President Hinckley'S Denial And The Lorenzo Snow Manual

[Vance]

It could be argued that it's more respectful to hold God's anointed prophet to a higher standard than a lower one.

As determined by whom?

[Questing Beast]

What have Joseph Smith or other Prophets taught? Is God the Father the first God or are there many before him?

This is basic, core Joseph Smith theology/cosmology. In the Book of Abraham we are told that matter and intelligence have always existed. Joseph Smith said that everything including intelligence is "matter" and that there is nothing that is not "matter", and that it always existed. Then he teaches that God the Father has a Father and his Father before him, and on and on forever. It is a redefining of "worship" to assert that each "God the Father" worships only his Father before him, and yet has knowledge of other/greater gods before his own Father. We are told that this world contains nothing that was not made by the Word of God, i.e. the Son who was made flesh after the world was made. And so the Word worships the Father who showed the Son everything that the Son ever did. We take Jesus Christ (the Word) as our model and worship the Father, his and ours, in word and in truth, and no other God do we worship if we are obedient to the Word.

However, Joseph Smith added the "God was once a man with his own Father" doctrine to it and made such worship impossible for me. I cannot, will not, worship a lesser god. So my mind quests out beyond this world to the Cause behind the matter being organized into the world in the first place. God said, "yonder is matter unorganized, go you down and organize it into a world like unto the other worlds we have heretofore formed". And we are told that GtF did not make that unorganized matter, but "found it" unorganized. That his own intelligence was not made but always existed as part of the matter that is unorganized. Intelligence cannot be formed or created, like the matter that it is, it simply always existed, so Joseph Smith asserts. But that leaves the most core question (the most "terrible question") unpursued (even if it can never be fully answered): "Why Existence instead of nothing?" GtF does not answer it....

Edited March 12, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Vance]

So I worship the First Cause, . . . .

I am curious what that is.

The universe exists "always".

Ok.

But that Existence requires a reason/cause.

If it has "always" existed how can it have a cause?

Why does it "require" a "reason/cause"?

[Questing Beast]

@Vance: the Necessary Cause cannot be understood/comprehended, only apprehended, i.e. deemed logically, undeniably Necessary to explain why there is existence in the first place. The Necessary Cause is Singular, there is no other Cause beside it, otherwise it is caused by some other cause. Existence In The First Place = God. It cannot be otherwise. What "God" Is remains infinitely beyond our comprehension, but we all apprehend "God's" reality and necessity. God the Father is more accessible than a "Necessary Cause". GtF is "one of us", a man in form, and going only that far Joseph Smith and I walk together. But when he says that GtF is a glorified (once mortal) man, with a Father of his own, that GtF worships as we worship him, that is where we part company. Such an endless "uncaused" existence makes no sense and defies logic and the evidence of science, which shows that matter left in a contained environment runs down to its simplest elements until entropy is attained, again, and never alters from that simplest state unless acted upon by an outside agency. For the universe itself to always exist and perpetually continue, i.e. not run down/die, implies an outside agency or intellect working upon it. The universe itself cannot account for this continuance, without itself being that Intelligence, in other words, making the universe itself intelligent, which makes it NOT anthropomorphic, and thus not GtF, who is admittedly an always existing intelligence in the form of a man.

If Joseph Smith had expounded upon his theology and said that "intelligence" is not human in form at our level of intelligence, then I would be expecting him to further state that "God" is more than a man, but manifests as such for our benefit. And that "God" is the one I worship....

[William Schryver]

I recognize that the interview was from the late 90's, but as far as I can tell, both the "couplet" and the supporting Joseph Smith quote from the King Follett Sermon have been regularly taught in official Church lessons and publications over the last century, up to today.

I don't dispute that, for the most part. I agree that the concept of theosis is frequently discussed. My qualification arises from the fact that I have no recollection of anyone ever talking in church about the idea that God was a mortal man like us, mainly because I don't think we know much about it, beyond Joseph Smith's somewhat vague reference to the concept.

