In light of this experience, the notion of relying on faith as a meaningful way to find a bigger and grander Truth about everything feels like little more than the seduction of wishful thinking.
Dear Blue Jay. You are an awfully nice person, as Mormons often are (though I realize you've left your Mormonism behind). The thing is, Mormon faith isn't a faith anyone could rely on because it's empty. The faith that leads to understanding is faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins, but if you have a false idea of who Jesus Christ is (the brother of Satan/Lucifer?) then you don't have that saving faith.
So you are talking about a "faith" that IS nothing but a seduction. The real thing is something else.
Thanks to my transition from faith to reason, I am no longer Certain that I can distinguish faith from gullibility.
I'm glad you acknowledge that reason does not produce certainty, which is the case no matter what one says about faith. Heinlein was simply wrong about that. But there is really no such thing as "faith" as such anyway, it has to be faith IN something, and I for one believe my faith is founded on solid evidence, AND that it doesn't cancel out reason either, it just provides a solid basis for reasoning.
So here we are on a rabbit trail set up by Heinlein. Oh well.
but if you have a false idea of who Jesus Christ is (the brother of Satan/Lucifer?) then you don't have that saving faith.
I find myself having to defend Mormons here despite the little respect I have for some of the religious tenants. The Mormon belief regarding the status of Satan is not a belittlement of the the status in Jesus in any way. It is very common for people to distort things regarding this issue in the process of making their argument that Mormons are not Christians. But given the practice of exclusion of most branches of Christianity that such people practice, perhaps the truth requires a little closer scrutiny of what Mormons say about this point.
quote:Mormons believe that Satan was also one of God’s children. He was once a great angel who rebelled against our Heavenly Father and was thrown out of God’s presence, with all spirits who followed him. He is now our Adversary, the Father of Lies.
From the above and from other text at the same link we can conclude that Mormons are not Trinitarians believers (which in the view of fundys is damning enough), but they do believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and that salvation is receive is only through His atoning sacrifice and His grace.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
Mormon doctrine has been known to shift from time to time, but Jesus is not "one of God's children" so to identify him with Lucifer who IS in some sense "one of God's children" is false no matter how you look at it. However, Lucifer has been depicted in Mormon theology as literally the flesh and blood brother of Jesus, both of them the offspring of a flesh and blood "God the Father." The words can sound very Biblical and evangelical and yet mean something entirely different to a Mormon. It would take some discussion to find out exactly what a particular Mormon believes about all these things.
Mormon doctrine has been known to shift from time to time, but Jesus is not "one of God's children"
Not literally so, no. Yet we can find any number of instances of Jesus calling God his father, at least one rather famous reference to God calling Jesus his son, and other instances referring to us as brothers of Jesus in the same sense. And of course the Trinity refers to Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The words can sound very Biblical and evangelical and yet mean something entirely different to a Mormon. It would take some discussion to find out exactly what a particular Mormon believes about all these things.
Exactly so.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
While we are nitpicking ("heretic hunters" often do)
quote:
NoNukes at least one rather famous reference to God calling Jesus his son
quote:
Mark 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Thou/You is 2nd person singular. God is talking to Jesus.
quote:
Matthew 3:17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
This is a demonstrative and God is talking to the people.
I find it amazing that people obsess over "the trinity" when the very sources don't seem to agree on whether God was talking to the people or to Jesus himself.
A big event in the history of man, but we can't even get a 100% accurate account of what exactly was said by God and who he was saying it to.
Start with a premise that the Bible is literally a word for word dictation of God, as opposed to a collective work of many men far removed from each other and the events they attempt to report on.
That's step 1! Make an argument from ignorance.
Then go hunting the heretics because they have such a divergent view on the relationship between spirit and body.
How about worrying about why Jesus in Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, Matthew 16-17, Mark 8-9, etc. and Paul in 1 Thes 4 & 1 Cor 15 seemed to indicate that the new age would begin in the lives of the Apostles.
