Teancum

If you are interested in such things I recommend the bool The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris. Moral standards can be determined by us based on what maximizes human well being and happiness. Yes it is not the simple and it is complicated. Question? Why should religion be the sole or best option for establishing moral values and rules? What does one do when various religions conflict. Certainly Sharia Law and Western Judeo Christian morals tend to conflict at time. Who's religious morals should prevail? One of the greatest inventions in political government was the US Constitution's 1st amendment. No religion should or could be bale to set up theocracy in the United States, though currently, it seems some Christian Nationalists are working hard at it.

Well said @ttribe

It is really quite simple when one drops the requirement to just have faith. Why would. or what kind of god like being, would ask us to "obey" morally repugnant commands in order to test us, or sift the so called "wheat/tares? Humans can asses and determine morals and ethics on their own. without the need of some imagines god being. Using critical thinking skills it is understandable to conclude that such things are, base ethically sound standards, something that should be rejected.

Why do you think they are "very smug" about retention rates? And what does the church say and share about it's retention rates?

I had a response to you post and somehow when I posted it, the post disappeared. I will try to recreate it.

But it seems clear she rejected BY's claims to lead the church and rejected plural marriage. Isn't the church she claimed to adhere to the one we now call The Community Of Christ? And she rejected the Church that you believe is the one Joseph founded. Also, how much can we trust Emma. She denied that Joseph introduced and practice plural marriage, yet as you note, the historical records supports the position the Joseph was indeed the one responsible for introducing plural marriage. So how can we trust her?

I have been using an AI tool for tax work and research and it is amazing. Like you said, you have to know how to use it and what to ask, and even challenge it. But the end product is great. And it write a tax memo better than I can and I think I can write a good tax memorandum. I can do what used to take ten hours of work in about and hour to and hour and a half.

Well it is a long story. I am still a member. I just do not attend. But after years of doing hobby apologetics I came to the point where I found some many of our apologetic defensed poorly argued and just seemed to be attempts to create plausibility, as one apologists that used to frequent this board used to say. And also to buoy up shaky testimonies of already believers. So yea, I concluded that Joseph Smith was what he claimed, not did he have the supernatural experiences that he claimed. It seems clear that the BoM is a product of the 19th century. Basically I could no longer give witness that the church is what its founders and leaders claim it to be.

Interesting. As for God being a man and scripture, Joseph did site a NT passage where Jesus says he only does that which he saw the Father do. The implication being the Father was a man on a world and a Savior and Jesus is doing the same thing.

Well in my view that LDS Church has made plenty of changes that are not dissimilar to changes that happened over the many centuries of Christianity. Some might view that as apostasy by the church. The changes to doctrine about the Godhead, though the Church position on this is continuing revelation gave us addition light and knowledge. But how about the downplay on the doctrines of the KFD and creating worlds. What about changes to the Endowment that many view as significant. Ending Polygamy seemed a major hurdle for a number of splinter groups to rise up. And there are other LDS spin offs as well. It does seem that differing standards may be applied by Latter-day Saints to our faith vs others perhaps?

Do you think the church does not emphasize the God was once a man....because that want to move away from this idea? Is it part of what looks like an attempt to appear more main stream?

That is accurate. I did not stop believing because of secularism at all. Though secularism does play a large roll in my beliefs now.

When did that happen?

I think what is different for @Navidadis that for a large part of Christianity, what denomination you worship with and find a church home with is not really significant so long as they have the "essential" doctrine correct. Thus moving from Methodist, to Baptist, to Lutheran and so on is quite fine. But as you note in the bolded item above, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims, it then holds some exclusive items that is not transferred to other denominations.

I don't see anything in the summaries that I would disagree with.

The church accepts wearing a cross now? I guess I have been away too long. 🤪

What I struggle with is how assertive the KFD was taught. I refer, as usual 😁to SWK. I recall I believe an address and the U of U where he talked about all the priesthood holders there becoming Gods and creating worlds, thousands of worlds, just like our God had before us. Insure believed the KFD doctrine as much as I believed anyth8ing in the Canon.

When I was an LDS believer I took the position that indeed God the Father was not just a God of some other gods. But that He was the God that started it all. Infinite regression backwards to there always being some god somewhere back in time seemed preposterous to me. The idea of God existing outside of time and space and creating both seemed more plausible. In The Book of Abraham we find these verses in Abraham 3:19-21. I cam to interpret the words bolded, where God says He is more intelligent than all of them he meant all of them put together. I came to believe The Father was the original God that started out as an intelligence greater than all others combined. He started the process of creating worlds and went as the savior of the first world he created and that has been going on ever since. Maybe that was a bit tortured conclusion but I prayed and pondered it when I believed in answers to such prayers and I came to be satisfied that I was on to something. But that still ranks Jesus as a god among Gods and not exactly like his Father. Though I did believe Jesus was fully God before he was incarnate. etc.

It may not be canon. But its ideas certainly were incorporated into enough LDS lesson manuals including seminary and institute manuals, in LDS conference talks, many by LDS prophets. that it is hard to say it is not doctrinal. I know it was being emphasized less from the time I was entering my less active phase of my church experience.

I have to say that after reading through your posts and some of the other LDS posters, I think Bruce McConkie was onto something on his comments about The Fifth Lecture when he talked about the members of the Godhead divinely indwelling each other. He notes in that way they are ONE, in that they share the same mind, thoughts, etc. So while physically not one, it seems to me he thought they were sure one in almost all ways that matter. He also goes on to say that humans that are exalted would also be one with the Godhead by, I assume, divinely indwelling each other as well maybe? Seems like we if Latter-day Saint doctrine on this is properly represented by Elder McConkie, Orthodox Christians and Latter-day Saints are closer than we may think. Thoughts?

You outlined what my position on this topic was when I was a believer and defending against a critique that we believed God the Father was a man just like us.

Very interesting.

Certainly it is possible. Yet there would be some significant doctrinal shifts to do so. Interestingly, when I wrote my paper I was surprised to learn that Bruce McConkie loved the Lectures on Faith and was pro adding them back the the LDS Canon. They were included from in the 1935 Doctrine and Covenants but dropped in 1921 shortly after the First Presidency pronouncement on the Godhead. And that because the Lecture, particular Lecture 5 conflicted with the stated doctrine in the FO statement. But there was never a vote to remove the Lectures, which we called the doctrine of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenents. They were one of a series of such doctrine treatises that were planned for the Doctrine and Covenants. Here is what McConkie said about Lecture 5 that it is: He also said that the Godhead are one in that the divinely indwell one another and share the same mind, thought, purposes, etc. Elder McConkie seemed semi classical in his thoughts about the Godhead and how they are one.

The concept of God in the Book of Mormon and early LDS teaching is clearly similar to classical Christian theology. It was around 1838 the Joseph introduced the idea of three separate Gods and that the Father was a corporeal being. And of course the radical doctrines about God and eternal progression came after that. This is one of the major criticisms for Evangelical Critics. I dealt with one fellow who came to pass out material and the Hill Cumorah pageant each year when I was a believing apologist. He had a paper called "We used to agree." I wrote a 100 page rebuttal of that paper but looking at it know it seems like a desperate attempt to argue that we were not more like the trinitarians from 1820 to 1838. I think the paper is on the FAIR website. I presented it at a FAIR conference I think at Alta Utah. That was maybe the third FAIR conference.

Current email is correct.