I suppose it's possible that Joseph Smith wasn't saying that God was once as we are now, but that's what it sounds like to me.

I agree that he said that, but I don't agree that its meaning is all that clear, and, to my knowledge, he never elaborated on the concept.

Was God the Father once "as we are now" in the sense that he lived a mortal life like Jesus did, or in the sense that he lived a mortal life like you and I have--was born into an average suburban family where the parents got divorced when he was young, got married young himself, was compelled to work a job he didn't much like, sometimes fought with his wife, sometimes yelled at his kids, and even, as a teenager, drove his Chevy to the levy and drank whiskey and rye?

I believe it was the latter. In fact, I want to believe it in those terms. Because otherwise I don't really know how he can understand what it's been like for us down here.

Here is what I might have wanted/expected/wished to hear as follow up in Conference:

The media have been kind and generous to us. This past year of pioneer celebrations has resulted in very extensive, favorable press coverage. There have been a few things we wish might have been different. I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances the answers to my questions weren't as clear as I wish they had been. I think that's to be expected. In one exchange, regarding Joseph Smith's teachings about "God having once been as we are now", my answer was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand this doctrine. I affirm, as Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow did, that "As man is God once was, as God is man may become." This is just as true today as it was in 1844 when Joseph Smith first* taught it.

Fair enough. I agree that it might have been better had he said something along the lines of what you suggest. That said, I honestly do not believe his intent was to obfuscate.

Edited March 12, 2013 by William Schryver

[cinepro]

It could be argued that it's disrespectful to presume to tell the anointed prophet his business.

So we believe in fallible prophets generally, but to believe it specifically is "disrespectful"?

[Scott Lloyd]

So we believe in fallible prophets generally, but to believe it specifically is "disrespectful"?

I believe it possible to understand a prophet's human fallibility but to possess enough personal humility to recognize the possibility -- even the likelihood -- that the prophet's wisdom exceeds one's own.

There's also the matter of recognizing the dignity of the office to the point where one might want to hold one's tongue on relatively trivial matters such as how a prophet chooses to respond to a magazine interviewer's questions. Regarding telling the prophet his business, I was in a courtroom once when an officious woman tried to do that to a district judge. He immediately slapped her with a contempt-of-court fine and suspended jail sentence.

She deserved it. And in my view, because of his nearness to God and the sanctity of his office, a prophet is entitled to at least as much respect as a district court judge.

[Alan]

We could just say that Lorenzo Snow was wrong. Just like we say Brigham Young was wrong about Adam-God.

There is no scriptural evidence that God was once a mortal man like us. There is an oft quoted funeral sermon attributed to Joseph Smith when something was said in this regard, but it was not presented as doctrine binding on the church, nor was it presented at a general conference of the church, nor was it submitted for inclusion in the D&C by the exercise of common consent. We don't even know for sure that Joseph ever said it, or was quoted correctly.

Of course, Lorenzo Snow's couplet is true if it is applied to Jehovah.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Alan

[Scott Lloyd]

We could just say that Lorenzo Snow was wrong. Just like we say Brigham Young was wrong about Adam-God.

On what basis would you declare it wrong?

There is no scriptural evidence that God was once a mortal man like us.

I'll reiterate what I said to Questing Beast in a post that you perhaps missed. He didn't have a rejoinder; perhaps you will:

Whether or not something can be "argued from the scriptures" is not, nor should it ever be, a litmus test for revelation. There is much in the way of modern revelation that cannot be definitively argued from ancient scripture due to the fact that either it was not had among God's ancient covenant people or it was had among them but record of it was lost.

[teddyaware]

We could just say that Lorenzo Snow was wrong. Just like we say Brigham Young was wrong about Adam-God.

