[MapleLeaf]

Brian Johnston wrote:

The point I want to focus on is Atheists seeing religion as an “intellectual error,” which is a specific instance of the more broad concept of people seeing the “other” as ridiculous, while their own ridiculous traditions are considered “normal” and reasonable.

I think it’s perfectly acceptable for someone to view something as an “intellectual error”, whether religion or economics or math. Just because it’s someone’s deeply held belief doesn’t make it an indisputable subject – it may mean you want to tip-toe around the person’s feelings a little more carefully however… But if you asked me whether I thought it was an “intellectual error” to believe that all species of animals were created on the same day, I would have to say yes. It’s nothing personal, it’s just fact.

I certainly don’t go out of my way to shoot down anyone’s beliefs – let them believe whatever they want to believe. But when their beliefs spill over into your area of expertise and they have something wrong (like Dawkins and the creationists, for example), it should be “fair game” to make an intellectual argument against them. Dawkins takes it a step further and encourages people to convert to his belief system – but hey, so do the missionaries! And practically everyone else on the planet with an opinion. This kind of respectful dialogues should be taking place. I can totally disagree with you and respect you at the same time.

[MapleLeaf]

Idaho Coug wrote:

It really is interesting that literally the exact same feeling that accompanies a heart felt prayer or religious talk also accompanies a song, book, movie, view of nature, or any number of things in our life that can be considered quite seperate from our LDS rituals. And even more interesting at least for me to note is that I have experienced what I consider to be the spirit more through expriences removed from the LDS Church than those experinces within it.

Totally agree. It makes me wonder though, if “feeling the spirit” is just an over-romanticized way of saying “emotionally moved”. Sometimes our wording can be deceptive, and we impose a supernatural label on something that’s purely human and scientifically understood. There’s nothing mystical about it – beautiful, yes, but not mystical.

[MapleLeaf]

Great post, Nathan!

My “feeling the spirit” moments have occasionally included reading poetry, enjoying nature, singing the national anthem, and listening to certain favourite rock songs. Reading the scriptures or hearing an inspiring talk in church are still there, but they have been in the minority of the “spirit”-filled moments. There are a couple of ways to interpret this – keeping it real I have to say that I think “feeling the spirit” is just an airy-fairy way of saying you are having a positive emotional reaction to something; purely humanistic, purely non-divine. Either that or there is a “divine” element to the human experience, and it just so happens that it occurs largely outside the religious world.

[MapleLeaf]

Euhemerus wrote:

All I can say is that it should have happened long long ago, and I think it’s rather unfortunate that the book is as popular as it is. It only serves as fuel to the fundamentalist fire (no offense to Bruce in Montana). It’s like speculation gone wild!

I’m actually sad about Mormon Doctrine going out of print. I started re-reading a copy from our church library just before I heard the news (on a BRM kick lately), and I have to say that although I disagree with practically everything he says, and the “debate-is-over” mentality in which he says it, there is something to be said for his certainty, clarity of thought, and conviction.

Mormon Doctrine captures the beliefs and ideas that are held by a good chunk of the LDS population, and in that sense it’s a valuable and telling text – much like the Journal of Discourses, which has also now become a rare find, captured an era of Mormon thought. It seems tragic to lose it to history. Try telling a TBM about a view espoused by a general authority in the JD and you’re likely to get blank looks. I’d hate to see that happen with Mormon Doctrine.

But perhaps in order for the organization to evolve it is necessary to take some of these old era-defining texts out of the limelight and replace them with new ones? That said, there’s something Fahrenheit 451-ish that I don’t like about these old texts vanishing. We need to move on from some of our older ways of thinking, but we should never forget our history. Much like how I want to see “To Kill a Mockingbird” or (a more extreme example) “Mein Kampf” remain available for years to come, even if some of the themes expressed are now considered archaic and wrong. Thank goodness more and more texts are becoming available in e-book format!

[MapleLeaf]

I like how they captured their journey in those lyrics. Very well done.

If I can offer my advice to those who may be feeling ashamed of their doubt or worried about where it will lead… Many of us have gone through similar experiences, and many of us are happier now that we’re on the other side of the issue. Recognize this… You’re not doubting because you’re a bad person. You’re doubting because you care about truth – you care about what’s right. You shouldn’t be ashamed of caring. I’m more concerned for the people who ignore those feelings and say “All is well” when they’re only lying to themselves, keeping their heads in the sand. Doubt is a virtue. Be true to what you feel in your heart is right and you will feel more whole than you ever have in your life – that’s my experience anyway. Willfully blind obedience is no subsitute for sincere conviction. It’s a bumpy road but there’s a meadow at the end – don’t give up.

