Responding To Wayfarer On My Blog

[Daniel Peterson]

Thanks for the quotation from Elder Holland. I completely and whole-heartedly agree with it, and, for that reason, was astonished to find myself being stigmatized as the leader of a witch hunt, as somebody who's trying to drive people out of the Church.

[Tacenda]

Thanks for the quotation from Elder Holland. I completely and whole-heartedly agree with it, and, for that reason, was astonished to find myself being stigmatized as the leader of a witch hunt, as somebody who's trying to drive people out of the Church.

If no one has met you in person, only on paper, I'd recommend they watch the Mormonstories interview with you and John Dehlin. You were far from anyone on a witch hunt. And I was pleasantly surprised at your likeability and your background growing up. Edited January 7, 2013 by Tacenda

[why me]

If no one has met you in person, only on paper, I'd recommend they watch the Mormonstories interview with you and John Dehlin. You were far from anyone on a witch hunt. And I was pleasantly surprised at your likeability and your background growing up.

Dan is a likeable guy. I think that the problem comes from the internet where critics have taken a dislike to dan and spread not very complimentary notions about him which are then spread far and wide and cloud who dan actually is. It can be compared a fungus that spreads far and wide, attempting to destroy the beautiful vegetation growing in the forest.

[wayfarer]

Thanks for the quotation from Elder Holland. I completely and whole-heartedly agree with it, and, for that reason, was astonished to find myself being stigmatized as the leader of a witch hunt, as somebody who's trying to drive people out of the Church.

I said I am vacating that conversation. I would only refer you to Alice Paul v Woodrow Wilson as a metaphor.

I completely agree with Elder Holland as well. He clearly demonstrates that as long as people don't advocate leaving the church and the like, there are a wide variety of tenable Ways to remain fully faithful LDS. My issue is with those who say there aren't - that militantly insist that literal belief in certain things is required to be a member in good standing. While this is obviously not the position of the Church, nor of you in specific, I believe that the freedom to believe and express what the spirit gives me witness to believe is not just important, but essential; and I will defend my right to express that to the extent that I can, appropriately, without insisting that those who personally require literal interpretation adopt my non-literal point of view.

While our "ways" to getting to faithfulness certainly differ -- and there is no denying that -- there is no middle ground on our testimony that this is god's work, and that the restoration of the gospel along with the book of mormon and other of its fruits are authentic to their mission and inspired.

Edited January 7, 2013 by wayfarer

[go_utes01]

I said I am vacating that conversation. I would only refer you to Alice Paul v Woodrow Wilson as a metaphor.

I completely agree with Elder Holland as well. He clearly demonstrates that as long as people don't advocate leaving the church and the like, there are a wide variety of tenable Ways to remain fully faithful LDS. My issue is with those who say there aren't - that militantly insist that literal belief in certain things is required to be a member in good standing. While this is obviously not the position of the Church, nor of you in specific, I believe that the freedom to believe and express what the spirit gives me witness to believe is not just important, but essential; and I will defend my right to express that to the extent that I can, appropriately, without insisting that those who personally require literal interpretation adopt my non-literal point of view.

While our "ways" to getting to faithfulness certainly differ -- and there is no denying that -- there is no middle ground on our testimony that this is god's work, and that the restoration of the gospel along with the book of mormon and other of its fruits are authentic to their mission and inspired.

I understand your position, and still do not understand the uproar. Who is not allowing you to express your beliefs? Even if some disagree with your beliefs, and argue that there are no other ways and who "militantly insist that literal belief in certain things is required to be a member in good standing" (a belief that I personally do not hold), shouldn't you be defending their right to express their views as well. In the end, I have not seen anybody preventing anybody from sharing their beliefs. People may not be persuaded by the arguments, but the arguments/points-of-view are/have been allowed to be shared.

[Scott Lloyd]

I said I am vacating that conversation. I would only refer you to Alice Paul v Woodrow Wilson as a metaphor.

