Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
flowerdrops wrote:
Ha! My father-in-law says that their were no dinosaurs on the Earth. The reason for the fossils is because the Earth was created from land masses of other worlds that did have dinos! Gotta love it!That’s actually how I used to justify my LDS beliefs with modern science! A Sunday school teacher actually first presented the idea, and it seemed to fit. There’s already an LDS doctrine which says that God used existing materials to organize not only our spirits but the world(s). So it’s only a short step away from the conclusion that God organized our earth from previous earth-like planet prototypes.
flowerdrops wrote:
Mapleleaf… thank you for your insights. I would love to hear from more of you!Absolutely! I certainly enjoy the speculation. I still feel that the scriptures are too specific on this point to budge much from conventional understanding. Consider these verses in Acts 1, after the resurrected Jesus dwelt among his disciples:
“And when he [Jesus] had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” (Acts 1:9-11) I’m grateful that God has set it out to be like this… Otherwise it would be our responsibility to scour the earth in search of the second coming of Christ. I would be concerned about looking for him, and somehow following the wrong one! There are many who make such claims to be Christ. It looks to me as though God has set up a way that we can know the real Jesus has returned by the hard-to-replicate manner in which he will return! (From the sky, with great power and noise, and visible to all).
NotaMember wrote:My question: are there any good resources available for non-Mormon spouses who want to support their Mormon spouses, yet remain uninvolved with the church? Or maybe good resources on how to be more tolerant?
Welcome, NotaMember! I was raised LDS, but I can relate to some degree because my significant other is of another faith. There were times when our faiths clashed, particularly while I was still heavily into the Church. I think the main problem I had was a lack of understanding/appreciation of her faith. I think we were both more interested in converting the other (or hoping the other would convert) than in understanding the heartfelt commitment the other had to their faith. It hurts to know that the significant person in your life can take your heartfelt beliefs so lightly so as to assume you will readily convert… and it hurt both of us.
We are at a stage now where we have both cooled down concerning our respective religions. My advice would be to keep a foot in her religious life (attend church occasionally, occasional activity, or whatever), and invite her to do the same with yours.
It’s funny that you mention the United Church – I’ve only been to two of their services, and they certainly have an appeal with their more liberal views, but I found them kind of wishy-washy when it comes to God and spirituality. It seemed more about making people feel good than having any actual substance. So I understand what the non-fulfilling thing is like. There are other “liberal” Christian churches that are more rooted in solid doctrine, however. Not sure if that’s still an option for you guys at this point, but sometimes it’s about finding the right church community that you both like. I’m sorry that it didn’t work out with you both taking to the LDS church! (but for your own sake, I wouldn’t recommend caving to the pressure to convert if that’s not the way you’re heading)
This forum is definitely a good place to vent about experience in religion connected to the LDS church! Looking forward to your participation!
jbelli21 wrote:Maple Leaf, Post Nicene Creed Christianity. Read the early christian creeds, that’s how they describe God and it was a direct result of Greek philosophy attempting to define what God was and what he wasn’t. I’m sure that the very earliest Christians weren’t as influenced by Greek metaphysics as a few centuries later.
That’s a fair statement. But is it fair to suggest that an omniscient God can also be a personal God such as the early Christians believed in?
Old-Timer wrote:MWallace, the problem is that such a stance would eliminate baptism for the dead at the practical level – since probably not one person who is not Mormon would want to be baptized into the LDS Church if s/he was offered that chance while living.
MWallace raises an interesting point though… If it’s mainly about turning the hearts of the children to the fathers, wouldn’t it be just as meaningful for us to do proxy ordinances that would have been meaningful to them? For example, coming from a Scottish background, I think it would be more meaningful (to both me and my non-LDS fore-father in question) if I performed an “Ode to a Haggis” on their behalf rather than a temple baptism or endowment. Those things simply were not part of their life nor meaningful to them… it can only be worse to the memory of those to whom it would be contrary (such as a Catholic priest), wouldn’t it?
jbelli21 wrote:most LDS don’t take their philosophical assumptions very far for if they did many of them would wind up believing something completely against what Joseph Smith was trying to correct with the restoration.
Not that any of us are worried about stepping outside of Mormon orthodoxy.
Jbelli, could you explain what you mean by the early Christian view of God being “a product of Greek absolutism – impassable, immutable, timeless, and essentially impersonal”? My understanding of the early Christian view of God, based on the NT, was that they believed in a very personal God! So much that they believed eternal life = knowing God personally (John 17:3)!
swimordie wrote:MapleLeaf wrote:“And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name [or, in the name of “the me”], that will I [actually “the I”] do, that the Father [actually an abstract force of love that we call God] may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my [actually your own, “the me”] name, I [“the I”] will do it. If ye love me [“the me”], keep my [your own] commandments.”
