Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

boblloyd91

Members
  • Posts

    750
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by boblloyd91

  1. 10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    The LDS Church welfare and humanitarian aid system does not ask what someone's religious beliefs are when they need help.  Instead, we reach out and provide necessary aid in emergencies and in good times.  We give millions of dollars to Catholic Relief in Africa, we provide water wells and electricity to non-LDS villages and homes, we have job-finding services available to anyone, LDS or not; in SLC, we are the primary funding source for the huge efforts to help the homeless in the downtown area, even though the LDS name is not on any of those efforts; years ago, LDS donors saved the Presbyterian Westminster College in SLC -- a long-time anti-LDS institution.  We follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ, while they hate us and despitefully use us.

    These "Samaritan" Ministries have ironically forgotten the story Jesus told about the good Samaritan who so freely gave aid and funds to help an injured and dying Jew (someone from a very different faith community who typically hated Samaritans).  Other so-called "Christian" groups and seminaries discriminate against LDS members, not allowing them to study at their institutions unless they convert to a fundamentalist "Christian" belief system.  So bigoted.  What happened to their claimed commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

    Amen Robert! This is bigotry plain and simple. Sadly prejudice against the church is still an acceptable thing, even in our day and age.

  2. 15 hours ago, 3DOP said:

    I used an expression, "New Mormonism", a few weeks ago to object to a video wherein it seemed to me like this well-meaning young fellow, who loved being LDS and intends to continue, but was nevertheless in agreement with a lot of claims against the CoJCoLDS. I spent an entire work day off explaining why I doubted that this could be compatible with what Mormons had believed in the past. That was why I chose the expression "New Mormonism". That is the context of a misunderstanding that has come up with mfbukowski, which is somewhat of a derail from a thread that I think will get little more attention. Hopefully, in the course of discussion here, it can be discerned why a Catholic should care whether any kind of Mormonism is "old" or "new". Why would I make it my business? I thought it best to start over, front and center if you will.

    I will now address myself to mfbukowski (known as Mark by many here) and take a brief pause before continuing to analyze his complaint against how I explain what I mean by New Mormonism. It is a free forum. Comment as you will. I have about four short articles to tidy up. They should be up in the next hour or two. 

    Hi Mark,

    I intend to begin a series of replies here that I hope will respond adequately to each of your claims. But first, I want you to know that I sincerely hope that you will reconsider some of your positions. I think it is obvious to each of us, as well as those who have seen us interact, that ideologically, we are like fire and water. On the other hand, I just know that if you could have eyes to see, unblinded by this philosophy of men, that we could be best of friends. Do you not think the same way toward me when you think about it? For my part, I still hope that we could reach some point of agreement. Realizing that this would require a miracle of grace, I lit a candle after Mass this morning, and prayed the appropriate prayers that you would stop being such a stubborn blankety blank. Not really...just that maybe I could have some wisdom to explain why I must profoundly object to your apparent beliefs.

    You told me a few days back that, "we love you". I also wish you every opportunity to find the fullness of God's will for you and yours, in this life and the next. If we never find our way to agree, may God forbid that I should be your enemy.

    May God bless.

     

    Rory

    Hi Rory, I just wanted to let you know that in spite of any differences you have with us as LDS I always enjoy hearing what you have to say and always add meaningful layers to any discussion we have. You strike me as a very kind person. Anyways to respond to your OP, I think it’s important to remember that those who post here and on other discussion boards in my opinion don’t really reflect the mainstream church. I am involved in several Facebook groups that are LDS. One is called “Millenial Mormonism” where millennials such as myself discuss the faith. I find that it’s there, with the rising generation so to speak, that one will most likely find attitudes similar to your concept of New Mormonism. Call it increased interaction with secularism, more exposure to information, or just a new generation trying to figure things out but that’s my observation. I know plenty of people still that would fit criteria for what you were used to in the past.

  3. On 2/6/2018 at 3:40 PM, USU78 said:

    MFBukowski and I have had conversations in the past hereabouts on the subject of JSJr's and Mormonism's unique ability to anticipate modern philosophical thought.  The Late XVIIIth-Early XIXth Century poet, playwright, and thinker Schiller advised his hypothetical philosopher king to pursue through aesthetics the worthy goal of transcending matter and mind in order to become a creator through play [Spieltrieb].  JSJr taught that we are, at our most fundamental, both in our prior life, our present life, and in our life to come, demiurgical beings.  We once helped to create the world we now live in.  We seek to continue on to be creators with and for G-d in the hereafter.  We are to create in partnership with G-d, as He communicates TRVTH in our hearts and in our minds, an abundant life here.