I completely agree with Elder Holland as well. He clearly demonstrates that as long as people don't advocate leaving the church and the like, there are a wide variety of tenable Ways to remain fully faithful LDS. My issue is with those who say there aren't - that militantly insist that literal belief in certain things is required to be a member in good standing.

On an earlier thread, I quoted this statement from Elder Holland's most recent general conference address, given in October:

I testify from the bottom of my heart, with the intensity of my soul, to all who can hear my voice that those apostolic keys have been restored to the earth, and they are found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To those who have not yet joined with us in this great final cause of Christ, we say, “Please come.” To those who were once with us but have retreated, preferring to pick and choose a few cultural hors d’oeuvres from the smorgasbord of the Restoration and leave the rest of the feast, I say that I fear you face a lot of long nights and empty nets. The call is to come back, to stay true, to love God, and to lend a hand.

(bold emphasis mine]

While it is clear that Elder Holland extends a welcoming and inclusive hand, it is equally clear that there is in his view a definite orthodoxy and that nibbling around the fringes of that orthodoxy is not a satisfactory condition nor one that should be permanent.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Darren10]

Wayfarer #5;

What I see in your post is that you openly advocate striving to enter into the Telestial or Terrestrial kingdoms but explicitly exclude the Celestial Kingdom from your eternal desires. In order to enter into the Celestial Knigdom you *must* do all you can in order to access the saving grace of the atonement of Jesus Christ. By actively rejecting that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God or not, you advocate something less than it being competely true. By saying that the Book of Mormon may not be completely true, nor the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, that the testimony of Him may have had "some other agenda", you reject fully glorifying Him and His works. While I do hope and pray for your full and complete eternal blessings and worry primarily on my own faults, which are plenty, I cannot see how your approach leads your soul to Celestial glory for you advocate an open rejection of fully glorifying the Lord your God.

It seems as if have allowed man's science to take away what you once knew was true by the Holy Spirit. Jesus left us the Second Comforter, not man's science to learn of His truths. It is impossible to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our personal Savior through man's science. It is impossible for man's science to "confirm" His work and glory which is the work and glory of the Father. While it is great to have man's science on your side and while I fully support scientific study into LDS teachings, including into the Book of Mormon, truth be told, the more man's science "confirms" the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, it does not affect my spiritual witness that it is God's true word. Likewise, even if there is a lack of scientific confirmations, which there is NOT for science continually vindicates the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's claims, it will not decrease my knowledge that it is the true word of God. For it is not by man's science that I know it is true but by the voice of God which speaks directly to my soul that I know of a surety that it is true.

While I have not read Shaken Faith Syndrome by Mike R. Ash, I know enough about it and have heard Brother Ash a speak about his book, he's a man whose faith was shaken due to scientific critique of the Book of Mormon and of Mormonism in general. But it was his spiritual testimony which carried him through the day and to find the answers he sought. He did not resort to "not believe" or to cipher through what he did not know. He knew the truth by the Spirit and stuck to it and he was blessed with answers he sought. I completely relate to him. I've learned for myself that I do not know all the answers to all concerns regarding my faith. But I do not need them at the moment. The answers I need will come through being faithful and diligent to seek those answers. They have come and more will come as needed.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Darren10

[CV75]

The answers I need will come through being faithful and diligent to seek those answers. They have come and more will come as needed.

I enjoyed readin this today from teh Lorenzo Snow manual: http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-1-learning-by-faith?lang=eng

"There is a kind of education worthy [of] the best attention of all, and in which all ought to engage—that is the education of the Spirit.

"A little spiritual knowledge is a great deal better than mere opinions and notions and ideas, or even very elaborate arguments; a little spiritual knowledge is very important and of the highest consideration...

"If our minds are too one-sided, paying too much attention to the acquiring of earthly goods, to the neglect of spiritual wealth, we are not wise stewards."

[Daniel Peterson]

While it is clear that Elder Holland extends a welcoming and inclusive hand, it is equally clear that there is in his view a definite orthodoxy and that nibbling around the fringes of that orthodoxy is not a satisfactory condition nor one that should be permanent.

