Stuffing A Turkey Through The Beak: Leading With Doubt

[Teancum]

I honestly do not not believe in God. What I don't believe is all the theological assertions/speculations concerning God that are so incoherent, contradictory, and simply wrong. Theology has never gotten it correct, not even in Mormonism which is as messy, incoherent, and illogical as anything anywhere else. The real problem for us is that mankind has simply projected himself onto an ideal man and called it God. We haven't been able to make any coherent sense of it ever since. It's not God I disbelieve, but all the contradictory teachings from theology in the various religions. And all claiming that God told em that was the truth. God appears to me to be the ultimate author of complete confusion. I am just not able to defend the indefensible anymore is all. Spiritual communication is simply a manmade doctrine to keep the rest of us in line with whatever theology is being espoused through one of the multitudinous thousands of organized religions. All of them claim God through his spirit has told them the truth. So they cannot be trusted. And, if God were real, he can't be trusted either. So, well.....there ya have it. Dan Barker, the former Evangelical preacher turned atheist in his book "Godless," really tells the issue quite strongly. You wanna see a Mormon missionary? There he is. His religion is exactly like ours, revealed to him by God through the Holy Ghost, or Spirit and Light of Christ, whatever you want to call it. And I guarantee none of us would have believed him either. God hasn't helped anything once one just opens their eyes to the evidence of the many religions and their silly theological assertions that have no evidence. I am simply observing the evidence, and it's not conducive to God's reality, especially not the pronouncement that God has infinite love for all. That is just bald assertion and is directly and decisively refuted by the world we can see right in front of our eyes. If we can shut our eyes, plug our eyes and scream la la la la all day in order to proclaim such an obvious falsehood, then heck man, we can say anything we want about God, theology, as well as anyone else, and we'd all be correct. The fact is, we are all, everyone of us, simply wrong.

And the fascinating thing is, Mormonism has not clarified the picture at all for the other religions. It has ended up being just another voice in the cacophany of competition in theology and religion. It hasn't solved anything for the world. The world still believes its own versions of God. And why not? He revealed himself to them as well. Too bad he can't get the message the same for all. Perhaps it is the theology assumption that is wrong. Perhaps there is no uniformity of knowledge or understanding about God. You certainly can't find such either between the religions or within them. The evidence simply doesn't give us a justified, actual picture of a reality we label as God. How could it, since it is merely man presenting himself ideologically in his wishful thinking that things were not as they actually are. The problem is, things really are, just as they are. And this reality doesn't fit any theology in existence.

Kerry I lean much in amany ways towards what you write above.

If you still beleive in God would you say you lean towards Deism?

[bcuzbcuz]

I very much enjoyed Elder Holland’s talk today about faith. I felt he was spot on when he admonished us not to “lead with our doubts.”

“…when problems come and questions arise do not start your quest for faith by saying how much you do not have. That is like trying to stuff a turkey through the beak! I am not asking you to pretend to faith you do not have. I am asking you to be true to the faith you do have. Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not!”

Do any "here" disagree with Elder Holland? Why?

I can definitely see the merit in what Holland is saying. Even here, on this board, credence is given to an opinion if the person stating it leads in with, "I was once an atheist but now I see the truth." or "I left the church for a number of years but now have found my way back." Such declarations are greeted with accolades and honors. Such a statement should have no more merit than someone saying they were once a believer but now have turned their back on the church.

It is not the pathway that defines the traveler but the telling of the story that defines where they are at, that should be listened to. I have been to many witness meetings, for a great number of faiths, where the sins of the past are almost revelled in, by showing them into comparison to the glory of the present situation. It's like an AA meeting where the person that has fallen the deepest gets the most applause.

But as far as Holland's simile of "stuffing a turkey through the beak", it should be remembered when you eat foie grae, or Kobe beef, you are eating the force fed goose or cattle, where the food is shoved down the throat. Ill means can create a delicacy. Doubt is maybe the hard to swallow ideas that provide a delicate savor to the final product.

[wenglund]

I love it! This is what apologetics has been utterly reduced to, mere twaddle.

Ah, Kerry, my friend. Is this your best "Kevin Graham" impersonation? It's not bad, but it could use a bit more edge.

So because my learning doesn't end up with the same conclusions you or other Mormon apologists do, I am the one who doesn't get it......got it!