Wow, I think that is as close to my own personal perspective as I’ve seen…
😳 From an abstract perspective, God sent me here to earth to learn to be like Him… The above quote sounds like a good, hands-off mentor program….
Especially that last part: “If I love me, I keep my commandments.” I think, at some level, God may approve of this.
It may be a good life philosophy, Swim. Who knows? You might be on to something. But as an interpretation of what Jesus was actually saying, I honestly think it’s far off the mark – based on the context of his life and teachings.
Steve-hpias wrote:MapleLeaf wrote:If you want to get to know me, go directly to me. Don’t go to Steve to get to know me… Steve’s a nice guy, but you might as well go to the source.
Hey! What did I do, or not do, to deserve that kind of response?!
Aw, Steve, as much as your King K Rool avatar would frighten some, I’m sure you’re a nice guy! You also happen to possess the first name that came to mind that day!
😆 Tom Haws wrote:MapleLeaf wrote:Jesus didn’t claim to be God in the sense that we are all gods deep down inside. He claimed to be God in the Jewish sense that there is one creator (Deut. 6:4) who was prophecied to come down in the flesh (Zechariah 2:10-11, John 1:14) and be “God with us” (Isaiah 7:14, Matt. 1:23). MUCH different from the eastern religious concept.
In your most honorable, but humble, opinion, of course.
I did include scriptural references!
Tom Haws wrote:
Am I hearing with you that “the I” is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man cometh to the Father but by “the me”? To know oneself truly?The problem with interpretations like these is that they are reading too much into the text. It uses Jesus’ words but takes them completely out of context of what he was saying. You might say this is just my opinion, sure, but I can back it up.
Tom, I’m guessing your statement is from Tolle? Not sure if you meant it jokingly or not, but people do actually interpret Jesus’ words that way. If he meant “the I” or the self was the way, don’t you think he would have said it that way? EVERY other parable that Jesus tells regarding “the way”, it always involves a
specificperson – himself. Not the abstract concept of “the I” or “the me”. Just read on in the chapter, and you’ll see how absurd the concept is: John 14:13-15
“And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments.”
Now, let’s Tolle-ize this…
“And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name [or, in the name of “the me”], that will I [actually “the I”] do, that the Father [actually an abstract force of love that we call God] may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my [actually your own, “the me”] name, I [“the I”] will do it. If ye love me [“the me”], keep my [your own] commandments.”
Obviously absurd, and obviously not what Jesus was talking about. Yet I used the exact same logic that is used to suggest that Jesus said “the I” is the way to God. Look, the simple fact is that Jesus’ teaching were given in a Jewish context… one in which a Messiah (read: a specific individual) was expected. He wasn’t teaching in a Hindu/Buddhist context in which we are all part of the same substance. As much as we want to drag Jesus into the eastern philosophies, it’s a huge stretch (See “Was Jesus a Buddhist” for my further argument on this one).
Rix wrote:The gnostic gospels emphasize much more the next step…that is that God IS within each of us. IOW, yes, Jesus IS God, and each of us “is God” too. It’s particularly clear in the gospel of Truth, and Mary.
The Gnostic gospels certainly do take it another step, don’t they… lol. Rix and I have gone back and forth extensively on our disagreement on the validity of Gnosticism, so I don’t want to hijack the thread over it. But I couldn’t let the opportunity pass by to address this!
Jesus didn’t claim to be God in the sense that we are all gods deep down inside. He claimed to be God in the Jewish sense that there is one creator (Deut. 6:4) who was prophecied to come down in the flesh (Zechariah 2:10-11, John 1:14) and be “God with us” (Isaiah 7:14, Matt. 1:23). MUCH different from the eastern religious concept.
I think the nature of God made a lot more sense pre-1844. That’s when JS introduced the concept that God became God, that we can become gods ourselves, and ultimately that existence is about “eternally progressing”. While it is a highly intriguing doctrine, and mormonism wouldn’t be the same without it, I think it comes purely from JS’s imagination. As you’ve pointed out, it goes against all previously established notions of the nature of God. That’s not to say the old ones are obviously right, just that the old and new are not (imo) compatible, and so you have to toss one out. I’d toss out the post-1844 mormon doctrines before I’d toss out everything that ever came before that. Hawkgrrrl, where can I find the quote about hell = no longer progressing?? I hadn’t heard that before.
My philosophy from the start of my journey was “As long as I’m doing what I believe is right, that’s all that matters.” God couldn’t possibly blame me for that, now could he?
