Are Prophets Exemplars?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe you don't like the word "problem", but the fall is absolutely an obstacle (physical and spiritual death) that prevents us from returning to God unless Jesus saves us. The university analogy doesn't hold because according to church teachings we would all be destined to fail out of school unless someone else made up the difference to help us succeed. You seem to be promoting the idea that the church teaches that we are in total control of our own salvation as if Jesus was unnecessary. I don't think that is an accurate representation of LDS theology and is one of the reasons why so many other Christian groups consider us to be non-Christian

Well of course I didn't mean to give that impression IF I did.

But we also have an escape clause in our theory- a hole if you will which moderates what you just posted.  That "hole" is that after death those who have not heard of Christ will have a chance to accept Him and the atonement.  It is an escape route for the Universalism within us- we get to have it both ways.

So practically speaking (as always being practical- right?) here on this earth- our personal decisions mean everything, and we have the idea that we will be judged on "being a good person" as well as accepting Christ

So the good man from Absowekistan who never heard of Christ and could not possibly have done so, in a sense does NOT "need Christ" during his life  to obtain the Celestial Kingdom because he will be taught that in the after life and see it with his own eyes and "bend the knee"

So from the perspective of the countless billions of humanity who have never even considered Christ the point, unfortunately, is moot until they pass on.

And though I consider myself pretty cool,  even I cannot tell them they need Christ to make up the difference. 

So speaking abstractly about "religions" and mankind, the Christian perspective becomes philosophically non-existent as long as we believe that we will get a chance to get it right in the afterlife

If we are talking about life in this world and the function of religion in the lives of billions, the fact is that in the lives of billions who have not heard about Christ, Christ cannot possibly be a factor.  They have never heard the message and can still achieve the Celestial Kingdom.  You cannot believe an idea you have never heard nor had revealed to you.

I know who will misquote me and rake me over the coals for saying that, but I am ignoring the troll.  As long as we have the wonderful belief in the redemption of the dead, AND we are talking about the practicalities of living in the material world (cue George Harrison...) the "fall" and "redemption" are not a factor in the lives of most who have every lived.

They WILL be- but they do not know it yet, so it cannot be a factor.

So whatever their religion, if they do not believe in the fall, it is not a problem for them and they will not need religion to solve a problem they do not have (in this world).

To me, if you want to manufacture a universal problem that people turn to religion for, it would be "I want to be a better person and be all I can be", which is perfectly solved by Mormonism.  You can be like God if you want it badly enough.  Mormonism is humanism when God is a Human.

That is why people turn also to non-theistic religions like "Green peace" or Communism or political causes for social justice- because they want to be "better and more compassionate" people

In that sense there are many atheists including..... wait for it.....  Rorty..... who would accept that as "religion"

Long post, ensuring misquotes- here we go again. No trolls please, only honest questions.

Edited August 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Book of Mormon disagrees.

On what?

Get it right now- an actual quote and evidence for conflict would be nice and I will show you how there is no conflict.

Oh I get it.  The Protestant thing?  Much of the BOM seems to be against Protestant theology though some of it appears to reflect Protestant theology.

Joseph was a human translating through his human mind and seeing the issues from his time.  We do not regard the BOM as inerrant and "God breathed".  Is that what you are talking about?

Edited August 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

 Boston University's Professor of Religion, Stephen Prothero, has a view that to start to understand a religion begins from this premise: Religions generally agree that there is something wrong with the world.

His approach for outsiders to attempt understanding a religion then builds from this starting point by asking: If something is wrong with the world, then how does each religion answer these questions?

- What is the actual problem? (what is wrong with the world?)
- What is the solution, or a solution, to the problem as outlined?
- What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
- Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?For Mormonism, I'd suggest the four questions can be answered as follows:

Q1: What is the problem?
A: Apostacy from Christ's true Church

Interesting thread Honorentheos. However, I would suggest that for LDS your answers are too narrow. For LDS I think the "problem" began before the world. The issue for the Lord is how can I teach all these spirits to be more like me? The garden of Eden story teaches an integral part of His solution. We must fall.

