A Wrathful God

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I have no one to blame but myself. Self-destruction (which is what it was all about in my case) is bad for the person going through it, but sometimes even worse for loved-ones watching it happen and feeling helpless to stop it. Looking back I marvel at what a waste of humanity it was, but then I realize that it does no one any good to ruminate about it--except to learn from it and hope to take what I have learned to help others.

Thanks, me too.

I am very glad you are less alienated. Truth is, in many ways I have long felt the odd man out, that I didn't really fit in anywhere. However, the more I became okay with that, and continued to mingle with my fellow humans anyway, I discovered that we all feel that way to some extent or other, and may be bonded to each other by virtue of our uniqueness and oddities.

In fact, I still struggle with my faith in myself and the Church. To me, that is what it is all about. It is how I am strengthened. When things are going well for me as an adult, and faith and life come easy, is when I progress the least and am really most vulnerable (which is where I was at prior to the break up). So, I am actually grateful in a way for God giving me my struggles, and for your's and Kerry's struggles as well. It causes my heart to swell with Christ-like love for you--which I find to be a good thing.

Sorry for all the psyco-babble and sacrin. I can get carried away some times on this subject. Time to get back to agitating the critics. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

OH MY HELL WADE!!!!!! ***NOBODY*** but nobody should be glad for my struggles, least of all me....... it's turnin me gray.......er - get it? Grayer?

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Check out some of his videos taken at the FAIR Conferences if they are still posted. They are full of passion and cheer and edifying information, which is quite a contrast to the surprisingly somber and stupifying and dismissive videos of late. There are also a number of on-line articles that will give a good measure of the former man. He was anything but black and white, though he seems more so now.

I mark the start of his decline in faith when he began dabbling more in-depth into Kabbalah and Masonry. I don't know, but I suspect that the highly figurative nature of those two entities, and things he may have learned during those studies, may have been way too much for him, causing him to retreat to the far more literal/fundamentalist thinking of scientism. But, I am just wildly guessing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, I will confess, the Kabbalah certainly opened me up to the view that Mormonism has no special claim alone on spirituality or revelation, whatever those actually mean. So, interesting that is where you place my beginning to learn...... No, that isn't it though. My beginning began years ago when I went through all of Nibley's writings, gathered as many of the sources he was using, and then reading them and seeing how very LITTLE of them he used, and how much more full, interesting, and in depth than our own Mormon scholars are. The Bible scholars showed me that we Mormons aren't nearly as good or serious about understanding reality and truth in scripture as we pretend we are. But we insist we really know what the truth is, and how God thinks, and what God wants etc. From there it has taken a few years, but it's all been downhill.....

[volgadon]

Well, I will confess, the Kabbalah certainly opened me up to the view that Mormonism has no special claim alone on spirituality or revelation, whatever those actually mean. So, interesting that is where you place my beginning to learn...... No, that isn't it though. My beginning began years ago when I went through all of Nibley's writings, gathered as many of the sources he was using, and then reading them and seeing how very LITTLE of them he used, and how much more full, interesting, and in depth than our own Mormon scholars are. The Bible scholars showed me that we Mormons aren't nearly as good or serious about understanding reality and truth in scripture as we pretend we are. But we insist we really know what the truth is, and how God thinks, and what God wants etc. From there it has taken a few years, but it's all been downhill.....

I think you need to cut Mormon scholars some slack. Sure there have been bad and myopic studies, and I have no problems saying so, but how long has the church been around? How long has it been since Nibley started his studies?

Perhaps the idea of there being more out there never shocked me because I grew up in a very diverse region of the world. If you want to look at the Galilee alone, which is where I grew up, you'll find Jews, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Maronites, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists and other protestants, Sunnis, Druze, Alawites, and Bahais.

To me at least, it seems that we might not always fully appreciate the truth we do have. Doesn't lessen what we were given, but we do have more to learn. That being said, God did give us ordinances, covenants and enough knowledge to lead us to exaltation. The more we can learn on top of that, the better.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I think you need to cut Mormon scholars some slack. Sure there have been bad and myopic studies, and I have no problems saying so, but how long has the church been around? How long has it been since Nibley started his studies?