    It is the creation of that abundant life that I wish to explore in this thread, and all are welcome to offer what they wish, so long as it's on topic.

    It occurred to me reading Alma 34:37, which is connected to and of a kind with Philippians 2:12-13, that "working out our salvation" is just another way of saying we are to create that abundant life here.

    Now, yes, there's the often confusing "fear and trembling" [phobos kai tromos] which suggests the attitude we should bring to the work of our creation of our lives.  Let's get this at least partway out of our way, however.  That is a paraphrase of Psalm 2:11, which states: "Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling."  Cf.  Psalms 55:5.

    The "fear" in the Hebrew [which is also translated in the Septuagint as phobos], is more in the nature of "respect" and "awe," rather than terror, and the way that "trembling" is presented in the Psalm is likewise not to be understood as "shaking in fear" as used, but rather in excitement and joy.  We are thus to "work out our salvation" with respect for G-d, standing in awe of Him, but with great joy to the point of trembling.

    As MFB never tires of pointing out, our ability to perceive the world around us, the phenomena we encounter and, to a certain extent, even ourselves [please keep Freud out of this], depends upon our senses communicating data to our minds and hearts.  We can know nothing except as filtered through our perceptions and colored by our experiences.  Thus we in a sense create the world by taking in our perceptions of it, making sense of those perceptions by employing our native abilities and our experience.  Our salvation, I argue, we create "work out" in the same way.  The key to making our lives abundant, however, is in that Hebrew/Greek idiom phobos kai tromos.  Only by having a correct attitude towards G-d, a correct conception of Him and relationship with Him, can we hope to live in abundant joy to the point of dancing naked on the beach, having created a world where such joy is an everyday thing.

    Men are, after all, that they might have joy.

    Have at it!

    Have you ever read any George Macdonald? Unfortunately he’s mostly known for being one of the major influences on C.S. Lewis but he’s written some interesting fiction and nonfiction about the nature of God in a beautiful way. I’d recommend for your reading pleasure his book Lilith. You could probably get a free copy electronically if you have a Kindle.

  4. On 2/12/2018 at 10:43 AM, USU78 said:

    G-d's justice.  Yes, what of it?  What is it for?  Why does it exist?  Did He create it or is it, being a concept, something that has existence separate from Him?  And is our conception of justice the same as His?  "My thoughts are not your thoughts," He teaches us.  Why should we assume we can understand what He thinks on this or any other subject? 

    You seem awfully certain that every instance of a Biblical expression of G-d's anger/wrath is (a) directed at the person himself and not his behavior, (b) precludes the possibility of that anger/wrath not abating upon repentance [have you not ever read Jonah?], and that perhaps (c) what we perceive as His anger/wrath is not simply the natural flow of consequences for our own stupid, often willful choices?

    As an exercise a few years ago, I snipped out all of the return/repentance sections of Isaiah and included them in a little virtual pamphlet I would read from time to time.  Since the two terms are identical in Hebrew [their conception of peoplehood being bound up both in the real estate and the Torah], you don't have to assume every time G-d or His Prophet says, "Return, O backsliding Israel" that He's talking about where the backslider is living, but rather what he's up to.

    I, quite frankly, find as much, sometimes I think more of G-d's love expressed to real people in real time and in real, intimate terms in the OT than in the New.

    As for Br'er Edwards  ...  would you want him as your confessor?

    Me neither.

    To a Mormon type, he is exactly the kind of problematic professor of Protestant Christianity that the Master had in mind when enjoining against joining any of the churches active in the Finger Lakes region back in ~1820.

    As for the Horror of the Cross  ...  what greater act of love could be imagined than that cosmic undertaking?  To know of a love so intimate that it applies to every individual who ever lived or who will ever live, to know that the lover knows each one intimately, yet all equally profoundly, is to love correctly.  And to return that love implies a correct understanding. 

    Nietzsche's dead godling inspires no such love.  But we all understanding him all too correctly.

    It’s interesting to examine the debate between Penal Substitution and Christus Victor theories of Atonement. I find whichever one the individual adheres to determines how you interpret biblical passages of mercy and judgment.