Nope. That isn't what I am suggesting. You didn't "get it"--which I find interesting given how much you pride yourself on being a champion of "truth.". So let me explain. Think of you and I as analogous to a couple of Reynold's Aluminum Foil customers. For years, customer "A" (you) has been using Renolds Aluminum Foil on his TV antenna atop his TV. But, lately, his TV reception has/t been all that great, and he decides to openly and honestly check into cable and dish systems. And, after trying several of them out for about a year, he noticing that the TV signal had been so much stronger and the pictures on his TV so much clearer, and in some cases in HD, than before. This astounds him to the point to where he publicly exclaims on a Renolds Aluminum Foil discussion board: "Renolds Aluminum Foil is crap....In fact, all aluminum foil is crap....Comcast is so much better than aluminum foil."

This, in turn, prompts customer "B" (me) to point out that while customer "A" has unquestionably been a long-term Renolds Aluminum Foil customer, he evidently doesn't get the real intent and purpose of Renolds Aluminum Foil--i.e. food preparation.

Now, customer "A" may think he knows better than customer "B" what is the real intent and purpose of Reynolds Aluminum Foil because he has been using the product for years, and he has been very adept at bending and shaping the foil to get the best TV reception possible for the product.

However, customer "B" understands that determining the real intent isn't just one customers word against another. Both customers can go to the company's web site and see what the company has to says is the intent for their aluminum foil.

I suggest the same for you and I, Kerry. Let's go to the Church's web site to see what it says is its intent and purpose. May I advise starting with the 4-fold mission statement?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 14, 2013 by wenglund

[canard78]

Do you have a scriptural reference for your assertions? Is there any other God for us but Our Own Heavenly Father? Os there another Savior besides Jesus Christ? Is the atonement of Jesus for only .5% of the population? Did Jesus lie to Joseph in the vision n the grove? Or did Joseph Smith lie about it? Or was Joseph Smith just mistaken about what Jesus told him?

Glenn

That's a really interesting question. You're asking for scriptural reference for a position of 'individual curriculum' for each person when I'm a member of a church that at its foundation was taught other churches: "were all wrong... that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt..."

A couple of points. First, I'm not saying that there are many Gods, I'm not saying that there are other Saviours and I'm not saying that the Atonement is only for 0.5%. I'm saying that there is one God, one atonement and one path back to God, one path to godliness.

I recognise that Mormon takes the approach of being "the only true and living church on the face of the earth." But I don't take it as literally as others do. So what I need to show is that God teaches absolutism on the one hand but that this absolutism is used as a tool "for effect."

We are not the only church that claims absolute truth. So if there are at least two that do (and there are much more than that) then is one wrong and one is right? Or are they all simply effective tools. Absolute claims for people who need absolutes.

Some people function very well without absolutes. In UK the Congregationalists will identify their collective approach to worship. Each chapel, from one village/town to the next, will have a slightly different approach to worship. A personalised curriculum, defined by themselves but, I believe, with some inspiration from the heavens.

So... references. As mentioned, you can't have many in a church that claims an absolute position else it would undermine the position.

Does God sometimes say things "for effect" that are absolutely true. There are many, many parables in the scriptures. True principles but taught in symbols.

D&C 19:5-7:

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

He also teaches that we will have equal judgement. I love Matt 25 for that message.

"15... unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one

21... Well done, thou good and faithfulservant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shallseparate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:"

Same reward for being 'sheep' under 2+2 or 5+5 and even (had he done it) 1+1 circumstances. Being sheep is simply a case of "being excellent to each other."

Elder Uchtdorf I feel shared an important message on this:

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/global-mormonism-21st-century/20-church-cross-cultural-world

Latter-day Saints believe in an ethic of divine approbation; to discern the will of God and receive assurance that one is acting under God’s approval are the ultimate quest of discipleship. This may be called Spirit-guided morality.

...

Latter-day Saints believe that all human beings are God’s children and that He loves all of us. He has inspired not only people of the Bible and the Book of Mormon but other people as well to carry out His purposes through all cultures and parts of the world. God inspires not only Latter-day Saints but also founders, teachers, philosophers, and reformers of other Christian and non-Christian religions. The restored gospel holds a positive relationship with other religions. Intolerance is always a sign of weakness.

...

