rongo Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Duncan said: Elias isn't mentioned in DC 84. It says Esaias was blessed "of him" maybe it means not "by him"? Maybe Abraham died before he could be blessed by him or was busy with Isaac I know that. I'm suggesting that the Elias restoring the keys of the dispensation of Abraham in D&C 110 might be the Esaias in D&C 84 who was blessed by Abraham (but was ordained by God). 1
DBMormon Posted October 15, 2016 Author Posted October 15, 2016 25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Also just to be on the record. I believe John Shelby Spong is as authentic a Christian as one will find.
JLHPROF Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 5 hours ago, RevTestament said: Thank you for the effort. I don't feel too convinced tho. I've always interpreted that Elias as Elijah who would return before the great and dreadful day of the Lord per Malachi. Well that doesn't make much sense since after Elias appeared (vs 12), Elijah appeared per Malachi (vs 13). Clearly not the same person.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, DBMormon said: Also just to be on the record. I believe John Shelby Spong is as authentic a Christian as one will find. A wonderful, nice man. I have met several just like him, though few are as brilliant. However, it does no good for him to leave in his wake the empty pews of his denomination. What did he fail to understand? Both he and White are so busy pushing their ideological personal agendas that they have forgotten that the truth is primary. You refer to Spong as an "authentic Christian," but by what measure? Does that mean authentic Episcopal priest? Does that mean someone who is kind and highly moral? Or does it mean that he is an authentic first century Christian? Does that mean a theological Christian in some sense?
Bobbieaware Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) On 10/13/2016 at 4:31 PM, DBMormon said: Let me set this up. I completely get that mileage will vary in terms of how people weigh evidence on any side of any issue. I grant that. I also am not speaking of true or untrue as something can be implausible to someone and still true and something can. Rather I want to see why you choose to weigh certain evidence differently then other evidence. In setting this up I will share my personal perspective and see how you differ. For me when I look at some of the difficult issues here is where I come down - Informed to whatever extent I am on biblical scholarship - I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. - I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author. - I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished. - I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. - Based on a survey done and its results, using spiritual experiences seems an ineffective way to tell which church is true. Also in line with this I find the Holy Ghost to be an ineffective way to discern "T" Truth. perhaps beauty, goodness or even lower case "t" truth. Let me finish by saying there are dozens more. I think this is what many of the scholars are pointing to when they speak of Mormonism having to redefine itself, or redefine key parts of its theology, or that the dominant narrative is not true. Mason, Hardy, the Givens, the Bushmans, Miller, Thomas McConkie and others seem to one degree or another be telling us the current narrative as held doesn't hold up. Yet many members of the church including many here hold firmly that these things either mean nothing or they simply don't buy into them. On the other hand there are many Latter-day Saints who want to hold onto Mormonism but logically are arriving at the same conclusions I have. Here are my questions - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? Other thoughts or questions? Again this is not about the Church being true but rather the motivation we each feel to make it work or fit or the motivation to find new ways to reconcile what simply cant fit for us. I have a simple question that, one way or another, will quickly end the angst of one who is struggling In the manner you seem to be struggling. Here's the question: Do you you believe at the time of the Second Coming of Christ millions of now-deceased human beings -- most of whom have turned to dust -- are going to be miraculously raised from the dead, en masse, in the twinkling of an eye, to glorious immortality? If against all science one believes the millions of these dead are indeed going to be literally raised from death to glorious physical immortality, then that man clearly demonstrates he has the capacity to believe in a miracle that's much more difficult to pull off than the confusion of tongues. So then he can begin to relax his weary mind and start to trust by faith that God can produce mighty miracles and then he can engage in a hope-filled process of leaving his nagging doubts behind. But if that man doesn't believe a mighty miracle, such as the universal resurrection of the dead, can take place then it might be time for him to reflect on why he wants to be continue part of a religion that believes mighty miracles have and will continue to occur. Why should such a man make himself frustrated, miserable and exhausted by endlessly swimming upstream against a hard current? I'm wondering if it's wrong to suggest such a man might want to find a place where he can be comfortable with his beliefs, or lack thereof? This seems to be a better strategy than futilely trying to convince many orthodox and faithful believers to no longer believe the miracles testified to in the scriptures. Edited October 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware
Tacenda Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I have spent half my life listening to and respecting non-Mormons, some of whom are blatant anti-Mormons. I have paid close attention to what they say and do. I did not grow up in Utah, and did not live my life in communities insulated from other viewpoints. You can take me to task any time you like, Tacenda. I don't mind. My judgments on Bill Reel's understanding of the issues is based what he actually says here on this board. I haven't forgotten that about you. But glad for the reminder. It just seemed like you appear to not have listened to any of Bill's podcasts, in which he'll usually provide a transcript or lengthy essay that describes it. Or maybe you have. Where does that all come from? He must do quite a bit of reading. You could sure say that about me though. I don't study like I should.
