[dande48]

DarkJedi wrote:

Lastly in this regard, many of Joseph’s earlier teachings were more unitarian (and it can be inferred from the BoM) – a core unitarian belief is that God is the only God, and Jesus is not necessarily a God and calling him the Son of God is not necessarily literal.

Didn’t the first edition of the BOM equate Jesus with God/the Eternal Father, rather than the Son of God? I thought it was later teachings that actually distinguished the two. I do think at the time of Jesus, when most people called themselves a “son of God” or “child of God”, it was used in the familial, spiritual, metaphorical sense, much like we use the term today. In fact, we’ve got this bit of dialogue pointing to Jesus meaning it metaphorically:

John 10:33-36 wrote:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

If Jesus really were the literal Son of God, this response seems awfully deceptive, as he would’ve been claiming to be using the term metaphorically, when he was actually using it literally (which is what the Pharisees were accusing him of). Also, there isn’t any reference to Jesus calling himself God, outside of John. It seems implausible to me that those earlier authors would skip over such an important detail, were Jesus to make that claim. Plus, in all earlier manuscripts of Luke, after Jesus is baptized, God is recorded as saying: “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.”, which also points to God both quoting the messianic prophecy in Psalms 2:7, but also using the term “Son” metaphorically and not literally. It took a few centuries for them to change this.

It’s completely fine to believe Jesus was perfect and literally the “Son of God”, and there are lot of thoughts onto what that actually means, and the actual nature of Christ. I remember a few places in the NT, where Paul is actually admonishing the importance of believing Christ “in the flesh”, because certain sects had popped up which believed Jesus was only a spirit. It’s not so cut and dry, even within the first few decades after Christ’s death. But I think it’s very understandable, reasonable, and even useful for certain Christians believe he was not the literal “Son of God”, nor perfect.

[dande48]

SamBee wrote:

However I do not think it is helpful to see Jesus as flawed. All other scriptural characters (except HF), yes, but Jesus no. In this case, Jesus should be an ideal to aspire to, not someone to be dragged down to our level.

I hope this isn’t going too off topic, but why does Christ need to be perfect? Why does HF need to be perfect? And why do we need to aspire to be perfect? I understand there’s the whole belief that he had to be perfect to perform the atonement, etc, but why? Personally, I still fail to see how inflicting punishment on an innocent third party somehow absolves the perpetrator, nor do I feel it’s right or helpful to expect someone else to suffer the consequences of your mistakes. We should take responsibility for our mistakes, make reparations when possible, learn and grow from them. Wanting them to be “washed away”, and paid for by someone else feels counterproductive. My mistakes have made me who I am.

Personally, I think “perfection” is one of those things a lot of people strive for, but would find it unbearably boring once they obtained it. Not to mention, a perfect person would be much harder to relate to.

[dande48]

Daughter1 wrote:

…I cannot understand why a flawed God would deserve the level of worship He demands.

Haha, I could say the same thing about most CEOs, board members, politicians, and world leaders.

Back to a more serious note, I think just about all of our religious beliefs begin with premises far outside of the recorded scripture. Hence, scriptures (et al) will most often conform to what we already believe, despite the fact that so many believing in the same scriptures can come to very different conclusions. My personal feeling is that the actual, historical Jesus Christ would be unrecognizable to most Christians today, and would be thoroughly put-off by many of our modern-day practices and religious worship. Suppose, for example, if Jesus would be outraged to learn we’ve made him into a god to be worshiped? I’ve heard many times (including on this site), that our understanding of God is closer to the objective truth than in any other time in history… but I think that’s a little arrogant, and “against the odds”. I think the ancient prophets, even up through the prophets of the restoration, had a very different view of God than we have today.

But I don’t judge them for it, flaws and all. A lot of who we are stems from factors outside of our control. They tried to make the best sense of it, and find comfort and purpose. They did the best they could with what they had. They grew up in a different world, in different societies with different values. I don’t even think many of what we percieve as “flaws” they felt (or their societies felt) were flaws. They are very human. Christ was very human. And I think that makes them very relatable.

[dande48]

DarkJedi wrote:

… but on the other hand I also see no moves to force any church to recognize or perform SSM.

