“I Choose To Believe”

[mfbukowski]

Faith, catholics believe, is a gift from God. Jesus though almost commanded us to have faith and believe in him, so could it be that taking the first step and believing prompts God to give faith as a response?

Thats straight Alma 32- start around verse 16 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32?lang=eng

[Vance]

Regarding what's prideful/sinful about wanting to be like God--recall Lucifer's lie to Eve in the Garden--"you will be like God" (Genesis 3:4 ESV).

That wasn't a lie, it was the truth. Of course, he did follow that truth with a big LIE.

It not only was the truth, it is a commandment.

Lev. 19: 2 ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy.

Matt. 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father.

Matt. 6: 33 seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness.

John 13: 15 I have given you an example, that ye should do as I.

Eph. 5: 1 Be ye therefore followers of God.

[mfbukowski]

Well, at least you are willing to admit one of the serious problems of creatio ex nihilo. IF our will is the will that God gave to us, THEN it is inseparable from what He made it, THEREFORE, He is responsible for any desire we have to sin, THUS making God responsible for all evil.

Thank you for at least admitting the obvious.

Your logic is impeccable

[bluebell]

Good question. And I think you're half right. But do a word search in your New Testament on adopt/adoption to complete your picture. LDS in my experience overlook/disregard this critical aspect of the Christian Faith--that we are adopted as God's sons (and daughters). "For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith (Galatians 3:26 ESV)." Note how it doesn't say sons through birth or existence--but through faith. That's hugely important, no?

It's very important and a it's a very important doctrine in the LDS church-the fact that we become adopted sons and daughters of Christ when we covenant with Him through baptism.

It's not something that is overlooked in Mormonism at all and is very prevalent in the Book of Mormon.

But that doesn't negate the other scriptures (which Vance has already listed) stating that we are literal spirit children of God the Father. It was the Fall which made our salvation dependent upon becoming adopted by our Savior, but as the bible declares, God the Father is the father of all, not just those who accept Christ.

Regarding what's prideful/sinful about wanting to be like God--recall Lucifer's lie to Eve in the Garden--"you will be like God" (Genesis 3:4 ESV). If someone makes you that offer (and thereby makes full appeal to your pride): Find the nearest exit and run!

--Erik

Vance has already discussed this as well. You have to quote the entire verse in question and not just the first part to understand what is really being said.

Being like our Father in Heaven and knowing good from evil (the part you didn't quote but the part that explains what satan was actually telling Eve she would gain by eating the fruit) was not the lie that Satan told.

His lie was telling Eve that she would not die if she ate the fruit.

We know all this because we know that Eve did in fact gain enough knowledge to know good from evil (so that can't be the lie) and she did actually die (both spiritually and physically) so that part WAS a lie.

I have no idea how a promise to know good from evil would appeal to someone's pride.

[Vance]

Your logic is impeccable

Thank you.

[savedbygrace]

Of course, Let's ignore the verses that speak of a direct relationship.

Ps. 82:6 Ye are gods . . . children of the most High.

Hosea 1:10 Ye are the sons of the living God.

Mal. 2:10 Have we not all one father.

Matt. 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father.

Matt. 6:9 Our Father which art in heaven.

Acts 17:29 we are the offspring of God.

Rom. 8:16 Spirit itself beareth witness . . . we are the children of God.

Eph. 4:6 One God and Father of all.

Heb. 12:9 be in subjection unto the Father of spirits.

Why no quotes from the BoM, is the most correct book and cornerstone of your religion obsolete? I've noticed elsesewhere on these boards how the corrupt and unreliable Bible isquoted over and above the BoM

[bluebell]

Why no quotes from the BoM, is the most correct book and cornerstone of your religion obsolete? I've noticed elsesewhere on these boards how the corrupt and unreliable Bible isquoted over and above the BoM

Generally, when LDS are trying to show or 'prove' a teaching or doctrine when discussing the subject with a nonmember, we'll quote from the Bible because

1)-we believe it's scripture, the word of God, and just as valid as any other book of scripture and

2)-it doesn't make any sense to quote from a book of scriptures that the person you are talking to denies as being scripture. It works much better to stick with the scriptures that both of you can agree actually are from God.

For example, if I'm trying to talk to you about the necessity of baptism and trying to convince you that it is necessary for salvation, how impressed would you be if I quoted from the BOM?

I'm guessing your response would be along the lines of 'so what, those aren't God's words'. If I quote to you from the bible though, then we can have a conversation between us where we can actually discuss the verses and their implications. We might not end in agreement but at least we were able to talk about it.

