Elder Holland: Religion crucial to a moral, peaceful society

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Five Solas said:

It's a weird thing for you to be defending religion in such a generic, inclusive sense, Scott. 

If you think I believe Mormonism has exclusive proprietorship of all that is good, true and wise, you don't know me at all.

Quote

Do you really think "true religion" existed for James apart from Jesus? 

Of course not, and I have no idea why you would have such a strange notion.

Quote

Do you really think the mere state of being "religious" accomplishes good? 

I've already defined "pure religion" by citing the passage from James.

Quote

Let's not pick on Islam, let's take an example closer to home--the Native American "Ghost Dance" religious movement that swept across numerous tribes in the late 19th century.  Use Wikipedia if you're unfamiliar.  And then, please put it into context as Holland would have us understand religion & its benefits for society.

  I have no time, interest or inclination to jump through your anti-Mormon hoops.

 

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

What thing does most of these countries share in common?  Their peace and stability comes pretty much from America.  Take America out of NATO.  Let America look out for itself and it will not be long before these peaceful, stable countries in Europe become unstable.  Yes they can be peaceful and happy when big daddy protects them from Russia or Islamic radicals however that may not be for very long.  Secularism leads to a death spiral.  Populations get rich, they stop having kids, immigrants come in and take over and that is happening to Europe.  Secularism is a slow motion train wreak in Europe and things will change in the not too distant future.

You carried over the results from a series of polls about how people perceive their countries lack of corruption, peace and happines.

Did you notice that the US doesn't rank in any of these polls? People in the US don't feel their country is free of corruption. Americans don't view their country as peaceful or that it's a happy place to live.

Your solution then makes a huge leap in logic that the AMerican involvement in NATO is the reason why all these factors appear outside of the US. And should the US pull out of NATO, well, then, Secularian Europe will soon crumble and won't Europe will be sorry.

If the US's involvement in NATO is why European countries have less corruption, feel more peaceful and the people are more happy, why then do the people in AMerica not have these assets?

Maybe you should rethink your supposed link in cause and effect.

[Five Solas]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you think I believe Mormonism has exclusive proprietorship of all that is good, true and wise, you don't know me at all.

Of course not, and I have no idea why you would have such a strange notion.

I've already defined "pure religion" by citing the passage from James.

  I have no time, interest or inclination to jump through your anti-Mormon hoops.

 

You're inconsistent, Scott.  On the one hand, you argue for a big tent that encompasses all religions to be pitted against "secularism."  And on the other, you claim the Epistle of James as the centerpiece to your argument and concede "true religion" doesn't exist apart from Jesus (a.k.a., Christianity). 

Labeling me "anti-Mormon" won't hide the incoherence of your own position.  It would behoove you to give this board a little more credit. 

--Erik

[Calm]

I find Scott's comments very coherent.  Perhaps you should stop inserting your own assumptions on what he means into his posts.  That might help make them less confusing for you.

[Five Solas]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find Scott's comments very coherent.  Perhaps you should stop inserting your own assumptions on what he means into his posts.  That might help make them less confusing for you.

Obviously I can't debate what you find coherent, Calm.  That's for you & you alone.

:0)

But I would suggest that when a member of the LDS Church labels a dissenting viewpoint "anti-Mormon"--such a tactic doesn't come from a position of strength. Quite the opposite--it means the member is caught out & sees no recourse but name-calling.  It means he or she is losing, and badly in this case. 

Let our readers decide...

--Erik

[Okrahomer]

Scott's thoughts accurately reflect LDS belief and teaching through the years.  In 2006 President James E Faust gave a General Conference address about It:  In that talk he quoted this 1978 First Presidency statement:

“the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.”

I find this completely logical.  Why don't you?

Edited August 21, 2016 by Okrahomer

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

What thing does most of these countries share in common? Their peace and stability comes pretty much from America. Take America out of NATO. Let America look out for itself and it will not be long before these peaceful, stable countries in Europe become unstable. Yes they can be peaceful and happy when big daddy protects them from Russia or Islamic radicals however that may not be for very long. Secularism leads to a death spiral. Populations get rich, they stop having kids, immigrants come in and take over and that is happening to Europe. Secularism is a slow motion train wreak in Europe and things will change in the not too distant future.

Please watch the video, it is NOT the conspiracy theory, it is just basic history that all historians know.  

 

Edited August 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you think I believe Mormonism has exclusive proprietorship of all that is good, true and wise, you don't know me at all.

but what about religion in general? Can a person be moral without believing in God? 