Gen 3:22 22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

If we remain in a protected heavenly abode we cannot learn how to overcome our own selfishness nor how to help others overcome evil. We cannot lead others to the good if there is no bad. Hence we cannot learn how God came to know evil and overcame it.

Quote

Q2: What is the solution?
A: Restoration of Christ's true Church, and restoration of the individual with God

So yes, God had to take us back to the beginning of Christianity so this principle could be taught again, since man had turned God into an unknowable and inaccessible invisible spirit, and came to ignore Christ's teachings. Instead, selfishly, they want to simply speak His name and get saved.  Imho, God created this world as a place of trial and testing - as a lab - and speaks to us through others chosen as leaders, the prophets.

Quote

Q3: What techniques are proscribed for moving from the problem to the solution?
A: Priesthood with it's ordinances in both cases

The reason we have church is to help each other learn this path, and help each other along the way. This is additional responsibility which modern Christianity has largely come to reject. Hence, God told Joseph Smith, these churches only have a form of godliness.

Quote

Q4: Who is the exemplar who personifies the path for following the technique?
A: ...

In Mormonism, one speaks of Christ as an exemplar but I'd argue this is in an almost overly idealized way. Plus, while Christ may be the perfect example, He only partitially models the path for Mormons in His baptism and ministry. He fails to model the full path to exhaltation through celestial marriage, raising family, and a host of other critical milestones on the path. I think the true exemplars in Mormonism are the priesthood leaders starting with Joseph Smith. It's Smith's example of going into the grove that investigators are taught to follow, first by reading scripture and then by praying for divine confirmation. Members look to modern day leaders for inspiration, for encouragement to draw from when facing challenges, for modeling how to be a Latter-day Saint. They admire their marriages, their families, how they followed a career path of some kind while also rising to their leadership role in the Church. Their path is one the membership constantly reflects on in conferences and talks, Ensign articles and mini-biopics between sessions of conference.

But I'm curious what others here think. Is it right to say the exemplar role in Mormonism is best assigned to the prophets?

Speaking for myself, definitely not. I do look to and admire Joseph Smith and some of the other Church presidents, particularly Lorenzo Snow. However, I also know Joseph had some faults, some of which he grew out of, but still there are things about him I do not wish to emulate. However, I definitely have my own faults so am not trying to be critical of Joseph. I believe that ideally, one must emulate an ideal to be one's best, and Heavenly Father sent Yeshua as our ideal. It is He who is my exemplar, although I acknowledge that I fall far short of Him. I have a rebellious streak and don't always accept God's will very well. Despite Yeshua saying His yoke is easy, I have not particularly found that to be so - probably because I end up battling with myself a lot...

If you fully accept His will it might be characterized as easy, but I guess I do not. But then I suppose it was not easy for Yeshua to go through everything we must go through to follow Him completely. A leader by example is expected to lead his followers through everything He asks of them, and expects of them, otherwise he has not given us an example. 

John 13:15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

[snowflake]

13 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

In Mormonism, one speaks of Christ as an exemplar but I'd argue this is in an almost overly idealized way. Plus, while Christ may be the perfect example, He only partitially models the path for Mormons in His baptism and ministry. He fails to model the full path to exhaltation through celestial marriage, raising family, and a host of other critical milestones on the path. I think the true exemplars in Mormonism are the priesthood leaders starting with Joseph Smith. It's Smith's example of going into the grove that investigators are taught to follow, first by reading scripture and then by praying for divine confirmation. Members look to modern day leaders for inspiration, for encouragement to draw from when facing challenges, for modeling how to be a Latter-day Saint. They admire their marriages, their families, how they followed a career path of some kind while also rising to their leadership role in the Church. Their path is one the membership constantly reflects on in conferences and talks, Ensign articles and mini-biopics between sessions of conference.