(The early Apostles') real test came when God answered the prayers of a Roman centurion from Caesarea called Cornelius, a just man who feared God and was of good report, and instructed him to send for Peter to teach and to baptize him. After initial doubt and resistance, followed by fervent prayer and willingness to embrace divine revelation, “then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him” (Acts 10:34–35).

So no, I don't think Jesus was lying in the grove. But he knew the three decades of trouble and heartache awaiting Joseph. He gave him the right amount of information to motivate him to complete his work and mission. He gave him information that was fit for purpose. Joseph wasn't misled, he was well-lead.

I embrace the universalism found in Mormonism. The principle of work for the dead in temples teaches me that we are universalists. Whether the people in the next life really need the temple ordinances still hangs, for me, as a question. It doesn't really matter. What matters is that in doing the ordinances we are being taught that the Lord's salvation is available to all in many different life experiences.

Given the majority of our brothers and sisters were sent, by God, to environments with little to no contact with Christianity/Mormonism in this life, it seems He is happy for them to use (or even create) vehicles of their own choosing or making to travel the path back to him.

[Questing Beast]

...

And the fascinating thing is, Mormonism has not clarified the picture at all for the other religions. It has ended up being just another voice in the cacophany of competition in theology and religion. It hasn't solved anything for the world. The world still believes its own versions of God. And why not? He revealed himself to them as well. Too bad he can't get the message the same for all. Perhaps it is the theology assumption that is wrong. Perhaps there is no uniformity of knowledge or understanding about God. You certainly can't find such either between the religions or within them. The evidence simply doesn't give us a justified, actual picture of a reality we label as God. How could it, since it is merely man presenting himself ideologically in his wishful thinking that things were not as they actually are. The problem is, things really are, just as they are. And this reality doesn't fit any theology in existence.

I liked this post a lot. Especially the cogent line I bolded. Why would there be a finite "uniformity" that Is "God"? Infinite Necessary Cause cannot, EVER, be comprehended by a finite mind, or any collection of finite minds pooling their "knowledge" about God. Such a pooling would be obsolete the instant it was "published", because God Is constantly creating infinitely variable worlds and equally infinitely variable sapient beings ("us") inhabiting them. No matter how wild our imaginations can at times seem to be, nothing we imagine is anything more than the product of a finite mind - connected to the Infinite but still finite in function and capacity. So of course "God" is not going to be understood with any "uniformity of knowledge"....

Edited April 14, 2013 by Questing Beast

[volgadon]

I am simply observing the evidence, and it's not conducive to God's reality, especially not the pronouncement that God has infinite love for all. That is just bald assertion and is directly and decisively refuted by the world we can see right in front of our eyes. If we can shut our eyes, plug our eyes and scream la la la la all day in order to proclaim such an obvious falsehood, then heck man, we can say anything we want about God, theology, as well as anyone else, and we'd all be correct. The fact is, we are all, everyone of us, simply wrong.

You've been dismissive of the Givens' weeping God, but I feel that to be myopic. There is a God who weeps, he weeps since the world is not as it ought. He has planted within us the capacity for sacred discontent- the ability to realise that the world is NOT as it should be. This feeling of outrage should lead us to mend the world.

http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com/publications/detail/wonder-and-indignation-abrahams-uneasy-faith

[Jersey Girl]

Hi Jersey Girl! Hope all is well. Yes, I am continuing to learn, but my conclusions don't match group think conclusions, so I am seen as being whacko or better yet, now a mere, to quote Jeffrey R. Holland in a hilarious interview he held and got slapped silly in, a "Dodo." Nah, learning is fun, testing assertions and assumptions is absolutely necessary, and having faith in no evidence simply is irrational. If I have learned anything this last year it is that. God bless!

Trying this again. What evidence for God would you like to see, Kerry? What are your expectations of God?

[mfbukowski]

This, in turn, prompts customer "B" (me) to point out that while customer "A" has unquestionably been a long-term Renolds Aluminum Foil customer, he evidently doesn't get the real intent and purpose of Renolds Aluminum Foil--i.e. food preparation.

A just abso-flippin'-lutely brilliant analogy!

I would never have thought of this in a million years. I owe you a bunch of rep points for this one. I will undoubtedly steal it often! (and try to give you credit)

What is brilliant is the two uses for aluminum foil fitting so well. Love it love it, and indeed it is right on the money. He really doesn't get it and I cannot seem to even get him to understand this principle.

