Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[colton]

My understanding of this is that there was a gate in Jerusalem they called "the Eye of the Needle". It was low and required all camels to be unloaded and they had to crawl through the gate to enter into Jerusalem.

The rich people can do it, but they must be "unloaded" and kneel to their maker in order to make it in. If you do not love your riches, but use them to help others and if you are humble and turn yourself to the Lord, that may be what was meant there.

Just what I've heard, don't know it 100% for a fact.

This is probably not true. See: https://www.straightdope.com/column...t-the-camel-going-through-the-eye-of-a-needle

More probable is that Jesus was just using hyperbole, to make the point that it's very hard or even impossible for men to be saved if they set their hearts on riches.

 

[colton]

So, in this scenario, you get a license so you are qualified (this is like Jesus dying for us, we all qualify). Then you have to do work (literally) to ensure this salvation. Then you get the paycheck, yay, you've earned money. So here's my question: who's doing the work? You? God? Both of you? And how does this work with what the Bible teaches?

I'll say it again because I feel like people might be missing it. I'm not saying works are unnecessary. They absolutely are, James even says so. But we know the Bible doesn't contradict itself, and we know Paul said that we cannot earn our salvation. So where does that lead us? That our works are evidence of God in our lives, evidence of our faith, but by no means can they, or will they ever gain/earn us salvation. There is only one who can do that, and His name is Jesus. By saying that your works can earn you salvation, you're putting yourself on an equal level with Jesus, and that is heresy.

It seems like your view is closer to the LDS view than you realize. I think all LDS I know would agree with your second paragraph there. And I don't think bigb was saying that his works earn him salvation.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Absolutely. But it's kind of condescending of you to assume I haven't already done that.

.

I don't doubt that. But I can't help but wonder whether you did that with a mind truly open to the possibility that you, and JS, were wrong, applied the same level and rigor of scrutiny and evidence to your beliefs that you do for others', and were prepared to take your conclusion to the logical end if you found your beliefs to be wrong.

For years I too read pro and con stuff, but I never did so with a truly open mind, privileged my own beliefs and failed to apply the same standards of evidence to them as to others', and was looking more to find reasons to support my own beliefs than to truly discover 'truth.' I was, in other words, doing Mormon apologetics and not actual truth seeking. This is what I perceive many LDS faithful do when ostensibly putting their faith to the test.

So, while I don't doubt that you read and think a lot about this, I am not convinced (and I base this on what I've seen of your appeal to Mormon apologetics in different cases), that your approach to doing so is not more apologetics than honest, truth seeking inquiry.

I could be wrong and don't assume for a minute that everyone who honestly researches this stuff comes to the same conclusion I did. I've just seen enough of apologetics and enough people engaged in it, coupled with an understanding of LDS culture, that I'm naturally a bit skeptical in such cases.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Absolutely. But it's kind of condescending of you to assume I haven't already done that.

.

I don't doubt that. But I can't help but wonder whether you did that with a mind truly open to the possibility that you, and JS, were wrong, applied the same level and rigor of scrutiny and evidence to your beliefs that you do for others', and were prepared to take your conclusion to the logical end if you found your beliefs to be wrong.

For years I too read pro and con stuff, but I never did so with a truly open mind, privileged my own beliefs and failed to apply the same standards of evidence to them as to others', and was looking more to find reasons to support my own beliefs than to truly discover 'truth.' I was, in other words, doing Mormon apologetics and not actual truth seeking. This is what I perceive many LDS faithful do when ostensibly putting their faith to the test.

So, while I don't doubt that you read and think a lot about this, I am not convinced (and I base this on what I've seen of your appeal to Mormon apologetics in different cases), that your approach to doing so is not more apologetics than honest, truth seeking inquiry.

I could be wrong and don't assume for a minute that everyone who honestly researches this stuff comes to the same conclusion I did. I've just seen enough of apologetics and enough people engaged in it, coupled with an understanding of LDS culture, that I'm naturally a bit skeptical in such cases.