But I'm curious what others here think. Is it right to say the exemplar role in Mormonism is best assigned to the prophets?

From the Christian perspective, it appears that you certainly like Jesus......but he couldn't quite pull it all off.....he came up short on so many things. Now if you look at Joseph....now there was a real leader. He pulled it all off, marriages, families, going to the grove....reading his scriptures. As a Christian we would say Jesus plus nothing, he is totally and completely sufficient.  Your statement above is Jesus plus other stuff.....Jesus alone is not enough.....the LDS need prophets, scripture, family, marriages etc, etc, layer upon layer between you and God. And that is exactly how the majority of mainstream Christians look at the LDS.  I see the LDS as a group who is zealous and sincere, and they truly think they can earn their way to the top by their own meirts, and they just might need a little Jesus at the end....after all they can do. 

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, snowflake said:

From the Christian perspective, it appears that you certainly like Jesus......but he couldn't quite pull it all off.....he came up short on so many things. Now if you look at Joseph....now there was a real leader. He pulled it all off, marriages, families, going to the grove....reading his scriptures. As a Christian we would say Jesus plus nothing, he is totally and completely sufficient. 

Sufficient for what? Sufficient to be saved or sufficient to be one's best? If all you want is to get saved, that sounds pretty selfish.

The Yeshua LDS believe in leads us to be our best - to be like Him. Protestant Christianity has largely lost that goal. Yes, LDS want everyone to be saved, but we also teach them to be their best while showing them how to be saved through Jesus. Modern Christianity has largely come to be a false Christianity which teaches everyone they can sit on their butt after they "get saved." It results from a narrow reading of a few scriptures of Paul to the detriment of the rest of scripture. Christ's grace calls us to be our best - to try to follow Him, but recognizes we will fail, and so is a gift to us to make up for our shortcomings. It is not an excuse not to try to do our best. Sadly, modern Christianity has hollowed out the core of Christianity, and thrown it out for things like the "prosperity gospel."

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

For LDS I think the "problem" began before the world. The issue for the Lord is how can I teach all these spirits to be more like me? The garden of Eden story teaches an integral part of His solution. We must fall.

Gen 3:22 22 And YHWH Elohim said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

If we remain in a protected heavenly abode we cannot learn how to overcome our own selfishness nor how to help others overcome evil. We cannot lead others to the good if there is no bad. Hence we cannot learn how God came to know evil and overcame it.

Lovely.

[thesometimesaint]

Various Christian groups in the past have taught that Jesus was married and had children.

[snowflake]

31 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Sufficient for what? Sufficient to be saved or sufficient to be one's best? If all you want is to get saved, that sounds pretty selfish.

The Yeshua LDS believe in leads us to be our best - to be like Him. Protestant Christianity has largely lost that goal. Yes, LDS want everyone to be saved, but we also teach them to be their best while showing them how to be saved through Jesus. Modern Christianity has largely come to be a false Christianity which teaches everyone they can sit on their butt after they "get saved." It results from a narrow reading of a few scriptures of Paul to the detriment of the rest of scripture. Christ's grace calls us to be our best - to try to follow Him, but recognizes we will fail, and so is a gift to us to make up for our shortcomings. It is not an excuse not to try to do our best. Sadly, modern Christianity has hollowed out the core of Christianity, and thrown it out for things like the "prosperity gospel."

According to the LDS theology everyone is saved regardless....if one doesn't accept Jesus here on earth they can accept the LDS gospel after death... correct?

I do think you recognize a lot of truth to prosperity preaching, and I would agree that many Christians "get saved" then go about their lives....both of these types of Christians clearly have not studied the Word and have not truly been "born again". 

One big difference is see between LDS and Christians is attitude.  LDS truly think that people are basically good and by changing their behavior they can become approved by and accepted by God (follow the example Jesus gave us and you can come closer to God). Very similar to Catholics, lots of guilt from the church, ceremony, laws, ordinances from certain people....all this can lead to God's acceptance and approval.  Jesus is not the primary focus in Mormonism.

