What's new
By:

Longest Thread Ever

@babe (regarding #4280... my phone won't quote for some reason)

Agree with what you said, but I was broadening that well beyond the borders of Mormonism. It also goes for Protestants, Muslims, Jehova's Witness, etc.

I believe that if concrete proof did come about that supported the Bible but demolished the credibility of the BoM.. that it would only put a dent in Mormon Church attendance.

And I mean that across most all religions.
 
Have to head to work. Will read #4283 later and respond if I have anything to add.
Great conversation.
 
Gnosticism was an early Christian sub-theme/cult variety that a lot of people have lumped in with some other departures from centrist doctrine and tried to marginalize. It is somewhat a mystical claim of "knowing".

People who don't need evidence to embrace some higher level of abtraction about the universe, for example, are essentially saying they "know" something a lot of folks wouldn't say they "know". This willingness to "know" can be called "faith" by some who might want to either promote or attack the faith/beliefs of others. Sometimes people will dismiss "gnosticism" by just simply saying "that doesn't make sense", but in doing that they embrace the same principle, generally, they are trying to invalidate.

LDS testimony Sundays are a celebration of the supremacy of peoples' right to believe based on our intuition and sensibilities. Sometimes they relate experiences in support of their belief, but a major trend is to invoke "feelings" to support their belief.

People of all belief categories we can conceive or label do this as well as most Mormons.

I call it "intellectual shorthand", a simplifying method of language that abbreviates the symbols to communicate easily or freely a substantial mass of conviction. We just say we personally believe in something that would take a very great mass of evidence or discussion to lay out for others. . . .

but at the end of the "testimony" there's usually still some willingness to accept further data, information, and other substantiating material and re-think core beliefs. . . . just not a lot of time to do all that every day.. . . .
 
^love that you're still rockin that sig, babe. xoxox

Yeah, what you said above is another way of saying the same thing.
I don't think there's an ounce of difference between 'why' people believe what they believe across religions. They say it differently, package it from different angles, but with intellectual honesty, how can we truly differentiate?

Ooh.. that topic has legs, I think. New can.
 
So I think PKM is right to at least three orders of magnitude on this, vs. the occurrence of other possibilities. . . . but there are still the "one in a million" types of people out there who will just do things differently, whatever it takes. . . .

I could make a pretty good case showing how the "mainstream Catholic" and "bible protestant" folks do with this.

Going over their scriptures as they stand, it's pretty hard to prove anyone within a hundred years of Jesus or earlier ever cared to invoke the "Trinity" in explaining who God is, but the Christians who follow from the tradition of the creeds dating to the fourth century AD will never "see it" the way it's written. Might as well not even have a Bible if you actually aren't going to believe it. How many times does the Bible invoke the concept of God's "fatherhood" of mankind, or Jesus/the Messiah's separate and submissive mission for making an atonement for man with God?

Which brings up the reason why Mormons became Mormons in the first place. Was it because of the Book of Mormon, or was it because Joseph Smith directly took on the old dogmas of established Christian Churches and found some people were actually looking for answers to their questions about the obvious contradictions and/or nonsense of established doctrine???

I think most converts found Mormonism more rationally coherent with their readings of the Bible, and that is why the joined.

I don't hear the Book of Mormon really being used much in Mormonism, from the standpoint of authority speeches and such. . . . and it really has little to do today with what Mormons believe doctrinally. Just as the Jesus of Nazareth who took on established Jewish authority and tried to teach people to maintain their own integrity and conscience and rely on their good judgment in religion instead of "authority", the Book of Mormon does not present a scenario where people are supposed to follow some leader without reference to the written word of scripture, as the LDS Church (mainstream) does today with their dictum that the "Living oracles" take priority over the "dead prophets", thus annihilating the whole concept of the importance of scripture.

It seems there is some systemic problem that devolves from all systems mankind set up with "establishment of authority" over people. . . .yah, we might need some level of organization/leadership/governance. . . . but there is a huge propensity for humans with authority to take the easy rule to absolute tyranny.
 
PKM said:
^love that you're still rockin that sig, babe. xoxox

Yeah, what you said above is another way of saying the same thing.
I don't think there's an ounce of difference between 'why' people believe what they believe across religions. They say it differently, package it from different angles, but with intellectual honesty, how can we truly differentiate?

Ooh.. that topic has legs, I think. New can.
Click to expand...


About the sig line.

I figure if anyone reads one of my long spiels they should at least have a joke at the end. I thought that line was about the funniest thing that could be said about my quest.

I once thought I had a chance to catch up with your stats. . . . you were I think at about 22000 then and I was 2000 or so. So you're still doing about ten to one my "contributions" in here, and they're not all short, either. But who knows, maybe I catch up with Methuselah, too. And if you're not still rocking the BB issues maybe I'll have a hundred years or so to "catch up". lol
 
PKM said:
^love that you're still rockin that sig, babe. xoxox

Yeah, what you said above is another way of saying the same thing.
I don't think there's an ounce of difference between 'why' people believe what they believe across religions. They say it differently, package it from different angles, but with intellectual honesty, how can we truly differentiate?

Ooh.. that topic has legs, I think. New can.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd hazard an argument that there might be some "difference" in why people believe what they believe. . . . . uhhhmmmm. . . . . lessseeee. . . . .

an ounce of difference might make it a steep bar to jump. I might have to try my old backflip. . . . nanogram I could probably clear with some ordinary effort. . . .
 
PKM said:
^love that you're still rockin that sig, babe. xoxox

Yeah, what you said above is another way of saying the same thing.
I don't think there's an ounce of difference between 'why' people believe what they believe across religions. They say it differently, package it from different angles, but with intellectual honesty, how can we truly differentiate?

Ooh.. that topic has legs, I think. New can.
Click to expand...

The ordinary "why" for beliefs is . . . . comfort. Familiarity, relationships, a place where we grew up and belong to. . . . friends who "understand" us. Family and loved ones who "know" us for what we are and accept us "as is".

The cynic in me says, though, that some people don't even care about "why". It's merely a habit, a modus operandi, . .. . an convenience to our schemes for pulling the levers, pushing the buttons, and getting what we want out of the people around us.
 
PKM said:
^love that you're still rockin that sig, babe. xoxox

Yeah, what you said above is another way of saying the same thing.
I don't think there's an ounce of difference between 'why' people believe what they believe across religions. They say it differently, package it from different angles, but with intellectual honesty, how can we truly differentiate?

Ooh.. that topic has legs, I think. New can.
Click to expand...

This opinion obviously comes from a man with a high level of idealism about people in general. . . . or at least who is willing to attribute good intentions to others very generously.
 
PKM said:
I truly, truly believe that there are billions of people on this planet that would find a way not to believe Jesus is the Messiah if/when he were to return. I believe there are many millions that EVEN IF THEY WERE SURE it was Him, would deny Him.
Click to expand...

Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.

Equivalent Mormon scripture:

Mosiah 27: 31 Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea, even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance of his all-searching eye.
 
So, babe, please tell me what the Mormon doctrine teaches about the trinity or equivalent. If you would.

Every time I speak with a Mormon they're shocked to hear what I (as well as about every other protestant Christian) believes on this topic.. almost as if Mormons have been mistaught what most protestants believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top