[canard78]

You've been dismissive of the Givens' weeping God, but I feel that to be myopic. There is a God who weeps, he weeps since the world is not as it ought. He has planted within us the capacity for sacred discontent- the ability to realise that the world is NOT as it should be. This feeling of outrage should lead us to mend the world.

http://www.jewishreviewofbooks.com/publications/detail/wonder-and-indignation-abrahams-uneasy-faith

The Givens' description of God, and their many varied but substantial sources to do so, is one of the clearest and most satisfying that I have ever read.

[Glenn101]

A couple of points. First, I'm not saying that there are many Gods, I'm not saying that there are other Saviours and I'm not saying that the Atonement is only for 0.5%. I'm saying that there is one God, one atonement and one path back to God, one path to godliness.

I recognise that Mormon takes the approach of being "the only true and living church on the face of the earth." But I don't take it as literally as others do. So what I need to show is that God teaches absolutism on the one hand but that this absolutism is used as a tool "for effect."

We are not the only church that claims absolute truth. So if there are at least two that do (and there are much more than that) then is one wrong and one is right? Or are they all simply effective tools. Absolute claims for people who need absolutes.

Some people function very well without absolutes. In UK the Congregationalists will identify their collective approach to worship. Each chapel, from one village/town to the next, will have a slightly different approach to worship. A personalised curriculum, defined by themselves but, I believe, with some inspiration from the heavens.

You have set out two opposing beliefs. "there is only one path to godliness and "A personalized curriculum defined by themselves."

The reason why I asked you for scriptural references was to find if you had any scriptural support for your beliefs. The Bible does have support for you belief that there is one Savior and one path back to God. It does not suport many individual curricula.

If there was no need for absolutes, there was no need for a restoration. If any ofthe extant or churches ofthe time provided the path back to God, there was no need for the restoration. Either, Joseph lied or he was mistaken when he said that Jesus had told him none of the churches of the day were correct. I know that jesus did not lie.

Glenn

Edited April 15, 2013 by Glenn101

[Calm]

You have set out two opposing beliefs. "there is only one path to godliness and "A personalized curriculum defined by themselves."

The mountain analogy can cover both at the same time....

The mountain is tall beyond imagining and as one gets closer and closer to its exalted heights the choice in possible paths narrows until there is only one and as one gets near the top, one is actually stepping in the footprints of those who have gone before, doing exactly as they have done in order to reach the highest point.

But on the wider foothills of the mountain and on its middle ranges, there are a multitude of paths that may lead one slowly upward though not as effective and quickly as the one, true path....the path that goes all the way to the top without deviation, the path which all those who lead closer to the top must eventually intersect with to actually get there. Some may need to leave that path for a time as they not able to endure the steepness of a particular section or need to build up their spiritual strength and endurance in order to make it up all the way and thus may take a longer, slower path for awhile (with the type of obstacles that they can manage and that push them in the areas they need to be pushed in to achieve a better overall spiritual physique), but the ultimate issue is whether or not someone keeps their eye on the highest point and does not allow themselves to linger too long or get too involved in the scenic moments or decides the leisurely pace of the foothills is too pleasant to leave or even worse, decides to wander off completely to see what is out on the plain giving up on the mountain as an impossible, impractical, unrealistic endeavour.

Edited April 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

The mountain analogy can cover both at the same time....

The mountain is tall beyond imagining and as one gets closer and closer to its exalted heights the choice in possible paths narrows until there is only one and as one gets near the top, one is actually stepping in the footprints of those who have gone before, doing exactly as they have done in order to reach the highest point.

But on the wider foothills of the mountain and on its middle ranges, there are a multitude of paths that may lead one slowly upward though not as effective and quickly as the one, true path....the path that goes all the way to the top without deviation, the path which all those who lead closer to the top must eventually intersect with to actually get there. Some may need to leave that path for a time as they not able to endure the steepness of a particular section or need to build up their spiritual strength and endurance in order to make it up all the way and thus may take a longer, slower path for awhile (with the type of obstacles that they can manage and that push them in the areas they need to be pushed in to achieve a better overall spiritual physique), but the ultimate issue is whether or not someone keeps their eye on the highest point and does not allow themselves to linger too long or get too involved in the scenic moments or decides the leisurely pace of the foothills is too pleasant to leave or even worse, decides to wander off completely to see what is out on the plain giving up on the mountain as an impossible, impractical, unrealistic endeavour.