Perhaps the Gospel of Thomas had it correct
quote:
(113) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
Thomas has the oldest form of sayings (logoi) of Jesus, as linguists and scholars will attest. Other prophecies of Jesus (fulfilled in 70 AD), in Thomas reflect a less developed form than Matthew and Mark.
Scholars studied Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John throughout the 1800s and early 1900s and noticed that there was a Logoi of Jesus behind large parts of Matthew and Luke that Mark did not posess.
Critics called the majority of scholars fools for claiming that there was a SAYINGS GOSPEL OF JESUS that simply contained sayings with very little narration, but the scholars insisted the evidence backed that up.
"Hypothetical rubbish", the critics said.
Then in the 1920s, Thomas was found. It starts off saying that it is the "sayings" of Jesus. Logoi. And it indeed largely lacks narration, just as the scholars predicted.
It has the oldest Gospel verses in existence, though most, of the 114 verses, date later than the 4 Gospels.
I suspect that Jesus and Paul knew that the world wasn't going to end, and Thomas proves it. No sudden change from flesh body to spirit, though the New Testament authors might have telescoped 2 different concepts (a slow evolution first, then sudden end of world later).
Lets ask why the Bible contradicts itself before we judge others for having difficulty in delineating the exact relationship among the angels, dead persons, and the "Trinitarian" figures.
And lets give credit to where it is due to the scholars who made correct predictions. The scholarly consensus that a sayings Gospel Q existed is still not as strong as the consensus that feels Matthew copied from Mark, but the prediction was made that a sayings gospel would would turn up AND indeed it did!
You seem to be trying to rationalize away some really nutty theology just because you can make the words seem to mean something sensible.
Are you aware of the film "The God Makers" that was an expose of Mormonism made in the 80s by ex-Mormon Ed Decker with Dave Hunt? You can find it along with lots of other exposes at You Tube, but here's the most famous part of that movie, the "Banned" Cartoon:
This shows the sense in which Lucifer and Jesus are supposedly brothers. It's nothing like what you are trying to make out of it. I shouldn't have said "flesh and blood" because apparently they are "spirit" people, though this is all about billions of "gods" on billions of planets who were once human and give birth to spirit babies who then become human or something like that though it's hard to keep track of it all. One of the children of one of the gods was named Elohim and became the "heavenly father" of the Mormons. Two of his sons, spirit people, were Jesus and Lucifer. Some of their other siblings became demons because they followed Lucifer. I don't know if I got all the details right although I listened more than once, but in any case it's pretty crackpot theology you shouldn't allow yourself to defend for a moment. ======================
ABE:
The words can sound very Biblical and evangelical and yet mean something entirely different to a Mormon. It would take some discussion to find out exactly what a particular Mormon believes about all these things.
Exactly so.
I suspect you missed my point, probably because I didn't spell it out clearly: The point was that you have to discuss these things at length because the Mormon will start out using language that sounds biblical and evangelical and if you stop there you'll miss the fact that he means the words in an entirely different sense than it first sounds like he does.
I shouldn't have said "flesh and blood" because apparently they are "spirit" people
No. You should not have used "flesh and blood". At any point, we're well away from the actual topic of th thread and I wouldn't bother refuting a youtube video if it were on topic. It is pretty easy to find official statements of what Mormons actually believe.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
I don't know if I got all the details right although I listened more than once, but in any case it's pretty crackpot theology you shouldn't allow yourself to defend for a moment.
Of course it's crackpot theology: what other kind of theology is there?
But, I can't help but notice that you wanted to know what Mormons believe, and you somehow came to the conclusion that the best way to accomplish this goal was to watch a movie written by a guy who hates the LDS Church with a passion.
In your defense, at least you watched it multiple times before drawing your conclusions. <--See that? That's sarcasm.
Did it occur to you that you could google "Mormonism"? Maybe look on Wikipedia? Or, you know, maybe read the frickin' Book of Mormon? Because, you know, how many times have you chastised people for commentating on Christianity without reading the Bible?