[Vance]

Why no quotes from the BoM, is the most correct book and cornerstone of your religion obsolete? I've noticed elsesewhere on these boards how the corrupt and unreliable Bible isquoted over and above the BoM

So, basically, you have no valid response/argument to present so you go for the nitpick.

[Five Solas]

Well, at least you are willing to admit one of the serious problems of creatio ex nihilo. IF our will is the will that God gave to us, THEN it is inseparable from what He made it, THEREFORE, He is responsible for any desire we have to sin, THUS making God responsible for all evil.

Thank you for at least admitting the obvious.

Except there's been no such agreement or admission on my part, your eagerness notwithstanding. If you haven't, you should read Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. It was written near the end of his life, and if I recall correctly wasn't published until after his death (by his request). The last couple of pages are utterly chilling, and they are effectively your argument here (the admission you attribute to me).

I don't share his theology (to put it mildly)--but I still appreciate his gift. No doubt you would too.

If we want to discuss/debate the maximally powerful God of Christianity Who creates ex nihilo vs. the lesser deities (proposed by some) who merely organize pre-existent matter--suggest we have a separate thread for it.

;0)

--Erik

[Kenngo1969]

I think you can choose not to doubt (otherwise, why would Christ command us to 'doubt not').

And since Christ also commands us to 'believe' in different scriptures in the bible, it seems to imply that we can also choose to do that as well.

But, silly Bluebell, don'tcha know, Paul trumps Christ?!

[Kenngo1969]

I don’t appreciate the opportunity to eat a delicious meal any less just because my host might not have grown the vegetables from seeds, grown the wheat and milled it into flour before making it into bread, mined the salt, raised the livestock himself, and so on. I don’t appreciate any less the mastery of an artist simply because he might have bought the paint and canvas from an art store rather than making the paint from scratch or skinning an animal himself to get the canvas. I don’t appreciate good music any less simply because its creators happened to get their instruments from elsewhere rather than making them themselves, and so forth. If I can appreciate all of these things even though they don’t involve creation ex nihilo, then why am I, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur unable fully to appreciate what God has done for me unless I believe that He created everything ex nihilo? Just wonderin’!

[Five Solas]

I don’t appreciate the opportunity to eat a delicious meal any less just because my host might not have grown the vegetables from seeds, grown the wheat and milled it into flour before making it into bread, mined the salt, raised the livestock himself, and so on. I don’t appreciate any less the mastery of an artist simply because he might have bought the paint and canvas from an art store rather than making the paint from scratch or skinning an animal himself to get the canvas. I don’t appreciate good music any less simply because its creators happened to get their instruments from elsewhere rather than making them themselves, and so forth. If I can appreciate all of these things even though they don’t involve creation ex nihilo, then why am I, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur unable fully to appreciate what God has done for me unless I believe that He created everything ex nihilo? Just wonderin’!

What was that last sentence I wrote in post # 59 Kenngo1969?

;0)

[mfbukowski]

Why no quotes from the BoM, is the most correct book and cornerstone of your religion obsolete? I've noticed elsesewhere on these boards how the corrupt and unreliable Bible isquoted over and above the BoM

You only accept the bible so we are attempting to "speak your language". I guess it strikes a little too close to home when we do that?

[mfbukowski]

Except there's been no such agreement or admission on my part, your eagerness notwithstanding. If you haven't, you should read Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. It was written near the end of his life, and if I recall correctly wasn't published until after his death (by his request). The last couple of pages are utterly chilling, and they are effectively your argument here (the admission you attribute to me).

I don't share his theology (to put it mildly)--but I still appreciate his gift. No doubt you would too.

If we want to discuss/debate the maximally powerful God of Christianity Who creates ex nihilo vs. the lesser deities (proposed by some) who merely organize pre-existent matter--suggest we have a separate thread for it.

;0)

--Erik

Done a thousand times over, besides my God can whip your God.

Is that what you propose as a thread or are you actually willing to discuss the philosophy behind ex nihilo, which happens to be pagan Greek philosophy? I suspect not.

It always amazes me how Protestants always rely on Catholic medieval philosophy even though it was written for an allegedly "corrupt" pre-Reformation Catholic church.

The KalÄm cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a first cause for the universe, and the existence of a god. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the KalÄm tradition.^[1] Its historic proponents include John Philoponus,^[2] Al-Kindi,^[3] Saadia Gaon,^[4] Al-Ghazali,^[5] and St. Bonaventure.^[6] William Lane Craig revived interest in the KalÄm cosmological argument with his 1979 publication of a book of the same name.^[7][8]...