There is no scriptural evidence that God was once a mortal man like us. There is an oft quoted funeral sermon attributed to Joseph Smith when something was said in this regard, but it was not presented as doctrine binding on the church, nor was it presented at a general conference of the church, nor was it submitted for inclusion in the D&C by the exercise of common consent. We don't even know for sure that Joseph ever said it, or was quoted correctly.

Of course, Lorenzo Snow's couplet is true if it is applied to Jehovah.

Hi Alan, Isn't the reason most Latter-day Saints logically presume God the Father was once a man like us ibecause we have been promised, if faithful, an exaltation in heaven as joint heirs with Christ, inheriting all the Father possesses, to reign as Kings and Queens with the blessing of eternal posterity (spirit chldren)? So we just logically extrapolate and figure that if this great blessing of spiritual growth and transformation can happen to us, why couldn't the same process of growth and tansformation have happened to him in aeons past?

Edited March 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[Alan]

Hi Alan, Isn't the reason most Latter-day Saints just logically presume God the Father was once a man like us because we have been promised, if faithful, an exaltation in heaven as joint heirs with Christ of all the Father possesses, to reign as Kings and Queens with the blessing of eternal posterity (spirit chldren)? So we figure that if this great blessing and spiritual transformation can happen to us, why couldn't the same happen to him?

You're probably right, people do make that assumption. I doesn't mean it's right though.

We don't get to inherit in the way that we understand it here. If my children inherit from me, they get my property and I don't have it anymore. However, when we become joint-heirs with Christ, the Father isn't going to retire or abdicate. So I think we have a bit of a skewed idea of this principle.

[Vance]

@Vance: the Necessary Cause cannot be understood/comprehended, only apprehended, i.e. deemed logically, undeniably Necessary to explain why there is existence in the first place.

Ok, so it is the fabrication of the human mind. Got it.

The Necessary Cause is Singular, there is no other Cause beside it, otherwise it is caused by some other cause.

According to the philosophies of men. Got it.

Existence In The First Place = God.

Says the philosophies of men. Got it.

It cannot be otherwise.

Says the philosophies of men. Got it.

What "God" Is remains infinitely beyond our comprehension, but we all apprehend "God's" reality and necessity.

Says the philosophies of men. Got it.

God the Father is more accessible than a "Necessary Cause".

God the Father, as He has revealed Himself to be, is more accessible than the fabricated God of the philosophies of men, TRUE.

Need I say more?

[Scott Lloyd]

You're probably right, people do make that assumption. I doesn't mean it's right though.

We don't get to inherit in the way that we understand it here. If my children inherit from me, they get my property and I don't have it anymore. However, when we become joint-heirs with Christ, the Father isn't going to retire or abdicate. So I think we have a bit of a skewed idea of this principle.

It's a difference in concept between the finite and the infinite. What is infinite can never be diminished even when it is shared with another.

And in the case of our joint-heirship with Christ, what we receive as heirs is infinite in itself, even as the Father continues to have infinite possession.

Probably a more apt analogy would be the owner of a prosperous business who grooms his children to grow up and become his partners even as the business itself continues to grow.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

You're probably right, people do make that assumption. I doesn't mean it's right though.

We don't get to inherit in the way that we understand it here. If my children inherit from me, they get my property and I don't have it anymore. However, when we become joint-heirs with Christ, the Father isn't going to retire or abdicate. So I think we have a bit of a skewed idea of this principle.

But why wouldn't it be right? After all, if the spirit children of those so exalted are taught to worship the parents of their spirits as their 'heavenly parents,' it would seem to be precisely the same thing.

In addition, I would add that Christ the Son inherited all the Father possesses, and his inheriting all things does not seem to have diminished the Father's supply of power, glory, knowlwedge, wisdom, love, riches or possessions one wit. In fact, the Son's triumph glorifies and enriches the Father's Kingdom all the more, The riches of heaven are infinite and eternal; one's share of ownership in them cannot be depleated by sharing them with others. It's analogus to the Saviour's miracle of multiplying of the loaves and the fishes -- heaven's bounty is inexhaustible

Edited March 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

Probably a more apt analogy would be the owner of a prosperous business who grooms his children to grow up and become his partners even as the business itself continues to grow.