[Bobbieaware]

21 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but what about religion in general? Can a person be moral without believing in God? 

This is all just rudimentary LDS doctrine. The Latter-day Saints believe even atheists and agnostics of good-will are influenced by the light of Christ, which is the enlightening and empowering spiritual influence sent forth from God to light "every man that cometh into the world." The Book of Mormon teaches that "all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen and there could no good thing come into them" Therefore, if an atheist feels inspired to sincerely love and serve some members of the human race, that inspiration to love and serve ultimately has its origin in God. An atheist may deny God with his mouth, but if he does good he unwittingly manifests the power and goodness of God through his actions.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[waveslider]

33 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Please watch the video, it is NOT the conspiracy theory, it is just basic history that all historians know.  

 

I agree with you on this point, only it runs oh, so much more deep. This just scratches the surface of what's really going on!

[waveslider]

29 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

but what about religion in general? Can a person be moral without believing in God? 

Yes, I believe a person can be moral without believing in God, if that person obeys his conscience, which is in reality the light of Christ anyway. That said I don't believe that there is such a thing as a Godless moral that is good.

[bcuzbcuz]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I assumed you had some degree of acquaintance with the Book of James. Perhaps I was wrong.

I was alluding to the oft-quoted passage James 1:27.

I misremembered the phrase. It is "pure religion," not "true religion," but they are synonyms.

This verse sums up the matter very well. Those who would care for and serve the poor and needy and eschew the stains and worldly wickedness of a godless society are not the ones who are guilty of committing atrocities in the name of religion.

I did not serve in a Lutheran mission. I served a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the land of Sweden, which, like other European nations, has a state-sponsored Church. Theirs is Lutheran. But I didn't take any time to study it while I was there. That's not what I was called to do.

And academic theories about the authorship of James are of no great moment to me. As a matter of religious faith, I accept the scriptural authority of the Book of James. 

 

I didn't say "on" a Lutheran mission, if there is such a thing, I said "in" a Lutheran mission. But I could have been more precise and said in a Lutheran land. Both before my mission and when the opportunity occurred on my mission, I studied the ideas of Martin Luther (know your opposition). It was wasted time because most Swedes are EC Christians (Easter Christmas). They still are. In the last school that I taught in (pre-school through grade 5) The principal organized the CHristmas program and the years end program in the local Lutheran (State) church. (The church itself is located east of STockholm on the island of Värmdö. Originally built around 1309, its wooden cross is from the 1300's, the altar from the 1400's. A witch was burned at the stake there in 1608) But the regular services on Sundays have only a dozen, aged, faithful.

I still read and study a lot. (Know thy enemy) That's why I recommended reading Bart Ehrman since his work on the four gospels is well researched, as is his work on the writiings of Paul. 

But I totally agree.  Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep (one)self unspotted from the world.

We may disagree about what it means to keep oneself unspotted from the world but that's a discussion for another day.

[TheSkepticChristian]

14 hours ago, waveslider said:

I agree with you on this point, only it runs oh, so much more deep. This just scratches the surface of what's really going on!

Mark Danner made significant predictions in 2003. What he said did happen. 

Conspiracy theorists don't predict anything. There is no secret new world order, and 9/11 was NOT an inside job.   

14 hours ago, waveslider said:

Yes, I believe a person can be moral without believing in God, if that person obeys his conscience, which is in reality the light of Christ anyway. That said I don't believe that there is such a thing as a Godless moral that is good.

that is fine! but please don't impose your religious morals on others. 

14 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

This is all just rudimentary LDS doctrine. The Latter-day Saints believe even atheists and agnostics of good-will are influenced by the light of Christ, which is the enlightening and empowering spiritual influence sent forth from God to light "every man that cometh into the world." The Book of Mormon teaches that "all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen and there could no good thing come into them" Therefore, if an atheist feels inspired to sincerely love and serve some members of the human race, that inspiration to love and serve ultimately has its origin in God. An atheist may deny God with his mouth, but if he does good he unwittingly manifests the power and goodness of God through his actions.

Would you ever vote for an atheist candidate? 