As a Christian I would say that basically I am a horrible sinner that deserves to be nailed on a cross for my sin. Only Christ in us can lead us to change our behavior, when one accepts Jesus as Lord, he accepts us where we are at....and then he changes our attitude from within. As the mediator we can access God directly through him. Jesus is the primary focus in Christianity.

[snowflake]

24 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Various Christian groups in the past have taught that Jesus was married and had children.

Didn't Brigham and other LDS Apostles teach this as well?

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Didn't Brigham and other LDS Apostles teach this as well?

No. We have no doctrine that states that he was definitely married and/or had children. What we have consistently said is that whether he did or not in his mortal life. It has no bearing on what we can personally believe. I think a good case could be made that he was, and possibly had children, but not because of anything the Church has said.

[thesometimesaint]

18 minutes ago, snowflake said:

According to the LDS theology everyone is saved regardless....if one doesn't accept Jesus here on earth they can accept the LDS gospel after death... correct?

I do think you recognize a lot of truth to prosperity preaching, and I would agree that many Christians "get saved" then go about their lives....both of these types of Christians clearly have not studied the Word and have not truly been "born again". 

One big difference is see between LDS and Christians is attitude.  LDS truly think that people are basically good and by changing their behavior they can become approved by and accepted by God (follow the example Jesus gave us and you can come closer to God). Very similar to Catholics, lots of guilt from the church, ceremony, laws, ordinances from certain people....all this can lead to God's acceptance and approval.  Jesus is not the primary focus in Mormonism.

As a Christian I would say that basically I am a horrible sinner that deserves to be nailed on a cross for my sin. Only Christ in us can lead us to change our behavior, when one accepts Jesus as Lord, he accepts us where we are at....and then he changes our attitude from within. As the mediator we can access God directly through him. Jesus is the primary focus in Christianity.

That is not true. We believe all men may be saved if they accept the Atonement of Christ. We are not to judge, but preach the Restored Gospel to all that will listen. We further believe all men will have the opportunity to hear it, whether in this life or the next. If we reject it with full knowledge of it in this life, we will not be given that opportunity again in the next.

That is not true. Everything about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is dedicated to and in remembrance of Jesus the Christ. We are forever grateful for his supreme sacrifice of his precious life for us.  Have you never heard that "Faith without works is dead"? Have you not read the Sermon on the Mount? Do you not understand that if we love him we will keep his commandments?

We are all horrible sinners once we know the truth of Jesus the Christ and refuse to repent.

Jesus doesn't change us against our will. Nor can he. The New Testament is full of examples of people who walked no more with him. "Will you also go away".

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe you don't like the word "problem", but the fall is absolutely an obstacle (physical and spiritual death) that prevents us from returning to God unless Jesus saves us. The university analogy doesn't hold because according to church teachings we would all be destined to fail out of school unless someone else made up the difference to help us succeed. You seem to be promoting the idea that the church teaches that we are in total control of our own salvation as if Jesus was unnecessary. I don't think that is an accurate representation of LDS theology and is one of the reasons why so many other Christian groups consider us to be non-Christian

Anything can be defined as a problem, including the challenges of a college education, but the LDS response to the Fall is rather positive and expected -- without which no exaltation is possible -- being part of the Plan which we celebrate regularly in temple liturgy.  I have never heard that interpreted as though we are in "total control," but rather that it is a fait accompli.  Other religions do not have such a felicitous or universal view.  And, by the way, LDS theology is heresy when set over against the normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theological fundamentals.  We need to be comfortable with that.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

According to the LDS theology everyone is saved regardless....if one doesn't accept Jesus here on earth they can accept the LDS gospel after death... correct?

No. Not everyone will get saved, but the vast majority will eventually. Many will go to spirit prison or hell first - those who die unsaved. But yes, they can accept the gospel and get saved in a later resurrection, although they will get saved according to their works on earth. Not everyone gets saved to the same level of glory.