Okay, as long as you include the idea that the prosperous business never had a point when it began from out of nothing, and it never will end because there will be no end to the number of children who will qualify as his partners to carry on their Father's work as he does.

[Ahab]

You're probably right, people do make that assumption. I doesn't mean it's right though.

It's not an assumption, and it is right. That is the way that it really works.

We don't get to inherit in the way that we understand it here. If my children inherit from me, they get my property and I don't have it anymore. However, when we become joint-heirs with Christ, the Father isn't going to retire or abdicate. So I think we have a bit of a skewed idea of this principle.

All that needs to be understood is that what we will inherit, if we are worthy of it, is all that our Father has and will ever have. In that sense, the same holds true for the way it works with our Fathers here, too. All that they have and will ever have will be ours, if we inherit that from them, even if they go on to another stage of existence. They don't necessarily lose all they had here, if they ever really had it. By the power of sealings our parents can still hold on to their children without ever giving them up, so all that their children will ever have still belongs to the parents as they share all they have in common. It's just that we can't say it's "mine and nobody elses". It will be ours, but it will still be theirs too. And with our Father that includes everything that is here and now as well as everything that will come later in the future.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Ahab

[Stone holm]

It's not an assumption, and it is right. That is the way that it really works.

All that needs to be understood is that what we will inherit, if we are worthy of it, is all that our Father has and will ever have. In that sense, the same holds true for the way it works with our Fathers here, too. All that they have and will ever have will be ours, if we inherit that from them, even if they go on to another stage of existence. They don't necessarily lose all they had here, if they ever really had it. By the power of sealings our parents can still hold on to their children without ever giving them up, so all that their children will ever have still belongs to the parents as they share all they have in common. It's just that we can't say it's "mine and nobody elses". It will be ours, but it will still be theirs too. And with our Father that includes everything that is here and now as well as everything that will come later in the future.

Interesting, but probably not correct. Heavenly Father set out a plan for His worlds just as He saw His Father set out plans for His worlds, and we, if we are worthy, will set out plans for our worlds, ad infinitum. His glory increases because of His posterity, etc. We even have a separate priesthood to govern the relationship between Gods, namely the Patriarchal Priesthood -- although the only ordinances thereof currently exercised are restricted to the sealing room. Just as the Melchizedek Priesthood is the line of authority between God and man. The only real mystery left is, has Heavenly Father's Creative Period ceased? or will it cease once the Celestialization of the Earth occurs and people are sorted out to the various kingdoms -- or will he go on creating more and more worlds?

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay, as long as you include the idea that the prosperous business never had a point when it began from out of nothing, and it never will end because there will be no end to the number of children who will qualify as his partners to carry on their Father's work as he does.

Analogies don't need to apply in every respect to get a point across. In fact, it's generally better not to try to make them apply in every particular; otherwise, they get too convoluted to be meaningful.

[Ahab]

Interesting, but probably not correct.

Interesting how you said that and then said things in agreement with what I was saying.

Heavenly Father set out a plan for His worlds just as He saw His Father set out plans for His worlds, and we, if we are worthy, will set out plans for our worlds, ad infinitum.

Yes, and it will be the same plan because the plan is perfect and there is no way to improve upon it. It's not as if we would advocate for an inferior plan.

His glory increases because of His posterity, etc. We even have a separate priesthood to govern the relationship between Gods, namely the Patriarchal Priesthood -- although the only ordinances thereof currently exercised are restricted to the sealing room. Just as the Melchizedek Priesthood is the line of authority between God and man.

No, it's not a seprate priesthood. It's the same priesthood for all who have as much power as our Father in heaven.

The only real mystery left is, has Heavenly Father's Creative Period ceased?