By the way, Ron Paul (Texas congressman) is awesome.

[MapleLeaf]

I’m going to pick A with a footnote, then explain why the others did not appeal to me logically.

Cadence wrote:

A. It is all myth and legend. Nothing is factual and is all the fabrication of men

Yes, this is my pick. That is to say that the divine events are myth and legend. Although I should say that I am open-minded about it, I believe that none of the divine events are factual and they are the fabrication (or wishful thinking) of men. That said, church history is filled with many inspiring stories and inspiring people, and people who believed in the divine events accomplished great things because of their belief. We can learn from their experiences – even if it’s learning what not to do in some cases. Additionally, the church is a good temporal organization which seems to have its house in order in terms of financial power and social institutions. Someone compared the church to the RCC and I think that’s apt… the RCC has such a disturbing history, but for hundreds of years it has provided the backbone of temporal institutions in society: schools, hospitals, charities, and social events. If you’ve been raised in it, it’s difficult to leave even if you no longer believe the stories and traditions around which the organization is built. Sometimes it’s not like you’re staying in a church (with the focus being worship of a literal divine being) but in a bingo club (with the focus being temporal – for the benefit of your family or community involvement). I wonder if there’s a StayCatholic website out there somewhere…

Quote:

B. Some of the foundational divine events of the church happened but many were fabrications of early leaders like Joseph

That would be an interesting mix, imo… Which foundational divine events could have occured while still leaving JS to fabricate the rest of it? Did God the Father and Jesus Christ really appear to tell Joseph to restore their church, only to have him make up the rest of it with no further inspiration or guidance? Perhaps the Book of Mormon was really divinely translated from gold plates, but Joseph lied about receiving the revelations recorded in the D&C? It is hard for me to conceive of a feasible combination that would make this so.

Quote:

C. All of the divine foundational events of the church did happen, but we have lost our way and the current church no longer speaks for God

Would God restore his one and only true church to the earth through a series of fantastic divine events only to have it fizzle out and lose its way? I suppose it’s possible, but it seems less likely. JS said that the church has been restored in this dispensation of the fulness of times, never again to be taken from the earth.

Quote:

D. No Foundational events occurred but we are still a Christian organization who preaches and teaches the will of God

If JS lied about directly receiving the will of God by revelation, it is difficult to see how the organization based on his fabrication could still be preaching and teaching the will of God in any real and literal way. If by the “will of God” you mean doing good deeds and teaching people about Jesus, then sure, we’re doing the “will of God”. But then why throw in all the foundational event stuff anyway? We shouldn’t pat ourselves on the backs for adding a little truth to the lies, or vice versa.

Quote:

E. It is 100% true just as it is taught every week in Sunday School

I don’t think any of us would be here if we believed that was the case.

[MapleLeaf]

Rix wrote:

bridget_night wrote:

Right now, all I know is that I want to be Christlike and do good things.

Maybe that’s all that is necessary?

😮

Not according to Christ.

[MapleLeaf]

I’m reading “A New Witness for the Articles of Faith” by Bruce R. McConkie, and I came across an interesting quote on this very subject. For some reason I thought he would be in line with Woodruff on this issue, but apparently not!

“Does God know all things? He does. Is there anything he does not know? There is not. Is he progressing in knowledge and learning new truths? He is not. He is not a student God. His knowledge and supremacy are not limited to a sphere or realm beyond which there are higher spheres and greater realms. He is an Eternal God, an infinite being, an omniscient man, one in whose person all knowledge, all power, and all truth center.” -Pg 176, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith.

Again, I think you can be a devoted student of the gospel and it’s still a toss-up as to which of these opposing views you will believe in. McConkie, the BOM, and the OT and NT seem to paint an omniscient unchanging God, whereas much of the early prophets and modern day members seem to take the view of an ever-learning God. I don’t think there is a “right” answer, unless you want to dispute the reliability of the sources that present whichever view you oppose. (I’ll go with the cannon every time).

Keep in mind that just because he may not be increasing in knowledge does not mean he is not increasing in other ways – God continues to create and gain eternal increase without having to advance in knowledge. So I think the eternal, all-knowing, unchanging God that McConkie describes is perfectly consistent with mormon theology on the nature of God, despite contradictions with other general authorities on the matter.