It feels like the boogey man to me. I think there’s this pride in taking a moral stand, and “sacrificing” for religion. Many want to sacrifice and die as martyrs. Part of me wonders if the Church actually wants what they say they fear happening, to actually happen. But it’s not going to. For one thing, we are not a company performing a service. We’re explicitly forbidden to take money for our clergy to perform weddings, use the chapel for weddings, or the cultural hall for receptions. Second, the laws (at least in the US) give religions a LOT of leeway. Almost too much.

But I think when talking of religious liberty, the main focus is on companies and individuals. Should a company be able to enact policies which religiously discriminate, or are exempt from certain laws because of their owner’s religious beliefs? Because currently, many do and are. Should an employed individual be allowed to discriminate in the work they take part in, because of their religious beliefs? It’s complicated, but I’d also say no (and I’ve changed my mind about this). Mostly because I’d hate it if a company refused their services to me based on my religion or lifestyle. But some still do anyways.

No one is going to stop anyone from believing, practicing, or worshipping as they choose. It’s just when your religion comes into conflict with the practicing of my religion, or living a peaceful, happy life, that there is trouble.

[dande48]

AmyJ wrote:

For me, when I realized that General Mormon (he was the leader of their armies after all) spent the majority of his life leading people and trying to raise the morale in the face of a lost cause of the survival of the Nephites, it helped me understand why there are such stark “Us vs Them” examples throughout, and why he devoted so much to armies and other generals. I think it’s in part why he included the people who covenanted not to pick up the sword (it would have been unthinkable to him to be so defenseless) and why he included what happened to their children.

There was that whole issue of “prophetic revelation”, where Mormon sent that very angry letter to Pahoran for not providing aid to the Nephite armies, and delared that God had commanded if they didn’t send aid, he should march into the capital with his armies and coup the government. Pahoran has GOT to be one of my favorite Book of Mormon characters. He completely takes it in stride, let’s Moroni know he’s already been deposed by the Kingmen, and asks for assistance. But as far as revelation falling short, I think that’s a pretty solid example.

[dande48]

To be very blunt and maybe a little too honest… what about God? We say God is perfect, and “good”, and has the best interests of humanity at heart. But here are some evidences I feel that show God (at least as described by prophets) is kind of a butt:

[dande48]

To quote Omarosa,

[img]https://media1.tenor.com/images/463fc6325ba0989598b9c60025ff2ad3/tenor.gif?itemid=11533446[/img]

I think the angle they are trying to go for, is that sometimes modern prophetic revelation goes against the common consensus. And that’s fair. I think religious liberty is often under threat when not conforming to the most popular beliefs. I think it is good to point that out, and come up with a way to respectfully co-exist. It’s tough to be different.

But the trouble is… religious liberty (as with many political topics) is often viewed in one direction. It’s “my religious liberty”, rather than “their religious liberty”. The Church, as a whole I feel, is concerned with their religious liberty, and sometimes “Christian” religious liberty. But no one ever seems concerned with “Islamic”, “Hindu”, “Athiest”, or even “other Christian” religious liberty. Which is why I think the Bishop’s response is a good approach, encouraging mutual understanding. But then it’s misinterpreted, IMHO. Because you can’t go around asking for the religious liberty to discriminate against others on the basis of their religious beliefs. And that’s what happens.

Because we’re all inherently “religionist”. Everyone inherently discriminates against those with different religious views. And until we recognize that, no real solution can be reached, and religious liberty will always be a problem.

[dande48]

SilentDawning wrote:

Then in my view, it’s all opinion. For me, it means to take very seriously the advice to get personal confirmation of all revelations that affect you.

This reminded me of a joke I heard a while back:

Quote:

Confirmation Bias (n): The study of how other people think.

Ironically, the first thought most people have after reading this is, “Haha, that’s exactly how other people think of confirmation bias!” 😆 :problem:

As for “getting your own personal confirmation” goes, that feels to me like saying “Allow me to get my equally uninformed opinion on your opinion.”That’s one of the issues I have with the “gospel”, is that it causes people to cement themselves into what they feel as “revelation”, rather than think things through, come to a conclusion, and reserve the right to change your mind later. In fairness Christofferson has come as close as anyone (that I know of), to expressly declaring something wasn’t revelation when they honestly thought it was.

[dande48]

Happy you found us, GreyThinker.

