Stuffing A Turkey Through The Beak: Leading With Doubt

[Questing Beast]

If we follow up honestly, and with real intent, after reading Moroni's exhortation, we will become LDS. We are back to square one.

Glenn

Not really. Plenty of good even great people remain outside the LDS faith after looking into it. Show me the inferiority of their goodness. If they die after rejecting Mormonism, and do not accept it in the hereafter, and believe in God or at least Good, and never knowingly betray their inner light, they are as good before God as anyone can be. The "vehicle" that is Mormonism may very well be a restored religion, and so was Islam to the Arabs, and Christianity to the Jews and later Gentiles, and The Law to the Israelites. Each "restoration" invigorates a segment of society wherever it happens. That is scriptural too, since God gives to the nations what they can receive. What makes you think that Joseph Smith's religion, and assertion to be the prophet of this dispensation, is essentially any different than Muhammad's assertion to be the "last prophet"? Neither one was exclusively correct in that assertion. Moses and John the Revelator made similar assertions about the ultimate nature of their revelations. Jesus Christ spoke to Joseph Smith in a way to get him to act, so yes the sects he observed around himself were deficient even abominable when they wrangled over converts, accused each other of heresy or worse, and spoke man-made doctrine as the word of God, etc. But the individual religions, i.e. people, within them all were worthy as they were true to their inner lights. To assume from the dogma that the whole world, past, present and future, must conform to this singular dogma to be "saved", is a grave mistake. It won't get you sent anywhere that dishonest people go, however, if you truly believe it and live by it....

[canard78]

Not really. Plenty of good even great people remain outside the LDS faith after looking into it. Show me the inferiority of their goodness. If they die after rejecting Mormonism, and do not accept it in the hereafter, and believe in God or at least Good, and never knowingly betray their inner light, they are as good before God as anyone can be. The "vehicle" that is Mormonism may very well be a restored religion, and so was Islam to the Arabs, and Christianity to the Jews and later Gentiles, and The Law to the Israelites. Each "restoration" invigorates a segment of society wherever it happens. That is scriptural too, since God gives to the nations what they can receive. What makes you think that Joseph Smith's religion, and assertion to be the prophet of this dispensation, is essentially any different than Muhammad's assertion to be the "last prophet"? Neither one was exclusively correct in that assertion. Moses and John the Revelator made similar assertions about the ultimate nature of their revelations. Jesus Christ spoke to Joseph Smith in a way to get him to act, so yes the sects he observed around himself were deficient even abominable when they wrangled over converts, accused each other of heresy or worse, and spoke man-made doctrine as the word of God, etc. But the individual religions, i.e. people, within them all were worthy as they were true to their inner lights. To assume from the dogma that the whole world, past, present and future, must conform to this singular dogma to be "saved", is a grave mistake. It won't get you sent anywhere that dishonest people go, however, if you truly believe it and live by it....

You keep saying the stuff that's in my head but with more eloquence and structure.

Thanks. I fully agree with this (I'll rep when near a PC).

[wenglund]

I really dislike this scripture because it is saying, to me, that we do things in order to get blessings and not because it's the right thing to do, never liked the comment from members...we do it to receive blessings. I usually never gave out rewards to my children because they should do something because it's the right thing not just to get something! But would give $ for extra jobs like mow the lawn etc.but not for cleaning rooms or the house. Can't stand giving rewards in primary to keep them from being noisy, maybe for doing something substantial.

Scriptures can often be dis-likable when we misread unpleasant things into them. The scripture I quoted isn't talking about motives (as you mistakenly assume), but about cause/effect. It is not unlike the saying in the sports exercise world, "no pain, no gain." It wouldn't make sense to interpret the later as meaning we should do things for the pain.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 16, 2013 by wenglund

[Ahab]

Not really. Plenty of good even great people remain outside the LDS faith after looking into it. Show me the inferiority of their goodness. ...

Define what you are labeling here as the LDS faith. We know the Terrestrial order has and will have many honorable people, and while they are more good than those of the Telestial order they're still not as good as those of the Celestial order. Glory is all about the intelligence or light and truth someone has or is willing to accept, and those who don't accept as much aren't as good as some others, even though they might be able to become as good later. Accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior is only our first step to becoming as glorious as we can be, and for those who haven't accepted Jesus Christ, well, let's just hope they gain enough intelligence to change their mind before it's too late.

