Are You Being Led Astray By Lds Shepherds?

[teddyaware]

Sometimes I wonder if you hear yourself talk...

 

"But atonement is about satisfying the law (which makes God happy), not about appeasing an unhappy God."

 

Is he unhappy (because we fail to fulfill the law a lot) or isn't he? 

 

The Book of Mormon teaches us that God is personally offended by sin.

 

And wo be unto him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus, and also to them whom he hath chosen and sent among them; for whoso receiveth not the words of Jesus and the words of those whom he hath sent receiveth not him; and therefore he will not receive them at the last day;35 And it would be better for them if they had not been born. For do ye suppose that ye can get rid of the justice of an offended God, who hath been trampled under feet of men, that thereby salvation might come? (3 Nephi 28)

 

The God of the Latter-day Saints is offended by sin. Enough of this silliness.

Edited December 18, 2014 by teddyaware

[mass168]

The Book of Mormon teaches that God is personally offended by sin.

 

 

 34 And wo be unto him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus, and also to them whom he hath chosen and sent among them; for whoso receiveth not the words of Jesus and the words of those whom he hath sent receiveth not him; and therefore he will not receive them at the last day;35 And it would be better for them if they had not been born. For do ye suppose that ye can get rid of the justice of an offended God, who hath been trampled under feet of men, that thereby salvation might come? (3 Nephi 28)

The God of the Latter-day Saints is offended by sin. Enough of this silliness.

I agree with you, JLH seems not to. 

[Calm]

I am playing catch up today as I have been packing for a move.  I just have one question.  Does God realize the impact of said doctrine/opinion had when it was understood by most believers that the blacks were sitting on a fence in the pre-existence..the impact being that we mortals generalized that into some sort of "black sheep" sort of thing when it was unnecessary.  I think of the many black friends that "scared me"...a cousin who was shunned for marrying a black man..and it didn't have to hurt so many people.   There are generations of LDS that have felt more than priveleged and said so.   Something is so wrong with this picture.

Not saying this justifies this, but if you are right in your portrayal, how is this different than the existence in the rest of the world of class distinctions, racism, etc.?

Is the whole picture wrong for you or just the LDS part and if just the LDS part, why?

[Calm]

mass, I am curious as to what you meant by "rejecting all free thinking"...could you clarify who you think generally does this that you were referring to that we on the board appear to be an exception to....

Edited December 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[mass168]

mas, I am curious as to what you meant by "rejecting all free thinking"...could you clarify who you think generally does this that you were referring to that we on the board appear to be an exception to....

I said people here do not roundly reject it. It was a complement to all. I think people who, in general say that all Christian creeds are an abomination are closing off their minds to thousands of years of history and thinking, regardless of if the Prophet said that or not. 

Edited December 18, 2014 by mass168

[Calm]

Are you LDS or EV or something else? Just curious and it would be helpful in understanding the assumptions driving your objections.

 

For one, you keep saying the Prophet said the creeds were an abomination when LDS teaching is that God the Son said it.

Edited December 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I said people here do not roundly reject it. It was a complement to all. I think people who, in general say that all Christian creeds are an abomination are closing off their minds to thousands of years of history and thinking, regardless of if the Prophet said that or not.

A rather absolute statement condemning people thinking absolutely.

Do you believe most LDS understand what the Prophet said Christ told him as "all Christian creeds are an abomination" and because they believe this ignore thousands of years of history and thinking?

(a good portion of people I know in general regardless of religious stance ignore history and the development of theology and philosophy, most not ever having heard of the Son stating 'the professors draw near to me with their lips, not their hearts and the creeds these teach are an abomination'....paraphrase of course).