Reminded me of the paths described in Lehi's dream, where people wander off onto strange paths and are lost. Not that they'll remain lost forever, necessarily, but for a while they're on a different path because they have left or not found the true path. From wherever we are, and wherever we go, I do believe we can on or get back on the true path, however long that may take us.

[wenglund]

A just abso-flippin'-lutely brilliant analogy!

I would never have thought of this in a million years. I owe you a bunch of rep points for this one. I will undoubtedly steal it often! (and try to give you credit)

What is brilliant is the two uses for aluminum foil fitting so well. Love it love it, and indeed it is right on the money. He really doesn't get it and I cannot seem to even get him to understand this principle.

I wish I could take credit for it. But, alas, it was inspired from above. When it came to me, I had the same reaction as you. Somebody upstairs is very smart.

I hope that it will finally register with Kerry. He is a great guy, but I think his new obsession with "scientific truth" is unwittingly blinding him to all sorts of "truths," if not also blinding him to what life is really all about. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The mountain analogy can cover both at the same time....

The mountain is tall beyond imagining and as one gets closer and closer to its exalted heights the choice in possible paths narrows until there is only one and as one gets near the top, one is actually stepping in the footprints of those who have gone before, doing exactly as they have done in order to reach the highest point.

But on the wider foothills of the mountain and on its middle ranges, there are a multitude of paths that may lead one slowly upward though not as effective and quickly as the one, true path....the path that goes all the way to the top without deviation, the path which all those who lead closer to the top must eventually intersect with to actually get there. Some may need to leave that path for a time as they not able to endure the steepness of a particular section or need to build up their spiritual strength and endurance in order to make it up all the way and thus may take a longer, slower path for awhile (with the type of obstacles that they can manage and that push them in the areas they need to be pushed in to achieve a better overall spiritual physique), but the ultimate issue is whether or not someone keeps their eye on the highest point and does not allow themselves to linger too long or get too involved in the scenic moments or decides the leisurely pace of the foothills is too pleasant to leave or even worse, decides to wander off completely to see what is out on the plain giving up on the mountain as an impossible, impractical, unrealistic endeavour.

Well said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Well said.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I've been using the mountain analogy for over ten years now....I think it first occurred to me when JJ on ZLMB told me I was lying and just wanting to look PC when I said I could imagine God leading someone out of the Church, but if not then shortly there after...mountains have been used as an analogy for the search for truth and/or God and even the setting for a literal search for a long time. It is a very adaptable analogy that can be expanded in a lot of ways.

The "all roads lead to Rome" does not match identically because Rome has multiple roads leading into it from all directions while a challenging mountain peak in some cases may only have one final approach and thus an analogy that limits it to one 'true' final path fits with reality and so is easier to imagine.

Edited April 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

I've been using the mountain analogy for over ten years now....I think it first occurred to me when JJ on ZLMB told me I was lying and just wanting to look PC when I said I could imagine God leading someone out of the Church, but if not then shortly there after...mountains have been used as an analogy for the search for truth and/or God and even the setting for a literal search for a long time. It is a very adaptable analogy that can be expanded in a lot of ways.

So true. I have used that metaphor, myself, over the years, and even yesterday in one of the threads (I can't recall which). Love it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

even yesterday in one of the threads (I can't recall which). Love it.

Your use was why I decided to use it again here since you had already laid the groundwork...I thought it was in this thread, but it looks like it is in the Holy Ghost one? Edited April 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

You have set out two opposing beliefs. "there is only one path to godliness and "A personalized curriculum defined by themselves."

The reason why I asked you for scriptural references was to find if you had any scriptural support for your beliefs. The Bible does have support for you belief that there is one Savior and one path back to God. It does not suport many individual curricula.

If there was no need for absolutes, there was no need for a restoration. If any ofthe extant or churches ofthe time provided the path back to God, there was no need for the restoration. Either, Joseph lied or he was mistaken when he said that Jesus had told him none of the churches of the day were correct. I know that jesus did not lie.

Glenn

But please notice that the true gospel allows for mistakes on these choices in this life which might be rectified later.

And it allows for line-upon-line progression. Now some sound like the radical Calvinist "born-agains" who say "Accept Christ or burn forever!"

That is false doctrine.

God's love is an absolute. God's justice and mercy are absolutes. His commandments are absolutes.