Edited August 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I didn't say "on" a Lutheran mission, if there is such a thing, I said "in" a Lutheran mission. But I could have been more precise and said in a Lutheran land. Both before my mission and when the opportunity occurred on my mission, I studied the ideas of Martin Luther (know your opposition). It was wasted time because most Swedes are EC Christians (Easter Christmas). They still are. In the last school that I taught in (pre-school through grade 5) The principal organized the CHristmas program and the years end program in the local Lutheran (State) church. (The church itself is located east of STockholm on the island of Värmdö. Originally built around 1309, its wooden cross is from the 1300's, the altar from the 1400's. A witch was burned at the stake there in 1608) But the regular services on Sundays have only a dozen, aged, faithful.

I still read and study a lot. (Know thy enemy) That's why I recommended reading Bart Ehrman since his work on the four gospels is well researched, as is his work on the writiings of Paul. 

But I totally agree.  Pure religion is to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep (one)self unspotted from the world.

We may disagree about what it means to keep oneself unspotted from the world but that's a discussion for another day.

I never considered Lutheranism to be my opposition. 

If there is a religious opposition to Mormonism, it would be the self-styled evangelicals with their aggressive hostility, their exclusivist appropriation of the term Christianity and their full-time, paid anti-Mormon "ministries."

 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[waveslider]

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Mark Danner made significant predictions in 2003. What he said did happen. 

Conspiracy theorists don't predict anything. There is no secret new world order, and 9/11 was NOT an inside job.  

You assume too much! I'm not talking about conspiracy theory. I'm talking about the creation of All CIAda.... I mean Al Qaeda itself, which morphed into IS, ISIL, ISIS, Free Syrian Army, or whatever you want to call them these days. I think you might do yourself a service and do a little research on following the lines of money and power, of recorded human history, if you think that Mark Danner has uncovered everything. He only just scratched the surface. Here is an hour and half long documentary that will give you a short cut on your learning: https://youtu.be/6R_HLMfjGC4

If you actually watch it, I'm quite certain that you could accurately predict more future events than Mark Danner even, or at the very least have a much better understanding or why things are the way they are at this time.

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

that is fine! but please don't impose your religious morals on others.

This is fine as long as the secularist/socialist don't impose their morals upon others as well.

2 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Would you ever vote for an atheist candidate? 

I doubt that I would, but it wouldn't be because of that candidates atheism as much as the liberal beliefs a huge majority of atheists have. I don't believe that bigger government and more regulations will ever produce anything of worth. The free market, if it actually were allowed to be free, would always do a better job of virtually everything that government does, as opposed to the crony capitalism of our society today. The government needs to be reigned in to serve it's purpose of the protection of our sovereignty, not expanded. I don't like being extorted up to nearly half of my income, to fund these failing governmental programs and the debt it creates, in the synergistic black money hole that it creates. If you think otherwise then just name one thing the government does that the free market couldn't do better, more efficiently, and cheaper. So unless you can find a really, really conservative atheist running for office, I don't see myself ever voting for one.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Obviously I can't debate what you find coherent, Calm.  That's for you & you alone.

:0)

But I would suggest that when a member of the LDS Church labels a dissenting viewpoint "anti-Mormon"--such a tactic doesn't come from a position of strength. Quite the opposite--it means the member is caught out & sees no recourse but name-calling.  It means he or she is losing, and badly in this case. 

Let our readers decide...

--Erik

The term denotes only that the person takes an active role in opposing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not merely disbelieves in or disagrees with it but actively opposes it. 

If you choose that role for yourself, man, wear the designation with pride. You've earned it. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

On August 20, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Five Solas said:

Obviously I can't debate what you find coherent, Calm.  That's for you & you alone.

:0)

But I would suggest that when a member of the LDS Church labels a dissenting viewpoint "anti-Mormon"--such a tactic doesn't come from a position of strength. Quite the opposite--it means the member is caught out & sees no recourse but name-calling.  It means he or she is losing, and badly in this case. 

Let our readers decide...

--Erik

When you label Scott as inconsistent, you are certainly not claiming it is your own bias, yours and yours alone, that is creating the lack of consistency.  My observation is as valid as yours.

As to "anti-mormon", there may be some who use it that way, but there are plenty who use it to label a specific type of behaviour they see as motivated by an intent to contribute to the demise of the Church.  It is absurd to suggest that it means the writer has no support for their argument any more than labeling someone anti-abortion, anti-choice, anti-semite, anti-gun, anti-fluoride means those doing the labeling cannot articulate well criticisms of those so labeled.

I am finding the number of times posters are informing the world the person debating with them has such a weak position they must resort to ______ tiresome.  How is throwing out that variety of accusation any better grounded in reason than what they are accusing the other of doing?