Perhaps the idea of there being more out there never shocked me because I grew up in a very diverse region of the world. If you want to look at the Galilee alone, which is where I grew up, you'll find Jews, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Maronites, Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists and other protestants, Sunnis, Druze, Alawites, and Bahais.

To me at least, it seems that we might not always fully appreciate the truth we do have. Doesn't lessen what we were given, but we do have more to learn. That being said, God did give us ordinances, covenants and enough knowledge to lead us to exaltation. The more we can learn on top of that, the better.

I think we need to make sure Mormon scholars FINALLY get on with it. Slack? They've been in only 1st gear now since Joseph Smith's day. It's time to get going! There are some bright lights, but overall we are just dismally prepared to say we know much of anything biblical (except how to Mormonize everything in it) compared to the real knowledge of the Biblical scholars. Want proof? It's as easy as falling off a log. Go read Joseph Fitzmyer's 2 volume commentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible series and then find me any LDS author who even possibly can be worthy to untie his scholarly shoes...... Now granted, it's not all the LDS scholars' fault, after all they want to be LDS and be under the control of LDS Inc., so they have no choice but produce mostly pablum. I am VERY GRATEFUL some LDS scholars are STILL bright spots in spite of how the church wants to tone them down. That said......compared to the serious knowledge Bible scholars have produced and continue to produce, I will give LDS scholarship (thanks to the church controlling them) a C..... and that is seriously generous. Just compare ANYTHING in the Anchor Bible series with whatever you wanna pick in LDS scholarship and you can easily see the difference on Biblical studies. And yes I admit, I haven't contributed much either, so I am at fault as well. The sad thing is, we are mediocre and don't even know it...... except for a few, and their hands are tied because they make a living out of BYU, a church dominated school.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Kerry A. Shirts

[why me]

Well.......... actually, the only nit I have with this is that atheism is nothing like new ageism......

Are you sure about that? You have new age written all over you.

The New Age movement includes elements of older spiritual and religious traditions ranging from atheism and monotheism through classical pantheism, naturalistic pantheism, pandeism and panentheism to polytheism combined with science and Gaia philosophy; particularly archaeoastronomy, astronomy, ecology, environmentalism, the Gaia hypothesis, psychology and physics.

New Age practices and philosophies sometimes draw inspiration from major world religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Chinese folk religion, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism; with strong influences from East Asian religions, Gnosticism, Neopaganism, New Thought, Spiritualism, Theosophy, Universalism and Western esotericism.^[8] The term New Age refers to the coming astrological Age of Aquarius.^[1]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age}

You are following in Maxine's shoes. But that is okay. If you had a testimony you will be back, as she is now back. But first you have to discover who you are and let yourself go where you mind takes you.

[why me]

I am VERY GRATEFUL some LDS scholars are STILL bright spots in spite of how the church wants to tone them down. That said......compared to the serious knowledge Bible scholars have produced and continue to produce, I will give LDS scholarship (thanks to the church controlling them) a C..... and that is seriously generous.

Really? The church wants to tone them down? I don't think so. Do you have proof? Biblical scholars have much to draw on. Centuries of scholarship. Mormon scholars concentrating on the book of mormon have had a century or so. And that does make a difference. And where do you fit in? I thought that you were a mormon scholar? An apologist? Was I wrong?

[why me]

Just compare ANYTHING in the Anchor Bible series with whatever you wanna pick in LDS scholarship and you can easily see the difference on Biblical studies. And yes I admit, I haven't contributed much either, so I am at fault as well. The sad thing is, we are mediocre and don't even know it...... except for a few, and their hands are tied because they make a living out of BYU, a church dominated school.

Protestant and Catholics can draw on each other's scholarship when it comes to the bible which can make biblical studies rich and varied. However, lds scholars do not have such a diverse range of thought. What they do have is the scholarship of other lds scholars. I see no top biblical scholars doing a study of the book of mormon and its theology from a neutral point of view. Something that the lds can draw on and enlarge or refute.

[wenglund]

LOL! finally a post of yours I like within the last week....... thanks.......I'm flexible and willing to keep on truckin without question. I am just reading the other side....no, I mean it, the REALLY other side in order to maintain a balance in learning. I am just honestly rather surprised at the stunning strength of the REALLY other side however. Not something I expected is all.