rongo Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: I have a simple question that, one way or another, will quickly end the angst of one who is struggling In the manner you seem to be struggling. Here's the question: That's a good point. If you believe in the resurrection, then any of the supposed scientific stumpers pale dramatically. The problem is, I don't think most of the people who really want the Church to allegorize everything as "inspired metaphor" actually believe in a physical resurrection.
BlueDreams Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 On 10/13/2016 at 2:31 PM, DBMormon said: Let me set this up. I completely get that mileage will vary in terms of how people weigh evidence on any side of any issue. I grant that. I also am not speaking of true or untrue as something can be implausible to someone and still true and something can. Rather I want to see why you choose to weigh certain evidence differently then other evidence. In setting this up I will share my personal perspective and see how you differ. For me when I look at some of the difficult issues here is where I come down - Informed to whatever extent I am on biblical scholarship - I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. - I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author. - I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished. - I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. - Based on a survey done and its results, using spiritual experiences seems an ineffective way to tell which church is true. Also in line with this I find the Holy Ghost to be an ineffective way to discern "T" Truth. perhaps beauty, goodness or even lower case "t" truth. Let me finish by saying there are dozens more. I think this is what many of the scholars are pointing to when they speak of Mormonism having to redefine itself, or redefine key parts of its theology, or that the dominant narrative is not true. Mason, Hardy, the Givens, the Bushmans, Miller, Thomas McConkie and others seem to one degree or another be telling us the current narrative as held doesn't hold up. Yet many members of the church including many here hold firmly that these things either mean nothing or they simply don't buy into them. On the other hand there are many Latter-day Saints who want to hold onto Mormonism but logically are arriving at the same conclusions I have. Here are my questions - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? Other thoughts or questions? On the first part I don't know if I'll ever get why these would effect my faith one way or another. Why would I care if Isaiah was made by more than one author? I already knew the stories in the OT are probably embellished. I think we have whole tenets about imperfect scripture. Besides I don't need everything to be concrete and in a perfect bow. I don't need the prophets today to all be Moses or Abraham, etc. I mean do we really want a repeat of Samuel taking a sword and stabbing through a person to make the point that obedience is better than sacrifice?? There were also a number of "quieter" prophets. Who did what they were called to do, namely proclaim of Christ. And I believe in their call and that's enough. And a survey to make a generalizing assertions about how dependable is the spirit seems a sloppy way to really understand spiritual complexities. It is not enough to reduce it and try to squeeze it into a medium that it was never meant to be understood with. So no, I do not find the contradictory evidence to my conclusion compelling. For one the narrative that I hear at least a little (not much, I'm not super philosophical in many regards) is one of absolutism. I feel as though I watch many swing across a pendulum of needing absolutes and either/or's. It leaves either an over-simplified faith message or an an overwhelmed doubt message. It's not something I've ever been good at understanding. Nothing in my life has been perfect. It's has been a messy complicated ride that in God has been made beautiful. The Church is the same to me. It's a messy complicated ride. The process to zion in any society has been messy. But it does not make the purpose of it false or weak. It doesn't default its call and work. So saying this hasn't been compelling is an understatement. I often find myself thinking about the vision of the Tree of Life and how the partakers "heeded them not" as they enjoyed the fruits of the Gospel. It isn't that my head is buried in the sand. It just doesn't hold a candle to the gospel truth that is not simply a knowledge or "Truth" to me, but an experience beyond comparison. I don't know if I would use the words my "spiritual experience with Mormonism." It's clunky and the wrong direction to what my primary experience has been with through the medium of mormonism (ie. God/Christ). It's like asking if your experience in the vehicle during a road trip around Hawaii trumped the fact that you had to share the ride with sometimes annoying passengers and a pricey insurance that your friend insisted you take. Who cares! You're in Hawaii! You're missing the point of the trip by focusing on periphery details. I think that in some way answers all but this question: Quote - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? That could be complicated. I honestly think there are those that got positive affirmations because that's where God needed them. I'm ok with that. I also know that insisting you have an answer doesn't necessarily make it so. I've had times where the Spirit refuses to testify, testifies of some what is said, and entirely confirms the goodness of another's spiritual experiences or answers. I've never thought that God spoke solely to mormons. One that I believe was specifically led was a man in the AME church as a pastor that I met. He had lived and worked in his church with an honest and pure heart. He worked to live the gospel and followed truth. If I had to guess he would have been certain at least at one point that he needed to be apart of the AME church....that being a pastor is what God wanted him. And he was right...the Spirit consistently testified of that what he had been doing for decades was the work of the Lord. In the twilight of his years he was baptized in the the LDS fold. Just that we have a special call and that the ordinances and power is from God and is unique/singular on earth. Still it isn't simply ordination or temples that hold the work of God. It is faith. And all may have that, mormon or no. Quote Again this is not about the Church being true but rather the motivation we each feel to make it work or fit or the motivation to find new ways to reconcile what simply cant fit for us. My motivation is the change to my soul over the years. It is seeing and hearing God more clearly. It is knowing and seeing that the ordinances have power to help magnify our work on the earth. It is a soul at peace that isn't moved easily. Its living on a more personal scale with contradictions or things that don't make since only to have them do so over time or be made beautiful in the hands of God. It is watching others (often close up thanks to my job) become new creatures in Christ. I don't need to "make it work" or "fit" it's just central to me at this point in my life and has only increased as so. With luv, BD 3