[Calm]

As far as ignoring thousand of years of history because of rejection of traditional creeds:

"Perhaps the most complicating factor for creedal dialogue with Latterday Saints is that Mormons, unlike other restorationists, were not content to flunder in suspicion of the way the early Church absorbed Greek metaphysics. Instead, Mormons put the Platonization of Christianity at the heart of their critique of the ossifiation and corruption of Christianity. Something went terribly wrong after the age of the Apostles, they argue, and that something has to do with the theological turn toward a metaphysics of immaterialism. Far from ignoring early church history, then, Mormons are committed to an interrogation of the relationship of theology to philosophy that objects to nearly every development that led to the ecumenical creeds. They do not just raise objections, however. It is as if, as they follow the road orthodox theologians took to the creeds, Mormons pause to pick up the detritus that was jettisoned along the way. They recycle these discarded beliefs into a shining, novel creation of their own. [2]:86"

http://en.fairmormon.org/Source:Webb:BYUS:2011:6:Mormons_retrieved_early_Christian_beliefs_rejected_by_creeds

I would encourage you (mass) to read this article by a nonLDS scholar. It might help open your mind to new ways of understanding LDS thought and beliefs:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/journalDownload.aspx

Edited December 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[pogi]

I think people who, in general say that all Christian creeds are an abomination are closing off their minds to thousands of years of history and thinking, regardless of if the Prophet said that or not. 

 

Sometimes closing your mind to tradition, opens your mind to revelation.  Could the enlightenment have happened if it was not for people closing their minds to thousands of years of history and thinking, and thereby opening their minds to new and better thought?

[JLHPROF]

Sometimes I wonder if you hear yourself talk...

 

"But atonement is about satisfying the law (which makes God happy), not about appeasing an unhappy God."

 

Is he unhappy (because we fail to fulfill the law a lot) or isn't he? 

 

The Book of Mormon teaches us that God is personally offended by sin.

 

And wo be unto him that will not hearken unto the words of Jesus, and also to them whom he hath chosen and sent among them; for whoso receiveth not the words of Jesus and the words of those whom he hath sent receiveth not him; and therefore he will not receive them at the last day;35 And it would be better for them if they had not been born. For do ye suppose that ye can get rid of the justice of an offended God, who hath been trampled under feet of men, that thereby salvation might come? (3 Nephi 28)

 

The God of the Latter-day Saints is offended by sin. Enough of this silliness.

 

I agree with you, JLH seems not to. 

 

That is a gross misstatement of my opinion.  I NEVER said God is not offended by sin.  I said that God being offended is NOT the reason for the atonement and repentance.  And I stand by that.

 

To say otherwise is to say that God sent Christ to die for our sins because he was angry.  Christ died for our sins that THE LAW might be satisfied.  God's emotional feelings about our sins do not require an atonement.  The breaking of the law does.

 

So YES, God is offended by sin, but back to the original discussion point - that is NOT why we have an atonement or repentance.  You said

 "Why do we need atonement for sin in the first place? Because it offends God."

This still wrong.  Atonement and repentance are about satisfying the demands of justice and mercy.  Period.

Edited December 18, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

Sometimes closing your mind to tradition, opens your mind to revelation.  Could the enlightenment have happened if it was not for people closing their minds to thousands of years of history and thinking, and thereby opening their minds to new and better thought?

And rejecting creeds does not mean one closes one's mind to history anyway (see the quote in my last post).  One might be driven instead to study them deeply in order to see why they were so offensive to God so as to avoid the same errors.

 

I think for those who get upset by Joseph's quote of Christ saying 'their creeds are an abomination' need to be sure to understand how Joseph himself understood Christ's teaching of this.

 

It was very simple imo for Joseph.  He did not reject history, he rejected limitations imposed by the creeds that required people to close their minds:

 

“The creeds set up stakes and say, ‘Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further,’ which I cannot subscribe to.”

Edited December 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

To say otherwise is to say that God sent Christ to die for our sins because he was angry.  Christ died for our sins that THE LAW might be satisfied.  God's emotional feelings about our sins do not require an atonement.  The breaking of the law does.

 

So YES, God is offended by sin, but back to the original discussion point - that is NOT why we have an atonement or repentance.

It does seem very unlikely to me that God would require his perfect son to suffer and die because he was offended by all of us besides Jesus who was the only human who didn't sin, instead of forgiving us because of his infinite love and mercy. Why would watching his son, Jesus, tortured and crucified somehow make an offended God feel unoffended?

 

OTOH, that there was a law that required a payment makes more sense (though I am not sure that is the reason either myself).

[Jeanne]

Not saying this justifies this, but if you are right in your portrayal, how is this different than the existence in the rest of the world of class distinctions, racism, etc.?

Is the whole picture wrong for you or just the LDS part and if just the LDS part, why?