Good to know. I was just looking out for you, my friend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Really? The church wants to tone them down? I don't think so. Do you have proof? Biblical scholars have much to draw on. Centuries of scholarship. Mormon scholars concentrating on the book of mormon have had a century or so. And that does make a difference. And where do you fit in? I thought that you were a mormon scholar? An apologist? Was I wrong?

Lets say I am a tempered skeptical apologist right now. That way no one can figure me out - LOL!

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Protestant and Catholics can draw on each other's scholarship when it comes to the bible which can make biblical studies rich and varied. However, lds scholars do not have such a diverse range of thought. What they do have is the scholarship of other lds scholars. I see no top biblical scholars doing a study of the book of mormon and its theology from a neutral point of view. Something that the lds can draw on and enlarge or refute.

Precisely my point. WHY can't Mormon scholars draw on all available scholarship on the Bible? Who cares what religious tradition it comes from? This was Hugh Nibley's power. He went extensivley outside Mormonism. The Church Education System ought to encourage cross religious scholarship, not just Mormon quoting Mormon scholarship. We get no depth or comparative contextualization that way. We end up rigid and narrow in our doctrine and interpretation. And of course, since we do declare all others wrong and only ourselves right, this is one of the main factors in showing why our stuff is simply not near as good.

[volgadon]

Precisely my point. WHY can't Mormon scholars draw on all available scholarship on the Bible? Who cares what religious tradition it comes from? This was Hugh Nibley's power. He went extensivley outside Mormonism. The Church Education System ought to encourage cross religious scholarship, not just Mormon quoting Mormon scholarship. We get no depth or comparative contextualization that way. We end up rigid and narrow in our doctrine and interpretation. And of course, since we do declare all others wrong and only ourselves right, this is one of the main factors in showing why our stuff is simply not near as good.

I agree with using non-Mormon sources. I have even done so to a moderate degree in church when appropriate. I even used Othmar Keel's book to teach the Sunday School lesson on the Psalms. However, the CES isn't meant for producing cutting-edge scholarship. Mind you, I would love a reform in their educational material.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I agree with using non-Mormon sources. I have even done so to a moderate degree in church when appropriate. I even used Othmar Keel's book to teach the Sunday School lesson on the Psalms. However, the CES isn't meant for producing cutting-edge scholarship. Mind you, I would love a reform in their educational material.

You use WHO?! Man, and here I thought I was radical....... (shhh! Secretly we are brothers in arms)

[volgadon]

You use WHO?! Man, and here I thought I was radical....... (shhh! Secretly we are brothers in arms)

It has lots of pictures...

As far as being brothers in arms, I should hope so.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

It has lots of pictures...

As far as being brothers in arms, I should hope so.

Oh hey hooray! I LOVE reading pictures..... it's the only thing I can understand.....

[wenglund]

Precisely my point. WHY can't Mormon scholars draw on all available scholarship on the Bible? Who cares what religious tradition it comes from? This was Hugh Nibley's power. He went extensivley outside Mormonism. The Church Education System ought to encourage cross religious scholarship, not just Mormon quoting Mormon scholarship. We get no depth or comparative contextualization that way. We end up rigid and narrow in our doctrine and interpretation. And of course, since we do declare all others wrong and only ourselves right, this is one of the main factors in showing why our stuff is simply not near as good.

This would make sense if the primary intent of CES was scholarship. It isn't. Instead, its goal is aligned with the three-fold mission of the Church--making bad men good and good men better.

In short, CES should be comparatively judged based on what it is designed to do and not on the basis for which other things are intended. Reading glasses ought not be judged on how well they pound nails.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 5, 2012 by wenglund

[Kerry A. Shirts]

This would make sense if the primary intent of CES was scholarship. It isn't. Instead, its goal is aligned with the three-fold mission of the Church--making bad men good and good men better.