No mystery. It hasn't.

or will it cease once the Celestialization of the Earth occurs and people are sorted out to the various kingdoms --

No it won't even end then.

or will he go on creating more and more worlds?

Yes, while also going on to help us become as perfect as he is. It's going to be a very lively relationship, even after we know all that he knows.

[Questing Beast]

...

Says the philosophies of men. Got it.

God the Father, as He has revealed Himself to be, is more accessible than the fabricated God of the philosophies of men, TRUE.

Need I say more?

If God the Father Is the philosopher's "God", then that would be evidence of "God" manifesting in whatever way works to convince me of "God's" reality. Both concepts are not mutually exclusive. The "philosopher's God" is less accessible but not a bit less real, just less defined. The trouble with religious definitions/dogma is that they assert then demand belief. And many of the so-called attributes of God that dogmatic assertions make are mutually exclusive, especially regarding what is "salvation" and who gets it on what conditions, etc. Even Mormonism, possibly the most liberal of all the "Abrahamic" religions, does not allow an "out": you either get all your "saving ordinances" done or you are damned to some level of hell, no exceptions, and only within a limited time frame (while the world stands)....

[Stone holm]

If God the Father Is the philosopher's "God", then that would be evidence of "God" manifesting in whatever way works to convince me of "God's" reality. Both concepts are not mutually exclusive. The "philosopher's God" is less accessible but not a bit less real, just less defined. The trouble with religious definitions/dogma is that they assert then demand belief. And many of the so-called attributes of God that dogmatic assertions make are mutually exclusive, especially regarding what is "salvation" and who gets it on what conditions, etc. Even Mormonism, possibly the most liberal of all the "Abrahamic" religions, does not allow an "out": you either get all your "saving ordinances" done or you are damned to some level of hell, no exceptions, and only within a limited time frame (while the world stands)....

Depends on a couple things, 1) your definition of what constitutes "real", and 2) Mormonism at least allows you to get all the "saving ordinances" either in this life or the next. I expect you are right about "damnation" as we have a peculiar view on it, namely "Salvation without Exaltation is Damnation", but that saying does not include the "Damnation" that most Christian Sects or Islam believes in -- not versed well enough to say exactly what Judaism (to the extent you can speak of it as a single religion) dogma is on the subject. Do you dislike dogma? You seem to use it in a derogatory fashion. The Philosopher's God tended to use the concept of "hell" as a method for the few to control the many. I suppose we do as well, but it is not necessary for Mormons to view it in that manner.

[Questing Beast]

Dogmatic religion is conformist religion, for the masses to follow the "oracles" by. I don't trust it, you are correct. I believe that anyone adhering to a dogmatic religion must keep his/her inner core aloof, free from the dogmatic demands of the religion. To turn off the responsibility for personal belief and action is not on offer and never was; you can't say that following "the prophet" is your excuse for adherence. Religion in its core must always remain individual and personal, with "God" alone. That is why I believe that all religions are man-made, but "God" works within them all as they can be used to advance light and truth. The "philosophers God" is devoid of dogmatic restraints....

[Ahab]

Dogmatic religion is conformist religion, for the masses to follow the "oracles" by. I don't trust it, you are correct. I believe that anyone adhering to a dogmatic religion must keep his/her inner core aloof, free from the dogmatic demands of the religion. To turn off the responsibility for personal belief and action is not on offer and never was; you can't say that following "the prophet" is your excuse for adherence. Religion in its core must always remain individual and personal, with "God" alone. That is why I believe that all religions are man-made, but "God" works within them all as they can be used to advance light and truth. The "philosophers God" is devoid of dogmatic restraints....

There's a flaw or two with your reasoning, although I can relate to what you're talking about and once saw things as you do. Each man is not an island unto himself, although we each bear personal responsibility for our own choices.