But at what period of our lives we learn these things and accept them is not an absolute. That is the whole point here. We get to choose what we think is the best that works for a while, and then make mistakes.

Learning about Godly things and eventually and repenting are absolutes. But on this side of the veil we get to learn it all through trial and sorrow and false stops and starts and making relatively better or worse decisions. THAT IS WHAT EARTH LIFE IS FOR- ITS FOR MAKING MISTAKES and just getting along as best as we can and seeking God the best we can.

Surely you see that. The existence of absolutes has nothing to do with there being an absolute about when we need to understand them. And after all eventually it says that EVERY knee shall bow.

It's only a matter of time.

[Glenn101]

The mountain analogy can cover both at the same time....

The mountain is tall beyond imagining and as one gets closer and closer to its exalted heights the choice in possible paths narrows until there is only one and as one gets near the top, one is actually stepping in the footprints of those who have gone before, doing exactly as they have done in order to reach the highest point.

But on the wider foothills of the mountain and on its middle ranges, there are a multitude of paths that may lead one slowly upward though not as effective and quickly as the one, true path....the path that goes all the way to the top without deviation, the path which all those who lead closer to the top must eventually intersect with to actually get there. Some may need to leave that path for a time as they not able to endure the steepness of a particular section or need to build up their spiritual strength and endurance in order to make it up all the way and thus may take a longer, slower path for awhile (with the type of obstacles that they can manage and that push them in the areas they need to be pushed in to achieve a better overall spiritual physique), but the ultimate issue is whether or not someone keeps their eye on the highest point and does not allow themselves to linger too long or get too involved in the scenic moments or decides the leisurely pace of the foothills is too pleasant to leave or even worse, decides to wander off completely to see what is out on the plain giving up on the mountain as an impossible, impractical, unrealistic endeavour.

There are a lot of mountains, and we traverse the paths through a mist, a fog where we cannot see the destination. We can see the path, as well as the branches as they come up. Taking any of those branches will lead us away from the only one that will take us to back to our Heavenly Father. In doing so,we may wind up on an entirely different mountain.

Glenn

Edited April 15, 2013 by Glenn101

[mfbukowski]

You have set out two opposing beliefs. "there is only one path to godliness and "A personalized curriculum defined by themselves."

The reason why I asked you for scriptural references was to find if you had any scriptural support for your beliefs.

Uh, what about Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4-5? We learn the absolutes gradually through our experience.

[Glenn101]

But please notice that the true gospel allows for mistakes on these choices in this life which might be rectified later.

And it allows for line-upon-line progression. Now some sound like the radical Calvinist "born-agains" who say "Accept Christ or burn forever!"

That is false doctrine.

God's love is an absolute. God's justice and mercy are absolutes. His commandments are absolutes.

But at what period of our lives we learn these things and accept them is not an absolute. That is the whole point here. We get to choose what we think is the best that works for a while, and then make mistakes.

Learning about Godly things and eventually and repenting are absolutes. But on this side of the veil we get to learn it all through trial and sorrow and false stops and starts and making relatively better or worse decisions. THAT IS WHAT EARTH LIFE IS FOR- ITS FOR MAKING MISTAKES and just getting along as best as we can and seeking God the best we can.

Surely you see that. The existence of absolutes has nothing to do with there being an absolute about when we need to understand them. And after all eventually it says that EVERY knee shall bow.

It's only a matter of time.

Oh, I agree with that. My life has been filled with mistakes, sidepaths that I thoght were okay, but which turned into dead ends. I had to turn around each time and find my way back to the straight and narrow path.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

Uh, what about Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4-5? We learn the absolutes gradually through our experience.

I agree that we learn the absolutes gradually, line upon line, and precept upon precept, here a little, there a little, until we eventually gain the total picture. The absolutes are still there, whether we deviate to a greater or lesser degree, we still must return to those absolutes that God has laid out for us. How does it go, "He marked the path and led the way, and every point defined, to light and life, and endless day, where God's full presence shines."

Glenn

[Bikeemikey]

Uh, what about Alma 32 and Moroni 10:4-5? We learn the absolutes gradually through our experience.

Where does either of your cited scriptures require absolutes. Alma 32 we move from faith to knowledge and Moroni teaches us the pathway to truth... Neither requires "absolute definitions" of either term as both are examples about private personal revelation. The truth and knowledge only needs to be relevant to moving an individual forward on the pathway to progression, such truths and such knowledge may or may not have universal applicability.

