CASteinman Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Not at all. I, suppose, the bottom line is, the "function" of anything, is dependent on the "user". This is a philosophy issue. I would not agree with it. I think that if something has a purpose (especially if that purpose is approved by God) then that is its true nature. That we would somehow want to adulterate that or use it for other purposes does not change the design.
CASteinman Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 False dichotomy.I don't see how. I agree it is a dichotomy but how is it false? If God has the Book of Mormon given the world for His purpose does the fact that we may adulterate or alter that purpose change its true nature?I am not sure what you are complaining aboutI actually wasn't aware I was coming across as complaining. I don't feel like I am. But I am in disagreement.
DBMormon Posted June 11, 2012 Author Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) Libs,Don't you know only Mormons are on the right track, only they have held onto more light and truth. Only they have God's favor upon them. God has only given his truth to 2% of the world because it is such a huge advantage to have for Salvation,,,,,, <---- sarcasmOur Salvation is not based on what church we belong to in this life at all. If that was so, God would find a way to reach more then 2% of the world (less then 1% active members) There are tons of good people in this world who love truth who are not members of the church. God wins people one person at a time. Will we all have to accept Christ on his terms sooner or later.... yes on his terms. But I think we need to be careful about how we preface our faith as God himself doesn't seem too concerned about having the whole earth join his Church on Earth, but rather provide a system where ordinances can be performed and authority maintained on earth. That seems the essential part. While we need to point people to Christ... no holier than thou attitude seems to fit. Edited June 11, 2012 by reelmormon
CASteinman Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 I have seen some very judgmental people who say they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but don't seem to understand the great moral teachings of the person they put their faith in. Do they really have "more light"?They might! You couldn't certainly say "no they don't" unless you were being -- ahem -- judgmental!
volgadon Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 False dichotomy.Let people get out of it what they can or will. If the best they can do is find it to be an inspired story, that is better than if they think it is nonsense, isn't it?I am not sure what you are complaining aboutSo I suppose then we should not allow people the light they DO receive?I completely agree with you. The book invites all to come unto Christ. If it does that even in the smallest degree, that is a good thing. 1
DBMormon Posted June 11, 2012 Author Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) mfbukowski, on 10 June 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:False dichotomy.Let people get out of it what they can or will. If the best they can do is find it to be an inspired story, that is better than if they think it is nonsense, isn't it?I am not sure what you are complaining aboutmfbukowski, on 10 June 2012 - 07:38 PM, said:So I suppose then we should not allow people the light they DO receive?I completely agree with you. The book invites all to come unto Christ. If it does that even in the smallest degree, that is a good thing. Elder Holland says the same thing... If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That's what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody's liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. ...I think you'd be as aware as I am that that we have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we're not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. ... We would say: "This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I'm going forward. If I can help you work toward that I'd be glad to, but I don't love you less; I don't distance you more; I don't say you're unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can't make that step or move to the beat of that drum." ... We really don't want to sound smug. We don't want to seem uncompromising and insensitive. Edited June 11, 2012 by reelmormon
volgadon Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Elder Holland says the same thingBeautiful, where is it from?
Libs Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 RM, thank you for posting the Jeffrey Holland quote. I've never seen it. Was that from a Conference talk?
Libs Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 They might! You couldn't certainly say "no they don't" unless you were being -- ahem -- judgmental!lol....touche'! And, no, I would not say they don't. But, who is to say they do? Only God can judge our hearts.
CASteinman Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 lol....touche'! And, no, I would not say they don't. But, who is to say they do? Only God can judge our hearts.I just read a story about Joseph (correctly) judging someone's heart. So maybe some of us can judge what is in the hearts of men. However, I believe that only God can judge our eternal destiny. No matter what we think of someone, the truth is, we are not in charge of them the way God is. CS Lewis said:It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worshipWe know what God has told us are the requirements to achieve that. So we may have some confidence if we fit His conditions. However, we must always retain the knowledge that He is in charge and Jesus is judge of this -- not us.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Beautiful, where is it from?A PBS interview which you can find here http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html .
