LDS.....the "only church" ? I beg to differ

[InCognitus]

39 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Wouldn’t that make the answer to prayers to god for the only true and living church more likely to lead to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Again, it depends on a lot of things that only God can answer, but under the right circumstances in the right time and place, then God would lead the person to join his church.

[manol]

2 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Per the medieval writings, what would qualify a text as scripture for you?

Excellent question, and I'm not sure I could reliably say in advance.  I'd want to read it, or at least enough of it to get a good feel for it.  The acceptance of the writings by scholarly or religious groups would influence me, but the content of the writings would still have to ring true to me, for whatever that's worth.

Do you have some writing in particular in mind?

2 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

As for the sincere seeker response, how might being led to a false religion serve someone’s progression better than the one true church?

I used to think there was a "one true church" and now I'm not so sure.  The things I have come to believe are "what matters most" are not the things religions present as being "what matters most".   (Personally I'm wrestling with how to find common ground and/or reconciliation between this and my Mormon background.)

At any rate I'm less inclined than most here to sort religions into "true" and "false" categories.  If we may know a tree by its fruits, I have seen too many really good people come from a wide range of backgrounds to believe that any one religion or thought system has a monopoly on truth. 

I think we probably each "signed up" for multiple different "classes" during our earth life experience.  I think some of us "signed up" to learn to be obedient.  Others may have signed up to learn about standing up for what we believe is right even if that means standing up to religious authority.  Others may have signed up either to learn or to teach a particular concept which is more strongly emphasized by a particular religion or school of thought.  Others may have signed up to forge their own paths to the best of their ability with whatever tools are available to them.  Many may have signed up for classes which have very little or nothing to do with religion.

Edited June 20, 2022 by manol

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Excellent question, and I'm not sure I could reliably say in advance.  I'd want to read it, or at least enough of it to get a good feel for it.  The acceptance of the writings by scholarly or religious groups would influence me, but the content of the writings would still have to ring true to me, for whatever that's worth.

Do you have some writing in particular in mind?

I used to think there was a "one true church" and now I'm not so sure.  The things I have come to believe are "what matters most" are not the things religions present as being "what matters most".   (Personally I'm wrestling with how to find common ground and/or reconciliation between this and my Mormon background.)

At any rate I'm less inclined than most here to sort religions into "true" and "false" categories.  If we may know a tree by its fruits, I have seen too many really good people come from a wide range of backgrounds to believe that any one religion or thought system has a monopoly on truth. 

I think we probably each "signed up" for multiple different "classes" during our earth life experience.  I think some of us "signed up" to learn to be obedient.  Others may have signed up to learn about standing up for what we believe is right even if that means standing up to religious authority.  Others may have signed up either to learn or to teach a particular concept which is more strongly emphasized by a particular religion or school of thought.  Others may have signed up to forge their own paths to the best of their ability with whatever tools are available to them.  Many may have signed up for classes which have very little or nothing to do with religion.

This is one of my favorite posts, and I've been here awhile. Thanks so much!

[MikeFoxtrot]

Thanks for your reply. As another poster has already said, it was very insightful, and I’m glad I got to read it.

1 hour ago, manol said:

Do you have some writing in particular in mind?

No. I was just generally curious about the hypothetical methodology of determining texts as scripture. 

[Vanguard]

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Sorry, are you saying that god leads people by allowing them to be lead by the dictates of their own conscience? Doesn’t that render god redundant?

Redundant? How so?

Edited to add: Mike - It looks like you're getting hit on multiple fronts. If my post is one too many - no worries. : )

Edited June 20, 2022 by Vanguard

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I’m happy to answer questions, but I don’t think I’ve been asked until now. Glad someone got fired up enough to do it all at once. 

Among other things. I’m also a plumber, I like long walks in the desert with my dog, jumping into water, and gardening. 

I have found no convincing evidence for any of the gods that I’ve investigated. If I were to become convinced, I’d happily admit it. 

We’ve only just met, so I think you might be thinking of someone else. I’m happy to discuss anything you feel like discussing, but I’m getting a bit of a gatekeeper vibe, so maybe chill on that front, unless I’m breaking board rules

I’m probably not well-versed enough in philosophy to ask questions of anyone who accuses others of speaking a language game, but I’ll try to keep up.

One at a time !

Quote

I’m happy to answer questions, but I don’t think I’ve been asked until now. Glad someone got fired up enough to do it all at once. 

OK then please forget all those rotten things I have said about you.     Sorry!  We all have our ways of dealing with new situations.  But honestly you have a lot to learn about our church.   I always answer genuine questions, but it appeared to me you were just here to make drive-by shots and nothing else.