 

Not saying this justifies this, but if you are right in your portrayal, how is this different than the existence in the rest of the world of class distinctions, racism, etc.?

Is the whole picture wrong for you or just the LDS part and if just the LDS part, why?

The whole picture of course...but see, I don't think culture is the same as "gospel doctrine" and the outcome from God could have changed a lot of culture just in Utah.

[Calm]

I don't understand. If you believe that God chose to not interfere in the rest of the world's culture, why do you think he would intervene just in the Utah territory? Surely there would have been a much bigger impact if he had ensured the world didn't believe he endorsed slavery or wars of aggression or other things people have attributed to him over the millenniums (the British and others used the Bible to justify the slave trade which has so far had a much larger impact on the world than any inappropriate LDS teaching, for example).

[mass168]

A rather absolute statement condemning people thinking absolutely.

Do you believe most LDS understand what the Prophet said Christ told him as "all Christian creeds are an abomination" and because they believe this ignore thousands of years of history and thinking?

(a good portion of people I know in general regardless of religious stance ignore history and the development of theology and philosophy, most not ever having heard of the Son stating 'the professors draw near to me with their lips, not their hearts and the creeds these teach are an abomination'....paraphrase of course).

This should answer several questions at once, so anyone who has been commenting please read.

 

 

I see how it could come off that way you are right, my apologies. What I meant by that is that, while I do believe in absolutes, I also believe we humans are very challenged when it comes to knowing absolutes. I think we have to always allow the possibility that we are wrong, so that even when the Prophet says, all Christian creeds are an abomination, I find it extremely hard to take that at face value and say, well I'd better not think about any of those, they're an abomination. Some people do that. Those people are not all of the people on this forum clearly. That's why it was a compliment.

 

 

I am an EV. I was an LDS investigator for a while. I stopped being an investigator in the usual sense of the word, and have fallen into being some kind of curious, but sure of my EV beliefs. Consistent with the statement above, I am on this forum to continue to hone my own mind into knowing whether I am correct on the right path in life. And I did not lie in the beginning when I said I felt led astray by LDS shepherds. I did almost every single day I thought about doctrine as a true investigator.

 

I stopped being a true investigator because I found a Church full of paradoxes.

 

 

I found people who live and die by the Prophet of God, but have forgotten that means that we are required by scripture to ask ourselves whether his prophecies always came true, or if they contradict previous revelation about the nature of God.

 

 

I found people who claim to have the "most correct book of any on earth," with many "plain and precious truths" lost to the oblivion of this world. And yet, we find ourselves murdering the plain and precious language in verses such as Moroni 8:18 to make doctrine fit.

 

 

I found people who claim to have the "restored" temple and it's work, but it resembles the temples of the Old Testament in approximately zero ways.

 

 

I found people who draw near to Christ with their lips, but devalue his completed work by asserting that the physical actions of the temple are even still part of the New Covenant with God.

 

I found people who hold the Bible to be scripture, part of a set of standard works. And yet I can't remember a time when the old fallback of "as far as correctly translated" doesn't need to be broken out by the end of the conversation.

 

 

I'm obviously not saying ALL these things have been done on this thread. But I'm just telling you all what I found in general. Being an EV is not without doubt and confusion sometimes. The closest I have ever come to changing my mind about it all was over the concept of the trinity, but I have since found my own answer for that. If I had to take a wag, I would say being an investigator gives me bad feelings about 99% of the time, being an EV, about 1%.  Now I am of the school of thought that says feelings don't matter as much, but I think you can see from the list above it is not just about feelings, it is also about facts. 

[Calm]

"I find it extremely hard to take that at face value and say, well I'd better not think about any of those, they're an abomination"

I have never heard an LDS interpret the comment like that.

I think you are reading something into LDS teachings that isn't there.

Rejecting something as false does not equate to attempting to never think about it.

"but I think you can see from the list above it is not just about feelings, it is also about facts. "

On the contrary, I think it appears to be primarily about interpretation which may have little to do with facts.

Edited December 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[mass168]

"I find it extremely hard to take that at face value and say, well I'd better not think about any of those, they're an abomination"

I have never heard an LDS interpret the comment like that.

I think you are reading something into LDS teachings that isn't there.

Rejecting something as false does not equate to attempting to never think about it.