Precisely.

[Darren10]

It's like attempting to describe the beating heart of a frog by first tearing out the frog's heart and then complaining that you can't observe it beating.

Kermit is not amused!!!

[Darren10]

CV75 #108;

Thank you. That was excellent.

[Darren10]

I still see no good reason to build my life around the words of a fictional character.

Amen to that, Brother Sky.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

As an imperfect comparison, do you find value in Christ's parables? Does it matter if the characters in them actually existed? Or if they were recorded precisely as Jesus actually gave them? I think many scriptural teachings and stories have value independent of their historicity.

As a real person, jesus used parables to teach real morlity. Now if Jesus himself were a parable than tha would change things dramatically. If He were than there would be no real salvation, nor resurrection. If that were the case than who cares about anything?

Can Joseph Smith be a true prophet without the characters of the Book of Mormon having lived in ancient America? I believe that he can. The value of the Book of Mormon to me is not in its historical accuracy but in the fullness of the gospel contained therein.

True, he could but the fact of the matter is that the Book of Mormon testifies as to him being a seer and revelator as well as a prophet. It also stands as a testimony for Joseph Smith's Christian devotion and as a keystone of the LDS religion.

I don't reject that the stories in the Book of Mormon may be historical and would be more than pleased if archaeological investigation bears that out, but if the entire hemisphere is dug up and no evidence is ever found of ancient Nephite and Lamanite inhabitants, my faith will be unaffected, it isn't based on that foundation.

Amen.

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer #5;

What I see in your post is that you openly advocate striving to enter into the Telestial or Terrestrial kingdoms but explicitly exclude the Celestial Kingdom from your eternal desires. In order to enter into the Celestial Knigdom you *must* do all you can in order to access the saving grace of the atonement of Jesus Christ. By actively rejecting that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God or not, you advocate something less than it being competely true. By saying that the Book of Mormon may not be completely true, nor the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, that the testimony of Him may have had "some other agenda", you reject fully glorifying Him and His works. While I do hope and pray for your full and complete eternal blessings and worry primarily on my own faults, which are plenty, I cannot see how your approach leads your soul to Celestial glory for you advocate an open rejection of fully glorifying the Lord your God.

It seems as if have allowed man's science to take away what you once knew was true by the Holy Spirit. Jesus left us the Second Comforter, not man's science to learn of His truths. It is impossible to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our personal Savior through man's science. It is impossible for man's science to "confirm" His work and glory which is the work and glory of the Father. While it is great to have man's science on your side and while I fully support scientific study into LDS teachings, including into the Book of Mormon, truth be told, the more man's science "confirms" the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, it does not affect my spiritual witness that it is God's true word. Likewise, even if there is a lack of scientific confirmations, which there is NOT for science continually vindicates the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's claims, it will not decrease my knowledge that it is the true word of God. For it is not by man's science that I know it is true but by the voice of God which speaks directly to my soul that I know of a surety that it is true.

I read this post with great sadness, for being so totally misunderstood. I have had many transformative spiritual experiences, the reality of which I cannot deny. Once I have come to understand the Christ, I have said that belief in some sort of literal story no longer matters in the least. For me, returning to belief in some particular events would be a huge step back. Whether or not Christ physically resurrected, to me, matters nothing at all. Whether or not the book of mormon events truly happened are completely irrelevent to my testimony, which transcends all that. I use a confusing word for you all here: "Middle Way". It is not the same as 'cafeteria mormonism' or the 'middle ground' for which some of the brethren have spoken. It is a literal translation of a chinese phrase, "zhong dao" -- zhong being the character for the middle, but also, the center, the core, the bullseye of a target. Dao is the Way, as in what Jesus said, that he is the Way. Buddha, Confucius, Laotzu, and many others have talked about being centered, emotionally, spiritually -- to live a balanced, centered life. Such as well was the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, and in fact, the common thread is the golden rule that goes throughout all thought.