Quote

Among other things. I’m also a plumber, I like long walks in the desert with my dog, jumping into water, and gardening. 

I am  in the process of getting a bathroom remodeled and I am always amazed at what is included as "plumbing" in such a context!  AND one can make a ton of money!  I like to work with my hands and did a lot of wood working and that was one of the happiest jobs of my life.   It is so gratifying to work on a job and at the end of the day you see the improvement every day- Results!  I have done SOMETHING valuable every day!

And importantly for here, you are an atheist.  OK, got it.

Been one myself and searched out all the religions that seemed interesting and could not find one that made any sense to me.   Finally I found a philosophy that seemed to bust all the doubts I had about everything- though the authors themselves that I liked were actually atheists.  Essentially by seeing the OTHER SIDE of the implications of their positions, I realized that in effect they had shown me the way that religion could be intellectually "justified" (philosophese for "true")

Quote

I have found no convincing evidence for any of the gods that I’ve investigated. If I were to become convinced, I’d happily admit it. 

Probably there isn't any "evidence" because you may be looking at it in a different context.

Science is about evidence.   It answers "how" questions.  How do you figure out the best material - pex or copper- for a re-pipe?  What is the best situation for this job?

Religion answers "why" questions.  Why is it important to be ethical?  Should I bribe the inspector?  How do I feel about Republicans? What is my PURPOSE in life, and why?  Should I try to get away with trying to cheat on my wife?  Why not?

Quote

We’ve only just met, so I think you might be thinking of someone else. I’m happy to discuss anything you feel like discussing, but I’m getting a bit of a gatekeeper vibe, so maybe chill on that front, unless I’m breaking board rules

Well frankly, the gatekeeper was to help me decide if I wanted to truly engage with you or not.  So it was definitely there.  I think we could have some good discussions now that I know a tiny bit about you.

Quote

I’m probably not well-versed enough in philosophy to ask questions of anyone who accuses others of speaking a language game, but I’ll try to keep up.

Well sorry to use a rather technical term I guess but a "language game" is not something that one "accuses" someone about because we all speak in CONTEXTS and sometimes we confuse what we are talking about in certain contexts.   Two of the biggies would be mixing "language games" like mixing the science "language game" with a religion "language game".   Think of two ball games, perhaps basketball and baseball.

Suppose two people are aguing which is the best game to watch.   One guy says "I hate baseball- it is so dang easy!  All you have to do is throw a ball through a hoop in the air- and you can jump up- lotsa really tall guys can just jump a little and push it through!   What kind of game is that!

That would be mixing "language games".  One guy is talking about basketball but calling it "baseball" and that is sometimes what happens with religion.

To me that is like saying that God could not have made the universe in six days because science says it took (oops don't know- zillions of years ) and therefore religion is wrong.

One context- religion- is mixed with another- science.

But really they are talking about two different things- religion maybe an allegory saying that God made the universe out of love for us and his purposes, - while the other person is looking for scientific evidence of how old the earth is.

One person is trying to find out the PURPOSE of the world his place in it- one language game- and the other is trying to find out scientifically how OLD the stars etc are- TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT questions/ ideas/ puposes and needs!

So yeah, I will do my best if you are "game" 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Sorry. I’ll rephrase the question. 
 

Wouldn’t that make the answer to prayers to god for the only true and living church more likely to lead to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

Not if you don't believe revelation is possible or "real" whatever that means.  That would prove it to be a "fake" as you might have always thought.

[manol]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This is one of my favorite posts, and I've been here awhile. Thanks so much!

Wow.  Thank you!

2 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Thanks for your reply. As another poster has already said, it was very insightful, and I’m glad I got to read it.

Thank you!

So of all the obscure boards out there on the internet, what brings YOU to THIS one?

Edited June 20, 2022 by manol

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Thanks for your reply. As another poster has already said, it was very insightful, and I’m glad I got to read it.

No. I was just generally curious about the hypothetical methodology of determining texts as scripture. 

For me it's kind of, at first, :

"Hmmm.   Interesting.  Maybe I should check that out more......"  And then as I do more checking I am drawn into checking further... and further, and then deciding if it has a "ring of truth"- if it strikes you "in your gut" that this is "good stuff".

It's like making any decision of conscience- that voice inside me- including picking a mate.   It kind of draws you in.

[MikeFoxtrot]

On 6/19/2022 at 10:42 PM, Vanguard said:

Redundant? How so?

If someone doesn’t believe in god, and does not pray for guidance, they would be left to make their decisions by following the dictates of their own conscience. If someone prays to god for guidance, and god prompts them to follow the dictates of their own conscience, then they’ve added a step to their decision-making process, but they end up following the dictates of their own conscience, which they would have been left to do in any case. Perhaps I’ve missed something. 