Calm Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) I think you are more likely to get banned by doing this instead of upping your post count for whatever reason. (and apparently he did so now my post makes no sense, lol) Edited October 15, 2016 by Calm 1
Bobbieaware Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, rongo said: That's a good point. If you believe in the resurrection, then any of the supposed scientific stumpers pale dramatically. The problem is, I don't think most of the people who really want the Church to allegorize everything as "inspired metaphor" actually believe in a physical resurrection. And that's my point. If one doesn't even believe in the reality of the physical resurrection, the most frequently and powerfully attested to of all the miracles of God, why not just admit to yourself you're an atheist? Or if not an atheist, at least admit to yourself you've adopted a position that's totally out of harmony with most basic teachings of the LDS Church; and with that realization in mind, cease and desist from all futile future efforts to change the Church into something it most definitely is not. Why should the miracle denier keep banging his head against the side of a gigantic granite mountain that's not going to move and just wisely move on to adopt a religious philosophy that rejects the possibility of any and all miracles? If there's anything that can be said about the LDS religion, it is that it is a religion that believes in the absolute necessity of great miracles in order for the purposes and program of God to move forward. And for this reason, if one no longer believes God is a God of mighty miracles perhaps it's time to end the frustration and stop tilting at windmills. Edited October 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware 4
boblloyd91 Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: And that's my point. If one doesn't even believe in the reality of the physical resurrection, the most frequently and powerfully attested to of all the miracles of God, why not just admit to yourself you're an atheist? Or if not an atheist, at least admit to yourself you've adopted a position that's totally out of harmony with most basic teachings of the LDS Church; and with that realization in mind, cease and desist from all future futile efforts to change the Church into something it most definitely is not. Why should the miracle denier keep banging his head against the side of a gigantic granite mountain that's not going to move and just wisely move on to adopt a religious philosophy that rejects the possibility of any and all miracles? If there's anything that can be said about the LDS religion, it is that it is a religion that believes in the absolute necessity of great miracles in order for the purposes and program of God to move forward. And for this reason, if one no longer believes God is a God of mighty miracles it's time to end the frustration and stop tilting at windmills. That's the sad thing about the vast majority (imo) of people who leave the church. There is direct documentation of things going on in the early days of the church (3 witnesses, Kirtland visitations etc.) that are hard to explain away in a naturalist manner. Granted we aren't the only ones who claim such things, but still one can easily go to an ensign, Deseret Book, etc. or even go to an LDS fast and testimony meeting and will likely hear about some type of miracle that happened in someone's life. It's the perfect example of giving up one's birthright for a mess of pottage. 3
DBMormon Posted October 15, 2016 Author Posted October 15, 2016 4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: And that's my point. If one doesn't even believe in the reality of the physical resurrection, the most frequently and powerfully attested to of all the miracles of God, why not just admit to yourself you're an atheist? Or if not an atheist, at least admit to yourself you've adopted a position that's totally out of harmony with most basic teachings of the LDS Church; and with that realization in mind, cease and desist from all futile future efforts to change the Church into something it most definitely is not. Why should the miracle denier keep banging his head against the side of a gigantic granite mountain that's not going to move and just wisely move on to adopt a religious philosophy that rejects the possibility of any and all miracles? If there's anything that can be said about the LDS religion, it is that it is a religion that believes in the absolute necessity of great miracles in order for the purposes and program of God to move forward. And for this reason, if one no longer believes God is a God of mighty miracles perhaps it's time to end the frustration and stop tilting at windmills. I frankly admit I have adopted heterodox beliefs. The resurrection is a belief I have placed much emphasis. If put on the spot I would say intellectually I doubt such. Though in my heart I hope in it. I don't think having heterodox beliefs makes me not Christian or not Mormon. As far as the granite mountain moving.... it may be too slow for you to see but parts of the mountain are indeed moving. Whether dramatic miracles are real or not can be argued. But if we assume such there are held beliefs that are not actually true, then If Mormonism is Truth as Joseph states and we reiterate such, then if the evidence becomes overwhelming on some truth that we detest then if Mormonism really welcomes truth, it will have to find a way to implement it regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us or how unhinged it makes Mormonism.
