Okrahomer Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 27 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.3:6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men. Sorry, AMormon: the word "riches" is indeed found in the Book of Mormon, but not here. So, what about these particular verses convey the idea that "riches are good"?
Atheist Mormon Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: Sorry, AMormon: the word "riches" is indeed found in the Book of Mormon, but not here. So, what about these particular verses convey the idea that "riches are good"? Riches and those verses has nothing to do with eachother. The verses are promising us about stuff which will never be fulfilled through the thin air...No amount of prayers/promises got me anywhere...That was my point.
Okrahomer Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 1 minute ago, Atheist Mormon said: Riches and those verses has nothing to do with eachother. The verses are promising us about stuff which will never be fulfilled through the thin air...No amount of prayers/promises got me anywhere...That was my point. OK. Fair enough. You might want to revise the original post where you cite the passage from Mosiah--it seems you are saying it teaches that "riches are good." 1
Atheist Mormon Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 44 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: OK. Fair enough. You might want to revise the original post where you cite the passage from Mosiah--it seems you are saying it teaches that "riches are good." Sorry about that....
Popular Post Mystery Meat Posted April 18, 2016 Author Popular Post Posted April 18, 2016 I could completely understand why someone would leave the Church and lose faith in God when they believe that righteousness and wealth are connected. It would be like a twelve year old giving up on math because they think 1+1=3. It's just a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel and how it works. 5
stemelbow Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) On 4/15/2016 at 0:29 PM, bluebell said: Disagreeing with someone is not defensiveness. I don't believe it's odd. What is odd to me is to believe that mortal death means the same thing to the God of the universe (the Being who sees the entire picture before Him at all times) as it does to mortals (beings who can't even see what the next hour will bring or why). I don't see that as an issue. No one is claiming otherwise. But it was you who made the comparison of putting a crying baby to bed and death. When it's obvious there is more to death than that. As I said, we're given strong desires to combat death and we're explicitly commanded to not kill. There's no comparison. It seems you misunderstand. Quote Death, because of the Atonement, is not the enemy. It is always sad for those left behind (and that makes it horrible because of the sorrow it can cause-very real and legitimate sorrow), but for the person who dies, it's not much different than birth. They go somewhere else, somewhere usually better. Death, like birth, is just a door. Did we fight against coming here in mortality? Because obviously we fight against going heavenward in death. No one has said death is the enemy. I'm saying it's a different step than birth. You seem to suggest it is the same step as birth. It's different. Quote It's also not odd to me that even given all of that, God would not be o.k. with mortals wielding the power of death without His authority. He's not o.k. with us wielding the power of birth without His o.k. and death is just the other side of that same coin. I get where you are going with this, but I find the whole stretch a little on the defensive side. Jeremy didn't say much at all to elicit all of this, if you ask me. Quote I didn't say that Jeremy was after God. I said that Jeremy is trying to prove that God is evil (and he is). He has provided many examples to show, according to his beliefs, how immoral God is. He's said specifically that God is immoral. How is it unfair to view it in the same way that he has presented it? He didn't even mention God. It feels overly defensive to me. Earlier in the thread he seems far more focused on questioning the effectiveness of scripture, but upon reading scripture God comes off as contradictory and bad. I'd agree, if all we have is scripture to define Him, it'd be terrible. Edited April 18, 2016 by stemelbow
bluebell Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I don't see that as an issue. No one is claiming otherwise. But it was you who made the comparison of putting a crying baby to bed and death. When it's obvious there is more to death than that. As I said, we're given strong desires to combat death and we're explicitly commanded to not kill. There's no comparison. It seems you misunderstand. Did we fight against coming here in mortality? Because obviously we fight against going heavenward in death. No one has said death is the enemy. I'm saying it's a different step than birth. You seem to suggest it is the same step as birth. It's different. I get where you are going with this, but I find the whole stretch a little on the defensive side. Jeremy didn't say much at all to elicit all of this, if you ask me. He didn't even mention God. It feels overly defensive to me. Earlier in the thread he seems far more focused on questioning the effectiveness of scripture, but upon reading scripture God comes off as contradictory and bad. I'd agree, if all we have is scripture to define Him, it'd be terrible. I didn't make that comparison, a different poster did. I just said that it might not be that bad of analogy. JS taught that we are imbued with a fear of death so that we stay here in this existence for as long as we are supposed to. He said that if we knew what death was actually like, we would all kill ourselves to get there. Jeremy said that letting people die when you have the power to save them is immoral. "Elder Oaks' comments are immoral. If God has the power to stop storms like these (and clearly the scriptures tell us that He does) and yet He refuses to, He is responsible for any deaths which result. Valuing a Temple dedication more than human life is wrong." It was this and other similar statements (many said in the Fiji temple thread) that i was referring to. 2
Teancum Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 14 hours ago, Stargazer said: There's no evidence that Moses was real, nor even Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. Yes I agree. Thanks for pointing out how problematic some of this can be.