On 6/19/2022 at 10:42 PM, Vanguard said:

Edited to add: Mike - It looks like you're getting hit on multiple fronts. If my post is one too many - no worries. : )

I’d be able to drag all of you to lacktheist hell with me, if it weren’t for this confounded full-time job. 

[MikeFoxtrot]

On 6/19/2022 at 11:05 PM, mfbukowski said:

Not if you don't believe revelation is possible or "real" whatever that means.  That would prove it to be a "fake" as you might have always thought.

Are you saying revelation doesn’t work if you don’t first believe in it?

[MikeFoxtrot]

On 6/20/2022 at 12:00 AM, manol said:

So of all the obscure boards out there on the internet, what brings YOU to THIS one?

I enjoy religious discussion, and I was raised in the church formerly known as Mormon. A URL like “Mormon dialogue” was irresistible. 

[Teancum]

On 6/19/2022 at 5:02 PM, teddyaware said:

You must know in your heart my argument is very strong.

Ummm no.

On 6/19/2022 at 5:02 PM, teddyaware said:

 

Do you really think a Church that slaughtered and tortured multitudes for righteously exercising their God given freedom of conscience wasn’t in a state of total apostasy? 

Huh?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Are you saying revelation doesn’t work if you don’t first believe in it?

That's like asking if your conscience doesn't work if you don't first believe in it.

It is more something discovered.  It is an impression of what is right, which through meditation and prayer can be developed further by observing one's own thoughts.

Christopher Hitchens, famous atheist:

https://youtu.be/WQgbi56FFZY

Edited June 21, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

Perhaps I’ve missed something. 

Yes, what you missed is that in our church "conscience" = "light of Christ" tied inseparably to the Holy Ghost.

I personally believe any separation between conscience and revelation is semantics- two definitions of the same thing.

It is the "still small voice "

[mfbukowski]

On 6/19/2022 at 1:02 PM, Teancum said:

You are simply putting your LDS spin on things. I doubt any protestants would agree with your attempt to justify a restoration like the Mormonism claims.

Wrong.

That is exactly what the in the 19th century was called "Revivalism".

That was exactly, one might argue, what started Joseph in questioning which church was "true " causing him to go to the grove to pray, etc.

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Huh?

The Inquisition, Crusades, various European wars between Protestants and Catholics 

Edited June 21, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 6/19/2022 at 1:31 PM, MikeFoxtrot said:

If someone sincerely prays to know if there is one true church and sincerely prays to be led to find the one true church, would god ever lead them to another church?

Yes, absolutely.

I would not be a member today had I been born into all these "crazy rules", as I would have seen them in my non-LDS life.

I needed every step from Catholicism to today, these were my various "religions":

1. Philosophy. How could bread become flesh and blood

2. Communism.  Atheism and what appeared to be justice and equality for all.

3. Buddhism. What bourgeois garbage was this meditation stuff? I tried it, I liked it!  Meditation leads to conscience and following the voice within.

4. Philosophy again:William James book called "The Varieties of Religious Experience ".  Logic supporting religious experience as justified/true 

5. Humanism.  How can we make perfect humans?

6. By worshipping the Ideal, Perfect Human = God

7. "Mormonism"

If I had missed one step I would not be here today 

Edited June 21, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 6/19/2022 at 1:02 PM, Teancum said:

I doubt any protestants would agree with your attempt to justify a restoration like the Mormonism claims.

AND they believed that prayer could tell one which church is "true" through feelings on one's heart:

Remember Joseph and most of his family were Methodists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_(theology)

[Vanguard]

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

If someone doesn’t believe in god, and does not pray for guidance, they would be left to make their decisions by following the dictates of their own conscience. If someone prays to god for guidance, and god prompts them to follow the dictates of their own conscience, then they’ve added a step to their decision-making process, but they end up following the dictates of their own conscience, which they would have been left to do in any case. Perhaps I’ve missed something.

The difference as I see it is that one is actively cultivating the refinement of their conscience as it relates to a loving God - that same God who instilled said conscience and desires a relational context with His children - and the other isn't. 

3 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

I’d be able to drag all of you to lacktheist hell with me, if it weren’t for this confounded full-time job.

Ha! That gave me a chuckle as I've thought often how so many of us are able to carve out sufficient time to post as often as we do! There's an air of 'I may have a small slice of time today to look into posting' though the preponderance of their posts would suggest otherwise. Stick to your full-time job! ; )

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

If someone doesn’t believe in god, and does not pray for guidance, they would be left to make their decisions by following the dictates of their own conscience. If someone prays to god for guidance, and god prompts them to follow the dictates of their own conscience, then they’ve added a step to their decision-making process, but they end up following the dictates of their own conscience, which they would have been left to do in any case. Perhaps I’ve missed something. 