  5. Romans 6 is a great text on this question. Also see Acts 2:38, Ephesians 4:5, and John 3:5. If one looks at LDS scripture read 2 Nephi 31, as well as Mosiah 18. Of course without faith and the Holy Ghost baptism is meaningless, however I don’t see where it’s optional either. Interestingly one of my favorite blogs recently posted a good discussion on February 10th regarding Reformed arguments against water baptism 

    http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/search?q=Water+baptism&m=1

  6. To answer the OP I would say by far the group I saw baptized the most on my mission in Iowa were people from Mainline denominations (especially Methodists). However I also met a great deal of converts from more a intensely Conservative background such as the Baptists and Pentecostals. It seems they took the Bible very seriously and wanted a greater depth of relationship with God, and found it through the LDS faith.

    I recall a member of the bishopric in one of our wards in Iowa found out the church they’d been faithfully attending had some major scandals going on and couldn’t feel they should attend anymore. They prayed for help in finding a church that they could attend and not much later the missionaries came to their door in what they felt was an answer to prayer. I’m personally aware of at least two other people with similar experiences one wanting help with not committing suicide and one who wanted to quit drugs and find help from God. Both times the missionaries showed up very shortly after their prayer.

    I realize I’m probably droning on, but I share this because it seems those who respond the most are those that really want help in my experience.

  7. 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

    Actually if you read William James, it would be agnostics who understand pragmatic philosophy.  If there is no such thing as definable "truth" then the best we can do is to go by our feelings of what works in our lives to give them meaning.  You create your own meaning in life, or metaphorically as a god of your own universe, you take matter unorganized and create your own truth

    That is straight Alma 32 and Moroni 10: 4,  1James 5, etc.  Meditation - as in Mindfulness etc fits well with Moroni 10 - not as "asking God" but the idea that truth is found by looking within.

    That was the path I took- I was an atheist who thought that God was a projection which was man made.  Then in Mormonism I found I had it backwards- mankind is a God-made projection of a Human God

    But in practice, I think Catholics are the most likely to join.  I can't count the number of times I have heard "Well, it's gotta be either the Catholics or the Mormons" since we are the only two Christian groups which claim to have direct authority in the Priesthood from Christ himself.

    I don't think it is likely for a Mormon to become Catholic on the other hand, since belief in the Trinity is not an easy one to swallow as well as transubstantiation etc.   Just my opinion.

    Great points, and I love William James work! A few comments I’d like to point out, even though it’s not too common to hear of people leaving Mormonism for Catholicism or Orthodoxy, it is a thing (I posted a Trib article on this last spring). They joined for the exact reason you stated, feeling the authority never left. I’ve talked to a handful, and it seemed they left for historical reasons (not necessarily LDS history but reading patristics and the like). Interesting to me they still seemed pleasant people after their conversions and weren’t angry or hateful towards their former faith.

  8. On 1/26/2018 at 4:27 PM, clarkgoble said:

    Cheap grace is basically the idea that you give intellectual acceptance to Christ and that thereafter your sins are taken away but you don't have to really try to stop sinning. The term was popularized by the famous theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his book The Cost of Discipleship. As I said it's technically a heresy but at least in my experience was widely believed among southern Evangelicals when I lived in the south. Part of his writings about cheap grace were aimed at the Nazi movement. Unsurprisingly he was executed by the SS.

    It's been in the news a lot recently due to Evangelical justifications of some of Donald Trump's sins and not exactly showing a lot of remorse. In particular I've heard it relative to some of Jerry Falwell Jr.'s "giving Trump a mulligan." So you see some Evangelicals attacking others in a way reminiscent of how Bonhoeffer critiqued Christians in Nazi Germany. In particular Eric Metaxas who had actually compared voting to Trump as a courageous act of resistance like Bonhoeffer's has come under quite a bit of critique. You also saw this during the debate over the election campaign of Roy Moore in Alabama.

    It was actually Tony Perkins who said Trump had a Mulligan. A mulligan for paying for sex with a porn star after one’s wife just had a baby is quite the mulligan if I say so myself......

  9. 14 hours ago, Meerkat said:

    A family member took the Ancestry DNA test.  She sent the raw data to Promethease.com.  The report revealed she had a weakness in her dopamine receptors causing a tendency toward fear and depression.  Taken to an extreme, the weakness could contribute to mental illness and suicide.  That fact is a limitation to free will.  She is also vulnerable to two types of cancer, and should avoid statin drugs.

    Our predicament appears to be complicated by certain gifts or curses of our genes.  It is also complicated by geography (access to protein, natural resources, government structure, etc.)  It is complicated by environment (single mother raising children in the projects in gang environment versus faithful, intact two parent family in a stable religious home.) It is so complicated, it would require a perfect Judge with infinite understanding and ability to sift the wheat from the chaff to sort it all out.  And He must, if our judgment is to be equal and fair.  "6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."  1 Peter 4:6

    Thanks for sharing those experiences! I was wondering if you’ve ever heard of the field of Epigenetics? It basically is coming to the conclusion that DNA isn’t destiny and our genes change over time according to our behavior, and our posterity can create further changes through what they do!