The reality is that the Middle Way is truly the Way, the idea that we set aside our differences and embrace the love of Christ in our daily lives. It goes beyond belief and knowledge into the realm of faith -- that we don't know about Christ, but rather, come to know Christ himself. As I try to walk this Way, Christ's reality is before my eyes every day.

If that, in your impression, qualifies me for the telestial or terrestial kingdom, well, what I can I say. I had an experience where i know otherwise, too personal to express. Nor is it appropriate to do so. Once having that, the notion that some given physical event is necessary and part of what god has in mind seems to completely melt away.

Curiously, in this whole process, I have come to appreciate Dan Peterson much more than I realized. In spite of our differences, I think he understands. thoroughly. the majority of you don't seem to get the idea that the physical is often a metaphor to a much more profound reality. I am not saying the physical didn't happen. I'm saying that once the spiritual value is learned, the physical event no longer has the least bit of importance. It's like fingers pointing to the moon, if we focus on the fingers, we don't see the moon, and once we see the moon, we no longer need the fingers.

If believing in the physical is important to you, I support you, I embrace you. You probably are right. I don't want to change you from what you believe. I simply ask you to not judge my different, Middle Way as being tantamount to going to hell, or to the telestial or terrestial kingdom, as some of you have done.

Why do I care what you think? I don't. But others I live with do. they're empowered by the prevailing judgment that those who do not share a literal belief are somehow deficient and sick in their faith. As a result of this judgment, families are divided, and people sometimes are driven from the church they love and otherwise would contribute as fully faithful, serving members.

[wayfarer]

As a real person, jesus used parables to teach real morlity. Now if Jesus himself were a parable than tha would change things dramatically. If He were than there would be no real salvation, nor resurrection. If that were the case than who cares about anything?

A real person named Jesus lived. He atoned for us, which has a specific meaning independent of some substitutionary atonement model -- it means it enables us to be one with each other, with him, and with god -- do we know *how* this works? no. But as real as I'm writing this, I know it works.

As for saying that the lack of a physical resurrection means that no-one cares about anything. I'm not even sure how or why anyone would impute this kind of reasoning. If I have said that Jesus lives, and that I have had a personal manifestation of that, do you think that such a thing requires a physical resurrection? I'm not saying that the physical resurrection happened or not. That's irrelevant and immaterial to his existence today.

We speak of a bodily resurrection -- i get it, it helps understand that there is a material reality to spiritual things. Jesus technically resurrected in a defective, injured body to make a point to his followers. I, for one, do not want this same body. Once you get into a discussion as to what bodily resurrection means, we get into a set of logical challenges that kind of make the whole idea of exact physical resurrection rather silly. Given that carbon and water atoms have been reused, over and over, for millions of years, and the exact same carbon atoms have endured throughout the cycle of life for generations, who gets the specifc carbon atoms that form my body today?

I deeply appreciate that in Section 88, Joseph Smith recognizes that the Earth follows natural law, even something like celestial, natural law. Many of the miracles of the new testament, including the resurrection, are testimonies of those who did not understand natural law. They felt that mental illness was demonic possession and the like. I cannot be sure that their witness of a physical resurrection event is accurate to what really happened. It might have, or might not.

Joseph Smith had profound spiritual experiences. he saw, with what he called 'spiritual eyes', the lord and god the father. he, too, had a different worldview that blurred the boundary between the physical and the spiritual -- or things that occur in the mind and heart (as he clearly noted in Sections 8 and 9). Are his physical witness sufficient when he may also have been speaking of an equally real spiritual experience, the reality and memory of which is far deeper and more powerful than any physical event can be? I believe so.