[MapleLeaf]

just me wrote:

It does not appear that the Isrealites were awaiting one particular “Messiah” or one “anointed one.”

Yes, the Israelites were awaiting one particular Messiah, and still are to this day. There are both scriptural and secular sources that make this clear:

Online encyclopedia entry on “Messiah”: “In Judaism, a man who would be sent by God to restore Israel and reign righteously for all mankind. The idea developed among the Jews especially in their adversity, and such a conception is clearly indicated in Isaiah 9.” (http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Messiah.aspx)

From a website about Judaism: “Belief in the eventual coming of the mashiach is a basic and fundamental part of traditional Judaism… In the Shemoneh Esrei prayer, recited three times daily, we pray for all of the elements of the coming of the mashiach: ingathering of the exiles; restoration of the religious courts of justice; an end of wickedness, sin and heresy; reward to the righteous; rebuilding of Jerusalem; restoration of the line of King David; and restoration of Temple service.” (http://www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm)

Some scriptural snippets: “The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ).” (John 1:41); “”He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One.”” (Luke 24:35); “The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”” (John 4:25-26); “Come, see a man who told me everything I ever did. Could this be the Christ?” (John 4:29).

Clearly it was/is part of the belief system, and people were well aware of it in Jesus’ day.

just me wrote:

Mapleleaf, I just read Daniel 9 and I fail to see the connection to Jesus the Christ. The correct translation is rendered “an anointed one” and “an anointed ruler” not “Messiah.” … Also, the timeline that is given in Daniel makes it extremely difficult to apply it to Jesus. The timeframe starts with the Edict of Cyrus that was issued in 538 BCE. Seventy weeks from that doesn’t get us to Jesus.

Oh ye of little faith! Firstly, the timeframe starts with the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem, which was later recorded in Nehemiah 2. It pinpoints it as being in the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes. Modern scholars say that was about 455 BC. Secondly, nope, 70 literal weeks wouldn’t get us anywhere. The interesting thing is when we use a formula prescribed elsewhere in the Bible and apply it to this numbering – 1 day = 1 year (Numbers 14:34; Ezekiel 4:5-6), and you may be surprised at how that pans out…

70 weeks, seven days a week. 70 x 7 = 490 days. 455 BC + 490 years = 35 AD. (The seventieth week was when Messiah would be “cut off” in the middle of the week, leaving Jesus’ death at about 33 AD). Fascinating, isn’t it?

just me wrote:

The idea of one man atoning for the sins of another is against the Law of Moses and there would be no Jew awaiting something unlawful.

Daniel 9:27 – “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” The Messiah would cause the Jewish temple sacrifice to cease? But that was their method of atoning for their sins. How could they just eliminate their method for atoning for sins? Well, another way would have to have been provided. In the middle of that week Messiah was cut off, or killed, but not for himself. Isn’t it clear? Messiah would be killed for our sins, and it would end the need for ritual sacrifice!

[MapleLeaf]

Thanks for starting up this conversation again, Featherina! I have a great interest in both Christianity (obviously, with the whole LDS thing) and Buddhism. I’ve noticed that people tend to want to reconcile their interests – it’s human nature – and in this case they want to reconcile their belief in Jesus’ teachings with a Buddhist world-view. As I have argued earlier on in this thread, I feel that they are miles apart, and I can prove it.

Featherina wrote:

Just these last 4 months, my perspective has changed so much! Spiritual searching, NOM, friends & a book, “Putting on the Mind of Christ” (by Jim Marion) all contributed. This book is about how Christ was not Jesus’ last name…& how “Christ” consciousness is what Jesus had & probably Buddha & others, as well & how we can all achieve it.

Ah, yes, Christ consciousness, that New Age nugget… New Age authors and teachers would have us believe that “Christ” was a title that was applied to all the great sages of the past, and that every individual has the potential to receive that title by tapping into “Christ Consciousness”. The truth is that “Christ” is the Greek version of “Messiah”, a Jewish concept of ONE promised individual who would establish the Kingdom of God.

Featherina wrote:

When the Pharisees asked about when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus answered, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” I also wondered how I could have a realtionship with Jesus, when I don’t pray to him, & a relationship is only as good as its communication. Jesus also, when called, “Good Master” corrected him & said there is none good, but God.