 

[Stoked]

I don't doubt that. But I can't help but wonder whether you did that with a mind truly open to the possibility that you, and JS, were wrong, applied the same level and rigor of scrutiny and evidence to your beliefs that you do for others', and were prepared to take your conclusion to the logical end if you found your beliefs to be wrong.

For years I too read pro and con stuff, but I never did so with a truly open mind, privileged my own beliefs and failed to apply the same standards of evidence to them as to others', and was looking more to find reasons to support my own beliefs than to truly discover 'truth.' I was, in other words, doing Mormon apologetics and not actual truth seeking. This is what I perceive many LDS faithful do when ostensibly putting their faith to the test.

So, while I don't doubt that you read and think a lot about this, I am not convinced (and I base this on what I've seen of your appeal to Mormon apologetics in different cases), that your approach to doing so is not more apologetics than honest, truth seeking inquiry.

I could be wrong and don't assume for a minute that everyone who honestly researches this stuff comes to the same conclusion I did. I've just seen enough of apologetics and enough people engaged in it, coupled with an understanding of LDS culture, that I'm naturally a bit skeptical in such cases.

I'd like to point out that the exact same can be said about those against the church.

Not implying that there a person must be for or against the church. But I tend to find those against it usually do so out of some past experience that left them bitter.

As for you, exploring and trying to find truth is to always be applauded.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I don't doubt that. But I can't help but wonder whether you did that with a mind truly open to the possibility that you, and JS, were wrong, applied the same level and rigor of scrutiny and evidence to your beliefs that you do for others', and were prepared to take your conclusion to the logical end if you found your beliefs to be wrong.

For years I too read pro and con stuff, but I never did so with a truly open mind, privileged my own beliefs and failed to apply the same standards of evidence to them as to others', and was looking more to find reasons to support my own beliefs than to truly discover 'truth.' I was, in other words, doing Mormon apologetics and not actual truth seeking. This is what I perceive many LDS faithful do when ostensibly putting their faith to the test.

So, while I don't doubt that you read and think a lot about this, I am not convinced (and I base this on what I've seen of your appeal to Mormon apologetics in different cases), that your approach to doing so is not more apologetics than honest, truth seeking inquiry.

I could be wrong and don't assume for a minute that everyone who honestly researches this stuff comes to the same conclusion I did. I've just seen enough of apologetics and enough people engaged in it, coupled with an understanding of LDS culture, that I'm naturally a bit skeptical in such cases.

About the same thing I've heard said, and said regarding those who read the Book of Mormon and pray about it to know if it's true.

We have to trust that the person's heart is pure in their search for truth because nobody can know the heart/intention of another.

Same exact argument flipped around. I'm not sure we will ever get an answer as to why people get different experiences and answers, while in this life.

 

[BENTLEY]

This is the pot calling the kettle black, is it not? You are teaching with certainty -- and with just as much pride as the Mormons -- that Mormonism is false and that only YOUR view of Jesus is the correct one. And you also refuse to be corrected, no?

I'm not a missionary for any sect of Christianity and my testimony is formed by study of the Bible. I apologize if I was caustic. I try to be like the Boreans (Acts 17:11) and check what is being said against scripture. As a Christian we're not supposed to veer from scripture:

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Again, I'm sorry that this is a heated subject (religion) but overall I've been quoting a lot of scripture, and had to beg for others to do the same. Thank you for your contribution - I was interested to see that you and I were quoting many of the same scriptures. But using them to support conflicting views (we both feel that the other is using the eisegesis approach). We're at an impasse. And that's ok.