Jesus doesn't tell us to "come, believe all that's been said about me". He says, "Come, follow me". Come, embrace and partake of the waters of life, Partake of the bread, for this is flesh indeed. Partake of the Wine, because this is blood indeed. Are these things literal? Is there a font of living water, really? Physcally? Or, once we have opened our minds and hearts to a higher reality, does it really matter what happened 2000 years ago? If the book of mormon transforms a life, and teaches the pure and simple message of the gospel. If the book of mormon was divinely delivered through a real, living prophet who honestly believed that he was somehow translating an ancient work, and by virtue of making that claim, launched the Church and Kingdom of God on the earth... Do the details matter of how god did this?

I don't give a flying fiddly-daddle whether any given character in the book of mormon actually existed. I know for myself independent of any historical BS account that the Book of Mormon is the word of god, and while it contains errors by its own admission, and while it is not a history, again by its own admission, it is normative and valuable as scripture. Totally, completely, and absolutely. If joseph smith pulled the words out of a hat (he did, actually), and if he plagiarized Ethan Smith, Isaiah, Paul, and others, it matters not in the least to me. Once I came to know with confidence that the Book contains god's word, the rest didn't matter.

[teddyaware]

I I have said that belief in some sort of literal story no longer matters in the least. For me, returning to belief in some particular events would be a huge step back. Whether or not Christ physically resurrected, to me, matters nothing at all.

In response to the above statement, I quote Paul:

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ (i.e. the dead in the spirit world) are perished. (1 Corinthians 15)

As can be discerned by the unambiguous testimony above, when taken at face value, the particular gospel which you believe is -- for want of a better expression -- off the mark. And because much of what you believe is at variance with the basic doctrinal and historical foundations of the church, I respectfully suggest that you give up your quixotic quest for understanding here on this board. Too much of what you believe simply doesn't resonate with active, mainline members of the Church who have faith in the truth and truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, as consistently taught by the Genaral Authorities from the inception of the Church.

Why continue to beat your head agaist a brick wall or kick against the pricks? If you are comfortable with your beliefs, depart in peace and live the gospel, as you understand it, according to your best conscience. But for those who have unshakable testimonies of the actual physical resurrection of Christ and of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, your sophistry and verbal gymnastics ring hollow and will persuade none but the unstable. And if it's only the unlearned and unstable who would find your approach at all compelling, you would be better off in the eternal scheme of things to leave well enough alone. For those who take Joseph Smith and the 11 witnesses at their word, your posts sound like a literal fulfillment of Paul's words of warning to Timothy:

"3 For the time will come when they (some members of the church) will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (2 Timothy 4)

Edited January 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[Darren10]

wayward #114;

Oh, please, spare me the pity of your sadness. I've no use or room for it. I want you to follow your conscience. If that means you can *and will* come closer to Jesus Christ via not accepting the events of the Book of Mormon and the resurrection as having literally happened, as literal as I'm writing this post, than so be it. I want you to follow it and I hope and pray you find peace through it as well as to become a better servant of the Mighty One of Israel. I for one cannot see how going from a secure knowledge from the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon was the true word of God and the events literally happened to "well, it doesn't matter if it literally happened. I can come closer to Jesus even if they did not happen..."; nor can I phathom how rejecting the literal ocurrence of the resurrection will increase your faith in the Son of God who made it possible for your literal resurrection. To me this is just like you concluding, "you know that lady which loved me and raised me and I called 'mother'? Well, I think she was a figment of my imagination. But that doesn't matter since it is the moral teachings she imparted upon me which matters and by doubting she existed I can push my faith further." You knew at one point in your life the literal truth of the events ofthe Book of mormon and now you've "evolved" into doubting it. Yet you seem complacent with that conclusion. If incorporating man's science into your personal official form of faith and worship and you have concluded that will bring you closer to God and to serve him better than who am I to argue against that? I'll only share with you my own experiences and foundation of knowledge I have regarding the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the miracle of modern-day revelation from on high. And the sum of that knowledge and experience stands quite contrary to where you've gone with your testimony. The way I see it, a firgurative resurrectiion will achieve you a figurative degree of salvation and happiness. But a literal resurrection will literally empower you forever as a being closer to deity, even the Great Maker of the universe.