Let's expand on your thought that each religion is a man-made religion. I don't see a big problem with that when considering my understanding of what "man" is, but let's pretend that I don't know man is the same kind of being as God. Or maybe what would be better is to limit your use of the word "God" to our Father in heaven. Now add in your thought that "God" works within all religions (or all men in all religions) as they can be used to advance light and truth. Now let's expand on the idea about how much God can work with each one to advance light and truth.

Can you now see how God would use one religion more than another, because one religion (or the men in that religion) would be more open to him using them to advance light and truth? Forget about which religion that may be for a moment, because I'm not trying to make that the focus. Just realize how God would use one religion more than another because that religion (or those men in that religion) would be more open to God using them to advance light and truth.

Now consider every other religion noticing that and getting a tad jealous, although that would be silly because if they wanted the same opportunities to advance light and truth all they'd have to do is join with the other religion in advancing the same degree of light and truth. Or suppose they didn't realize one religion was advancing more light and truth than another religion, or they were wrong about which one was doing that. Whatever anyone thought, one would still be advancing more light and truth than another, unless every one of them was equally advancing light and truth, perhaps not even seeing the light and truth they all had in common.

But then God could help at least one of them see that, if they didn't see that on their own, by giving them the light and truth they needed to see it. Either way there would be at least one man or group of men in at least one religion who had more light and truth than another, and the light and truth men would be advancing would be the same light and truth that God has. Men don't have more light and truth than God does, since all light and truth is within God's domain, so what you call man-made religion is actually God-inspiried religion, inspired by the degree of light and truth God gives to each man to work with.

And there's one other point you might want to consider for a moment. I don't share the doctrine I accept simply because I am a member of a particular religion. That would be looking at it backwards. I first accepted the light and truth, from wherever I found it, and the light and truth I accept is simply taught by a particular religion (or particular men/women in that religion). And I'm still open to finding light and truth from wherever I find it, but based on my past experience I'm pretty dang sure that any light and truth I find will be something that has already been taught by people in my religion, because we have God with us to give us light and truth.

[Kiviuq]

This has been a fascinating discussion. I am witnessing how what I believed as a firm doctrine is evolving before my very eyes.

[Questing Beast]

There's a flaw or two with your reasoning, although I can relate to what you're talking about and once saw things as you do. Each man is not an island unto himself, although we each bear personal responsibility for our own choices.

I don't know how you could know that you "once saw things as do." Similarities, especially as expressed in text, can become misleading. For instance, "each man IS an island unto himself." Evidence is only for that and nothing else. We are each egocentric. We never touch metaphysically, mentally or spiritually. Our senses share the empirical world only, and by our senses we communicate what each of us individually is sensing/experiencing. But in this world we are indeed separated into our own egocentric worlds. The only One we contact outside of our empirical (mortal) senses is "God".

Let's expand on your thought that each religion is a man-made religion. I don't see a big problem with that when considering my understanding of what "man" is, but let's pretend that I don't know man is the same kind of being as God.

Textually, at least, we seem to agree that man is the same as God. And when God manifests as one of us in form we are the same kind of being as God too.

Or maybe what would be better is to limit your use of the word "God" to our Father in heaven.

Not for me. "God the Father" is how "God" manifests for our benefit. But that kind of nuance of belief really doesn't make any practical difference in how a person who believes behaves toward "God".

...

Can you now see how God would use one religion more than another, because one religion (or the men in that religion) would be more open to him using them to advance light and truth? Forget about which religion that may be for a moment, because I'm not trying to make that the focus. Just realize how God would use one religion more than another because that religion (or those men in that religion) would be more open to God using them to advance light and truth.

I see where you are going with this, and I happen to believe that the LDS faith is the best organized (dogmatic) religion on the planet today. But I would be, possibly, the last person to push that on anyone. Missionaries are looking for those who are looking for them, not out there to convince anyone that "Mormons, Mormons, are the best, we feel sorry, for the rest!"