  10. 1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

    Bob hey. Great read huh? 

    I love War and Peace. I will probably be reading it for the fourth time in the next couple of years. (I need to slip in another Anna K. first) Tolstoy is a GREAT story teller. Perhaps my favorite. I do not read him though for truth, but for the scope of his intellectual exercises. He goes way out on limbs that I think break beneath the weight. It seems to me that if you examine his corpus, he was unstable in his beliefs. His historical ideas about how Napoleon was somehow just a pawn in a game of fate, that the French had to come east, is in my opinion nonsense. If you have ever read Crime and Punishment by Dostoevksy, he presents an opposing view. The main character sees himself as an indivual superman, one who aspires to Napoleonic exploits. Nevermind that all he manages to do is put a hatchet into an old woman's head. Both authors are considering freedom. The one (Dostoevsky) suggests that the potential is always there for a single individual to change history. The other (Tolstoy) seems to me to believe at the time of War and Peace, that mass movements are inevitable. I believe that Tolstoy's ideas ultimately are reflected in those of Marx and Lenin who eventually convinced themselves that the Communist Revolution was inevitable because of a similar approach to history as Tolstoy took in War and Peace. 

    I’m still deciding who I like better. I’ve read Dostoevsky more, but War and Peace is really good. I still can’t get over how beautiful The Brothers Karamazov was though. I see what you mean about Tolstoy compared to Dostoevsky though, his works seemed a bit more serene to me, in that there is a greater sense of the divine with him.

  11. 52 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

    When I think of Tolstoy's War and Peace, I think of the book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon tries to find fulfillment in a dozen different kinds of activity and fails. Notice how every major character ends up disappointed. Whether it is service to the Czar (Natasha's brother who is foolishly killed at the end), to the poor (Prince Andrei's sister), to Freemasonry (Pierre), everyone is eventually disillusioned. I could be wrong, but I see Tolstoy as having been intellectually/morally disillusioned a lot in his rich life, and while not necessarily embracing every idea his characters embrace, he is a skeptic, at the time of the writing, of finding that which gives lasting satsifaction...like the author of Ecclesiastes.

    I love this! Call it coincidence but I’ve been studying the book of Ecclesiastes rather intensely these past few weeks, but didn’t make that connection. I am most struck by Pierre, whose journey to finding meaning throughout the book was so beautiful yet frustrating. I think the chapters detailing Prince Andrew’s death and Pierre’s change and return from capture (particularly after meeting Karateav) are some of the most sublime passages I’ve read in literature. I have another level of appreciation now for both War and Peace as well as Ecclesiastes.

  12. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

    Congrats on finishing up War and Peace. You are joining an elite clique of people with literary endurance. Or possibly masochism depending on what you thought of the book.

    Tolstoy is impeccably Russian in this view. Russian literature is mostly depressing and often conveys a feeling of being trapped by circumstance. A key Russian virtue is enduring what comes no matter how bad. Not necessarily cheerfully but just getting through it.

    Tolstoy also very badly wanted to denigrate the idea that Napoleon was a genius and so turned him into someone who was just lucky.

    Thanks! I actually have grown quite fond of Russian literature since reading “The Brothers Karanazov”. I completely agree with you though, one doesn’t read those Russian books for kicks and giggles. I also liked how Tolstoy described Napoleon, certainly didn’t mince words!

  13. 17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

    I think that if we covenant with God to do something, He may take that pretty seriously. As Yeshua said, the people of Sidon and Tyre may have an easier time of it that the Hebrews of Bethsaida, who rejected the many miracles He did, and rejected Him. When entering into a covenant, we have already used our free agency, have we not? What I'm saying is that the free agency of the people of Tyre was on a different level that the free agency of the priests of Israel - God looks on use of agency against knowledge as being more culpable, but yeah the agency to reject the truth is still there.

    I agree completely that we have different levels of agency!