In short, CES should be comparatively judged based on what it is designed to do and not on the basis for which other things are intended. Reading glasses ought not be judged on how well they pound nails.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not likely. Brigham Young was adamant about us learning as MUCH as possible, not as little as possible as the CES does. Just because CES has lost its sight on the goal of learning how to become Gods ourselves does not mean they get a simpler assessment or are excused from the hard work of real learning. I refuse to give them a pass, because if THIS church is TRUE, and we have the TRUTH, and we are supposed to be excelling at it, then we ought to be the leaders of it, not the lackies as we are. Just my unimportant take on it. For a church that claims we have daily revelatory instructions from God to the leaders, and then the education system being so ridiculously weak, I sniff out problems here. Something is seriously fishy is all. No crisis though, I have found where the real 7 course banquet meal is offered and it ain't in the intellect of Mormonism, therefore I am no longer starving for real knowledge, truth, and intellect.....

[Stargazer]

Would you be so kind as to define what you believe "thou shalt not kill" means? You are the one who brought up non-sentient beings. Not I. You, and you alone, are responsible for that silliness. I have no idea why you are even talking about that and avoiding my CFR and actual questions.

So, again, where is the source that says kill should be translated as murder or assassinate? CFR

I've been out of this thread for awhile, and I am going to risk the chance that this CFR has not yet been answered -- a CFR not issued to me, but whatever.

You Shall Not Murder - the Wikipedia article on the subject has this to say:

You shall not murder sometimes translated as You shall not kill, (KJV) Thou shalt not kill (LXX οὐ φονεύσεις, translating Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah, specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.

It is clearly not to be applied to non-human animal or plant life. Reading the whole article is recommended.

[Stargazer]

IOW, he allowed them to act upon him when he could have cause their act to be without effect.

I am assuming you don't believe he climbed up on the cross himself, nailed his own hands, pierces his own side, etc. It was these acts that led to his death even if he was the one who allowed them to have an effect on him....unless you are of the opinion that they had nothing to do with his death, which would seem to make his suffering without meaning, just a act of some play.

They certainly tortured him. Are we supposed to be joyful about that as well?

Heck no! There's nothing joyful in pain for its own sake. There might be joy in the results of pain, however. I've watched as my wife gave birth, and as you may know, that can be quite painful. Maybe there is no joy in labor contractions; not in and of themselves, anyway. There is, however, at least the possibility of joy in the results of pain. A child, in the one case, or, in the case of Jesus's suffering beginning at the Garden of Gethsemane and concluding on the cross, Atonement, forgiveness, and resurrection.

Jesus's suffering at the hands of the Roman soldiers preparatory to his crucifixion, and in the crucifixion itself, were bad. Very bad. But the Romans crucified lots of people over the course of their history. The 6,000 survivors of the last battle in Spartacus's slave rebellion were crucified en masse along the Appian Way in 71 BC. There were two thieves crucified on that hill at the same time as Jesus -- the paintings that show them hung with ropes instead of nails were just pathetic attempts to make it seem that Jesus received a greater degree of suffering than they, but no, they got exactly what He got In fact, there are far worse methods of execution -- and if you want to be completely grossed-out about it, you can look up "List of methods of capital punishment" on Wikipedia.

But still, crucifixion is painful enough. I used to wonder why He had to go through that, when it was His suffering of the pains of the Atonement, and not the crucifixion itself, that achieved for us the great liberation from our sins. It became clear to me at least partially through Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ, a movie I never watched, that the reason for a visible execution such as crucifixion was that His actual atonement was accomplished completely out of the sight of mortal eyes -- and it would be hard to relate to it. It would be easy to relate to being crucified, and you could make a movie out of it! The atonement itself -- not so much. The crucifixion, in short, was for the benefit of our eyes. It was public, it was momumentally painful, and it was obvious. The real suffering of the Lord was largely invisible, and far, far worse.

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink

In the verses above did you see any mention of the beatings, or of the cross? NO, you didn't. That's because getting executed, whether you're innocent or guilty, has nothing to do with suffering for sin, least of all Christ's, who had none. And when it comes to your own atonement, if you do not repent, you will suffer in the same way -- in fact you will suffer "even as I". There won't be any difference between your suffering and Christ's, except for one thing: unlike Him, you WILL deserve it.

