Question about LDS Church after Smith's death.

[7StraightIsGreat]

That is an awefully fatalistic approach that I do not agree with. I think the fact that Colton and Howard (assuming this is the case with them both) both sought truth and went to the Lord as best they know how will come into play.

Let us say that the Mormons are 100% wrong and Colton gets to the Pearly Gate. I think the fact that he sought truth and prayed to the Lord for guidance will absolutely come into play.

I'm not trying to argue with you because I feel differently. In fact, I think it does seem rather fatalistic and it's one of the major reasons I fell away from religion as a whole, but make no mistake, if Christianity is in fact true, it's not an "everybody gets a medal" type of thing. It's pretty clearly written that those who don't seek out Christ, or allow a false prophet to lead them astray will pay a hefty price.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I just used Howard use of "heresy" as an example and did not mean it as a personal attack.

I still think there is room for disagreement that doesn't drop you into the label of Mormons are heretics.

For example, I don't agree with Baptists (from what I have seen from their members and heard at their sermons in person) on every issue but I do not think they are heretics. Many good and wonderful people that are brought closer to Jesus by the Baptist denomination. They do a lot of good in this world.

There absolutely can be a middle ground. One does not have to equate disagreement with heresy. Heresy is extreme. I also do not agree with a Christian (I think Howard is 100% wrong here) not going to God to find the truth of something. That works both ways.

You're totally taking what I'm saying waaaaaay past what I mean. Look, there are denominations I have disagreements with. I'm not saying they're not saved.

I'm saying I view Joseph Smith to be a false prophet. Therefore his writings have to be heresy. How could it be anything but from my viewpoint? There is no middle ground here, either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't. He was a heretic or he wasn't. This is the same absurd thinking where people don't believe Jesus is the savior, but think He was a good teacher. He claimed to be God!! Either He is, or He's a lunatic. This is black and white, there is no middle ground here.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I'm not trying to argue with you because I feel differently. In fact, I think it does seem rather fatalistic and it's one of the major reasons I fell away from religion as a whole, but make no mistake, if Christianity is in fact true, it's not an "everybody gets a medal" type of thing. It's pretty clearly written that those who don't seek out Christ, or allow a false prophet to lead them astray will pay a hefty price.

While we have arrived at different life choices, I am in full agreement here. We don't get to change what the Bible teaches, we either agree with it or didagree with it. And not just parts, but all.

 

[RandyForRubio]

That is an awefully fatalistic approach that I do not agree with. I think the fact that Colton and Howard (assuming this is the case with them both) both sought truth and went to the Lord as best they know how will come into play.

Let us say that the Mormons are 100% wrong and Colton gets to the Pearly Gate. I think the fact that he sought truth and prayed to the Lord for guidance will absolutely come into play.

Don't you think that Matthew 7:21-23 contradicts this just a bit? Again, the gate is narrow and few take it. This isn't something where the majority of people are going to "win".

 

[Jamezz]

While we have arrived at different life choices, I am in full agreement here. We don't get to change what the Bible teaches, we either agree with it or didagree with it. And not just parts, but all.

What version of the Bible are we talking about? There's an argument to be made about this as well.

 

[colton]

2) No, I do not believe that anything Peter, Paul, etc said in the Bible is false. The Bible teaches that it is the inerrant Word of God, and I believe that.

Sorry to interject in a conversation I was mostly done with, but I have to interject with a "fact check" here. The Bible never says that it is inerrant. It claims to be inspired ("God-breathed"), but that's a very different thing. And even if it did claim inerrancy (which it doesn't), to my view that inerrancy would only extend to the manuscripts as they were originally written down, not to the copies of copies of copies which we possess today.

 

[LogGrad98]

I absolutely agree that they way you are raised will color your opinions the rest of your life. I was raised to be a very acitve Mormon. Church on SUnday, FHE on Monday, Scouts on Wednesday, ward service 2 days a week, seminary Mon. - Fri. ... I am now 100% inactive but I can still tell that my upbringing of being completely immersed in the Mormon faith colors my view on things. On how I will react in certain situations.

It is that way for everyone. I do not expect anyones minds to change either but maybe a little smoothing of the opinions towards others religions (Howards recent comments about false prophets and heresy for example).

Do you tend toward long underwear and boxers over briefs?

 

[RandyForRubio]

What version of the Bible are we talking about? There's an argument to be made about this as well.

I prefer the ESV, but this is a good point.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Sorry to interject in a conversation I was mostly done with, but I have to interject with a "fact check" here. The Bible never says that it is inerrant. It claims to be inspired ("God-breathed"), but that's a very different thing. And even if it did claim inerrancy (which it doesn't), to my view that inerrancy would only extend to the manuscripts as they were originally written down, not to the copies of copies of copies which we possess today.

An excellent point. It does say "God-breathed" as in, God spoke those words. Now we know that God is inerrant, thus His words are inerrant.

As for the accuracy of the Bible, I think Bentley did a fantastic job outlining that earlier, and as I do not think I can do it any better, I'll just let his words do the talking.