DBMormon Posted October 15, 2016 Author Posted October 15, 2016 55 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said: That's the sad thing about the vast majority (imo) of people who leave the church. There is direct documentation of things going on in the early days of the church (3 witnesses, Kirtland visitations etc.) that are hard to explain away in a naturalist manner. Granted we aren't the only ones who claim such things, but still one can easily go to an ensign, Deseret Book, etc. or even go to an LDS fast and testimony meeting and will likely hear about some type of miracle that happened in someone's life. It's the perfect example of giving up one's birthright for a mess of pottage. This feels like circular reasoning. The Church is obviously true so the reasons of anyone who leaves are not valid. In the end the Church may or may not be true and one's reasons may or may not be valid. Since has a plan where only .2% of of his children particpate in Mormonism (less when one considers all who have ever lived), he seemingly can bring his children home without them being too concerned with mormonism in mortality. And since there is no LDS church in the next life and only followers of Christ, it seems Mormonism truly matters ..... well.. ... almost not at all.
Tacenda Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said: That's the sad thing about the vast majority (imo) of people who leave the church. There is direct documentation of things going on in the early days of the church (3 witnesses, Kirtland visitations etc.) that are hard to explain away in a naturalist manner. Granted we aren't the only ones who claim such things, but still one can easily go to an ensign, Deseret Book, etc. or even go to an LDS fast and testimony meeting and will likely hear about some type of miracle that happened in someone's life. It's the perfect example of giving up one's birthright for a mess of pottage. The two you mentioned have explanations, IMO.
Bobbieaware Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, boblloyd91 said: That's the sad thing about the vast majority (imo) of people who leave the church. There is direct documentation of things going on in the early days of the church (3 witnesses, Kirtland visitations etc.) that are hard to explain away in a naturalist manner. Granted we aren't the only ones who claim such things, but still one can easily go to an ensign, Deseret Book, etc. or even go to an LDS fast and testimony meeting and will likely hear about some type of miracle that happened in someone's life. It's the perfect example of giving up one's birthright for a mess of pottage. Good points. But here's something to consider that may cast those who lose their testimonies in a more sympathetic and understandable light: You see, in an existence that can be only affirmed on the eternal principle of there being a diametric opposition in all things, and in order to keep things fair and make the test of faith --and its magnificent rewards-- challenging enough to require the very best of faithful efforts to in order succeed, the arguments against the divine authenticity of the Restored Gospel must, of absolute necessity, be just as convincing and compelling to the carnal mind as the arguments in favor of the Restored Gospel are convincing and compelling to the spiritual mind. So when one is "converted," as it were, to the worldview of the natural man, seeing and comprehending the universe in a manner that denies any place for the miraculous, it becomes extremely frustrating for them to have to deal with those those who believe in the seemingly illogical (according to the workings of the carnal mind) worldview of those who continue to believe in the miraculous. And once one is convinced by the perceptions of the carnal mind, any other way of perceiving reality seems to be outlandish and ridiculous. Now in the case of those members who once had testimonies but have been converted to the carnal mind's non-miraculous worldview, but who still want to remain within the ranks of the Church, it could be it's too difficult for them to leave something behind that they once loved and cherished so deeply. So rather than moving on and dealing with a broken heart, they spend inordinate amounts of time, effort and emotional energy trying to squeeze the square miraclous worldview peg into a carnal worldview round hole. Edited October 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware
mfbukowski Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) On 10/13/2016 at 1:31 PM, DBMormon said: Let me set this up. I completely get that mileage will vary in terms of how people weigh evidence on any side of any issue. I grant that. I also am not speaking of true or untrue as something can be implausible to someone and still true and something can. Rather I want to see why you choose to weigh certain evidence differently then other evidence. In setting this up I will share my personal perspective and see how you differ. For me when I look at some of the difficult issues here is where I come down - Informed to whatever extent I am on biblical scholarship - I find a global flood absurd and beyond just a miracle and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. reasons described here . Local Flood also is problematic and for Occam's razor compels me to believe it is a fictional myth altogether. - I find the tower of Babel story as told to be absurd and beyond just a miracle one need have faith in. - I find the scholarship on 2nd and 3rd Isaiah (Deutero-Isaiah) to be more convincing than a single author. - I find all the plausible reconciliations for the Book of Abraham to be problematic and the critics to hold the upper hand - I personally side with the biblical scholarship that the old testament figures and stories surrounding them are likely fictional myth and at best highly embellished. - I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets. And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. - Based on a survey done and its results, using spiritual experiences seems an ineffective way to tell which church is true. Also in line with this I find the Holy Ghost to be an ineffective way to discern "T" Truth. perhaps beauty, goodness or even lower case "t" truth. Let me finish by saying there are dozens more. I think this is what many of the scholars are pointing to when they speak of Mormonism having to redefine itself, or redefine key parts of its theology, or that the dominant narrative is not true. Mason, Hardy, the Givens, the Bushmans, Miller, Thomas McConkie and others seem to one degree or another be telling us the current narrative as held doesn't hold up. Yet many members of the church including many here hold firmly that these things either mean nothing or they simply don't buy into them. On the other hand there are many Latter-day Saints who want to hold onto Mormonism but logically are arriving at the same conclusions I have. Here are my questions - Do you not find such contradictory evidence to your conclusion compelling? - Does your spiritual experience with Mormonism trump any contradictory evidence no matter how weighty? - Why in-spite of almost all faiths having members who "know" their faith is the true one, why are you confident your religion actually is.? - People argue against Deutero Isaiah, global flood, Tower of Babel, etc... that the Church is true and hence we work backwards from that and figure out how to force the answer to fit. For those who do that why is the Church the dog and and arguments around it the tail. (The dog wags the tail rather than the tail wagging the dog.) Reason would seem to indicate the other way around that if the evidence is compelling that the church is not what it claims that one would have to change their beliefs about the Church. Lastly for those who want to be Mormon but who feel their reason and logic compel them to drop literal belief, what are they to do? Other thoughts or questions? Again this is not about the Church being true but rather the motivation we each feel to make it work or fit or the motivation to find new ways to reconcile what simply cant fit for us. This is a philosophical subject taken on without studying philosophy, which we have been over many times. Interesting approach. Hey- I have an idea! Why not study philosophy? That's what all those quoted have done to figure it out..... Nah...... Edited October 15, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
boblloyd91 Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: The two you mentioned have explanations, IMO. What explanations do you offer?
boblloyd91 Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 1 hour ago, DBMormon said: This feels like circular reasoning. The Church is obviously true so the reasons of anyone who leaves are not valid. In the end the Church may or may not be true and one's reasons may or may not be valid. Since has a plan where only .2% of of his children particpate in Mormonism (less when one considers all who have ever lived), he seemingly can bring his children home without them being too concerned with mormonism in mortality. And since there is no LDS church in the next life and only followers of Christ, it seems Mormonism truly matters ..... well.. ... almost not at all. maybe I'm taking a too simplistic approach, but as someone who has been exposed to what I feel are direct divine interventions in my life and the lives of close associates and family, I have a hard time understanding a naturalistic point of view. In a way the only other alternative that made sense to me (which I of course don't agree with) is that the foundational experiences of the church and that of day to day LDS is diabolical in nature, as some more extreme Evangelicals tell us. Of course that creates some Deep issues of how God's mercy is really not mercy at all but selective decision of who he wants to save. This of course is Calvinism, which with all due respect to some members I'm fond of on this board, is cruel and heartless imo 1
Bernard Gui Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 (edited) 12 hours ago, DBMormon said: I frankly admit I have adopted heterodox beliefs. The resurrection is a belief I have placed much emphasis. If put on the spot I would say intellectually I doubt such. Though in my heart I hope in it. I don't think having heterodox beliefs makes me not Christian or not Mormon. As far as the granite mountain moving.... it may be too slow for you to see but parts of the mountain are indeed moving. If there is one thing to which all LDS prophets and scriptures stand shoulder to shoulder it is their persistent and unambiguous testimony of the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the past and future resurrection of all mankind. It is the "qualifier" for the calling of an apostle. If I understand your premise correctly - that anything which is not empirically provable must be rejected and that all such things that distinguish Mormonism must be eliminated to prevent further embarrassment - then why do you hope for resurrection? I understand it would be hard to make a clean break and let that foundational item go, but it clearly falls into the category of mandatory expendables. Are you calling on the apostles and prophets to renounce their testimonies of the resurrection? If not, this seems inconsistent with your life's work to debunk and secularize Mormonism. Edited October 16, 2016 by Bernard Gui 3
Tacenda Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 3 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said: What explanations do you offer? Well, I've read that the wine could have been spiked with Datura, which will enable people to have visions. Another, that they had fasted and drank a lot of wine that night in the Kirtland temple. And when reading wiki it has some information that seems to make one question. Such as this quote: "One letter says that Harris thought that a candle sputtering was the work of the devil[30] and that he had met Jesus in the shape of a deer and walked and talked with him for two or three miles.[31] The local Presbyterian minister called him "a visionary fanatic."[32] A friend, who praised Harris as "universally esteemed as an honest man" but disagreed with his religious affiliation, declared that Harris's mind "was overbalanced by 'marvellousness'" and that his belief in earthly visitations of angels and ghosts gave him the local reputation of being crazy.[33]Another friend said, "Martin was a good citizen. Martin was a man that would do just as he agreed with you. But, he was a great man for seeing spooks."[34]" And the other two witnesses were related to Joseph. Joseph should have had 3 people that were off the street vs. people who are related to him and could be in on something, and the man with the money, Harris, not having all his marbles doesn't suffice to me. 1
boblloyd91 Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Well, I've read that the wine could have been spiked with Datura, which will enable people to have visions. Another, that they had fasted and drank a lot of wine that night in the Kirtland temple. And when reading wiki it has some information that seems to make one question. Such as this quote: "One letter says that Harris thought that a candle sputtering was the work of the devil[30] and that he had met Jesus in the shape of a deer and walked and talked with him for two or three miles.[31] The local Presbyterian minister called him "a visionary fanatic."[32] A friend, who praised Harris as "universally esteemed as an honest man" but disagreed with his religious affiliation, declared that Harris's mind "was overbalanced by 'marvellousness'" and that his belief in earthly visitations of angels and ghosts gave him the local reputation of being crazy.[33]Another friend said, "Martin was a good citizen. Martin was a man that would do just as he agreed with you. But, he was a great man for seeing spooks."[34]" And the other two witnesses were related to Joseph. Joseph should have had 3 people that were off the street vs. people who are related to him and could be in on something, and the man with the money, Harris, not having all his marbles doesn't suffice to me. So because a preacher thought Martin Harris was superstitious, he wasn't a reliable witness. Furthermore, everything that happened in Kirtland, the visitation of Elijah, Elias, Moses, and Christ were simply the result of mass hallucination? So temple work, the Book of Mormon, the Melckizedek priesthood were all the result of mass delusion? All because Evangelicals said so? 2
Duncan Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 Just now, boblloyd91 said: So because a preacher thought Martin Harris was superstitious, he wasn't a reliable witness. Furthermore, everything that happened in Kirtland, the visitation of Elijah, Elias, Moses, and Christ were simply the result of mass hallucination? So temple work, the Book of Mormon, the Melckizedek priesthood were all the result of mass delusion? All because Evangelicals said so? I'd love to have someone else duplicate the experiment, if Joseph Smith et al can have visitations then someone today can too! 2
cdowis Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 17 minutes ago, Duncan said: I'd love to have someone else duplicate the experiment, if Joseph Smith et al can have visitations then someone today can too! Remember that in some cases it requires the angel to place his hands on the head of the witnesses. That would be a powerful hallucination. 1
rodheadlee Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 Perhaps some words from Paul Simon from the Boxer are relevant: I am just a poor boy Though my story's seldom told I have squandered my resistance For a pocket full of mumbles, such are promises All lies and jests Still a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest We hear what we want to hear. 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 Did every Old Testament story literally happen in the past? What do you fellow posters think? Does it effect our faith if some of the Old Testament stories were just that, stories? Is the message more important than being historically accurate? To me the only Bible story that has to be true for me to be satisfied is Jesus Christ's atonement and the resurrection.
Recommended Posts