"but I think you can see from the list above it is not just about feelings, it is also about facts. "

On the contrary, I think it appears to be primarily about interpretation which may have little to do with facts.

I am fully prepared to back up every single one of those bullets on the Church or I wouldn't have said them, pick your poison? We've already done Moroni 8:18. 

[JLHPROF]

It does seem very unlikely to me that God would require his perfect son to suffer and die because he was offended by all of us besides Jesus who was the only human who didn't sin, instead of forgiving us because of his infinite love and mercy. Why would watching his son, Jesus, tortured and crucified somehow make an offended God feel unoffended?

 

OTOH, that there was a law that required a payment makes more sense (though I am not sure that is the reason either myself).

 

The law is simple - the wages of sin is death. 

[mass168]

That is a gross misstatement of my opinion.  I NEVER said God is not offended by sin.  I said that God being offended is NOT the reason for the atonement and repentance.  And I stand by that.

 

To say otherwise is to say that God sent Christ to die for our sins because he was angry.  Christ died for our sins that THE LAW might be satisfied.  God's emotional feelings about our sins do not require an atonement.  The breaking of the law does.

 

So YES, God is offended by sin, but back to the original discussion point - that is NOT why we have an atonement or repentance.  You said

 "Why do we need atonement for sin in the first place? Because it offends God."

This still wrong.  Atonement and repentance are about satisfying the demands of justice and mercy.  Period.

I am sorry if I misrepresented your opinion. 

 

How about this? Can we return to the presence of God without the atonement? If you say yes, I'd love to hear that expanded on. If you say no, well then no matter what word you choose to describe it, the atonement can be viewed as allowing us to return to fellowship with Him, and that's the point I have been trying to make ever since the beginning of this rabbit trail. 

[mass168]

The law is simple - the wages of sin is death. 

Fantastic. Well said. I love the second half of that verse as well  

Edited December 18, 2014 by mass168

[JLHPROF]

I am sorry if I misrepresented your opinion. 

 

How about this? Can we return to the presence of God without the atonement? If you say yes, I'd love to hear that expanded on. If you say no, well then no matter what word you choose to describe it, the atonement can be viewed as allowing us to return to fellowship with Him, and that's the point I have been trying to make ever since the beginning of this rabbit trail. 

 

Of course not.  We NEED the atonement to satisfy the demands of justice that keep us out of God's presence.  It is not the claim that the atonement allows us to return to fellowship that I have spoken against.  It was the claim that the atonement was only necessary to appease God's offended sensibilities instead of to satisfy law.  That would make a mockery of the atonement.

 

But thank you for recognizing my opinion more accurately.

[Calm]

I am fully prepared to back up every single one of those bullets on the Church or I wouldn't have said them, pick your poison? We've already done Moroni 8:18.

Given what you've posted so far I see no reason to accept your interpretations of LDS beliefs over what I've actually been taught. One thing I don't waste too much time on is people who insist they know my faith better than the actual believers.

[Mars]

I am fully prepared to back up every single one of those bullets on the Church or I wouldn't have said them, pick your poison? We've already done Moroni 8:18. 

 

I am perturbed you purport to know what the Book of Mormon means better than I do.

 

Mid post edit:  Nevermind.  Calmoriah already said it.

[mass168]

Given what you've posted so far I see no reason to accept your interpretations of LDS beliefs over what I've actually been taught. One thing I don't waste too much time on is people who insist they know my faith better than the actual believers.

Ok fair enough, I suppose.. What you haven't done though is give any rational justification for what I said. Unless by rational you mean throwing out the dictionary and saying that an unchangeable being is changeable. It's plain and precious, and it's right there for me to read.  How can I not understand it as well as you? I'm seriously dying to understand that. 

[mass168]

Of course not.  We NEED the atonement to satisfy the demands of justice that keep us out of God's presence.  It is not the claim that the atonement allows us to return to fellowship that I have spoken against.  It was the claim that the atonement was only necessary to appease God's offended sensibilities instead of to satisfy law.  That would make a mockery of the atonement.

 

But thank you for recognizing my opinion more accurately.

You're welcome.

 

God is the lawgiver. Are your sensibilities not offended when your children disobey your laws? 

Edited December 18, 2014 by mass168