 

[NAOS]

Naos was right. Howard is Hantlers.

and I think this thread allows me (or anyone paying attention) to officially declare the failure of the "Howard experiment."

a few highlights of this thread:

*Bentley trying to reach common ground by saying something like 'we can all agree that we're just these fallible humans grasping at miserable truths.' Indeed, Christianity asks that we pity humans. Immensely. I disagree with the premise. Sensations, myths, ephemeral truths, etc. are incredible, not because they are generalizable or applicable to someone else or at a different time, but because they are felt, plain and simple. Being alive is amazing. Life doesn't lack anything.... truths are truths.

*Hantlers using tired-logical-trick after tired-logical-trick to glide over anything that resembles complexity. For example, 'the Bible, even though it is explicitly referred to as "god-breathed," is infallible because it is God's word and God is infallible'. Just like that, we jump over all problems of representation, experience, translation, multiplicity, etc. Disgusting to see the wonder of creation reduced to the transitive property. If I believed in God, I'd be offended by how you just used Reason to spat upon his immensity and unknowableness.

*Hantlers using the word "heresy" to refer to Mormon leaders on a message board frequented by Mormons. Did he do that to stoke good will? It was particularly entertaining to watch him put forward these ideas as though he were disinterested: things were simply that way; God said it, not him, guis. Pretty hard to see others squirm though... I can understand why they'd be offended. It isn't nice to be talked to dispassionately by a legalistic voice.

What this thread demonstrates to me (as if I needed it demonstrated again) is that monotheisms have the most suffocating theories of truth possible. There is ONE TRUTH and you're either for it or against it. Wickedly frustrating to see humans spin their wheels on this bad question when the world demonstrates -- to anyone with an open mind, of course -- that there are multiple truths. The second you start proselytizing for one capital-T Truth, is the second you become "legalistic" by default. Bleh. I wish I hadn't even typed this. ****ing waste of time.

 

[Jamezz]

and I think this thread allows me (or anyone paying attention) to officially declare the failure of the "Howard experiment."

a few highlights of this thread:

*Bentley trying to reach common ground by saying something like 'we can all agree that we're just these fallible humans grasping at miserable truths.' Indeed, Christianity asks that we pity humans. Immensely. I disagree with the premise. Sensations, myths, ephemeral truths, etc. are incredible, not because they are generalizable or applicable to someone else or at a different time, but because they are felt, plain and simple. Being alive is amazing. Life doesn't lack anything.... truths are truths.

*Hantlers using tired-logical-trick after tired-logical-trick to glide over anything that resembles complexity. For example, 'the Bible, even though it is explicitly referred to as "god-breathed," is infallible because it is God's word and God is infallible'. Just like that, we jump over all problems of representation, experience, translation, multiplicity, etc. Disgusting to see the wonder of creation reduced to the transitive property. If I believed in God, I'd be offended by how you just used Reason to spat upon his immensity and unknowableness.

*Hantlers using the word "heresy" to refer to Mormon leaders on a message board frequented by Mormons. Did he do that to stoke good will? It was particularly entertaining to watch him put forward these ideas as though he were disinterested: things were simply that way; God said it, not him, guis. Pretty hard to see others squirm though... I can understand why they'd be offended. It isn't nice to be talked to dispassionately by a legalistic voice.

What this thread demonstrates to me (as if I needed it demonstrated again) is that monotheisms have the most suffocating theories of truth possible. There is ONE TRUTH and you're either for it or against it. Wickedly frustrating to see humans spin their wheels on this bad question when the world demonstrates -- to anyone with an open mind, of course -- that there are multiple truths. The second you start proselytizing for one capital-T Truth, is the second you become "legalistic" by default. Bleh. I wish I hadn't even typed this. ****ing waste of time.

Is this true Howard? I was starting to like you.

 

[Deleted member 848]

and I think this thread allows me (or anyone paying attention) to officially declare the failure of the "Howard experiment."

a few highlights of this thread:

*Bentley trying to reach common ground by saying something like 'we can all agree that we're just these fallible humans grasping at miserable truths.' Indeed, Christianity asks that we pity humans. Immensely. I disagree with the premise. Sensations, myths, ephemeral truths, etc. are incredible, not because they are generalizable or applicable to someone else or at a different time, but because they are felt, plain and simple. Being alive is amazing. Life doesn't lack anything.... truths are truths.

*Hantlers using tired-logical-trick after tired-logical-trick to glide over anything that resembles complexity. For example, 'the Bible, even though it is explicitly referred to as "god-breathed," is infallible because it is God's word and God is infallible'. Just like that, we jump over all problems of representation, experience, translation, multiplicity, etc. Disgusting to see the wonder of creation reduced to the transitive property. If I believed in God, I'd be offended by how you just used Reason to spat upon his immensity and unknowableness.

*Hantlers using the word "heresy" to refer to Mormon leaders on a message board frequented by Mormons. Did he do that to stoke good will? It was particularly entertaining to watch him put forward these ideas as though he were disinterested: things were simply that way; God said it, not him, guis. Pretty hard to see others squirm though... I can understand why they'd be offended. It isn't nice to be talked to dispassionately by a legalistic voice.