^..

.....The cosmological argument was first introduced by Aristotle and later refined by Al-Kindi, Al-Ghazali (The Incoherence of the Philosophers), and Ibn Rushd (Averroes).^[9] In Western Europe, it was adopted by the Christian theologian Bonaventure (See Craig, 1979, p 18). Another form of this argument is based on the concept of a prime-mover, which was also propounded by Averroes. His premise was that every motion must be caused by another motion, and the earlier motion must in turn be a result of another motion and so on. He argued that there must be an initial prime-mover, a mover that could cause motion without any other mover. One of the earliest formations of the KalÄm argument comes from Al-Ghazali, who wrote, "Every being which begins has a cause for its beginning; now the world is a being which begins; therefore, it possesses a cause for its beginning."^[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument

Gosh I don't see a Christian anywhere in that list of people who originated the theory, do you? You see any Protestant Christians in there except the apologist Craig who's job it is to prop up a sagging theory?

On the other hand we could discuss the Bible and the council of the Gods. I don't think you would agree with that either.

Best idea yet, let's let it go since it would be a waste of time for all concerned. Do a search and look it up if you are interested.

[Vance]

Except there's been no such agreement or admission on my part, your eagerness notwithstanding.

Oh, so you fail to grasp logic. That explains a lot.

If you haven't, you should read Mark Twain's The Mysterious Stranger. It was written near the end of his life, and if I recall correctly wasn't published until after his death (by his request). The last couple of pages are utterly chilling, and they are effectively your argument here (the admission you attribute to me).

So, Samuel Clemens grasped simple logic then. Cool!

If we want to discuss/debate the maximally powerful God of Christianity Who creates ex nihilo . . .

You mean the "omni" dejure creation of the philosophers of men?? (Who, by the way, is incapable of reproduction. So much for being "the maximally powerful God of Christianity".)

Have at it. But you will need to learn how to grasp simple logic.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Vance

[Kenngo1969]

What was that last sentence I wrote in post # 59 Kenngo1969?

;0)

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to derail your thread (at least, not intentionally). Apologies.

[halconero]

Belief is an outdated translation as far as our modern understanding of the word goes. What we understand it to mean, and what someone in the 17th century understood by the word are very different things. Right now we take "believing in something" as "not having an exact knowledge on the factuality of something I take the assumption that it is true." For the people to whom the King's James Version was written to they would have understood the same phrase to mean "given the reality that this something is true and real I will love it, pledge my loyalty to it, and try to base my lifestyle around it." There is no question of that thing's existence, whether or not you assume it's real, and so the only thing you can do is choose to swear fealty to it or not.

This is what almost every instance of "believe/belief" in the Bible means. It's unfortunate that the pejoration of the word has given many a skewed view of what it means to believe in Christ. We need to belove and believe in him (they actually come from the same word belieben).

So, Christ asks our loyalty, love and discipleship as belief. He, in turn, gives us a gift we don't even deserve: faith. The power to sustain our belief. I have a personal feeling that one purpose of the Book of Mormon was to restore this correct understanding of belief and the covenant relationship with Christ, something outlined quite clearly in its teachings.

Edit: This reminds me that the evolution of belief and its role in the sciences was going to be my first topic in a medical anthropology thread I started waaaaay back. Maybe it's time to resurrect it.

Edited August 4, 2013 by halconero

[BlueDreams]

I first used that statement when I was young(er) in a high school math class that strangely lent itself to religious discussion in class (all the time). There was an atheist, a catholic, a number of Baptists/other chrisitians, a number of JW’s, a Hindu, and 2-3 mormons (including myself). One day the Atheist stated that by being atheist his statement was in some sense more noble (more inferred than stated….and remember he was also 15 and that I’m remembering a conversation that happen 10+ yrs ago) than most people’s since the vast majority remain in the faith they were born in. I remember stating that I may be in my mother’s faith, but I choose my religion that at some point all people of any faith must decide whether they truly believe and then how they will express that belief.

I think that in order for faith to have any form of true significance it must entail some sort of choice by the believer. Either that or it lends to the idea that God is quite fickle. If belief is purely a gift (something that is simply bestowed with little/no effective participation on our part) we are left with the problem that many many people who do not believe are somehow left without this gift from the Lord. It makes God a respecter of persons. It begs the question of why would He give something to one person that is necessary for salvation while leaving another bankrupt of such a necessary thing?