[Tacenda]

Define what you are labeling here as the LDS faith. We know the Terrestrial order has and will have many honorable people, and while they are more good than those of the Telestial order they're still not as good as those of the Celestial order. Glory is all about the intelligence or light and truth someone has or is willing to accept, and those who don't accept as much aren't as good as some others, even though they might be able to become as good later. Accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior is only our first step to becoming as glorious as we can be, and for those who haven't accepted Jesus Christ, well, let's just hope they gain enough intelligence to change their mind before it's too late.

That's the thing, if they don't change their mind, they won't have it so bad in the Terrestial or even the Telestial kingdoms. The LDS believe these kingdoms are so awesome some might die to go there. Maybe we LDS have got it wrong, maybe there is a hell if we don't accept Jesus as our Christ and Saviour. We might be making it too easy, therefore no need to really try to accept Him. Like some EV's say we go to hell, maybe we should too, it might force some people to get a grip and find out.

[wenglund]

It's amusing to see the condescending thinking of some LDS leaders when it comes to other people who were truly great in civilization like Socrates. So God gave him morals eh? Wasn't he homosexual?

Thanks for that lovely snarl, Kerry. It not only uplifted me, but helped me see the "truth" so much clearer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

That's the thing, if they don't change their mind, they won't have it so bad in the Terrestial or even the Telestial kingdoms. The LDS believe these kingdoms are so awesome some might die to go there. Maybe we LDS have got it wrong, maybe there is a hell if we don't accept Jesus as our Christ and Saviour. We might be making it too easy, therefore no need to really try to accept Him. Like some EV's say we go to hell, maybe we should too, it might force some people to get a grip and find out.

All 3 orders of heaven are only for the people who accept the fact that Jesus Christ is the person chosen by our Father to be our Savior and Lord over all of the rest of us, with all of us being children of our Father in heaven. For some in the Telestial order, that fact may be the only thing they'll accept in their hearts, but they'll accept at least that much intelligence to be saved in the kingdom of heaven. Everyone else is who will be going to Hell, because while they may verbally acknowledge that was our Father's will they will still be in rebellion to that fact and not accept it in their heart while still wanting Satan to have been the person chosen by our Father to not only save us but to also be the Lord over all of the rest of us. That's what this war is all about, don't cha know.

Who do you accept, in your heart, to be the Lord over YOU, as well as who should be the Lord over all of the rest of us?

[Nathair/|\]

Is the cat on the mat? True or false? Can't it be both at different times? These things are relative to a context as are all linguistic statements.

Truth is relative to the meaning of the sentence- nothing more nothing less. This guy needs to read some of Wittgenstein's later stuff

Cats are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle made flesh. You can never really know what their status is.

[mfbukowski]

Cats are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle made flesh. You can never really know what their status is.

[mfbukowski]

It's amusing to see the condescending thinking of some LDS leaders when it comes to other people who were truly great in civilization like Socrates. So God gave him morals eh? Wasn't he homosexual?

Huh?

[Bikeemikey]

"There is a ^alaw, irrevocably decreed in ^bheaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all ^cblessings are predicated—And when we obtain any ^ablessing from God, it is by ^bobedience to that law upon which it is predicated." D&C 130:20-21

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thats a great scripture and I agree with it... although I get the sense you were attempting to undermine my position, not support it, correct?

I happen to think that the most important law is to live according to whatever revealed truth, light and knowledge we have received .. while also trying to stay open to new light and knowledge.

As is the wonderful case with scripture I think this supports my position, and you think it supports yours. We are both blessed when we honestly follow our different heartfelt convictions while being open to new knowledge. Even when our positions are opposite.

[Ahab]

Thats a great scripture and I agree with it... although I get the sense you were attempting to undermine my position, not support it, correct?

I happen to think that the most important law is to live according to whatever revealed truth, light and knowledge we have received .. while also trying to stay open to new light and knowledge.