We all take risks with our salvation… Martin Luther was a Catholic monk who was no doubt taught that outside the Catholic church there was no salvation. But he saw something wrong going on in his church, and decided to stand up for what he thought was right. That’s what matters.
Joseph Smith could have been perfectly content to attend a methodist church, but he stepped out of that bubble for something that he thought was right.
The early Christians gave up circumcision and animal sacrifice – two things which they previously believed made them clean and guaranteed their salvation. Instead they put their faith in what they thought was right, Jesus.
Maybe garments is your animal sacrifice? A comfort from an old way of thinking, but if you don’t believe it’s what you need, it’s something that can/should be let go.
God knows your heart. I’m convinced that even if you became an atheist, God would be okay with it as long as you thought you were doing what was right and would change in a heartbeat if you thought otherwise.
Embwbam, you and I are coming from similar viewpoints, I think. When I doubted the Church, I threw God out with it, Christianity or otherwise – just all of it. I’m still not entirely sure what’s truth, but I’m working up from a foundation of basically nothing. (Not a bad place to start, in my opinion). The Jesus question was huge for me – one person said it this way: “If I can forgive my neighbour without shedding blood, why can’t God?” My answer to that one goes hand-in-hand with my answer to the second one, so I’ll start there… embwbam wrote:
Christianity isn’t universal enough. It is VERY jewish. […] If I could have a testimony that permitted Christianity being no more true than any other world religion, that would be fine, but faith in Christ is pretty central to getting anything out of Christianity in the first place (see above — no faith in Christ = I’m screwed). So yeah… Another silly example is the idea that Christ is the one savior for ALL of God’s creation. That’s just geocentrism (No! The sun MUST revolve around the earth, right?).Can Jesus be the only way? Out of all the ways offered out there, Jesus is the only one? – Here’s a good comparison that I heard someone give: Imagine that you’re sitting in the park with your daughter, and a man comes up to you and asks “Are you the father of this child?” You reply, “Yes I am.” The man scoffs skeptically and remarks, “Out of all the billions of men on this planet, you mean to tell me that you claim to be THE exclusive father of this child? How arrogant.” The man then slaps you across the face and walks away. You stare, bemused, wondering what you said wrong.
The point is that just as it’s not arrogant to assert that you are the sole father of a child, it is not arrogant for Jesus to assert that he is the only way to God. This helps if you have the understanding that Jesus IS God, as was hashed out in another thread, because then Jesus is simply saying “As I am God, I am the only way to get to God…” If you want to get to know me, go directly to me. Don’t go to Steve to get to know me… Steve’s a nice guy, but you might as well go to the source. That’s why it makes sense to me for Jesus to say that no one gets to God except through him. No one knows me until they get to know me…
That brings us to your first point, about Jesus. To me, this one also comes back to an understanding on the nature of God. Rather than a lofty God saying “Something must die in order for me to forgive sin”, a loving God is saying “I love my creation so much that I am willing to take upon human flesh, walk among my creation and suffer the worst that mortality has to offer.”
Vicarious atonement still doesn’t make the most sense to me. But I can say that I no longer view it as a cruel blood sacrifice demanded for no apparent reason. It’s too easy for us to brush it off as an example of extremely misguided superstition applied to the tragic story of a man who died 2000 years ago. It’s love, it’s self-sacrifice, and people’s lives have been changed because of it.
It only makes sense that God would be perfectly capable of just saying, “I forgive you,” and putting off the whole cross rigamarole. But that just places him on a throne, dictating who passes and who fails. He seemed to want to be more involved than that, bringing himself into his own creation, “a little lower than the angels”, in order to reconcile us to him. Not only is he willing to forgive us, but he is willing to bare the punishment for OUR wrongs. Now that is my kind of God. I hope those thoughts help.
It seems that in my recent reading of the gospels I have been pelted with several such verses! I made sure to write them down as I read. Here are two that spoke to me: Quote:“Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.” (Mark 9:24)
Quote:“Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.” (John 6:26)
Many of us have not seen miracles. But we seek God because at some point we may have been filled by his presence/love/whatever. That’s what keeps me going, hoping, asking God to “Help mine unbelief.”
flowerdrops wrote:I’m not so sure that Jesus did make it that clear that his return would be obvious to everyone. It kind of depends on what you read, how you interpret it, and who you listen to. At any rate, it is interesting to ponder.
It definitely is interesting.
Here are some more reasons why I think the Second Coming will be obvious to all:
Jesus says, “They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” (Matthew 24:30-31)
Paul says, “For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
Jesus will appear a) In the sky, b) with power and glory, and c) with lots of noise.
I am interested in the Baha’i beliefs, but from what I understand they are not consistent with Jesus’ teachings on this point.