mfbukowski Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 (edited) 6 hours ago, Teancum said: Yes I agree. Thanks for pointing out how problematic some of this can be. Problematic? No it simply shows how irrelevant verifiable evidence is for spiritual beliefs. But even when that is staring someone in the face, apparently some do not believe it. You want empirical evidence that science is not relevant to spiritual matters? It is staring you in the face, but you still deny it. Edited April 19, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
Teancum Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Problematic? No it simply shows how irrelevant verifiable evidence is for spiritual beliefs. But even when that is staring someone in the face, apparently some do not believe it. You want empirical evidence that science is not relevant to spiritual matters? It is staring you in the face, but you still deny it. Really! Did I deny something? I just said lack of evidence for various biblical characters is problematic. And as I have noted here before many claim spiritual or metaphysical evidence for all sorts of things many here would reject,
Stargazer Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 4 hours ago, Teancum said: Really! Did I deny something? I just said lack of evidence for various biblical characters is problematic. And as I have noted here before many claim spiritual or metaphysical evidence for all sorts of things many here would reject, Well, it's problematic only if you need some kind of empirical/physical proof. There's little evidence for Jesus's crucifixion (no Roman record of it extant, if ever there were one), and none whatsoever for the resurrection. Yet still I believe it wholeheartedly. It's only problematic if you're not willing to take it on faith, or on a spiritual witness. 1
Buckeye Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 FWIW, here's another data point to consider. The LDS church has announced that of the 410 people killed in the Ecuador earthquake, 6 were members of the church (including a local leader): http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865652502/Mormon-leader-his-wife-and-daughter-among-410-killed-in-Ecuador-quake.html. 6 out of 410 is 1.5%, or nearly exactly the same percentage one would expect based on the population of LDS church members in the country. The church reports 234,606 members (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/ecuador) out of at total population of 16,144,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador). So 1.5% of the population is LDS. And 1.5% of the killed were LDS. At least in this disaster, it appears that God did not treat his LDS children any different from his others. 1
Stargazer Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 52 minutes ago, Buckeye said: FWIW, here's another data point to consider. The LDS church has announced that of the 410 people killed in the Ecuador earthquake, 6 were members of the church (including a local leader): http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865652502/Mormon-leader-his-wife-and-daughter-among-410-killed-in-Ecuador-quake.html. 6 out of 410 is 1.5%, or nearly exactly the same percentage one would expect based on the population of LDS church members in the country. The church reports 234,606 members (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/ecuador) out of at total population of 16,144,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador). So 1.5% of the population is LDS. And 1.5% of the killed were LDS. At least in this disaster, it appears that God did not treat his LDS children any different from his others. I wouldn't expect any different, actually. I currently live in the Pacific NW, where we are expecting a 9-magnitude coastal subduction quake any year now. I don't believe that being LDS makes you any less susceptible to getting killed or injured in such an event. I DO expect a certain reduced risk for lung cancer and cirrhosis of the liver, however. 3
Mystery Meat Posted April 19, 2016 Author Posted April 19, 2016 4 hours ago, Buckeye said: FWIW, here's another data point to consider. The LDS church has announced that of the 410 people killed in the Ecuador earthquake, 6 were members of the church (including a local leader): http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865652502/Mormon-leader-his-wife-and-daughter-among-410-killed-in-Ecuador-quake.html. 6 out of 410 is 1.5%, or nearly exactly the same percentage one would expect based on the population of LDS church members in the country. The church reports 234,606 members (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/ecuador) out of at total population of 16,144,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador). So 1.5% of the population is LDS. And 1.5% of the killed were LDS. At least in this disaster, it appears that God did not treat his LDS children any different from his others. I am not sure what this data point suggests or why it should be considered here. I don't think it adds anything to the topic, unless you are trying to say that this is evidence God does not intervene because some Mormons died in the earthquake. 1
JLHPROF Posted April 19, 2016 Posted April 19, 2016 On 4/18/2016 at 8:15 PM, Stargazer said: There's no evidence that Moses was real, nor even Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. Completely disagree.