As is the wonderful case with scripture I think this supports my position, and you think it supports yours. We are both blessed when we honestly follow our different heartfelt convictions while being open to new knowledge. Even when our positions are opposite.

Tell me more about yourself, Bikeemikey. Are you with us or against us? What do LDS believe that you do not believe?

This is not an appropriate question if you want to stay in the thread.

[Jersey Girl]

It's amusing to see the condescending thinking of some LDS leaders when it comes to other people who were truly great in civilization like Socrates. So God gave him morals eh? Wasn't he homosexual?

Not likely. Are you thinking of Plato, perhaps?

[Tacenda]

Gee Ahab, you're blunt sometimes, first it was...

To me...."Who do you accept, in your heart, to be the Lord over YOU, as well as who should be the Lord over all of the rest of us?"

And now it's Bikeemey...."Tell me more about yourself, Bikeemikey. Are you with us or against us? What do LDS believe that you do not believe?"

Edited April 16, 2013 by Tacenda

[Ahab]

Gee Ahab, you're blunt sometimes, first it was...

To me...."Who do you accept, in your heart, to be the Lord over YOU, as well as who should be the Lord over all of the rest of us?"

And now it's Bikeemey...."Tell me more about yourself, Bikeemikey. Are you with us or against us? What do LDS believe that you do not believe?"

Yep. I'm blunt. You're blunt. Lots of people are blunt.

So what do you say? How would you answer those questions, Tacenda?

Why don't you just share some more about what you think with all of us as bluntly as you know how to be blunt?

p.s. Don't you hate it when you have to edit a post just to correct a misspelled word? I sure do.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Ahab

[Tacenda]

Yep. I'm blunt. You're blunt. Lots of people are blunt.

So what do you say? How would you answer those questions, Tacenda?

Why don't you just share some more about what you think with all of us as bluntly as you know how to be blunt?

p.s. Don't you hate it when you have to edit a post just to correct a misspelled word? I sure do.

Yes, and you'll notice I'm always editing! And to answer your question, which is a very strange way of saying "do you believe in God?" Yes, I believe in God, but the other day was thinking some Alien might be God, or a very intelligent being. So honestly my mind changes all the time with my faith struggles, which is a big drawback, or not.

[wenglund]

Thats a great scripture and I agree with it... although I get the sense you were attempting to undermine my position, not support it, correct?

Not necessarily. I offered it more as a useful point of consideration that may have gotten lost or overlooked in the discussion,

I happen to think that the most important law is to live according to whatever revealed truth, light and knowledge we have received .. while also trying to stay open to new light and knowledge.

But, I would suggest that the law you mentioned is yet unavoidably conditioned upon the law of obedience or cause/effect that I mentioned. The law you mentioned wouldn't be important if living it invariably resulted in disaster. What may make it important is that obedience to it is in our interest--i.e. results in blessings.

As is the wonderful case with scripture I think this supports my position, and you think it supports yours. We are both blessed when we honestly follow our different heartfelt convictions while being open to new knowledge. Even when our positions are opposite.

Agreed. However, the "blessing" may come, as it has on many occasion with me, in the form of discovering that what we honestly followed as our heartfelt convictions, was mistaken (i.e. didn't work for our best), thus allowing us another "blessing" in changing our heartfelt convictions. Having gone through such changes enough, I am to the point that I have very few cemented heartfelt convictions, and am putty in the Lords hands.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

Tell me more about yourself, Bikeemikey. Are you with us or against us? What do LDS believe that you do not believe?

Sure. I'm early thirties. Served my mission in Taiwan and loved it. Served in a number of different callings through out my life... Elders quorum president, young men's, primary, most recently been Sunday school teacher just released and back in young men's. Grew in New Zealand.. Now live in USA.

That's about me.

Not sure about the with us or against us... Don't know who the us is to comment on.

Also not sure what the last part means... Ask two LDS for their take on a doctrinal point or scriptural meaning and get 5 different answers.

[mfbukowski]

Not likely. Are you thinking of Plato, perhaps?

You are very right.