[mfbukowski]

Where does either of your cited scriptures require absolutes. Alma 32 we move from faith to knowledge and Moroni teaches us the pathway to truth... Neither requires "absolute definitions" of either term as both are examples about private personal revelation. The truth and knowledge only needs to be relevant to moving an individual forward on the pathway to progression, such truths and such knowledge may or may not have universal applicability.

No I agree. But even "no absolutes" is itself an absolute so things can get tricky. The Greek Philosopher Heraclitus spoke of reality being in a constant state of change, like a great river. But the change itself is an absolute. In Alma 32 the evolution of spiritual understanding is the constant- Alma 32 presents a methodology for changing oneself continuously. Moroni is similar- it presents a formula for achieving a testimony- not for one principle, but for all principles we will encounter as we become more perfect.

How many times when someone is getting called you hear from the pulpit "Well we know the only constant is change, and so we would like to release...."?

Everything is in flux and process- but life itself is the constant. If we can learn the rules of change we can perhaps understand how there are constants amid change. For example I think the "Golden Rule" is one such constant. All civilized societies require behavior to conform to it, and that is because a peaceful society is necessary for human life to prosper.

All of the 10 commandments are "eternal" because they are the Rules for promoting life and liberty itself. One cannot have a peaceful society with lying stealing, murder and coveting, just like one cannot have life and liberty where one is free to drive 100 mph on the sidewalk.

Animal life evolves- I believe- and this would be a constant- because it is a rule of change. It describes how and why things change and so you have constancy amid change there as well. There are many many examples.

Edited April 15, 2013 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

You have set out two opposing beliefs. "there is only one path to godliness and "A personalized curriculum defined by themselves."

You misunderstand me. One path, many vehicles to travel on the path. The path is the path to godliness. My vehicle is Mormonism. There are other vehicles.

The reason why I asked you for scriptural references was to find if you had any scriptural support for your beliefs. The Bible does have support for you belief that there is one Savior and one path back to God. It does not suport many individual curricula.

If there was no need for absolutes, there was no need for a restoration. If any ofthe extant or churches ofthe time provided the path back to God, there was no need for the restoration.

I'm having a similar conversation on the 'Holy Ghost/different messages' so there's there's a risk of repeating myself.

Absolutism as an approach and teaching method is necessary. But there are many absolutes taught. The believer in the absolute would need to believe that theirs is right and all others are wrong. That's what makes it absolute. Most in Islam consider it an absolute that Muhammad was the "seal (or last) of the prophets" (http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/033-qmt.php#033.040).

Muhammad affirmed: "The chain of Messengers and Prophets has come to an end. There shall be no Messenger nor Prophet after me." And "The line of prophets has come to its final end in me."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khatam_an-Nabuwwah#section_5

Given our own prophets have described him as inspired by God that provides two apparently contradicting absolutes. I don't particularly want to derail into a debate about Muhammad as "last prophet" - I was more interested in answering how there can be one God, one path and several apparently absolute but inspired vehicles to travel the path. Simple reason. Many people need absolutes and not ambiguity. One universal/global absolute (vehicle) would not be effective in mortality in our imperfect state. We are far too diverse a global family to cope with only one absolute.

Where is my support for this? Clearly a religion like Mormonism that claims absolutes isn't going to have glaringly obvious scriptures contradicting this position. It needs to establish itself as an absolute first!

I think I'm repeating myself, or said the same on another thread, but Matthew 25 teaches personalised curriculum: 1+1, 2+2, 5+5. But all are eligible for the same eternal reward. The third in the chapter says:

31 ¶When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

The sheep are taken from all nations and go into life eternal if they are deemed to have lived a life of service and compassion. That's what religion is for. To aid our process of service and compassion. There are many religious vehicles to do that and some are absolute for the people who need absolutes. But as long the one you use helps you double on your lot in life and serve others I think it's fulfilled the measure of its creation.

Either, Joseph lied or he was mistaken when he said that Jesus had told him none of the churches of the day were correct. I know that jesus did not lie.

Not lying. Giving the right information to motivate action. As we see in D&C 19:6-7, God is the perfect communicator. What a limited human mind might see as lying is simply God being "more express... that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory."