The 17 Threats To The True Church

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Can I add a third question?  Why should such a being be worshipped by us?  If He is SO different from us as to be unknowable, why worship him?
(It just always makes me think of the pet/master relationship).

Why worship a super intelligent and powerful scientist from another planet? 

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Why worship a super intelligent and powerful scientist from another planet?

Because he's our literal Father.
Wanting to grow up to be like a good parent is a natural goal, even in mortality.  (Now, if we had a bad parent that would be different).

I'd love to follow in Dad's footsteps.  No interest in spending eternity serving some all powerful unknowable supernatural being that I am so far beneath that I can't even comprehend him.

[MiserereNobis]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No interest in spending eternity serving some all powerful unknowable supernatural being that I am so far beneath that I can't even comprehend him.

That's not how it is going to be in heaven.  In heaven, you will have direct immediate knowledge of God and you will comprehend Him.  "For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known." (and all that jazz ).

Your description is a straw-man of Catholic heaven, much like "you're going to get your own planet" is a straw-man of the LDS celestial kingdom.

I think one issue that comes up here is the Catholic idea that there are different types of beings.  God is a different type of being than us.  Angels (and demons) are different types of beings than us or God.  We are different types of beings than God or angels, etc., etc.  In Mormonism (please correct me if I am wrong), all of these are the same type of being. 

We worship God because He is an infinite being full of infinite love who created us and whose love keeps us and the entire universe in existence from moment to moment.  He is absolutely worthy and deserving of our worship.

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because he's our literal Father.
Wanting to grow up to be like a good parent is a natural goal, even in mortality.  (Now, if we had a bad parent that would be different).

I'd love to follow in Dad's footsteps.  No interest in spending eternity serving some all powerful unknowable supernatural being that I am so far beneath that I can't even comprehend him.

But why worship your father? Normally we love our fathers, but we don't worship them

[MiserereNobis]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It just always makes me think of the pet/master relationship.

This is a poor metaphor for many reasons.  One glaring one is that the master didn't create the pet and therefore the pet's existence isn't contingent upon the master.  It also denigrates humans as being "pets" and God certainly does not think of us that way.

The best metaphor for the relationship between us and God is the one that God Himself gave us, that He is our father.  For Catholics, this is a metaphor, albeit a deep one with rich and subtle truths.  I know for LDS it is not a metaphor but a literal description.  It is just another difference between us in our theology

 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is a poor metaphor for many reasons.  One glaring one is that the master didn't create the pet and therefore the pet's existence isn't contingent upon the master.  It also denigrates humans as being "pets" and God certainly does not think of us that way.

The best metaphor for the relationship between us and God is the one that God Himself gave us, that He is our father.  For Catholics, this is a metaphor, albeit a deep one with rich and subtle truths.  I know for LDS it is not a metaphor but a literal description.  It is just another difference between us in our theology

 

So why worship him? Why worship a being you cannot comprehend?

[MiserereNobis]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So why worship him? Why worship a being you cannot comprehend?

I can comprehend enough of Him to worship Him.  I can see "through a glass, darkly," which means I can still see a little.  I know His love.  I've had tastes of His infinity in me and outside of me through small experiences of Him.  I've seen His healing in my life through His sacrifice for me.  But ultimately, for me personally, it is because my soul cries out to Him in worship.  I guess for me His mystery is part of what drives my desire to worship Him.  Ultimately, the question for me is, how could I not worship Him?

Edited March 3, 2017 by MiserereNobis

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I can comprehend enough of Him to worship Him.  I can see "through a glass, darkly," which means I can still see a little.  I know His love.  I've had tastes of His infinity in me and outside of me through small experiences of Him.  I've seen His healing in my life through His sacrifice for me.  But ultimately, for me personally, it is because my soul cries out to Him in worship.  I guess for me His mystery is part of what drives my desire to worship Him.  Ultimately, the question for me is, how could I not worship Him?

Thank you for that response.
Personally, I find far more to worship in a being who was once a week and lowly mortal who achieved Godhood.  It allows us to identify.
Even for traditional Christians, isn't that why Christ was sent to us as a man?

Edited March 3, 2017 by JLHPROF

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Thank you for that response.
Personally, I find far more to worship in a being who was once a week and lowly mortal who achieved Godhood.
Even for traditional Christians, isn't that why Christ was sent to us as a man?

Yes, and here we agree.  The infinite God chose, out of love, to incarnate into a finite world.  How amazing and beautiful and what an expression of love for us!  I like C.S. Lewis' thoughts on the matter from Mere Christianity:

"The Eternal Being who knows everything and who created the whole universe became not only a man but (before that) a baby, and before that a [fetus] inside a Woman’s body. If you want to get the hang of it, think how you would like to become a slug or a crab.”

Now, Lewis isn't calling us slugs or crabs.  He's just trying to point out that vast difference in being that exists between us and God, and yet God chose to become, as you said, a weak and lowly mortal.

Such love is certainly deserving of our worship

 

[RevTestament]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, and here we agree.  The infinite God chose, out of love, to incarnate into a finite world.  How amazing and beautiful and what an expression of love for us!  I like C.S. Lewis' thoughts on the matter from Mere Christianity:

"The Eternal Being who knows everything and who created the whole universe became not only a man but (before that) a baby, and before that a [fetus] inside a Woman’s body. If you want to get the hang of it, think how you would like to become a slug or a crab.”

Now, Lewis isn't calling us slugs or crabs.  He's just trying to point out that vast difference in being that exists between us and God, and yet God chose to become, as you said, a weak and lowly mortal.

Such love is certainly deserving of our worship

Yes, it is. But I have a bone to pick. You see, I believe it is scientifically provable that God did not create the universe 6000 yrs ago, unless one believes He created light mid-stream between the galaxies. Of course if you can prove the speed of light to be false you might have a chance here. Otherwise, science can show that light getting here from other galaxies took millions and billions of years to get here. That means this light was created millions and billions of years ago - not 6000 yrs ago. That means the traditional interpretation of the garden of Eden story and Genesis 1 is wrong. The Bible never says God created the universe - it says He passed His spirit upon the [uncreated] waters to make the earth. And that He made the stars in the sky. Every visible star in the sky by the eye is in our galaxy... just sayin.

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

That's not how it is going to be in heaven.  In heaven, you will have direct immediate knowledge of God and you will comprehend Him.  "For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known." (and all that jazz ).

Your description is a straw-man of Catholic heaven, much like "you're going to get your own planet" is a straw-man of the LDS celestial kingdom.

I think one issue that comes up here is the Catholic idea that there are different types of beings.  God is a different type of being than us.  Angels (and demons) are different types of beings than us or God.  We are different types of beings than God or angels, etc., etc.  In Mormonism (please correct me if I am wrong), all of these are the same type of being. 

We worship God because He is an infinite being full of infinite love who created us and whose love keeps us and the entire universe in existence from moment to moment.  He is absolutely worthy and deserving of our worship.

There is nothing in scripture to support the idea that angels are a different kind of being. They are so much like humans that they may even eat among us without us being aware... That is because they are spirits just like us. Angelos is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew, Malek, which also means messenger. The Tanakh also says Yeshua is the Malek of the covenant. He is not a different kind of being. He is a man. An angel is usually an unembodied man sent as a messenger [unless he is resurrected or translated like Moses was when he appeared to Yeshua] - it is really that simple. God never says He is a different kind of being than us with the exception that He "is not a man who would lie" kind of thing.  He talks of Himself having hands, back parts, and even a soul in Isaiah 42. Souls have bodies.  

Edited March 4, 2017 by RevTestament

[Spammer]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't view it as self-evident (axiomatic) that God is neither in time nor space.  Is that idea part of the trinitarian doctrine, or is it a theory designed to avoid having to clarify the doctrine?  I am fine with you saying that it is a "mystery", but I can't agree that it is self-evident.

If only there was universal agreement on what is deemed self-evident. 

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yes, it is. But I have a bone to pick. You see, I believe it is scientifically provable that God did not create the universe 6000 yrs ago, unless one believes He created light mid-stream between the galaxies. Of course if you can prove the speed of light to be false you might have a chance here. Otherwise, science can show that light getting here from other galaxies took millions and billions of years to get here. That means this light was created millions and billions of years ago - not 6000 yrs ago. That means the traditional interpretation of the garden of Eden story and Genesis 1 is wrong. The Bible never says God created the universe - it says He passed His spirit upon the [uncreated] waters to make the earth. And that He made the stars in the sky. Every visible star in the sky by the eye is in our galaxy... just sayin.

Mormonism teaches that the earth has a temporal existence of 7000 years.
Other than that the universe could be much older and the creationary period (pre-man) could have taken much longer.
The only conflict with science I see in Mormon teachings on the earth is how long since "the fall" and the "creation of man".
The formation of the earth could have taken billions of years, and the universe even longer.
Joseph Smith taught that the universe itself had been in existence for billions of years.

[RevTestament]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Mormonism teaches that the earth has a temporal existence of 7000 years.
Other than that the universe could be much older and the creationary period (pre-man) could have taken much longer.
The only conflict with science I see in Mormon teachings on the earth is how long since "the fall" and the "creation of man".
The formation of the earth could have taken billions of years, and the universe even longer.
Joseph Smith taught that the universe itself had been in existence for billions of years.

Where did Joseph Smith say billions of years? I am familiar with his quote that a generation is 100,000 years.

I agree as you point out that the earth has a "temporal existence of 7000 years." I believe that began with the introduction of the word and the fall of man - ie man getting booted out of the "garden of innocence" to suffer the consequences of sin. In other words before the fall any human creatures formed according to Genesis 1 were innocent under the law, because YHWH had not introduced it. Adam was the first man under the law, and in that sense birthed us in the word of God. That is when written history and civilization began. As Paul puts it - then the law came and I died.

[churchistrue]

I wrote up some thoughts on this.  http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/why-are-people-leaving-the-mormon-church/

I recategorized the colors into one bubble, relabeled and resized them, and added an overlaying bubble "disbelief, lack of trust", which I think is the biggest new issue that the church hasn't had to face as much in the past as they do now.  They've always had to face these same kinds of issues in the past, but the historical issues (signified by the gay bubble below), combined with the LBGTQ issues (in my diagram would probably be the orange outside the gray disbelief bubble) are the two big ones now.

 

 

My conclusion on this is...

I think the church should address the historical (disbelief, lack of trust) issues very similarly to how they are doing now.  1) being more open about the issues, ie writing the Essays, and publicizing them more, and I'm sure there will be more and more work on this and 2) (which I see happening slowly over time as a reaction to #1) easing up a bit on the exclusivity claims as they embrace non-historicity and metaphorical applications.

The problem with this is that as you can see, they're getting pulled from both directions.  They're bleeding more on the left side and doing that would help stop the bleeding on that side, but then as you move in that direction, those on the right side will see the church as weak and in apostasy and search out more of the Denver Snuffers in the world to replace it.  Tough spot to be in.  This is why I try to be as patient and generous as possible with the brethren.  Theirs is not an easy job.

 

 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

33 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Where did Joseph Smith say billions of years? I am familiar with his quote that a generation is 100,000 years.

I agree as you point out that the earth has a "temporal existence of 7000 years." I believe that began with the introduction of the word and the fall of man - ie man getting booted out of the "garden of innocence" to suffer the consequences of sin. In other words before the fall any human creatures formed according to Genesis 1 were innocent under the law, because YHWH had not introduced it. Adam was the first man under the law, and in that sense birthed us in the word of God. That is when written history and civilization began. As Paul puts it - then the law came and I died.

Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years; -- it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known!"  - W. W. Phelps, Times and Seasons, vol.5, pg. 758, 1 Jan 1844

 

Edited March 4, 2017 by JLHPROF

[RevTestament]

27 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I wrote up some thoughts on this.  http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/why-are-people-leaving-the-mormon-church/

I recategorized the colors into one bubble, relabeled and resized them, and added an overlaying bubble "disbelief, lack of trust", which I think is the biggest new issue that the church hasn't had to face as much in the past as they do now.  They've always had to face these same kinds of issues in the past, but the historical issues (signified by the gay bubble below), combined with the LBGTQ issues (in my diagram would probably be the orange outside the gray disbelief bubble) are the two big ones now.

 

 

My conclusion on this is...

I think the church should address the historical (disbelief, lack of trust) issues very similarly to how they are doing now.  1) being more open about the issues, ie writing the Essays, and publicizing them more, and I'm sure there will be more and more work on this and 2) (which I see happening slowly over time as a reaction to #1) easing up a bit on the exclusivity claims as they embrace non-historicity and metaphorical applications.

The problem with this is that as you can see, they're getting pulled from both directions.  They're bleeding more on the left side and doing that would help stop the bleeding on that side, but then as you move in that direction, those on the right side will see the church as weak and in apostasy and search out more of the Denver Snuffers in the world to replace it.  Tough spot to be in.  This is why I try to be as patient and generous as possible with the brethren.  Theirs is not an easy job.

I can't say from first hand knowledge, but it just seems those leaving on the right because they feel the church is not "righteous enough" are few and far between compared to others. This would mostly historically be those who feel they must practice polygamy to be exalted types. This seems to be essentially a Utah phenomenon. I have seen little to no evidence of it elsewhere. Denver Snuffer and a few others. I think this is the least of the Church worries now. I think the Church is probably concerned about it because it is happening at its geographic core. The vast majority of people are leaving for secular, losing faith types of reasons. We're losing members to the world - not terribly surprising being that the world has become a wicked place which can tempt them in so many ways - pornography is a new, big one, which can start this process.

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, now, Brother William, when the house of Israel begin to come into the glorious mysteries of the kingdom, and find that Jesus Christ, whose goings forth, as the prophets said, have been from of old, from eternity; and that eternity, agreeably to the records found in the catacombs of Egypt, has been going on in this system, almost two thousand five hundred and fifty five millions of years: and to know at the same time, that deists, geologists and others are trying to prove that matter must have existed hundreds of thousands of years; -- it almost tempts the flesh to fly to God, or muster faith like Enoch to be translated and see and know as we are seen and known!"  - W. W. Phelps, Times and Seasons, vol.5, pg. 758, 1 Jan 1844

Thank you. Do you know of any more?

I am a little leery of quotes of JS. I prefer things written by his own pen or his scribes. I think the Times and Seasons was at times guilty of trying to put words in JS' mouth.

[JLHPROF]

45 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Thank you. Do you know of any more?

I am a little leery of quotes of JS. I prefer things written by his own pen or his scribes. I think the Times and Seasons was at times guilty of trying to put words in JS' mouth.

No, but this one was contemporary with Joseph Smith at the time he was overseeing Times and Seasons and John Taylor was the editor.
Presumably he approved the quote being published or had ample opportunity to refute it.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Spammer said:

If only there was universal agreement on what is deemed self-evident. 

Now THAT is self-evident! ...and ironic because everybody would probably agree with that statement 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I can't say from first hand knowledge, but it just seems those leaving on the right because they feel the church is not "righteous enough" are few and far between compared to others. This would mostly historically be those who feel they must practice polygamy to be exalted types. This seems to be essentially a Utah phenomenon. I have seen little to no evidence of it elsewhere. Denver Snuffer and a few others.