Being unable to believe is also not a problem. It does not infer some state of unworthiness, purely on the grounds lack of belief. This choice is not groundless (or unfettered/freely decided). In other words you cannot choose to believe any ‘fantasy’ you like. I am not likely to choose to become Sikh or Hindu any time soon. Not because I thought it out and decided that I wouldn’t like to try on that belief structure, but because I have no reference for it in my life. Likewise I’m not likely to become atheist because the reference and grounds of my life negate such an option. Our choices are grounded in our experiences, our lives, etc…..this brings significance to our actions so that our choice to believe has meaning as opposed to being as meaningful as to whether we decided to wear yellow or blue this morning.

That stated I do believe, within my parameters, that I have a responsibility and active part in what ever good and true thing has become apart of my life: including my faith. Faith wasn’t something just handed to me. Nor was it something I decided to just put on for kicks. It was something I desired and needed and wanted. I recognized that something was missing for me to be happy. I found moments and hints of happiness in my faith, and I followed that. I sought more, received more, and continued one step in front of the other until my life filled with greater peace, love, and joy in Christ and his Atonement. It is no less a gift. In fact I would dare say it has become one of the most immeasurable gifts of my life. In choosing faith, I became faith. It became an integrated part of my existence. I am at awe that God would partner with me, such a mess that I was, into making something so much more beautiful than I alone could ever construct. In this giving of myself, partnering with the Lord, Him giving instruction/direction/spiritual gifts, and actively choosing to follow/build on Him, I become more one with Him. I become whole. What greater gift is there?

That’s how I see choosing belief.

With luv,

BD

[savedbygrace]

You only accept the bible so we are attempting to "speak your language". I guess it strikes a little too close to home when we do that?

Actually I am not the OP, so prior to now you have not spoken to me at all, sorry but I don't understand the last sentence. From what I have seen here the bible quoting has been LDS to LDS which is why i asked the question.

[BlueDreams]

Actually I am not the OP, so prior to now you have not spoken to me at all, sorry but I don't understand the last sentence. From what I have seen here the bible quoting has been LDS to LDS which is why i asked the question.

Can't speak for other LDS, but I know for a fact that I've quoted from all scripture: Bible, BoM, DC, and PoGP when discussing religious topics here. I usually quote from the Bible when topic or concerns are about the bible. And I've other LDS do likewise. So your statement still comes off a little rash in assessment

With luv,

BD

[Five Solas]

So, Samuel Clemens grasped simple logic then. Cool!

Well, yes. But read it & see where his logic takes you in the end. Might curb your enthusiasm, just a little

;0)

--Erik

[Vance]

Well, yes. But read it & see where his logic takes you in the end. Might curb your enthusiasm, just a little

;0)

--Erik

Why don't you just provide a summary?

Or better yet, why don't you attempt to refute my logic?

[Vance]

Regarding what's prideful/sinful about wanting to be like God--recall Lucifer's lie to Eve in the Garden--"you will be like God" (Genesis 3:4 ESV). If someone makes you that offer (and thereby makes full appeal to your pride): Find the nearest exit and run!

--Erik

BTW

This is an old, tired and well refuted anti-Mormon chesnut.

And it is OBVIOUSLY based upon a falsehood (or more acurately a LIE)!

So, either you thought up this lie yourself,

OR

You got it from a unreliable (a nice way of saying UNTRUTHFUL) source.

Pray tell, where did you get it?

[Vance]

Old Samuel got this part right.

a God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him! . . .

"You perceive, now, that these things are all impossible except in a dream. You perceive that they are pure and puerile insanities, the silly creations of an imagination that is not conscious of its freaks - in a word, that they are a dream, and you the maker of it. The dream-marks are all present; you should have recognized them earlier.

But his conclusion after this is a non-sequitur.

I guess I shouldn't expect you to grasp that fact.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Vance

[canard78]

In only a small part of that chapter, it summarizes all of what William James, John Dewey, Richard Rorty and many other philosophers have taken perhaps a hundred books to say.

Joseph Smith did not write that alone. No one on earth was thinking about truth in that way at that time. Based on those few verses alone, if that is all that I had of the church- if that is all there WAS, I would be a member of this church.

I would not and don't care a bit about all the alleged "problems" with its foundation stories or anything else. Those words were inspired by God- no possible doubt in my mind. Nothing else could possibly matter.

And since I had my own Moroni 10:4-5 experience, that is icing on the cake.

I think that's what's great about the pair... one half way through and one at the end.

If it's weren't for Alma 32 I'd presume that my several M10:4 experiences were just positive affirmations. They could still be. But if they are, they're a positive affirmation of something I am certain through repeated testing and experience actually work.