Now, as to the really bad things that have happened to people, either due to natural events, war, crime, and disease, whether inflicted at the initiation of God, or as a simple chance occurrence, or a result of choice, nothing you suffer on earth will hold the slightest candle to what you will have to experience if you do not repent and take upon you the name of Christ.

Oh, and one more thing. When Jesus said "It is finished", he meant that he had suffered enough to fulfill the Atonement. And that's when he gave up his life; when He was finished: not with the crucifixion, but with the Atonement. Now the Atonement had begun long before the crucifixion; it started during the previous night in the Garden of Gethsemane.

And just in case anyone wonders why Jesus only had one mortal parent, it is because of this: only a being with the ability to maintain his life regardless of what happened to him physically was capable of completing the Atonement. A mortal being wouldn't be able to survive the experience to its bitter end. That's why you won't receive this until after your resurrection -- and you won't have the option of calling a halt, like Jesus had, but who didn't take it.

If there were no God and life was just a matter of random fluctuations in the space-time continuum, with consciousness destined to end abruptly and forever at death, then all the traumas we experience in this life seem SO not worth it. There's no point! End it early before it gets pathetic, and don't inflict it on others by having chidren -- it is just more suffering for nothing. But if in the end there is a glorious resurrection and an immortal life of great beauty after this one -- and even for an inheritor of the Telestial Kingdom that is the case, in spades -- then why not honor the One who makes it all possible? The one who, having suffered the ultimate punishment by proxy for us, is able to reach forth His hand and say "Come up, my faithful servant!"

And stop complaining about earthly suffering that you cannot do anything about. You bunch of whiners!

[Stargazer]

That's an interesting observation, SSS. I agree that anger tends to subdue the spirit, which is why it is difficult to imagine an "angry and wrathful God". It seems almost contradictory. What we are calling "anger", in God, may very well be something different.

But, I still have a problem with God "ordering" the death of whole nations (and in the case of the flood, almost the entire earth). There has to be some serious symbolism in all of that (and did not happen, in reality, IMO).

I am still mystified as to why there could be a "problem" with God ordering the death of whole nations. The plain fact of the matter is this, that we will ALL die, some sooner and some later. If some estimates can be believed, there have been 6 billion humans who have already passed away, and in one hundred more years this rises to 12 billion. Whether some die as a natural result of gradual aging processes, or some die because an undersea earthquake raises an implacable tsunami, the destination is the same, and the outcome is certain. You and I are dead already, you just haven't noticed yet.

And another plain fact is this: God is responsible for the death of every single person who has ever lived and died on this earth! This comes about not only because He created us and in so doing he brought our deaths as well into the world, but because He, being God, could have made it so we wouldn't die! There were 250,000 +/- people who died in the Indian Ocean tsunami back in 2004. God could have prevented every single one of those deaths, but He didn't. And that's only the 6th largest natural disaster in terms of human lives lost! The worst in history was the 1931 floods in China -- I would be willing to bet that there were more people killed in that flood than were killed in Noah's flood! Which I believe did happen, btw. But that's nothing. In the 19th Century there were 4 famines in China that killed a grand total of 45 million people! Where's manna when you need it!

So what's the problem that God ordered the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite nations? How many were there, anyway? A hundred thousand? God stood by and allowed the Nazis to execute six million Jews (along with a goodly contingent of other folks), and not a single one of those murderers were struck down, except by other men, after the fact. God is going to kill all of us eventually -- directly or by some agent. Your only hope is that, first of all, there IS a God, and second, that He's interested in your destiny to the point that He will allow His only begotten Son to die on your behalf so that you can return to Him and enjoy His life with Him.

There's a certainty embedded in all this death, by the way. Afterwards it won't hurt! If there's a God, and you've repented and taken upon you Christ's name, you get an eternal existence of joy. If there's a God and you've not repented and have rejected Christ, you get to suffer for your sins, and then you get an eternal existence of joy, although without all the extra benefits that you would have gotten as an obedient believer. Or, if there is no God, your existence terminates instantly without any further pain or conciousness, for eternity also! What's there to complain about, honestly?

What, you wanted fries with that?!