From what I hear, it is as much Idaho and Arizona as Utah, possible even more because of the strongest supporters being there.  Sniffer himself is from Utah iirc and may have a following there, but then he wouldn't need to travel and thus have larger gathers to make it worth their time...which is generally how I stumble across mentions of him.

Someone who has been keeping track of him a long time shows interest in him is spread throughout the mountainwest:  http://russellyanderson.com/DenverSnuffer/

I saw some of the type out in Kansas and up in Canada, but individual families as far as I could tell though they spoke about joining up with others.

These days I think it is less about polygamy (some see that as an innovation of BY) and more about visions of Christ.

Also the group has a "fellowship locator" and it is mapped out, definitely not just a Utah phenomenon.  The internet has removed many limitations:

http://www.fellowshiplocator.info/

Edited March 5, 2017 by Calm

[Five Solas]

9 hours ago, churchistrue said:

As a Venn Diagram--this make no sense at all, churchistrue.  Ultra-orthodoxy overlapping secularism, overlapping apathy?  If your goal is to make "the brethren" look comparatively sensible with their 17 bubbles distributed across a spectrum of political ideology--well, mission accomplished!

;0)

Here's an example of the Venn visualization that, while off topic, illustrates its usefulness and how interesting/insightful it can really be--

Enjoy,

--Erik

Edited March 5, 2017 by Five Solas
Not persisting my image

[carbon dioxide]

The only real threat to the Church is total apostasy and if one believes the LDS view, that will not happen again.  The Church is simply the vehicle the Lord uses to offer salvation and exaltation to those that want it.  If one accepts the premise that the Church is true and exists whether there are 10 million members or 6 members on April 6, 1830.  The Church itself is fine.  The threat is to individual members and its up to them to decide if they want to hold to the iron rod and partake of the fruit of the tree of life or let go and walk away in diverse unknown paths.  The choice is ours and we have only ourselves to blame if we fail.

[churchistrue]

14 hours ago, Five Solas said:

As a Venn Diagram--this make no sense at all, churchistrue.  Ultra-orthodoxy overlapping secularism, overlapping apathy?  If your goal is to make "the brethren" look comparatively sensible with their 17 bubbles distributed across a spectrum of political ideology--well, mission accomplished!

;0)

Here's an example of the Venn visualization that, while off topic, illustrates its usefulness and how interesting/insightful it can really be--

Enjoy,

--Erik

I like your Venn Diagram.  I think mine is worth another look for you.  You're right, the size of the overlap of orange and green is a weakness.  I was still trying to connect to the original circles from the slide.  There is a lot of strange overlap between the Rock Waterman followers (green) and the Progressive community.  This is one of the things I addressed in the article.  ie they've embraced the orange side, but they're joining in criticism of the green side, because it works also.  Criticism for criticism sake.  "We don't believe there's a such thing as a prophet, oh and by the way, you should be acting more like a prophet."

 

[Tacenda]

I'm bothered about the leak with the bubbles and the enemies of the church. It reminds me of how Scientology treats their so-called enemies as far as painting in a bad light, which possibly they deserve but wish the church felt secure enough in their message that nothing will phase them. And that truth will rise above all of it. I wish the church would ignore the dissenters and go on with what the church is all about. Or should be all about.

[sheilauk]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm bothered about the leak with the bubbles and the enemies of the church. It reminds me of how Scientology treats their so-called enemies as far as painting in a bad light, which possibly they deserve but wish the church felt secure enough in their message that nothing will phase them. And that truth will rise above all of it. I wish the church would ignore the dissenters and go on with what the church is all about. Or should be all about.

Who called them enemies?  The slide refers to things leading people from the gospel and those are things that the apostles should be concerned about as their raison d'etre is to bring people TO the gospel.  Makes sense that  they would want to identify and think of ways to counter those things and people who lead people from the gospel.   However,  I do not think the apostles would call them enemies.