What this thread demonstrates to me (as if I needed it demonstrated again) is that monotheisms have the most suffocating theories of truth possible. There is ONE TRUTH and you're either for it or against it. Wickedly frustrating to see humans spin their wheels on this bad question when the world demonstrates -- to anyone with an open mind, of course -- that there are multiple truths. The second you start proselytizing for one capital-T Truth, is the second you become "legalistic" by default. Bleh. I wish I hadn't even typed this. ****ing waste of time.

Well, it looks like the "Registered Non-Participant in GD" experiment didn't last very long. Didn't see that one coming.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I prefer the ESV, but this is a good point.

Cool. I just bought one three weeks ago. Nice SUV.

 

[Deleted member 848]

What this thread demonstrates to me (as if I needed it demonstrated again) is that monotheisms have the most suffocating theories of truth possible. There is ONE TRUTH and you're either for it or against it. Wickedly frustrating to see humans spin their wheels on this bad question when the world demonstrates -- to anyone with an open mind, of course -- that there are multiple truths. The second you start proselytizing for one capital-T Truth, is the second you become "legalistic" by default. Bleh. I wish I hadn't even typed this. ****ing waste of time.

Srs response here:

I think the tendency to only consider one truth as possible is more of a indication of the cultural backdrop in which the faiths are practiced, moreso than the faiths themselves. Christianity has not had one form since its conception, and it often is moulded based on the extant society that wishes to undertake it. For example, Christianity has been morphed by Western culture to be a beacon of individuality, which certainly wasn't always the case-- Christianity used to be much more communal, and more concerned with the plight of the poor as opposed to the success of the rich.

I think some of the polytheistic faiths that you mention are found in regions where there really isn't this 'protestant work ethic'-esque cultural drive, along with the existence of multiple other faiths in general in those given regions. The Indian subcontinent is home to several very different faiths, and has essentially forced their citizens to adapt and seek common ground for millennia. Europe has only really drawn some parallels between Judaism and Christianity, and spent millennia consolidating other faiths as enemies since the times of the Crusades, and the Inquisition.

I don't know. TL;DR I think it's just too simplistic to say that monotheistic faiths are more rigid to one truth than polytheistic ones. You'll find adherents of the Muslim faith in many polytheistic-dominant regions whose interpretations aren't rigid-- which of course begets a chicken-egg argument in its own right.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Cool. I just bought one three weeks ago. Nice SUV.

Eww. Those things are so obese.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Eww. Those things are so obese.

dude, I got me, my wifey, and 5 kids. I need.

 

[Deleted member 848]

dude, I got me, my wifey, and 5 kids. I need.

If you were cool, you'd grab one of these:

Also next time don't have 5 kids. Moron.

 

[Dr. Jones]

If you were cool, you'd grab one of these:

Also next time don't have 5 kids. Moron.

I love'm all. Great kids and a blessing. Just like you and your bro are to your mum and pops.

 

[NAOS]

Srs response here:

I think the tendency to only consider one truth as possible is more of a indication of the cultural backdrop in which the faiths are practiced, moreso than the faiths themselves. Christianity has not had one form since its conception, and it often is moulded based on the extant society that wishes to undertake it. For example, Christianity has been morphed by Western culture to be a beacon of individuality, which certainly wasn't always the case-- Christianity used to be much more communal, and more concerned with the plight of the poor as opposed to the success of the rich.

I think some of the polytheistic faiths that you mention are found in regions where there really isn't this 'protestant work ethic'-esque cultural drive, along with the existence of multiple other faiths in general in those given regions. The Indian subcontinent is home to several very different faiths, and has essentially forced their citizens to adapt and seek common ground for millennia. Europe has only really drawn some parallels between Judaism and Christianity, and spent millennia consolidating other faiths as enemies since the times of the Crusades, and the Inquisition.

I don't know. TL;DR I think it's just too simplistic to say that monotheistic faiths are more rigid to one truth than polytheistic ones. You'll find adherents of the Muslim faith in many polytheistic-dominant regions whose interpretations aren't rigid-- which of course begets a chicken-egg argument in its own right.

This is a false dichotomy. Whatever "structure" you want to give society (or cultural backdrops) is that which sediments from a mass of practice (religious, economic, philosophic, etc)

Monotheisms aren't the only drivers toward suffocating models of capital-T Truth, but history suggests that they are the most forceful drivers in that direction.

Also, I had three personal messages from posters inviting me back to GD. So, I'll take the friendly words over the cacophony of the #Queens.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I love'm all. Great kids and a blessing. Just like you and your bro are to your mum and pops.

Fully believe it-- completely just teasin. There's nothing quite like road-tripping with a big family. The 5 of us (parents, two brothers) drove about 7000km in a Peugeot station wagon last summer in Europe, and it'll probably be one of my fondest memories until the day my life ceases. Big families are always fun families, especially if they're loud (like we are).