Avatar4321 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 On 4/11/2016 at 11:06 AM, Mystery Meat said: Admittedly, I don't pretend to understand the mind of God. But there was lots of talk on this board about Him not intervening. I have direct, real and personal experience that contradicts this idea. There have been other times where I wished he would have intervened and didn't. I trust God completely to use his perfect discretion in a way that is not only for my eternal benefit (even if to my mortal detriment), but for the eternal benefit of all mankind. I likewise have personal experiences with the intervention of Providence. I wish I could explain why it happens for some things and some people clearly and not for others. I can't. I don't know all things. But I do know God loves us.
Avatar4321 Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 On 4/15/2016 at 0:19 AM, Stargazer said: I don't know if I understand it. But I definitely believe it! And I do know that from time to time God has clearly intervened in my life to guide me along radically different pathways than I had been following. The interesting thing (to me, at least) is that at each turn I had the ability to decline the guidance and go the way I wanted. From the moment that I first met a member of the Church, who introduced me to the missionaries and thereby changed my life radically and forever, to the moment I received my patriarchal blessing which motivated me to serve a mission, thereby again changing my life radically (I hadn't intended to serve a mission), to the decidedly odd ways in which I found both my late wife and my new wife -- again radically changing my life. The guidance has always been gentle, and I have always had the option of declining it. At how many other decision points have I declined guidance that would have led me in different paths? I don't know. How many have you declined? I have come to believe that God's Will is to be found in how we approach those inevitable decision points where we are offered pathways, and make a choice. A man I know told me about a time he had been nearly ready to decline such a decision point, when he was about to NOT attend a particular church meeting, but reluctantly complied with the Spirit quietly urging him to go. In that meeting he ended up meeting someone who profoundly changed his life for the good. What would have happened if he had declined the offered pathway? Of course he can't know it, but it's a good bet that his life would have gone on in the direction it seemed to be going, which was not a particularly positive direction. My late wife's passing from this earth was God's will. I am convinced of it. He could have prevented her death, but didn't. I am convinced that her work here was done, and that she was needed in the next stage. Looking back, I find myself in awe of her positive attitude at the news that she would soon be passing from this scene! I walked into her hospital room commenting how hard it had been to get to sleep that night without her with me, only to have her respond, with a smile, that I was going to have to get used to it! She had been told just a couple of hours before that she had probably only 6 months, that the doctors wouldn't be able to slow down the cancer's progress -- and there she was, cheerfully telling me all about it! Faith is not knowledge. Faith is stepping into the unknown, the darkness, trusting that the Lord is leading you in the right direction. I am relieved to discover that, in all my years in this life, that I have learned how to follow the promptings of the Spirit, and even to recognize them when they come! That is no small miracle, given that I am at my base, a very selfish person, who would love to go his own way. I hope someday to be able to learn to follow the Spirit like that
Stargazer Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 On 4/19/2016 at 3:49 PM, JLHPROF said: Completely disagree. Please enlighten me. CFR. Mention in the Bible doesn't count, by the way. I'm not saying that don't believe Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real people. Quite the contrary. But proving their actual existence in any objective fashion? Note that the name David, referring to the Israelite king, was not found in any archaeologically valid setting outside the Bible until very recently. If you can cite the discovery of a stone tablet or something that names Moses, that is also contemporaneous with Moses, then there's no objective evidence for Moses.