The toughest thing about a faith transition, is the loss of community. When you’re a member, especially born and raised, it feels like your entire network is LDS. The sad thing is, religious discrimination is very real when you don’t fit into the status quo. It makes a hard transition even harder. It’s good to have a place like this, where we can work through our thoughts, vent a little, and try to find our place.

I’m glad to have your voice in this forum, and look forward to your comments. We’re here for you, should you need anything.

thegreythinker wrote:

I still keep the commandments and strive to live a righteous life, even though I’m not sure what I believe anymore.

Also, I just wanted to say this is super important. Chances are your views will shift, but I think it’s very important not to toss everything aside. Some aspects of the Church are really good, even if our original basis for beliving in them turns out to be false. “Don’t throw babies out with the bath water.”

[dande48]

SilentDawning wrote:

See this is what gets me. We are expected to do all kinds of things because everything is inspired. Yet there are “unanswered questions” about people who are not main stream sexually oriented our religion can’t answer. If this life is the time to prepare to meet God, and there are so many people that are not straight, shouldn’t we have an answer to these basic questions? I’m not claiming we need answers to every single mystery, but heck, sexual orientation, particularly when say, a man sees an attractive man, he has a “involuntary physiological reaction”?

The thing is, the Church teaches it is all inspired/revelation when it is recieved. In hindsight, after “new revelation” is recieved, the former revelations get redefined to “personal opinion” or “our best judgement at the time”. It’s the way revelation works with all religions who profess revelation, not just ours. I suspect it happens with “personal revelation” all the time too. As we recieve new “revelations”, we redefine our past, in order to keep things congruent.

In fairness, societies’ views on sexual orientation have shifted drastically, even in the past century. There are a lot of factors at play. Science is complicated. The vast majority of opinions are formed with very little knowledge. If you’d like to put it this way, God can only work with what He has to work with. He’s not going to be able to give a revelation which goes against prior held beliefs. Though personally, I believe God is who we make Him to be. If there is a God, I suspect his views are wildly different from any society’s in any age, including our own. Maybe God doesn’t talk, because we wouldn’t like what He has to say?

[dande48]

Roy wrote:

I understand “being saved” in the context that most of my Christian friends use it as being inducted into team Jesus with all the trappings. For the rest of your life, any “mistake” you might make is already known and paid for as long as you do not sever yourself from the team.

Does that mean according to LDS doctrine, everyone is on “team Jesus” by default? It all still feels like a grey area to me.

DarkJedi wrote:

Our theology is that we are all worthy of that sacrifice – that’s the grace part we get right, the atonement of Christ applies to everybody, we will all be resurrected, etc. If they keep that hymn I hope they change those words – but meanwhile I think using qualification instead of worthiness makes a distinction in a case like that.

It’s interesting to me the distinction we often find in Church between “worth” and “worthy”, as if someone could have one but not the other. As if the Bishop could say, “You’re not worthy to enter the temple”, but would never say, “You don’t have enough worth to enter the temple”, despite the fact they mean the same thing. It’s a funny distinction. Maybe that’s why they’re using the word “qualification”, but it still feels just as discriminatory.

[dande48]

nibbler wrote:

Probably another semantics issue.

My definition of LDS scripture/doctrine comes down to whatever I could say is scripture (or not scripture) in SS or over the pulpit without getting lynched.

[dande48]

nibbler wrote:

And now I wonder… would I want a more open canon? I bet the first thing that would go into a newly open canon would be the proclamation.

Last I checked, the proclamation was canon.

[dande48]

Good:

-Focus on service

-Focus on the family

-Rituals

-Inherent worth of the individual

-Uchtdorf, Christofferson, Holland

Meh:

-Open canon (GC talks are generally accepted as “canon”)

-Public work projects (housing, retail developments, beautification projects)

-Ministering program

Bad:

-Obsession with “truth”

-Obsession with Church leaders, especially the prophet

-Determining “truth” through “feelings of the spirit”

-Worthiness (you can have “worth” but not be “worthy”?)

-Pious fraud

-Judgement of “others”

[dande48]

What does “being saved” actually mean? Is it having a hopeful promise of being saved in the future? Freedom from a particular sin? All sins? Feeling consistently happy? Feeling consistently at peace? I have difficulty with the phrase “I’ve been saved”, because all definitions I can think of only apply after death, or are temporary states of our current condition.

“Qualified” feels like a politically correct synonym for “worthy”.

[Author]

Posts