I use a confusing word for you all here: "Middle Way". It is not the same as 'cafeteria mormonism' or the 'middle ground' for which some of the brethren have spoken. It is a literal translation of a chinese phrase, "zhong dao" -- zhong being the character for the middle, but also, the center, the core, the bullseye of a target. Dao is the Way, as in what Jesus said, that he is the Way. Buddha, Confucius, Laotzu, and many others have talked about being centered, emotionally, spiritually -- to live a balanced, centered life. Such as well was the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, and in fact, the common thread is the golden rule that goes throughout all thought.

And Jesus Christ, His literal atonement, his literal shedding of His blood, his literal submission to the will of the Father, His literal agony, His literal love for you and all, and his literal resurrection, that literal victory over the chains of death and hell, is the bullseye you need. Neither Siddhartha Gautama, Confucious, or Jerry Garcia from the Greatful Dead can bring you anywhere near the peace you'll find from the teachings and acceptance of the Son of the living God. There are universal truths I believe but in and of themselves they are limiting. They can only take you so far. They'll lead to to some degree of glory by the mercy of the Father but *only* upon Christ the Lord will you reach exaltation. That is not a figurative blessing, or a nice thing to consider when setting your goals. Exaltation requires submitting yourself to the Son of God as He submitted Himself to the Father. You must enter into covenant and strive to keep those covenants. Exaltation is a literal real blessing waiting for you and figuratively striving for it will *never* get you anywhere near it. God's mercy is real and literal as I think you full well *know* (that you've gone beyond faith on this matter). That mercy is real because real event ocurred and this is and inalienable: no matter what you conclude for yourself, this truth stands and will not alter.

I had an experience where i know otherwise, too personal to express. Nor is it appropriate to do so. Once having that, the notion that some given physical event is necessary and part of what god has in mind seems to completely melt away.

I find that extremely hard to make eventfully coherrent. Not that you need to or want to at this point but if you want to PM me, I'm all ears as to what your experience is. And, yes, I do understand that things happen and have a symbolic meaning behind them but take away the literal obligation of them happening and you're left with baseless hope.

hey're empowered by the prevailing judgment that those who do not share a literal belief are somehow deficient and sick in their faith

Lol, why, is their faith literal? I think it's figurative. It think they have a nice faith but does it really matter if their faith is literal?

/(Just kidding...sort of)

As a result of this judgment, families are divided, and people sometimes are driven from the church they love and otherwise would contribute as fully faithful, serving members.

More broken heart pity. Spare me, please.

A real person named Jesus lived. He atoned for us, which has a specific meaning independent of some substitutionary atonement model -- it means it enables us to be one with each other, with him, and with god -- do we know *how* this works? no. But as real as I'm writing this, I know it works.

You mean literally live with one another and with God? What does it matter if these results are literal? It's the spiritual meaning behind the blessing that counts, right?

As for saying that the lack of a physical resurrection means that no-one cares about anything. I'm not even sure how or why anyone would impute this kind of reasoning. If I have said that Jesus lives, and that I have had a personal manifestation of that, do you think that such a thing requires a physical resurrection? I'm not saying that the physical resurrection happened or not. That's irrelevant and immaterial to his existence today.

This is where you are so very wrong. It was only *after* his resurrection and ascended to heaven with His literal resurrected body that He fulfilled all that the Father had for Him to do regarding working out our salvation. If this did not literally happen than why should returning to the presence of the Father literally happen? If there was not a literal event where he atoned for our sins why should repentence be literal? If He did not resurrect on the third day after His death, than why should we resurrect literally?

12 And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell; wherefore, death and hell must deliver up their dead, and hell must deliver up its captive spirits, and the grave must deliver up its captive bodies, and the bodies and the spirits of men will be restored one to the other; and it is by the power of the resurrection of the Holy One of Israel.