JLHPROF Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: Please enlighten me. CFR. Mention in the Bible doesn't count, by the way. I'm not saying that don't believe Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were real people. Quite the contrary. But proving their actual existence in any objective fashion? Note that the name David, referring to the Israelite king, was not found in any archaeologically valid setting outside the Bible until very recently. If you can cite the discovery of a stone tablet or something that names Moses, that is also contemporaneous with Moses, then there's no objective evidence for Moses. If you believe that Joseph Smith wasn't lying, then he met them, felt their physical hands, had them place those hands on his head and bestow priesthood authority. D&C 84:15 - Christ refers to Abraham as a historical person Also D&C 98:32, D&C 124:19, D&C 132:29,49. D&C 110:11 - Moses appears to Joseph Smith D&C 138:41 - Joseph F. Smith actually sees Noah, Moses and Abraham. Both Joseph and Joseph F. could actually describe what these people look like. They could tell you what color hair they had, shape of their nose, height, if they were artists they could probably do a portrait. If you believe they were dreaming, lying, imagining...well, that's a different discussion. And if you believe God provides images, histories, and visions and revelations of non-existent people, that's an even more different discussion.
bluebell Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: If you believe that Joseph Smith wasn't lying, then he met them, felt their physical hands, had them place those hands on his head and bestow priesthood authority. D&C 84:15 - Christ refers to Abraham as a historical person Also D&C 98:32, D&C 124:19, D&C 132:29,49. D&C 110:11 - Moses appears to Joseph Smith D&C 138:41 - Joseph F. Smith actually sees Noah, Moses and Abraham. Both Joseph and Joseph F. could actually describe what these people look like. They could tell you what color hair they had, shape of their nose, height, if they were artists they could probably do a portrait. If you believe they were dreaming, lying, imagining...well, that's a different discussion. And if you believe God provides images, histories, and visions and revelations of non-existent people, that's an even more different discussion. Maybe Stargazer was speaking strictly of secular evidence.
JLHPROF Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Maybe Stargazer was speaking strictly of secular evidence. Probably, but that is the least dependable type of evidence. It's so limited.
mfbukowski Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 5 hours ago, bluebell said: Maybe Stargazer was speaking strictly of secular evidence. Yep that's the whole point. I believe all that stuff too, and I believe it "really happened" whatever that means in the context of a vision and supernatural experience which cannot be verified objectively by definition. SUPER- natural means- wait for it- BEYOND nature. Not verifiable by natural means by definition. Pretty straightforward if you ask me. I believe that, and I can say I know it. I also believe in God- no I know God exists. How do I know? Because I have a testimony that I have heard his voice through profound feelings in my heart. That is direct experience, not objective evidence. You see the color red and you know that color is red. Direct experience. Someone asks you to prove you see red- you take out some kind of light meter thingy and show the angstrom units in the wavelength reflecting from the red thingy. You go to a table and it says that frequency is what humans experience as what is verbally described as "red" There is the direct experience and now you have objective evidence for the direct experience. When we have a thingy that measures the strength of the spirit in a testimony we will have objective evidence- not just my word for it- that I am feeling "the spirit". THAT is the difference.
mfbukowski Posted April 22, 2016 Posted April 22, 2016 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Probably, but that is the least dependable type of evidence. It's so limited. It IS very limited but pretty darn dependable if you want to get a space vehicle to Mars. On the other hand if you want to know what gives you peace and how God speaks to you- not so much. In fact, not at all. 1
Recommended Posts