  14. I’m finishing up War And Peace this week, and first off want to recommend this book. It’s a long read (started reading it last January) but it’s a work that makes you think deeply about the human condition both individually and collectively, which goes to my OP discussion. As I’m reading the second epilogue, Tolstoy seems to indicate that as human beings our free will is actually more limited then we’d like to believe, as we are subject to political, cultural, and other currents that powerfully influence our behavior. This got me thinking about the LDS concept of agency. Even though I think Tolstoy has some good points about how we are influenced by our environment, I think Tolstoy underestimates how much the acquisition of knowledge can cause us to go against what some would consider fate or destiny and act more freely for ourselves. This causes me to think part of the blessings of Grace is that we are more aware of our sins and shortcomings and can choose to be changed.

    So what do you all think? Are there limits to our free will? If so why? If not why not?

  15. On 1/18/2018 at 2:27 PM, rongo said:

    No. Not at all. I'm saying that the entire Book of Moses is completely "Adam Clarke-free." Enoch content, Moses background, expounded Adam and Eve material, Master Mahan, etc. You name it. 

     

     

    Well, that's where it gets interesting. For example, the Book of Moses records a man named Mahijah confronting and contending with Enoch. Extra-biblical sources demonstrably unavailable to Joseph Smith (and not in Adam Clarke) likewise record a man named Mahijah or Mehujah (vowels differ) contending with Enoch. So, since this isn't in Clarke's commentary, and Joseph Smith couldn't have had access to the sources (they weren't available in English until after his time), the presence of authentic Enoch content in an expansion of Genesis is a witness of Joseph Smith as a prophet. And without Clarke's help . . . :) 

    Thanks for reminding me of this, I remember that an institute teacher mentioned this being a bullseye, but forgot about it. If I recall wasn’t it Nibley who found this?

  16. Has anyone read the various essays being posted on Deseret news regarding the LDS views of grace? If not here's the most intriguing one to me: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694194/Op-ed-The-Mormon-restoration-and-the-meaning-of-grace.html

    basically the author argues that the LDS view of grace is much closer to the ancient first century idea of grace (or charis) than that of the reformers, and some quarters in the LDS ironically are starting to go closer to that understanding while biblical scholarship in general is going more towards the LDS view (such as the new perspective on Paul).

  17. On 12/22/2017 at 9:43 AM, Tacenda said:

    Do you think our church is the only church to have prophets in this day and age?

    Depends on who you talk to. The Pentecostal/Charismatic branch of Christianity believes heavily in prophecy and prophets. Of course you also have to consider they don't have the exact same criteria as us in regards to what it means to be a prophet. I'm not saying I think they are prophets however. If you get a moment look up the New Apostolic Reformation. They're an odd, scary bunch.

  18. 1 hour ago, Spammer said:

    Thank you for sharing that. Brings back some good memories discussing the preexistence.. I was raised LDS, fifth generation on both sides. Temple, mission, eternal marriage, etc. I crossed the Tiber nearly a decade ago. It'll be ten years next Easter Vigil. 

    I thought it was the Bosporus you crossed?

  19. 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

    I notice the occasional false doctrine already creeping in in those links.
    Didn't take very long.

    • Although this sermon contains some of the canonical sayings of Jesus, there are also some gnostic-like sayings, "For the Lord Himself, being asked by a certain person when his kingdom would come, said, 'When the two shall be one, and the outside as the inside, and the male with the female, neither male or female'." (2 Clem 12:2) This saying is very similar to Gospel of Thomas 22.
      (We all know what Paul thought of gnosticism).

    You probably found this interesting:

    • Although he also quotes from Paul's letter to the Romans, his view of faith is more in line with James, "being justified by our works, and not our words." (1 Clement 30.3) 

    Actually I googled the full text of I Clement.  First time I've read it.  He'd have made a great Mormon. ;)
    Preaching salvation through repentance, congratulating those who held true to their ordinances etc.

    It's kind of ironic when a protestant comes to a Mormon board and denies the apostasy.  That's sort of why they broke away from Catholicism in the first place.  I can see why a Catholic would have issues with the doctrine of a great apostasy, but Protestants should be in agreement or else they'd still be Catholic.
    The only difference between a protestant and a Mormon is WHEN they think the apostasy was reached and how they think the return to original Christianity was to be achieved.
     

     

    Very good point, I never understood why Protestants such as Snowflake act all offended when we talk about an apostasy when Evangelicals accuse Orthodoxy and Catholicism of being false faiths even though they have been around much longer than Evangelicals have. Furthermore the pillars of their faith (Sola Scriptua and Sola Fide) were developed by Martin Luther and John Calvin. Snowflake can put us down by saying how dumb we are for believing in Joseph Smith and an apostasy but really many Protestants also believe the church went off the rails after the New Testament until Martin Luther showed up. Very hypocritical really....

×
×
  • Create New...