13 O how great the plan of our God! For on the other hand, the paradise of God must deliver up the spirits of the righteous, and the grave deliver up the body of the righteous; and the spirit and the body is restored to itself again, and all men become incorruptible, and immortal, and they are living souls, having a perfect knowledge like unto us in the flesh, save it be that our knowledge shall be perfect.

14 Wherefore, we shall have a perfect knowledge of all our guilt, and our uncleanness, and our nakedness; and the righteous shall have a perfect knowledge of their enjoyment, and their righteousness, being clothed with purity, yea, even with the robe of righteousness.

15 And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

16 And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.

17 O the greatness and the justice of our God! For he executeth all his words, and they have gone forth out of his mouth, and his law must be fulfilled.

18 But, behold, the righteous, the saints of the Holy One of Israel, they who have believed in the Holy One of Israel, they who have endured the crosses of the world, and despised the shame of it, they shall inherit the kingdom of God, which was prepared for them from the foundation of the world, and their joy shall be full forever.

19 O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he delivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

20 O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.

2 Nephi 9

Are these things going to happen literally? Is the happiness of the righteous literal? If so than how can that be if what Jesus did wasn't literal? No literal atonement + no literal resurrection = No literal happiness. That is hopeless hope.

Once you get into a discussion as to what bodily resurrection means, we get into a set of logical challenges that kind of make the whole idea of exact physical resurrection rather silly

Go for it, sir.

Given that carbon and water atoms have been reused, over and over, for millions of years, and the exact same carbon atoms have endured throughout the cycle of life for generations, who gets the specifc carbon atoms that form my body today?

Oh, you did go for it. This is proof positive that man's science is part of your official personal faith and worship. I'm very thankful it's not part of mine. I say whatever atoms we do get, if any but i think we will, they will be refined and perfected. And how have you concluded that I'm using the same atoms as my ancestors? The only reason you make this conclusion is by your human / mortal logic. Temporal beings such as ourselves cannot comprehend the eternal nature of our existence. Man's science indeed does a lot of good. God has blessed us with minds to learn and so we should use them learn but I only caution how to use them to explain the eternities. You cannot do that in any continual way without going astray. That's one reason, I think, we have the revealed word. Base your eternal reasoning on that regarding your eternal exitstence.

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

2 Nephi 9

If you're truly confounded on how water and carbon atoms play a role in our immortal lives than I would venture to guess tha you're not as diligent as you should with your home teaching, scripture study, prayer (to the Father in the name of the Son and following the Holy Spirit). Just a guess, I could be wrong but I don't think so. In the slight case I am wrong than my main point is that your concern, as well as mine, should be on how well we are following God's counsels and I'll add in commandments. In the scope of things, the eternal nature of water and carbon atoms really do not mean much. Serving the Lord does.

Joseph Smith had profound spiritual experiences. he saw, with what he called 'spiritual eyes', the lord and god the father. he, too, had a different worldview that blurred the boundary between the physical and the spiritual

So, what if none of that was literal? He'd be certifiably insane or one great imaginative story teller. If either the latter are true than why follow him?

Jesus doesn't tell us to "come, believe all that's been said about me". He says, "Come, follow me". Come, embrace and partake of the waters of life, Partake of the bread, for this is flesh indeed. Partake of the Wine, because this is blood indeed. Are these things literal? Is there a font of living water, really? Physcally?

I think the blood he spilt for me was literal blood from literal hurt He received willingly out of literal pure love he had for me. I think this was a literal part of the work and glory of the Father and my literal eternal progression. In the end, this is all based upon literal mercy the Father and the Son has for me and for all of us.

Do the details matter of how god did this?

If it literally happened, yes, that is of great significance and importance.

If joseph smith pulled the words out of a hat (he did, actually), and if he plagiarized Ethan Smith, Isaiah, Paul, and others, it matters not in the least to me.