Edited August 22, 2016 by Calm

[Tacenda]

http://www.skepticmoney.com/religious-rights-covert-campaign-against-civil-rights/religious-oppression/

[Calm]

Not impressed when either side represents the other in extreme fashion or themselves in overly positive (heroic) ways for that matter.  Crucifixion?  Not even close in a symbolic fashion imo.  As bad as turning county clerk Kim Davis into a hero for sitting in her office and having her subordinates turn people away, but at least that was inflating someone and not degrading them like that cartoon.  

'It is not the intolerant stereotyping like the other guys are constantly committing when 'we' are doing it, but thought provoking commentary.'

Edited August 22, 2016 by Calm

[bcuzbcuz]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

If there is a religious opposition to Mormonism, it would be the self-styled evangelicals with their aggressive hostility, their exclusivist appropriation of the term Christianity and their full-time, paid anti-Mormon "ministries."

 

I honestly did not know that such ministries existed. Do they have any effect, at all, except to "rally the troops", their already true believers, and to give them some kind of common enemy to vent their anger against? I can't see any such group making inroads into mormonism, but I could be wrong.

[bcuzbcuz]

14 hours ago, waveslider said:

 

This is fine as long as the secularist/socialist don't impose their morals upon others as well.

 I don't believe that bigger government and more regulations will ever produce anything of worth.

The free market, if it actually were allowed to be free, would always do a better job of virtually everything that government does, as opposed to the crony capitalism of our society today. 

The free market...would always do a better job?

I'll give you an example where that is not true. Here in Sweden, the past conservative government changed the school system to where venture capitalism could enter into the education market. The idea was, as you stated, to create a free market system that would be better than the government run schools.

First it was the "gymnasium" level. That is the grade 10 through 12 levels of education. Privately run schools were set up that broadened the range of programs available to the students who entered the system. The initial steps were positive, because the antiquated school system in Sweden, at that time, offered this higher education to less than the total population and the choices of programs were restricted by old and stiff patterns of organization. Huge numbers of students opted out of the old system. These new schools offered programs like clothing design, computer animation and a free computer to every student. 

The new schools competed for student attention and attendance.

But being venture capitalist organized, the idea was to turn a profit from running a school. If a school failed to markey itself successfully, class numbers fell, teachers were laid off, whole schools collapsed.

All through this, the venture capitalists raked home bonuses in the millions (and in two cases, billions). Money that was previously spent on students and their materials and the hiring of qualified teachers, was now packaged and posted out of the country.

Now, 15 years later, and not before venture capitalists moved into the primary, middle school and pre-school markets, the system is collapsing. Sweden has gone from one of the top systems in the world (as judged by  PISA, Programme for International Student Assessment) to below average.

"Swedish pupils' poor results in the latest global Pisa education ranking, released on Tuesday, has pushed Sweden below the OECD average in maths, reading comprehension, and natural sciences.

No other country has fallen so abruptly as Sweden in maths over a ten-year span. Overall, not one of the other 32 countries included in the OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) survey has seen its students take such a beating in their studies. "

Finland, Sweden's neighbour across the Baltic Sea, instead of privatizing their schools has moved to increase the demands for quality educators. Teacher requirements are based on a master's degree. Finland during the same time period has moved into 2nd place worldwide.

So, does the free market improve everything??? You'll have to show some proof to verify such a wildly opinionated statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I honestly did not know that such ministries existed. Do they have any effect, at all, except to "rally the troops", their already true believers, and to give them some kind of common enemy to vent their anger against? I can't see any such group making inroads into mormonism, but I could be wrong.

Googling "ministries against Mormonism," I found three examples on the first page of hits alone.

I have no idea how successful such groups are.

[Johnnie Cake]

Quote

Scott Lloyd: CFR that Religion is crucial to a moral, peaceful society

5 days and still no reply to my CFR request other than to dismiss it...(as not worthy of you having to provide a CFR) <----My characterization

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

5 days and still no reply to my CFR request other than to dismiss it...(as not worthy of you having to provide a CFR) <----My characterization

I didn't dismiss it. I asked a valid question: To whom are you issuing the CFR? Elder Holland? As far as I know, he doesn't post here.

[hope_for_things]

On 8/20/2016 at 5:14 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Good news!  You have a Mother in Heaven as well as a Father in Heaven, neither of whom would have achieved their present status or stature without the other.  

Too bad the Mother is muzzled. I'm sure it would be great to have a conversation with her, but she's just too special to talk to.