Cobalt-70 Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 CFR that the Book of Mormon, by its own admission, is a solution to 19th-century religious problems.Moroni 8:35: Speaking of the day when the Book of Mormon would come forth (i.e., the 19th century): "Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing." Also, see the Book of Mormon title page. Not surprising, though, that the book was written for a 19th century audience, given what the book says about universalism, Calvinism, Freemasonry, deism, the "heathen problem," etc.
Log Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Should we read into Elder Holland's words counsel to tolerate, without contraverting, the public advocacy of claims concerning the origins of the Book of Mormon by LDS which negate the Church's official position on its historicity?
Robert F. Smith Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Libs,Don't you know only Mormons are on the right track, only they have held onto more light and truth. Only they have God's favor upon them. God has only given his truth to 2% of the world because it is such a huge advantage to have for Salvation,,,,,, <---- sarcasmOur Salvation is not based on what church we belong to in this life at all. If that was so, God would find a way to reach more then 2% of the world (less then 1% active members) There are tons of good people in this world who love truth who are not members of the church. God wins people one person at a time. Will we all have to accept Christ on his terms sooner or later.... yes on his terms. But I think we need to be careful about how we preface our faith as God himself doesn't seem too concerned about having the whole earth join his Church on Earth, but rather provide a system where ordinances can be performed and authority maintained on earth. That seems the essential part. While we need to point people to Christ... no holier than thou attitude seems to fit.The heartfelt claim that one is a member of the only true Church on Earth is an assertion. Hopefully it has nothing to do with being "holier than thou," which actually contradicts the nature of the humble, joyous assertion. That exclusive assertion may be true or untrue, but it is not something to get huffy or sarcastic about.Similar assertions are made by members of the Roman Catholic Church, who try to be nice to other so-called "christians," but believe wholeheartedly that they have the sacred deposit of the true faith and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Other "christians" are referred to by them as "separated brethren," although the RC Church recognizes the authentic priesthood power of the Anglican (Episcopal) and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Evangelical Christians make similarly exclusivistic claims in the great Reformation tradition. The Jews continue to regard themselves as the "chosen people" of God, and see the Christians as deluded about the nature of a rabbi named Jesus. Meanwhile the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi insisted that transcendental meditation is the true path to enlightenment and to improvement of the human condition on Earth (even saying explicitly that the more people who practice TM, the better those conditions will be generally). Etc.There is nothing strange about exclusive, competing claims. The real question is: How to evaluate them? What is the correct epistemological approach to such claims? Is there an ultimate truth? Does it matter?
Libs Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 The heartfelt claim that one is a member of the only true Church on Earth is an assertion. Hopefully it has nothing to do with being "holier than thou," which actually contradicts the nature of the humble, joyous assertion. That exclusive assertion may be true or untrue, but it is not something to get huffy or sarcastic about.Similar assertions are made by members of the Roman Catholic Church, who try to be nice to other so-called "christians," but believe wholeheartedly that they have the sacred deposit of the true faith and that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Other "christians" are referred to by them as "separated brethren," although the RC Church recognizes the authentic priesthood power of the Anglican (Episcopal) and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Evangelical Christians make similarly exclusivistic claims in the great Reformation tradition. The Jews continue to regard themselves as the "chosen people" of God, and see the Christians as deluded about the nature of a rabbi named Jesus. Meanwhile the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi insisted that transcendental meditation is the true path to enlightenment and to improvement of the human condition on Earth (even saying explicitly that the more people who practice TM, the better those conditions will be generally). Etc.There is nothing strange about exclusive, competing claims. The real question is: How to evaluate them? What is the correct epistemological approach to such claims? Is there an ultimate truth? Does it matter?I believe God is the only ultimate truth. There is no "one and only true path"...IMO...God gave us many paths, which all "ultimately" lead back to Him.
Libs Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Thanks for the link to Elder Holland's interview, Robert.
Libs Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Should we read into Elder Holland's words counsel to tolerate, without contraverting, the public advocacy of claims concerning the origins of the Book of Mormon by LDS which negate the Church's official position on its historicity?Do you believe the Book of Mormon is inspired, Log? If you do, why would you want to argue against that? I'm not, personally, making any claim about the Book of Mormon's historicity, one way or the other. My only claim is that it's somehow inspired. I really don't "know" much at all about the origin, other than claims made by opposing sides of the question. I don't see any way to prove the claims, either way, so it remains a mystery, as far as I'm concerned.
