Is your theology and your faith a target?

[Jeff K.]

Quote

...Most Mormons? How do you know "most Mormons" when you do not even understand the base doctrine that "most Mormons" follow. I dare say your term "most Mormons" is like your view of God. Limited, and without a true knowledge.

You failed to take what I said in context: "in my experience", i.e. those Mormons I know and have met intimately enough to discern somewhat of their theology by what they have said. And I have nearly sixty years of experiencing Mormons. That is surely limited, but "true knowledge" is an ongoing process. At this point I feel confident is asserting that MOST Mormons have a much more complex theology than that which the Church teaches....

If your knowledge of Mormons is like your knowledge of faith, you probably haven't traveled outside your room.

[Questing Beast]

...

No, the more accurate statement you should have used is that "YOU" call him an anthropomorphic concept, not that by virtue of the facts He is one.

Let's see: God was once a mortal man; God has a body of flesh and bones; Jesus Christ, one of us, is "in the express image of the Father", etc. and etc. What part of that is not anthropomorphic.

But then reality may indeed also be merely a antropomorphic concept in your vague "intellectualized" world.

Reality is far more than a homo sapien seeing reality as limited to the universe of our five senses; and our species as the ONLY sapient life in existence.

You open your mind enough and you can fill it with all kinds of garbage. In your case we can use it as another concept, "garbage in and garbage out".

More likely, it is inadequacy on my part to convey what is in my mind clearly, much less convincingly. I told you, I'm practicing.

You presume that what you think you know and judge to be finite must by definition be finite since you cannot concieve of being wrong when you judge something to be finite.

What? (speaking of inadequately explaining something!)

The arrogance is reflective of your continued "intellectualized" situation. You haven't intellectualied anything since intellect is not involved in your case, merely the hubris of ego judging something to be limited when you cannot prove or know God to be such in the LDS concept.

I have shown clearly, by calling upon the theology as stated by Joseph Smith, that it does not begin to address why we have Existence in the first place instead of Nothing. LDS cosmology simply says: "Because matter cannot be created and has always existed" - including us, including "God", etc. This simply begs the question, and as much as tells the questioner to shut up and stop worrying about it: "Just worship God the Father, and don't worry your poor little mind over the concept that he's really nothing more than one in an infinite string of gods; none of them answerable to anyone else, and none of them aware of why they exist in the first place.

Your judgement is more a condemnation upon you than the theology of the Mormon church.

It isn't judgment; it is observation. Show me how Mormon theology/cosmology is in any way addressing the most fundamental "terrible question", and I will confess that my observation to date is in error....

[Questing Beast]

You fall back on insults presuming I have blundered because you have fallen? How comical. The fact is that apostates (those who have left the church) recognized your pattern and encouraged you down its little rabbit hole. And you say others have blundered?!? You apparently are overlooking the obvious. Did or did not someone who has left the church claim they followed your same path and encouraged you to go further in preparation to leaving the church?

The answer will be telling.

One of the interesting things about apostates is the variety of "straws" that finally broke them. Hardly any two are alike, even without knowing them intimately: the differences are very obvious even on a casual acquaintance basis, even when only virtually meeting them on the Web. So there isn't one tiny rabbit hole out of the Church

I have not left the Church. I attend meetings every Sunday, even when my wife is not here and I attend alone.

I do not associate with apostates AS such. I am sure that many of the people I know on a non church basis are apostates; but we don't discuss religion so how would I ever find out?

Reading with an open mind is a fascinating activity. But it isn't as easy at it sounds. The first rule is that you have to not care what the conclusion of your study will be: it will just present itself a piece at a time. And all the pieces will fit themselves together while you "watch". If you are approaching the study with a preconceived "truth", then the pieces will not fit as they ought; but rather, you will "trim" them to suit your preconception.

Holding a theory is not the same thing as reading while already convinced of what the "truth" is. I have shown what my theory has always been: That "God" does not hold the whole of humanity to one path, one dogma, one law or anything above personal honesty. The mind that lies is the furthest away from "God"; contrastingly, the mind that is honest sees the truth that "God" is revealing by whatsoever manner conceivable. From where I am at this point, that theory remains valid and in fact is more supported by what I think I know than before....

[Questing Beast]

Children have great faith, they can neither see nor hear but derive the greatest comforts in what they cannot see or hear, but instinctively a mothers touch and voice will calm the child and give it reassurance. To be held and kept warm gives the child rest. I presume you believe those attributes to be intellectual when in fact they are supreme acts of faith in something they cannot intellectually explain to themselves, something they cannot articulate and yet find comfort in.

You have so talked yourself into such a corner that you reject the very faith that defines our humanity. It is a shame really. You seem utterly lost to what is important.

The truth about myself is the most important thing that exists. Each of us is no exception.

You talk of faith as some kind of perception separated from physicality. A child is ALL about physical reassurance. It fears what it feels when things enter into its mind that have a disquieting aspect and no answers. A mother comforting her child is not faith, it is protection from the unknown. If the child believes that it will be comforted. If the child continues to fear, the mother will be holding a very disturbed child and nothing she can say or do will change that perception. Until the child's intellect is convinced that there is nothing to worry about it will continue to fear. To be convinced requires increasingly sophisticated evidence: that is the intellect of the child growing to think for itself, building upon what s/he already knows from empirical experience. Take away the empirical proof for believing and faith is dead.

Faith must always be verified by empirical experience. "God" does not ask impossible or even difficult things of us in order to believe. We cannot both be assured that being childlike is "the way", as Jesus taught: and also tested beyond the capacity of children to understand. For instance: The "Abraham and Isaac Story" is a myth. Probably the original guy, if he ever did that, was more than a bit delusional. The resulting story has endured to this moment as a "test of faith"; when in fact it was fear at work and a serendipitous wild ram trapped in a thicket. That story has been co-opted by Jews, Christians, Muslims and Mormons to show an exemplary faith: Joseph Smith called such an "Abrahamic test", asserting that everyone who expects to get into the highest level of the CK must expect to be tested as was Abraham. But there is no way that that kind of "faith" can be compared to childlike faith....

[Questing Beast]

No, you have not kept the commandments. ... Like the Sadducees, you have long since forgotten what the commandments are for.

Remember the warning about judging others. You do not know me or anything about my life. When I say that "I have kept all these things from my youth upward", this is a statement of fact that you have nothing to disprove it with.

Show me where the Brother of Jared did not have the knowledge that God was in the form of a man? It is neither known nor indicated. Indeed everything points to the knowledge of the true doctrine of what God was. I take it this is another one of your intelelctualized interpretations?

Ether 3:8 "...I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood." Clearly, Mahonrimoriancumr's concept of the Lord was of a bodiless power. I did not say he had no knowledge that God's "form" was that of a man: I said he did not know God AS a man. He did not think of God in anthropomorphic terms, i.e. that God could actually use a hand to "smite" him, etc....

[Questing Beast]

If your knowledge of Mormons is like your knowledge of faith, you probably haven't traveled outside your room.

Jeffy, with each response you fall deeper into relying on the personal attack. This is not how one goes about convincing a "lost soul" of the error of his ways....

[mfbukowski]

And you fall into judgment.