Quote

I do think you recognize a lot of truth to prosperity preaching, and I would agree that many Christians "get saved" then go about their lives....both of these types of Christians clearly have not studied the Word and have not truly been "born again". 

One big difference is see between LDS and Christians is attitude.  LDS truly think that people are basically good and by changing their behavior they can become approved by and accepted by God (follow the example Jesus gave us and you can come closer to God). Very similar to Catholics, lots of guilt from the church, ceremony, laws, ordinances from certain people....all this can lead to God's acceptance and approval.  Jesus is not the primary focus in Mormonism.

As a Christian I would say that basically I am a horrible sinner that deserves to be nailed on a cross for my sin. Only Christ in us can lead us to change our behavior, when one accepts Jesus as Lord, he accepts us where we are at....and then he changes our attitude from within. As the mediator we can access God directly through him. Jesus is the primary focus in Christianity.

First off I am really not a believer in "mormonism." That is different things to different people, but I believe recently the Church has become more Christ-centered, and less Joseph Smith centered. I agree that our natural man is selfish. However, I also believe that we all have access to the light of Christ, and have a spark of goodness in us. This really is not an issue worth arguing about in my opinion. "You're good, but I'm a horrible sinner" is not much of an argument anyway. The natural, selfish man in us is a sinner, and we all need Christ to be forgiven of our selfish thoughts and deeds. I believe there is a lot of good in the world because the prophets have been teaching man for thousands of years. So for instance the teachings of the Buddha can also change our attitude from within, but I believe indirectly that comes from Christ through the teachings of His prophets.

[HappyJackWagon]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anything can be defined as a problem, including the challenges of a college education, but the LDS response to the Fall is rather positive and expected -- without which no exaltation is possible -- being part of the Plan which we celebrate regularly in temple liturgy.  I have never heard that interpreted as though we are in "total control," but rather that it is a fait accompli.  Other religions do not have such a felicitous or universal view.  And, by the way, LDS theology is heresy when set over against the normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim theological fundamentals.  We need to be comfortable with that.

Humankind was so lost that it required God to sacrifice the life of His only begotten son. The Son of God who is God died to remedy this challenge problem of a fall and separation from God. To me, an extreme measure like that indicates there was a serious problem to be overcome, otherwise a less extreme method may have been chosen. But I grant that we are interpreting things a bit differently.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Humankind was so lost that it required God to sacrifice the life of His only begotten son. The Son of God who is God died to remedy this challenge problem of a fall and separation from God.

Yes, and all those elements were part of the Plan from the Foundation of the World.  No surprises.  All necessary elements, and "no other way" was available. Hard tasks to be sure, but the Son was up to the challenge.  Otherwise all would be lost forever.  Unmerited suffering is redemptive, and the challenge equals the reward.

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

To me, an extreme measure like that indicates there was a serious problem to be overcome, otherwise a less extreme method may have been chosen. But I grant that we are interpreting things a bit differently.

There was no "less extreme method" possible.  All must hang in the balance, and the risk must be real.

History is replete with horror and genocide on a vast scale, Hitler and Pol Pot only a couple of the Satanic figureheads.  We should not be glib about it, but neither should we deny the deeper purpose and meaning.

[The Nehor]

On 8/2/2017 at 11:29 AM, mfbukowski said:

On what?

Get it right now- an actual quote and evidence for conflict would be nice and I will show you how there is no conflict.

Oh I get it.  The Protestant thing?  Much of the BOM seems to be against Protestant theology though some of it appears to reflect Protestant theology.

Joseph was a human translating through his human mind and seeing the issues from his time.  We do not regard the BOM as inerrant and "God breathed".  Is that what you are talking about?

No, I was talking about your statement that the Fall was not a problem. It was. It may have been planned but it took a God dying to fix.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, I was talking about your statement that the Fall was not a problem. It was. It may have been planned but it took a God dying to fix.