CASteinman Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 There is no "one and only true path"...IMO..Jesus says otherwise. But what does He know?
CASteinman Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Do you believe the Book of Mormon is inspired, Log? If you do, why would you want to argue against that? I'm not, personally, making any claim about the Book of Mormon's historicity, one way or the other. My only claim is that it's somehow inspired. I really don't "know" much at all about the origin, other than claims made by opposing sides of the question. I don't see any way to prove the claims, either way, so it remains a mystery, as far as I'm concerned.Its weird but I don't have much problem with this at all... except for the window that permits the Book of Mormon to be true and Joseph Smith to be a fraud and a liar. These two are mutually exclusive options as far as I am concerned.
mfbukowski Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 Zerinus, I see Jesus Christ as much more than a moral teacher. I just didn't want to go into that here. But, it's true, that some do see Jesus only as a moral teacher. But, seeing Christ as a moral teacher, is not a sign of "less light", necessarily....not in my opinion. I have seen some very judgmental people who say they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior, but don't seem to understand the great moral teachings of the person they put their faith in. Do they really have "more light"?I am trying to learn that some posts are best unanswered, but it is a hard balance for me to achieve. Let's just say that those who brag about the quality of their light while putting down others remind me of the pharisees and what Jesus said about whitened sepulchers. 1
DBMormon Posted June 11, 2012 Author Posted June 11, 2012 I am trying to learn that some posts are best unanswered, but it is a hard balance for me to achieve. Let's just say that those who brag about the quality of their light while putting down others remind me of the pharisees and what Jesus said about whitened sepulchers.Way too much of that occurs in LDS land. I personally have tired of Latter-Day Saints who act as if they are God's chosen people because they were born into a church. Yipeeeeeee, you and I are part of 2% of the world that landed in the church.How much value when we talk about achieving exhaltation can be based on belong to a certain church in this life when only 2% of God's children are in said church? Does God only care for the 2%? Are the 2% the only one who choose him (the elect)?Are the other 98% disadvantaged becasue they are not in the church in regards to achieving exhaltation?
mfbukowski Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 There is nothing strange about exclusive, competing claims. The real question is: How to evaluate them? What is the correct epistemological approach to such claims? Is there an ultimate truth? Does it matter?Questions about how one gives meaning to one's life can only be answered by the person asking them- by subjective answers to subjective questions.In other words, they are answers only the Spirit can give, and God often leads us down different paths to teach us what we each individually need to learn. I was raised Catholic, was briefly a Buddhist and also into TM and see those as stages along my path to God.I have been a Mormon now half my life and cannot conceive of the possibility of changing the path that has brought me the most light and truth and continues to do so. But if in fact, the Spirit leads me in other directions, I would leave in a heartbeat. Some may find it horrifying that I would even say such a thing, but guidance by the spirit in my own heart is what has brought me here in the first place- why would I change that now? 1
mfbukowski Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 (edited) Jesus says otherwise. But what does He know?All roads lead to Rome, it's just that some of us have taken the scenic route, others the freeway.When I first moved to Los Angeles, I found 8 lanes of traffic, bumper to bumper, going the same direction at 70 miles per hour intimidating. Edited June 11, 2012 by mfbukowski
DBMormon Posted June 11, 2012 Author Posted June 11, 2012 I have been a Mormon now half my life and cannot conceive of the possibility of changing the path that has brought me the most light and truth and continues to do so. But if in fact, the Spirit leads me in other directions, I would leave in a heartbeat. Some may find it horrifying that I would even say such a thing, but guidance by the spirit in my own heart is what has brought me here in the first place- why would I change that now?This is my motto as well!!!! yeppers anything other then this is not being true to the spirit one so strongly affirms in the first place
Libs Posted June 11, 2012 Posted June 11, 2012 All roads lead to Rome, it's just that some of us have taken the scenic route, others the freeway.When I first moved to Los Angeles, I found 8 lanes of traffic, bumper to bumper, going the same direction at 70 miles per hour intimidating.Today, that same eight lanes will only be going about ten miles per hour! I love these travel analogies. The church I'm going to, at present, claims to be the "airplane to God". God's "time" is not our time, so I'm sure he sees all of this very differently than we do.
Recommended Posts