I’d be able to drag all of you to lacktheist hell with me, if it weren’t for this confounded full-time job. 

Nope.

Their conscience IS God's voice.  No circularity.

But through practice it can be honed to a sharp edge.  But acting on those impressions is the key.  It's like any skill that requires practice.

Edited June 21, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 6/18/2022 at 3:22 PM, teddyaware said:

I find it peculiar that Protestants decry our claim of an apostasy, yet the whole reason why their churches exist is because the Reformers fervently beloved the Catholic Church had irredeemably gone off the rails. If they really stopped to think about it they’d realize the only difference between their response to the apostasy and ours is that they think they “restored” the true Church hundreds of years before Joseph Smith did.

So very true, “Teddyaware”. The “Reformers”, and the so-called “Restorers”, men such as Martin Luther, or John Calvin”, they taught, and wrote, because they knew the “Fullness of the Gospel” had been lost to the the Church and world.. However, we believe, well, “we know”, that the true “Reformer” chosen and anointed by the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith.. Not only Jesus Christ appeared unto him for this final Reformation, but also past Prophets and Apostles. Each (holding) carrying the “Keys of their own dispensations”, such as John the Baptist, bestowing the Aaronic, or Levitical Priesthood. Then Peter, James and John” restoring the Melchizedek Priesthood. There are so many “Prophets and Apostles”, each bestowing their gifts and wisdom, to this young Prophet, that I cannot list them all, or don’t want to attempt to list them all, least I write too many errors. 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, MikeFoxtrot said:

If someone doesn’t believe in god, and does not pray for guidance, they would be left to make their decisions by following the dictates of their own conscience. If someone prays to god for guidance, and god prompts them to follow the dictates of their own conscience, then they’ve added a step to their decision-making process, but they end up following the dictates of their own conscience, which they would have been left to do in any case. Perhaps I’ve missed something. 

I’d be able to drag all of you to lacktheist hell with me, if it weren’t for this confounded full-time job. 

This has not been my experience.

Just because God gives me guidance, doesn't mean that I always want to follow it or feel like it's a great idea.  Often, He is guiding me to do something that I really don't want to do (because it's hard, or I'm afraid, or whatever).

God and my conscience are often easy to tell apart.  When God does prompt me to do what I had already decided was a good option and probably would have done on my own, then it's still different than making the choice alone.

It's the difference between knowing that the option is good and only hoping that it is.  It provides a safety net, one which does not guarantee success but which guarantees beneficial consequences of the choice.  That's something my own conscience can never offer.  And knowing that good is guaranteed makes persevering when things go sideways it doesn't look like it will end well possible.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This has not been my experience.

Just because God gives me guidance, doesn't mean that I always want to follow it or feel like it's a great idea.  Often, He is guiding me to do something that I really don't want to do (because it's hard, or I'm afraid, or whatever).

God and my conscience are often easy to tell apart.  When God does prompt me to do what I had already decided was a good option and probably would have done on my own, then it's still different than making the choice alone.

It's the difference between knowing that the option is good and only hoping that it is.  It provides a safety net, one which does not guarantee success but which guarantees beneficial consequences of the choice.  That's something my own conscience can never offer.  And knowing that good is guaranteed makes persevering when things go sideways it doesn't look like it will end well possible.

Agree, for the record!  The most powerful feeling on earth I think is when you KNOW without any doubt to follow faith and not fear.

But for one who doesn't believe there IS a "still small voice", it's one step at a time!

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

So very true, “Teddyaware”. The “Reformers”, and the “Restorers”, men such as Martin Luther, or John Calvin”, who taught, and wrote, because they knew the “Fullness of the Gospel” had been lost to the the Church and world.. However, awe believe, well, “we know”, that the true “Reformer” chosen and led by the Lord Jesus Christ, appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith.. Not only Jesus Christ appeared unto him for this Reformation, but also past Prophets and Apostles. Each (holding) carrying the “Keys of their dispensations, such as John the Baptist, bestowing the Aaronic, or Levitical Priesthood. Then Peter, James and John” restoring the Melchizedek Priesthood. There are so many “Prophets and Apostles”, each bestowing their gifts and wisdom, to this young Prophet, that I cannot list them all, or don’t want to attempt to list them all.

I love your post, Papa! You’re exactly right! The only reason why the Reformers are called Reformers and not Restorers is because they did the best they could on their own to bring back a semblance to the true faith. But they knew they were doing it of their own volition, not by being directly commanded  of God through the means of divine visitations, visions and revelations.

Edited June 21, 2022 by teddyaware