genuinely whoop it up about being a daughter of God. It kind of put things into joyful and hopeful perspective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you, Wade  

Red

[Jaybear]

GingerRed, on 06 May 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

But...I find offense in those that say, like you, that those of us who know all about the church's past and make that 'informed decision' ...and STILL remain faithful because we've experienced our OWN witness to the truth, insinuate that we must be pretty stupid or crazy.  You think that THAT's not insulting?  It is to me.

Had I said or insinuated that, yes, I would agree, that would be insulting.  All humans are subject to confirmation bias.  Relying on a "spiritual witness" to support your beliefs makes you .... human.

wenglund, on 06 May 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

After a number of wonderful posts that came as a welcomed breath of cool fresh air, we are now subjected to this repelling blast of hot decomposed fish from someone minding other people's business.

I love it, because the contrast makes the cool fresh air all the more blessed and sweet.

Confirmation bias.  Its more pleasant to hear people say things that reinforce your own beliefs.

mentalgymnast, on 06 May 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

BTW, who's job is it anyway to tell God how or how not He is supposed to do things? Good luck with that. It seems to me that God is perfectly able to choose/delineate the way he goes about putting into place the organizational tempate for an ongoing eternity. It's up to us whether or not we buy into it or not.

Ah, but when you say baptism is "necessary" for salvation, you ... not me ...   are imposing a limit God's power and abilities.
I don't see a just and merciful God, who is also all powerful and all knowing, demanding ritualism, when he can simply look into one's heart.

Nah.  I don't think its a coincidence that when elaborate ceremonial rituals are deemed "necessary" for eternal blessings,  the organization that controls the dispensation of these rituals become powerful (and wealthy).

Edited by Jaybear, 07 May 2012 - 07:09 AM.

[altersteve]

Jaybear, on 06 May 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Baptism is archaic ritual. Again, hard for me to believe that an all powerful and all knowing God can't or won't award salvation to worthy souls without them first participating in an archaic ritual.

You seem to misunderstand the LDS concept of baptism. To us, baptism is not just a "ritual," nor do we consider it a "work" like many of our evangelical brothers and sisters do; instead it is an outward manifestation of one's faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death and resurrection, which the act of baptism itself is symbolic of. It is a formal covenant (a two-way contract) with our Heavenly Father where He promises to have His Spirit with us as long as we always remember what His Son did (and continues to do) for us. This covenant, which is renewed weekly when we partake of the sacrament with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, is what is important, not the ritual itself. The act of being dunked underwater is really nothing more than the means by which this covenant is made "official."

Edited by altersteve, 07 May 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[altersteve]

Jaybear, on 07 May 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

Ah, but when you say baptism is "necessary" for salvation, you ... not me ...   are imposing a limit God's power and abilities.

And once again someone tries to criticize our beliefs by looking at them through a lens that we simply don't see things through, and thus having the nerve to tell us what our beliefs really mean. That God's power and abilities would be limited by a requirement for baptism is your interpretation, not ours.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

We're not Calvinists so what we do is actually important to God. For the unbelievers baptism is nothing more than getting wet. For believers it is an outward sign of an internal agreement to do what God asks.

[Jaybear]

altersteve, on 07 May 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

You seem to misunderstand the LDS concept of baptism. To us, baptism is not just a "ritual," nor do we consider it a "work" like many of our evangelical brothers and sisters do; instead it is an outward manifestation of one's faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning death and resurrection, which the act of baptism itself is symbolic of. It is a formal covenant (a two-way contract) with our Heavenly Father where He promises to have His Spirit with us as long as we always remember what His Son did (and continues to do) for us. This covenant, which is renewed weekly when we partake of the sacrament with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, is what is important, not the ritual itself. The act of being dunked underwater is really nothing more than the means by which this covenant is made "official."

No, I get that.

altersteve, on 07 May 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

And once again someone tries to criticize our beliefs by looking at them through a lens that we simply don't see things through, and thus having the nerve to tell us what our beliefs really mean. That God's power and abilities would be limited by a requirement for baptism is your interpretation, not ours.

I said:  "I don't see a just and merciful God, who is also all powerful and all knowing, demanding ritualism, when he can simply look into one's heart."
That is my belief.  I invite you to disagree,  break down, challenge, criticize my belief.

If you are not interested in learning that other people have different beliefs, or if you are easily offended when your beliefs are challenged, perhaps you shouldn't be in a forum where nonmembers are allowed to express their opinions.

Edited by Jaybear, 07 May 2012 - 08:13 AM.

[Jaybear]

thesometimesaint, on 07 May 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

Jaybear:
We're not Calvinists so what we do is actually important to God. For the unbelievers baptism is nothing more than getting wet. For believers it is an outward sign of an internal agreement to do what God asks.

I get that you believe that.  I just find it inconceivable that an all knowing, all powerful God would place any value on an "outward sign" when he has the ability to look inward.