1) The Kingdom of God: One reason why a lot of the Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah is because they expected a temporal saviour, one who would save them from bondage under the Roman Empire. When Jesus said “the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17), he was responding to the Pharisees (uber religious Jews of the day) who were asking him when the Kingdom of God would come. Jesus corrected them, because they thought the initial appearance of the Messiah was to establish the temporal kingdom. They misunderstood the prophecy… Read the Daniel 9:25-27, an OT Messianic prophecy, it says that “Messiah will be cut off”, which we understand to refer to his crucifixion.

If you read on in Luke 17, you will see that he goes on to describe his Second Coming. THAT is when he will establish his temporal kingdom. In the mean time, we can be citizens of his heavenly kingdom by becoming followers of Jesus Christ. That is what he is likely referring to when he says “the kingdom of God is within you”. Observe the context of his answer, and you will see that the meaning is more clear!

2) Relationship with / Praying to Jesus: While it is current LDS policy not to pray to Jesus, I would argue that it was historically accepted. People prayed to Jesus in the New Testament and he never rebuked them. We have another thread on that here: http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=760” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=760

3) None is good but God: Would you say that Jesus was not good??? I think he is probably the only person in existence who CAN be called “good”. Jesus was trying to get this disciple to think about his identity. It was against Jewish law for a mortal to claim to be God, so Jesus could not come right out and announce his divinity. But throughout the NT he affirmed his divinity by offering hints such as this one. He isn’t saying he’s not good – everything else in the scriptures contradict that idea. Jesus was the only completely good man.

Featherina wrote:

Still, I was taught that a requirement for heaven, is to believe in Jesus Christ, so I had never imagined that my belief in Jesus as my Lord & Savior could hinder my spiritual progress. Marion wrote, “By putting Jesus on an unreachable pedestal so that others such as Buddha & Muhammad can’t get near him (that is, by understanding Jesus only as divine & the others only as human), we also prevent ourselves from getting near Jesus. We set up a major obstacle to our realization of Christ Counsciousness & our own entrance into the Kingdom.”

What did Jesus say about the entrance to the kingdom? “I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved”. (John 10:9, see whole chapter).

How does Marion say we enter the kingdom? If not by Jesus, then how? Jesus said that anyone who tried to get in another way is a theif and a robber (John 10:1).

A lot of people put Jesus on this unreachable pedestal and view him as an austere and incomprehensible figure. I get a different view of him from the scriptures – deity who loved his creation so much that he brought himself within reach… he became a human being in order to interact with us and endure the worst that human experience has to offer. That isn’t an unreachable God to me, that is a God who very much desires to be within our reach.

[MapleLeaf]

Featherina wrote:

Like, what Jesus taught about “Love others as I’ve loved you.” “The kingdom of God is within you.” These seem like Buddhist teachings, as well.

Featherina, there’s actually a good thread on this topic that you may be interested in! Check it out: http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=916” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=916. Unfortunately it kind of got sidetracked, but you can always take it back on track if there’s more to say.

[MapleLeaf]

Jesus ate after his resurrection (Luke 24:41-43), so I think there’s hope!

[MapleLeaf]

I’m surprised at the number of “I don’t care” votes! How can someone not care about the end of the world? I too think the Chile quake is nothing more than natural processes within the earth, and not a sign, but surely the question should draw some kind of opinion and not apathy!

[MapleLeaf]

Gail wrote:

The pagans had a dualistic Gods pared Gods and Goddesses. Creation took male and female. Than the God of Abraham changed all that. A male God that could create with his word no need for a woman.

I’m not sure if the God of Abraham changed that, necessarily. Although he most often appears in male form (as Jesus in the NT, as the “angel of the Lord” in OT), and the church clearly teaches that gods/goddesses do have physical genders, I think it can be argued that the traditional view of God is a non-human spiritual deity (John 4:24) who possesses both male and female characteristics. Both male and female are created after God’s image (Genesis 1:27).

He is most often referred to as our Father in Heaven, and shows himself to us as a male – everyone has their theories as to why this is. But there are other times where he displays maternal characteristics: “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you” (Isaiah 66:13), “I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings” (Matt. 23:37).

[MapleLeaf]

I totally felt the same way. It’s not really true belief if you’re forcing yourself to believe, I found. It got to the point where I couldn’t feel spiritually sound, nor truly moral, by believing and practicing certain things – so I just let it go, and I feel much more free and “okay” with myself. I feel much more like a moral human being and less like a soldier trying to stay in line.

Obedience doesn’t make someone moral, in my opinion. Forcing yourself to believe doesn’t make you a better believer. Doing what you believe is RIGHT, no matter what – that’s what makes you moral.

[Author]

Posts