Well of course but that is called "sacrifice" - that one was an infinite sacrifice.

Working your way through college is hardly much of a sacrifice in comparison, but to me it is a question of degree, not kind.  As you point out, sacrifices are always part of a plan to get something better than you have.

Getting something better is not usually seen as a "problem" but I guess at a point it all becomes semantics as usual.  You push your definition, someone else pushes their's and suddenly the middle ground gets less and less distinct.

Clearly "problem" and "sacrifice" are no where close to being synonyms 

[USU78]

On 8/1/2017 at 11:52 PM, mfbukowski said:

Perhaps that is the problem

Q E D

[mfbukowski]

On 8/1/2017 at 10:57 PM, Honorentheos said:

The religion of Bukowaki defines the problems entirely differently. Of course one ought to then recognize this means it isn't in fact true to Mormonism. It's sometimes other with its own solutions techniques and exemplars. Wanna prove me right by saying something like you'd usually say here, amigo? Rock on!

Oh no you are baiting me again.  You are definitely a Master baiter!

[CV75]

On 8/2/2017 at 3:51 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

Humankind was so lost that it required God to sacrifice the life of His only begotten son. The Son of God who is God died to remedy this challenge problem of a fall and separation from God. To me, an extreme measure like that indicates there was a serious problem to be overcome, otherwise a less extreme method may have been chosen. But I grant that we are interpreting things a bit differently.

It depends on where you begin to look at the picture. If the “solution” to the “problem” that had not yet arisen in the world was prepared from before the foundation of said world, it renders the “problem” to be part of the “solution”… I use “quotes” since together they bring about the work and glory, which is the purpose of both the "problem" and the "solution."

[Honorentheos]

I've been reflecting on the direction this thread took out of the gate where the focus on the supposed problem Mormonism identifies and proposes to address became the topic rather than the question posed in the OP. I was initially surprised that most respondents seemed to be interested in redefining this in a way that had large overlap with other religions rather than using it as it was intended. That being a tool to help someone who was unfamiliar with the religion gain some understanding of it which requires focusing on what makes it unique.

I realize that by definition that approach is an etic one, intended to help an outsider get a fairly accurate peak into the specific nature of a religion that helps them understand what makes it different from others in the market place of religious ideas.

OTOH, as believing LDS I realize to you the purposes, pathway, and model of Mormonism is intended for all of humankind so the questions demand a certain broad, all-encompassing response that could include everyone that the person looking outward from the emic position inside Mormonism takes as a given and wants other to come inside to experience.

Maybe that's fine. Maybe it's allowed the thread to be more interesting to you all than it turned out to be to me.

To offer a perspective, here's my own emic view aimed at religion broadly (meaning, the one that originates out of my worldview and builds in as many assumptions and biases as possible without taking external perspectives into account).

What is the problem religion seeks to solve? Answer: Consciousness of a universe that is indifferent to humanity where immensely catastrophic events and beneficial events feel (key word being feel) like they demand explanation but none is obviously available other than the universe is random and indifferent which isn't acceptable to...well, many. 

What is the solution? Answer:Humanity invented explanations, with accompanying ritual and form to give meaning and continues to evolve these as culture changes.

What is the path? Answer: Following meaning that feels good.

Exemplar? Answer: They are legion.

The effect of this is to immediately highlight that when I choose to operate in this way the divide between those who share my view and those who don't is made brighter and the sides are pushed further apart.

So in an attempt to reboot the OP, I'd like to ask that anyone interested in making the attempt consider the perspective of someone who isn't LDS and isn't going to just accept an LDS perspective. If there is nothing to differentiate Mormonism from Christianity in terms of it's answer, it shouldn't exist. I suspect the response to that is it should exist as the true form of Christianity while other forms of Christianity ought to cease to exist, but then one ought to be able to answer WHY that is the case as it implies something about Mormonism that people believe to be a difference but aren't articulating.

Edited August 8, 2017 by Honorentheos