Joseph Smith got the words from the spirit of prophecy, interpretation and revelation. The hat was nothing but a tool for the work of the Lord. It literally happened and I do think there's symbolic value to it but happened it did. There was no plargiarizing only the fact that the Lord, in His eternal wisdom which does not and cannot have, set forth a people across the world, away from the old World Israel, established His gospel there and inspired prophets in that new land to keep a record which in the Lord's own time, came forth and rstored plain and prestious truths lost over the centuries. I think these truths were lost in part from man replacing the revealed word of God with their own wisdom and understanding (ahem...).

Edited January 9, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Teddyware #116;

Remarkable!!!

[mfbukowski]

Curiously, in this whole process, I have come to appreciate Dan Peterson much more than I realized. In spite of our differences, I think he understands. thoroughly. the majority of you don't seem to get the idea that the physical is often a metaphor to a much more profound reality. I am not saying the physical didn't happen. I'm saying that once the spiritual value is learned, the physical event no longer has the least bit of importance. It's like fingers pointing to the moon, if we focus on the fingers, we don't see the moon, and once we see the moon, we no longer need the fingers.

For the record, this says it very well.

There is something about this approach that implies to people that if one says that one can't know what "actually happened" then you are saying that it DID NOT happen.

I don't know why they can't see the difference but I have the same problem all the time. It is an epistemological issue that one finally sees becomes irrelevant. It really doesn't matter if we can know or not.

But in no way does that imply that you are denying that it did in fact happen or could not have happened.

Philosophically these concepts involve "counterfactual conditionals" and are quite important in philosophy.

[Darren10]

mfbukowski;

My argument is that in order for the spiritual to happen than the physical too must happen.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Darren10

[Calm]

I'm saying that once the spiritual value is learned, the physical event no longer has the least bit of importance.

But ultimately the spiritual and the physical are all going to be the same thing....inseparable, eternal as one.

For me the question is if they are the same thing right now, we just are not aware of it yet due to our limited spiritual perception.

Edited January 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski;

My argument is that in order for the spiritual to happen than the physical too must happen.

All I am saying is how do you know the difference? God appears to you. Is it "real"?

Your life is altered permanently. That is all that matters. Yes, if it wasn't "real" then you were on LSD or whatever. But your life is still altered forever and you don't know any difference.

[mfbukowski]

But ultimately the spiritual and the physical are all going to be the same thing....inseparable, eternal as one.

For me the question is if they are the same thing right now, we just are not aware of it yet due to our limited spiritual perception.

Exactly

But the question is for now, which is which and how do we know?

We cannot know- that is why they call all this "faith". And for now, it doesn't matter. What matters is what knowledge you act on and how you live your life.

Edited January 9, 2013 by mfbukowski

[go_utes01]

I don't give a flying fiddly-daddle whether any given character in the book of mormon actually existed. I know for myself independent of any historical BS account that the Book of Mormon is the word of god, and while it contains errors by its own admission, and while it is not a history, again by its own admission, it is normative and valuable as scripture. Totally, completely, and absolutely. If joseph smith pulled the words out of a hat (he did, actually), and if he plagiarized Ethan Smith, Isaiah, Paul, and others, it matters not in the least to me. Once I came to know with confidence that the Book contains god's word, the rest didn't matter.

BS account? I thought I remember you saying something about respecting others' beliefs and allowing each to walk their own path, etc. Calling someone's deeply held beliefs BS doesn't seem to be very respectful. You ask others to respect your "Way", yet disrespect others. Not the best way to ask for understanding from others. Just sayin'.

[Darren10]

All I am saying is how do you know the difference? God appears to you. Is it "real"?

Your life is altered permanently. That is all that matters. Yes, if it wasn't "real" then you were on LSD or whatever. But your life is still altered forever and you don't know any difference.

If it wasn't real than I'd just forget about it like I would a nice dream. However if it was. Divine learning lesson to me than of course I'd retain it and strive to earn from it. But even though God may not have literally appeared to me the event itself would very much be real. Just like how dream answered a specific prayer of mine many years ago. Even though the events in the dream did not literally ocurre, the dream literally happened and I received my divine answer.

Too late to share the dream but it was regards to the Word of Wisdom.