Nevertheless, my belief is not evidence that "God" works best within some religions and not so much through other religions. People individually find more or less compatibility with a given religion. It doesn't matter "where" they are in spiritual or metaphysical terms, we are all progressing, and comparisons to others are not beneficial at all. So "where" is a non subject. "What" is directly addressable. "What" I am is the most important definer of "who" I am. And "what" I am is either honest and true or otherwise. If a person is devoted to being honest and true then s/he will not lie to the self or anyone else. This kind of person is in all religions. There is no religion that purports to follow "God" that is not built on the virtue of integrity, with personal integrity as the requisite quality. So making a judgment of the world's religions as advanced or deficient is to judge what is not ours to know. We cannot know the individuals in them except a mere handful at a time. And in my limited experience, individuals in any religion are equally justified in following that religion.

... Men don't have more light and truth than God does, since all light and truth is within God's domain, so what you call man-made religion is actually God-inspiried religion, inspired by the degree of light and truth God gives to each man to work with.

I agree, all religion is God-inspired religion. But God doesn't dispense light and truth unevenly, and that's how religions become different, because the men change the light and truth according to their limited circumstances. That's another interpretation of the sower and the tares; religion falls in the form of inspiration upon all men at all times, and because of circumstances in some places the inspiration flourishes and enlightenment comes more dominantly and drives back the dark; such was the case in early Islam, in the Iberian peninsula, for example: the influx of Islam raised the level of enlightenment and civilization where barbarized Christianity had held sway before. In many other cases the inspiration is either not recognized or fails to overcome entrenched traditions of darkness, and the result is a less enlightened denomination of the same inspiration.

And there's one other point you might want to consider for a moment. I don't share the doctrine I accept simply because I am a member of a particular religion. That would be looking at it backwards. I first accepted the light and truth, from wherever I found it, and the light and truth I accept is simply taught by a particular religion (or particular men/women in that religion). And I'm still open to finding light and truth from wherever I find it, but based on my past experience I'm pretty dang sure that any light and truth I find will be something that has already been taught by people in my religion, because we have God with us to give us light and truth.

I've been impressed by the amount of light and truth in the LDS faith. I am less impressed the more I learn about the world. Or rather, I am more impressed that all religion is far more equal than I had considered before. The only paradigm that makes sense of my 'satiable imagination is the wider view: that "God" works all in all, as I said above. If dogmatic religion is valid then all are valid, and it does no good to try and define which are better. The teachings, official doctrines, etc., are virtually equal as far as "enlightened" are concerned. The Quran is drawn from the Arabic culture, the Old Testament from the Jewish/Israelite, the New Testament from the Greco-Roman overlaid on the Jewish, the Mormon from the preexisting Judeo-Christian. The "Eastern" religions have their own traditions of borrowing going back thousands of years. Morality in all of them overlaps in the highest degree. "Comeupance" is taught in all of them as a result of personal actions and desires. Salvation/redemption, enlightenment, are the goals of them all. Seeking "God" is the ultimate quest, to be rewarded by reunion for the "faithful", and the "faithful" are defined by their personal integrity. That this set of shared ideals is compromised by human failings is not surprising, and it is inevitable.

That one organized religion might possess a greater percentage of its members as faithful examples of its dogmatic beliefs than the rest is surely the case, but how are we to judge? And what would be the purpose of judging? Apostasy is a common thread in all religions. To point to one at a given place and time as superior will be useless in proving which religion that God works most in, since all religions, the older they get, have historical baggage relating to their lowest time when their people were behaving in evil ways and largely disowned their own doctrines. Islam, for example, is today being co-opted (again) by fanatics, yet that does not disprove the historical evidence that the religion was at one time far more enlightened (proven by learning and civilization which followed) than all the religions around it. Much of what raised Christianity out of its barbarism was what it gleaned from contact with Islam. And today, the reverse can be true, if Islam learns from the Christian past, and modern Christians don't forget what they already know about fundamentalism....

Edited March 13, 2013 by Questing Beast