In fact some even doubt that Socrates existed. Others see him as mostly a legendary figure though he is described in highly ambiguous terms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_problem

[Bikeemikey]

Not necessarily. I offered it more as a useful point of consideration that may have gotten lost or overlooked in the discussion,

But, I would suggest that the law you mentioned is yet unavoidably conditioned upon the law of obedience or cause/effect that I mentioned. The law you mentioned wouldn't be important if living it invariably resulted in disaster. What may make it important is that obedience to it is in our interest--i.e. results in blessings.

Agreed. However, the "blessing" may come, as it has on many occasion with me, in the form of discovering that what we honestly followed as our heartfelt convictions, was mistaken (i.e. didn't work for our best), thus allowing us another "blessing" in changing our heartfelt convictions. Having gone through such changes enough, I am to the point that I have very few cemented heartfelt convictions, and am putty in the Lords hands.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think I agree with all that...

I would only add that we constantly proscribe spiritual value to those who live laws that end in disaster temporally if they held on due to spiritual blessings.

As such I can agree with the middle paragraph if the link between obedience and blessing is limited to spiritual ... It becomes hard if we measure blessing by temporal outcomes.

[wenglund]

I think I agree with all that...

I would only add that we constantly proscribe spiritual value to those who live laws that end in disaster temporally if they held on due to spiritual blessings.

As such I can agree with the middle paragraph if the link between obedience and blessing is limited to spiritual ... It becomes hard if we measure blessing by temporal outcomes.

Good points. I have found that, on occasion, I have been at my spiritual peak when my temporal life has been seemingly most disastrous. However, I will be pleased if or when the two peak together, and for a good long time...though I won't hold my breath, and I will be fine nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bikeemikey]

Good points. I have found that, on occasion, I have been at my spiritual peak when my temporal life has been seemingly most disastrous. However, I will be pleased if or when the two peak together, and for a good long time...though I won't hold my breath, and I will be fine nevertheless.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed...

[Jersey Girl]

You are very right.

In fact some even doubt that Socrates existed. Others see him as mostly a legendary figure though he is described in highly ambiguous terms.

http://en.wikipedia....ocratic_problem

I know when I'm right. I've been down this Socratic road before. I'm not entirely certain what to do with the remark that was made regarding Socrates and homosexuality. I don't think that I can engage this more in depth since it would involve discussing ancient cultural practices that I don't think would be welcome on this particular board.

Not sure about this.

[Questing Beast]

Define what you are labeling here as the LDS faith. We know the Terrestrial order has and will have many honorable people, and while they are more good than those of the Telestial order they're still not as good as those of the Celestial order. Glory is all about the intelligence or light and truth someone has or is willing to accept, and those who don't accept as much aren't as good as some others, even though they might be able to become as good later. Accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior is only our first step to becoming as glorious as we can be, and for those who haven't accepted Jesus Christ, well, let's just hope they gain enough intelligence to change their mind before it's too late.

Why would it matter when a person accepts "God"? Is God in a hurry? Is the world under some kind of time constraint? Is God playing a game of "time's up"? Jesus Christ is Muhammad's God, Muhammad just didn't know it. Jesus Christ is everyone's God, they just don't know it yet. That is, if Jesus Christ is not a further creation of religious evolution, which theory is strongly supported by the physical evidence. The one fact that covers them all is that "God" is the Necessary Cause, and nothing exists without that Necessary Cause. A larger and, imho, more charitable view of humanity seeking Joy is that all individuals are intended to find it, no matter how "long" that quest takes, and only God directs those infinitely varied and individual quests for Joy. That comes from my 'satiable yet finite imagination, and I cannot believe that God is less charitable than I am....

[Jersey Girl]

Kerry,

Earlier in the thread you stated the following.

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.

I totally get where you're coming from with the above. I've done that for years myself. What I'm confused about is that every attempt I've made (I'm not really reading many other comments) to begin a dialogue that tests your assertions has been ignored by you. For example, the remark you made about Socrates and homosexuality to which I replied. You are so far off base with that, you're not even in the ball park.

Do you welcome challenge of the assertions you've made here or did you want the reader to take on a passive role? What is with what appears to be the hit and runs?

You claim to buy into testing assertions but you won't permit your own to be tested? What's up with that?

You up for it or not? How about let the folks know, who are reading and responding to your posts, if you're not, so we aren't wasting our time with this?