But, I mean, we both agree that the scripture tells us the WAY to God is narrow and difficult, right? Christ advises us to be careful when listening to those who come in His name and be not deceived. So it's important to be skeptical of those who come in His name, and, like the Boreans, check what they say against scripture. Joseph Smith's take on the nature of God (once a man) is in direct conflict with the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say God is flesh? Brigham denied the virgin birth and said God literally had sex with Mary:

"The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood &; was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol 8, page 115)

But the mormon spin on this is that Mary was still a virgin because God was an immortal being, and not like us mere mortals, so...? Sigh.

I dunno. You're pissed off and I'm tired. This scripture again comes to mind:

2 Timothy 23-24: avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all,

but then it continues:

able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,"

I didn't include the rest 'cause I figured it was too incendiary maybe. You can read the rest if you want, and then be irritated maybe, but it might speak to you.


I apologize if I'm coming off as pious. Ick. I remember the greatest affirmation I've ever used - totally opposite from the ones we're taught to use - and it hit my like a ton of bricks.

I'm not good. I'm not good.

But I am in awe with gratitude that He loved us while we were sinners. Not because we're good. 'cause, what's the scripture? our best deeds are as filthy rags? Something like that Isaiah 64:6, if you wanna check.

 

[mellow]

Bently to be fair, it reads like you are the one "pissed off"

You have an underhanded way of trying to sneak in slights against people you don't agree with.

 

[colton]

I'm not a missionary for any sect of Christianity and my testimony is formed by study of the Bible. I apologize if I was caustic.

I don't think you were caustic.

Again, I'm sorry that this is a heated subject (religion) but overall I've been quoting a lot of scripture, and had to beg for others to do the same. Thank you for your contribution - I was interested to see that you and I were quoting many of the same scriptures. But using them to support conflicting views (we both feel that the other is using the eisegesis approach). We're at an impasse. And that's ok.

No, this is the internet!! One of us must be right and the other wrong!! ;-)

But, I mean, we both agree that the scripture tells us the WAY to God is narrow and difficult, right? Christ advises us to be careful when listening to those who come in His name and be not deceived. So it's important to be skeptical of those who come in His name, and, like the Boreans, check what they say against scripture. Joseph Smith's take on the nature of God (once a man) is in direct conflict with the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say God is flesh? Brigham denied the virgin birth and said God literally had sex with Mary:

Joseph Smith also taught many other things about the nature of God which you would fully support, which are in conflict with the King Follett discourse (which you're referring to). Sadly he was killed before he was able to explain how they are to be reconciled.

Brigham Young didn't teach that God had literal physical sex with Mary. That's a straw man. He taught that Jesus was the physical son of the Father, but that's a completely different thing. (And that's all the quote you provided was saying.)

But the mormon spin on this is that Mary was still a virgin because God was an immortal being, and not like us mere mortals, so...? Sigh.

I've never in my 44 years in the LDS church heard that before. That's certainly not the Mormon spin on anything.

But I am in awe with gratitude that He loved us while we were sinners. Not because we're good. 'cause, what's the scripture? our best deeds are as filthy rags? Something like that Isaiah 64:6, if you wanna check.

That fits well with King Benjamin's teaching from the Book of Mormon, doesn't it?

21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.

Anyway, I'll leave you with your own advice, "Christ advises us to be careful when listening to those who come in His name and be not deceived." Don't be deceived by those who go against Christ's own teachings that make it clear that your actions DO matter. I kind of like how I put it in my previous post, if I do say so myself: "Your works do not save you. But they can damn you, if you work iniquity instead of righteousness."

 

[colton]

Bently to be fair, it reads like you are the one "pissed off".

For what it's worth I didn't get that from his post.

 

[BENTLEY]

Absolutely. But it's kind of condescending of you to assume I haven't already done that.

That's my personality alright. I try to muzzle it - 'cause it's annoying for me too - but apparently nothing gets past you guys.

 

[LogGrad98]

That's my personality alright. I try to muzzle it - 'cause it's annoying for me too - but apparently nothing gets past you guys.

That is the code of the Internet. No nit shall go unpicked.

 

[BENTLEY]

I'd like to point out that the exact same can be said about those against the church.