I saw this film back in the 90s, I didn't just discover it for this discussion, and have read lots of articles and books about Mormonism over the years, including the first few chapters of the Book of Mormon -- about all I could take. There is no reason to think of Ed Decker as anything but an ex Mormon who wanted to expose the truth about Mormonism. You think he just made up all that stuff? Don't think so. Joseph Smith did though. And the movie was made with Dave Hunt, who is well known for his research into the cults. "Hates it with a passion?" Not that I've noticed. The guy is pretty even tempered. But of course shouldn't we hate lies?
But I should have known there's no point in trying to tell the truth about something like this here.
So maybe we can get back on topic now.
==================== ABE: Just discovered the Extended Version of that cartoon video has an interview at the end with a Mormon standing in line at a dedication of the Seattle Mormon temple, who says God is human being just like all of us and yes we all can become gods too if we live perfect lives. This is apparently just an ordinary Mormon guy. So don't tell me this crackpot theology isn't *really* Mormon doctrine.
I think it was Anselm who said "I understand because I believe."
You mean Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109? Good current source, I guess.
The revealed word of God DOES, however, give certainty.
Yes indeed, it does indeed do that. Regardless of whether that word is right or wrong, it does indeed still give you absolute certainty. Regardless of whether your own fallible human misunderstanding of that "word of God" is right or wrong, it does indeed still give you absolute certainty.
And you have repeatedly demonstrated that here on this forum. You have repeatedly been completely and absolutely wrong about so many things, but because of your absolute certainty of "The revealed word of God" as uniquely misunderstood by you, a fallible human, you have been able to withstand any and all facts and even reality itself. Such is the power of religious certainty.
Certainty does not mean that you are right. All it means is that you refuse to examine your own faulty assumptions and that you refuse to test or verify your own faulty assumptions and that you refuse to deal with reality. As we all have witnessed you do far too many times on this forum.
Such certainty is no virtue, nor any strength. It is nothing more than a feeble denial of reality.
You claim that your beliefs alone give you understanding. But if your beliefs only lead you into denial of all reality, then it leaves you understanding nothing at all.
OK, so your false certainty misleads you into a false sense of understanding. But in stark contrast to that self-delusion, "bleak reason" provides us the tools to seek the truth and to actually understand.
Yes, the creationists tell "Christians" (ie, "true Christians") that science conflicts with "Christianity", so they believe it. It is the false theology of "creation science" that creates and promotes that misconception. And then non-Christians also take those "true Christians" at their mis-guided word and they think the same.
All that science can and does study is how the universe works, ie natural matters. Religion deals with supernatural matters, mainly Who or What is behind the universe, et alia. Science artificially restricts itself to the kinds of questions that it is able to deal with, whereas religion and theology deals with all other kinds of questions.
A conflict arises when religion/theology starts to make pronouncements within the realm of science. In particular, when religion declares things about the natural world, such that it declares that certain things must be true in the natural world or else Scripture is false and God does not exist. Obviously, such "conflicts" are not the making of science, but rather the making of religion.
Science deals with how the universes works. Whenever a religion declares that if the universe is as it actually is and works as it actually works then God does not exist, then that religion has an extremely serious problem.
Fundamentalist (et al.) Christians need to stop taking their false positions about reality.
Weird. Anselm discovered that his faith led him to understanding; his report on that experience echoed my own. I have no idea what your carryings on have to do with any of that.
So, you think that Anselm was badly mistaken, too.
I mean you don't even understand dwise1's reply. Just as your faith prevents you from understanding Isaiah 7 (and surely other parts of the Bible, such as Daniel 8).
From a Christian perspective it would even be safe to say that your faith - in yourself and your idols - often leads you to sin.
weirder and weirder. Coyote quoted Heinlein. Heinlein was wrong about reason producing certainty. He was also wrong about the uncertainty of faith, or the idea that faith is only good for comfort. Which in itself can be debatable. However, all that brought Anselm's quote to mind, which I'd always appreciated. There was no specific content, just the experience he reported, which I recognized. dwise and you are making up your own stuff. Go ahead, have at it, has nothing to do with anything I've said though.
™ Version 4.2