Edited August 5, 2012 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

When I say I believe in a God of love, I mean that God would not, himself, ever be the cause of our pain. We bring enough pain and suffering on ourselves, by our own actions, without needing a God to add to it. We need God to turn to, when those things happen. The God who loves is infinitely merciful, tender, loving and kind...irresistibly so. Never angry or hateful and above all never doing harm to his creation.

Actually, in my humble observation, pretty much every bit of sufferning we experience (that is not brought on by random events like disease and acts of will exercised by other humans) is brought on by our own choices. Some of those choices are neutral in terms of sinfulness, such as choosing to overeat at Thanksgiving dinner resulting in a bellyache. Others, like robbing a bank resulting in a jail sentence (or getting killed in the act), are not. But it is usually not God punishing us for our actions, but the natural consequences of our actions that punish us.

[wenglund]

Not likely. Brigham Young was adamant about us learning as MUCH as possible, not as little as possible as the CES does. Just because CES has lost its sight on the goal of learning how to become Gods ourselves does not mean they get a simpler assessment or are excused from the hard work of real learning. I refuse to give them a pass, because if THIS church is TRUE, and we have the TRUTH, and we are supposed to be excelling at it, then we ought to be the leaders of it, not the lackies as we are. Just my unimportant take on it. For a church that claims we have daily revelatory instructions from God to the leaders, and then the education system being so ridiculously weak, I sniff out problems here. Something is seriously fishy is all. No crisis though, I have found where the real 7 course banquet meal is offered and it ain't in the intellect of Mormonism, therefore I am no longer starving for real knowledge, truth, and intellect.....

Sorry, Kerry, but a 7 course meal of mind-candy, while perhaps a feast for intellectual wannabes, will do little in the way of deification. Otherwise, God would have created a giant lecture hall and pontificated indefinitely rather than creating a physical earth and sending his children down into that lone and dreary world. All of my secular learning combined (kindergarten through post-graduate collegiate work) doesn't compare with even a single service project for illuminating my understanding of the nature of God and bringing me closer to him. Learning how to be an egg-head is far from becoming like God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Kerry A. Shirts]

Sorry, Kerry, but a 7 course meal of mind-candy, while perhaps a feast for intellectual wannabes, will do little in the way of deification. Otherwise, God would have created a giant lecture hall and pontificated indefinitely rather than creating a physical earth and sending his children down into that lone and dreary world. All of my secular learning combined (kindergarten through post-graduate collegiate work) doesn't compare with even a single service project for illuminating my understanding of the nature of God and bringing me closer to him. Learning how to be an egg-head is far from becoming like God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[why me]

Not likely. Brigham Young was adamant about us learning as MUCH as possible, not as little as possible as the CES does. Just because CES has lost its sight on the goal of learning how to become Gods ourselves does not mean they get a simpler assessment or are excused from the hard work of real learning.

Now kerry you know that this is not true. Have you ever attended catholic catechism classes? One learns about god, communion of the saints, church beliefs, and what is required to get to heaven. One is not learning the great philosophers of the world, world history, the intricate ideas of science. True, catholic catechism can resort to Augustinas, Aquinas etc. but one learns them within the confines of catholic beliefs.

The rest is up to each individual to acquire the knowledge necessary to be a holistic human being. Anwd this is the same for CES. I think that you are grasping at straws in your posts. Do you see yourself in Maxine? By the way, since this thread is about a wrathful god, I think that we can say that god is patient with truth seekers.

However, no matter where you may find yourself in truth seeking, please never attack the lds church as some have done. If so, you will have us to contend with on the boards.

Edited August 6, 2012 by why me

[why me]

This would make sense if the primary intent of CES was scholarship. It isn't. Instead, its goal is aligned with the three-fold mission of the Church--making bad men good and good men better.

In short, CES should be comparatively judged based on what it is designed to do and not on the basis for which other things are intended. Reading glasses ought not be judged on how well they pound nails.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The church has never encouraged people not to acquire knowledge. In fact, it has always claimed that members should read from the best books and to educate themselves in the wonderful knowledge of the past, present and future.

[wenglund]

The church has never encouraged people not to acquire knowledge. In fact, it has always claimed that members should read from the best books and to educate themselves in the wonderful knowledge of the past, present and future.

Agree...but beside the point that I was making.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-