Not implying that there a person must be for or against the church. But I tend to find those against it usually do so out of some past experience that left them bitter.

As for you, exploring and trying to find truth is to always be applauded.

Maybe we can agree that we're all lousy human beings trying the best we can to find truth. Which is the enjoyable thing about this thread, in spite of the inevitable conflict.

The part of your quote I bolded is something I heard many times in LDS church. This gets perpetuated in sacrament meetings and isn't the case for many. It's tantamount to a straw man argument - "they were offended" or "they want to sin" rather than they studied LDS church history and discovered unsavory truths there. Rather than look at the issues that so troubled this person, they smear the person's character and then blindly go to Sunday school. You don't deny that Mormonism is full of controversial historical issues (polygamy for one, polyandry as well. The Kinderhook plates, Book of Abraham, the list goes on). If you concede that mormonism does indeed have issues that can be labeled "controversial" then perhaps you could cut this truth seeker a little slack. Try be understanding of their struggle, rather than assuming something about their character.

 

[BENTLEY]

Joseph Smith also taught many other things about the nature of God which you would fully support, which are in conflict with the King Follett discourse (which you're referring to). Sadly he was killed before he was able to explain how they are to be reconciled.

So you're saying J.Smith taught things about Jesus that were in conflict with what he taught in the King Follett sermon? This reminds me of Mohammad's "satanic verses." Do you guys know about that? It's controversial for Muslims - they don't like people talking about it (ask Salman Rushdie). Google if you want something more accurate than my memory. iirc, these were prophetic words which later Mohammad denied and said Satan put those words in his mouth. So are you saying that the King Follett sermon was like Mohammad's satanic verses?

...now that I think of it this sounds like when Joseph Smith had a revelation (via looking in his hat) to send David Whitmer and co. to Canada to sell the right to the BofM. The trip was a failure as no one would purchase the rights. David Whitmer talks about this in his book, An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 30-31:

we asked Joseph how it was that he had received a revelation from the Lord for some brethren to go to Toronto and sell the copyright, and the brethren had utterly failed in their undertaking. Joseph did not know how it was, so he enquired of the Lord about it, and behold the following revelation came through the stone: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of men: and some revelations are of the devil." So we see that the revelation to go to Toronto and sell the copyright was not of God, but was of the devil or of the heart of man."

Looks like Smith had a couple Satanic Verses moments like Mohammad's. There are a few similarities between Smith and Mohammad. Both their scriptures were communicated to them via angels (Moroni and Gabriel) and both have nothing else to substantiate these scriptures - they must be accepted as truth, in spite of no evidence.

I've never in my 44 years in the LDS church heard that before. That's certainly not the Mormon spin on anything.

Um, maybe it was Mcconkie. Although, even so, the church is distancing themselves from him too.

That fits well with King Benjamin's teaching from the Book of Mormon, doesn't it?

The BofM is very Christian in its theology. It just has no evidence supporting its authenticity.

Anyway, I'll leave you with your own advice, "Christ advises us to be careful when listening to those who come in His name and be not deceived." Don't be deceived by those who go against Christ's own teachings that make it clear that your actions DO matter. I kind of like how I put it in my previous post, if I do say so myself: "Your works do not save you. But they can damn you, if you work iniquity instead of righteousness."

I like how you put that too. My brain's not working right now but I think I can get behind that. Not that you need me to.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

That is the code of the Internet. No nit shall go unpicked.

*internet

 

[BENTLEY]

Speaking of the revelation-to-scripture genre, my friend was really into the 1975 book "A Course in Miracles." Very New age book written by "Jesus Christ" thru Helen Schucman, a New York psychologist. She said she heard Jesus' voice say "this is a course in miracles, write it down" or words to that effect. Shrug. Lotta people coming in Jesus' name.

 

[bigb]

So, in this scenario, you get a license so you are qualified (this is like Jesus dying for us, we all qualify). Then you have to do work (literally) to ensure this salvation. Then you get the paycheck, yay, you've earned money. So here's my question: who's doing the work? You? God? Both of you? And how does this work with what the Bible teaches?

I'll say it again because I feel like people might be missing it. I'm not saying works are unnecessary. They absolutely are, James even says so. But we know the Bible doesn't contradict itself, and we know Paul said that we cannot earn our salvation. So where does that lead us? That our works are evidence of God in our lives, evidence of our faith, but by no means can they, or will they ever gain/earn us salvation. There is only one who can do that, and His name is Jesus. By saying that your works can earn you salvation, you're putting yourself on an equal level with Jesus, and that is heresy.

I've never said that I wouldn't be saved but for the grace of Christ. That was the purpose of the His life/death. But I have a very hard time with those that say "I'm saved because I accepted Christ" while they continue to live their life in a horrible fashion. One of the superintendents I work with is this way. He claims to be saved because he accepted Christ. Yet he steals, lies, takes the Lord's name in vain, does illegal drugs, etc. For the record, I know plenty of Mormons like this as well. How does this work with His teachings of "if Ye love me, obey my commandments" and "no unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of heaven"?
Honestly Hantlers, I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong. I have no interest in debating it. This is all my thoughts on this principle, based on what I've read in the scriptures and my own pondering of it. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Maybe we're both wrong and some funky tribe in the middle of Africa has it right. In all honesty, I don't think any of us have a real understanding of what's going to happen and we'll all be surprised when we meet at the pearly gates.

 

[colton]

So you're saying J.Smith taught things about Jesus that were in conflict with what he taught in the King Follett sermon? This reminds me of Mohammad's "satanic verses." Do you guys know about that? It's controversial for Muslims - they don't like people talking about it (ask Salman Rushdie). Google if you want something more accurate than my memory. iirc, these were prophetic words which later Mohammad denied and said Satan put those words in his mouth. So are you saying that the King Follett sermon was like Mohammad's satanic verses?

No, not at all. I'm saying that we don't really know what it means to say "God was once a man" and also to say "God created the universe and everything in it". In what sense was God once a man? What does "once" even mean when referring to in an era before time began (e.g. before the Big Bang)? Etc. Perhaps if Joseph had lived, he could have expounded on that. Since he didn't, it's not even in the canon, and it makes "Mormons believed God lived on a planet called Kolob" a common strawman for the anti-LDS contingent. (As you should know, Mormons don't believe that at all.) As it is, all we have is canonical info on what's sort-of the converse of the statement, which is that man may become like God. There's info on that in the D&C. And in the Bible, for that matter, if you believe that's what the phrase "joint-heirs with Christ" is referring to (as I do).

 

[colton]

The BofM is very Christian in its theology. It just has no evidence supporting its authenticity.

Sorry to re-post, but I just noticed this line. That's not true at all. There is a lot of evidence supporting its authenticity. You just don't accept the evidence. To list some of the evidence that I accept: on the "non scientific" side of things there are the teachings themselves and how they affect my life and there's the spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost that it comes from God. On the more scientific side, there's the evidence of Hebraic words and language structures in the text and the description of things such as cement that were not known to exist in the New World and writing on metal plates that was not known to exist in the Old World in Joseph Smith's time, there's the accurate description of a place unknown in Joseph Smith's time in the proper location with the proper function (a burial site), and so forth. You're probably familiar with many of them, feel free to check out Jeff Lindsay's compilation if not: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml. Just because you don't accept these evidences doesn't mean they aren't there, and doesn't mean that someone else might not find them compelling. (I myself don't find ALL of the items on the list compelling, but I do find many of them.)

 

[fishonjazz]

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Maybe we're both wrong and some funky tribe in the middle of Africa has it right. In all honesty, I don't think any of us have a real understanding of what's going to happen and we'll all be surprised when we meet at the pearly gates.

This


is why I'm agnostic.