Pros and Cons of Mormonism

[Socrates4Jesus]

Actually, that is not why you asked that question. Go back and retrace your posts. You are not being very honest with me or with yourself.

zerinus

Post 478 is the reason i began asking you about the substance (or meaning) of faith.

My task, now, is to use the definition of faith upon which we agree to understand the passage you quoted to me:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." *(1 Corinthians 2:14)*I will ask the question again: Exactly what is it that the natural man does not trust? Please tell me your answer. (I think Paul provides the answer in verse 2 of 1 Corinthians 2.)

 

[truthsilence]

Are you saying that faith is the opposite of reason?

I’d like to answer this. As a LDS, that is certainbly how it seemed to me.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

soc, thanks for your kind words earlier.

You are very welcome, TS!

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom,

I disagree with your stance of KFD and offer the 1971 Ensign version as evidence:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.j...45bd384b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Do you mean that you do not believe that Thomas Bullock recorded Joseph Smith’s words substantially differently than others?

I also offer the following curent LDS lesson manuals as further “proof” of the LDS doctrine requiring the eternal progression go both ways. (Elohimi was NOT the forst God and thus had a father, etc.):

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.j...48fa2d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.j...befabc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.j...67978c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
keep in mind these are current manuals. in the past this was discussed far more often and in much greater detail.

I am glad we both agree this is becoming much less prevalent within the teachings of the CoJCoLDS.
Other than the middle manual (Gospel Principles from 1997) I was unable to find the aspect of the more common rendition of the KFD that I find problematic.
Neither of the other two are our “current manuals” BTW.

I also disagree that teh ECFs ever taught that we would achieve this sort of exaltation. they all taught monotheism and that our deification would be a sharing of Gods divinity. they did not teach eternal increase. you seem to twist words to extract from their statements that we would be no differnt from God yet you appear to leave out the context that tells us that even when in perfect communion with the creator we are still the creations.

The ECF teach that we will be as Christ is.
Later ECF do not believe that God has “eternal increase” so I would expect this to be absent from their concept of deified man.

Are you ready to embrace me as an orthodox Christian with no more problems than Protestants?

I have explained in great detail why I believe the KFD teaches what I believe it teaches. I do not hide the fact that this is currently a minority view within my church. We both agree that this is being taught less and less. In the CoJCoLDS since we do not produce systematic theologies like the CCC we emphasize and deemphasize doctrines. On occasion bold folks like Elder McConkie will declare past teachings heretical, but this is very rare.

Are you aware that the Baltimore Catechism has no parallel to CCC #460. Since both are attempts at systematizing Catholic theology in a somewhat comprehensive manner, this shift is more difficult than the way LDS change our teachings.

Anyway, if you and I are correct about what we see within LDS thought, soon enough many (perhaps most) folks will agree with me. Until then, I am happy to embrace what I think is the best representation of LDS doctrine based on 1. Scriptures, 2. Current teachings from those with authority, 3. Past teachings. I am also happy to have LDS brothers and sisters even though they do not believe as I do.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Majick,
One more thing. It is the superiority of my view as a LDS that I compare against my potential views as a Catholic. I will not cease to be a LDS based on a LDS theology that I do not hold even if you ceased to be a LDS for this reason. I intend to compare the BEST that the CoJCoLDS has to offer with the BEST that the Catholic Church has to offer. I will not follow Jimmy Akin and by a 4.5 point Calvinistic Catholic (assuming that is his view not just an apologetic to attract Calvinists) and I will not reject Catholicism because of Augustine, Aquinas, and Jimmy Akin’s Calvinistic leaning. Instead, I see within other areas of Catholic thought the ability to embrace our freedom to love God. This is the Catholic path I would follow despite Augustine’s thought.

Charity, TOm

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I’d like to answer this. As a LDS, that is certainbly how it seemed to me.

I’m thinking Zerinus has half of the truth, TS. I’m certain that he actually is correct in holding that there is a spiritual element to accepting the truth, but there is also a rational element to faith. Otherwise, why would God say this?

“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”

(Isaiah 1:18)

 

[TOmNossor]

It appears that you are saying that, even though the Holy Spirit guides people into all truth, they do not always follow; and at least some Mormon prophets, like Brigham Young, are no exception. Am i understanding you correctly?

If I had more energy, I might re-parse your words some, but I think they are fairly accurate. The only perfect man I have met died on a cross. I expect Him to return, but until He does I expect to meet no other prefect men.
Charity, TOm

 

[truthsilence]

I’m thinking Zerinus has half of the truth, TS. I’m certain that he actually is correct in holding that there is a spiritual element to accepting the truth, but there is also a rational element to faith. Otherwise, why would God say this?

“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”

(Isaiah 1:18)

Of course there is a spiritual element to accepting the truth. But faith and reason must be able to walk hand in hand. I was wondering if you have read this:

Socrates asks: “And do you believe there is really a war amongst the gods, with terrible feuds, even, and battles . . . Are we to say that these things are true, Euthyphro? (Euthyphro, 6: b and c). In this apparently not very devout question—but which drew in Socrates from a deeper and purer sense of religiosity, one that sought a truly divine god—the Christians of the first centuries recognised their path and themselves. They accepted their faith non in a positivist manner or as a way of getting away from unfulfilled desires but rather as a way of dissolving the cloud that was mythological religion so as to discover the God that is creative Reason as well as Reason-as-Love. For this reason, asking themselves about the reason for the greater God as well as the real nature and sense of being human did not represent for them any problematic lack of religiosity, but was part of the essence of their way of being religious. They therefore did not need to solve or put aside the Socratic dilemma but could, indeed had to accept it. They also had to recognise as part of their identity the demanding search for reason in order to learn about the entire truth. The university could, indeed had to be born within the Christian world and the Christian faith. We must take another step. Man wants to know; he wants the truth. Truth pertains first and foremost to seeing and understanding theoria as it is called in the Greek tradition. But truth is not only theoretic. In correlating the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mountain and the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in Isaiah 11, Augustine asserted the reciprocity of scientia and tristitia. For him just knowing is source of sadness. In fact those who only see and learn all that happens in the world end up becoming sad. But the truth means more than knowledge. The purpose of knowing the truth is to know what is good. This is also the sense of Socrates’ way of questioning: What good thing makes us true? Truth makes us good and goodness is true. This optimism dwells in the Christian faith because it was allowed to see the Logos, the creative Reason that, in God’s incarnation, revealed itself as that which is Good, as Goodness itself.

asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=11271&size=A

 

[truthsilence]

soc, I apologize, I chopped that quote off, in not the best spot. I hope you’ll read the entire article. I would love to hear your thoughts on it if you have the time.

 

[why_me]

I’m thinking Zerinus has half of the truth, TS. I’m certain that he actually is correct in holding that there is a spiritual element to accepting the truth, but there is also a rational element to faith. Otherwise, why would God say this?

“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.”

(Isaiah 1:18)

You will have to go to this link to understand:

scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/1/18a

Reason through the spirit…or with the spirit.

 

[zerinus]

Post 478 is the reason i began asking you about the substance (or meaning) of faith.

That is not exactly how the question started. I had quoted you a passage from Elder Boyd K. Packer, which included this paragraph:

But if you learn by reason only, you will never understand the Spirit and how it works—regardless of how much you learn about other things.

In response to which you asked this question:

Or are you, Zerinus, saying that faith is opposed to reason?

To which I gave the following reply:

That is not what it says. Sometimes you make me wonder whether you really want to know the truth or not. If you were, you wouldn’t be asking theses kinds of questions. Either you don’t really want to know the truth, or else you want to know it on your own terms, not God’s terms. You want to set the agenda yourself, rather than follow God’s agenda. I am afraid that can’t be done. If you want to know divine truth, you have to do it on God’s terms, not on your own terms.

To which you gave this reply:

I want to know what you believe faith is.

To which I quoted you Hebrews 11:1 as the definition of faith. Then you started your usual merry-go-round of questions about the meaning of “substance”. Once we solved that problem, now you are you are beating around the bush again branching off in totally different directions from how your conversation originally started. That is not a sign of somebody who is genuinely seeking to know the truth. But to return to your new line of questioning:

Very well. My task is to use the definition of faith upon which we agree to understand the passage you quoted:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

(1 Corinthians 2:14)

My thought is that the natural man does not have faith (or trust) in that which the spiritual man trusts. The question is, exactly what is it that the natural man does not trust? (I think Paul provides the answer in verse 2 of 1 Corinthians 2.)

Faith is not irrelevant to that verse, but it is not the main focus of it. What it says is that we cannot comprehend spiritual things by our natural minds, as you are trying to do (which is also what Elder Packer was trying to say). We can only understand it by means of Spirit of God—the gift of the Holy Ghost. If you insist on trying to understand spiritual things by your natural mind, you will fail. It cannot be done. Faith comes into play when we try to obtain that spiritual gift from God. Elder Packer identified one of the requirements of obtaining that spiritual gift is faith, and showed you how to obtain that faith and how to exercise it. The other ingredient was prayer.

Of all the translations of Hebrews 11:1 that I think answers best our question here is this one:

Today’s New International Version (TNIV):

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

By exercising that faith in prayer we qualify to receiving that spiritual gift, which enables us to comprehend spiritual things, which we could not do by relying on our natural minds alone.

zerinus

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

If I had more energy, I might re-parse your words some, but I think they are fairly accurate. The only perfect man I have met died on a cross. I expect Him to return, but until He does I expect to meet no other prefect men.
Charity, TOm

Yes, TOm, i agree with the wisdom of your words, and i share your desire to see Jesus face to face.



I’m also surprised at your openness to the idea that even Joseph Smith is not immune to deception. At least, i think that is what you are suggesting by saying by pointing out that only Jesus was perfect. I concur, and also add that only the man who called Himself the Truth has a perfect understanding of the truth.

I now see a fork in the road of our conversation and am unsure what path to take. On the one hand (X) i’d like to know more about what you believe the essence of Jesus and the Holy Ghost to be. That is, i’d like to explore your opinions on how they are like the Father and how they differ. I’ve heard some from the critics on Mormon beliefs about the nature of God and i’d like to see how your ideas differ from what i’ve been told.

The other fork (Y) in the road of my discussion with you is the path we are now on. For, you have given me your sincere opinion that Mormon prophets are susceptible to fallibility, yet you have also said that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are infallible in doctrinal teaching. Of course, i might be misunderstanding you.

If i had to choose, i’d take (Y) and hope to come back to (X) later. Hence, i’d like to ask you to briefly describe the reasons why you believe the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price to be infallible.

http://www.greenstreetads.com/images/ForkInRoad3253553.gif

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

soc, I apologize, I chopped that quote off, in not the best spot. I hope you’ll read the entire article. I would love to hear your thoughts on it if you have the time.

TS:

If i don’t have time, it will certainly make time for you (God willing)! You have certainly been an encouragement to me and i’d like to return the kindness if i can.



I have read Euthyphro many times and enjoy the way Socrates points out to the religious sage how the man cannot know he is pious since the man has no idea what piety is!

Before i read the article you suggested, please tell me what thoughts you have about it, or what question you’d like me to explore with you.

http://www.athens.psu.edu/2004/2004WebFiles/socrates.gif

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Actually, that is not why you asked that question. Go back and retrace your posts. You are not being very honest with me or with yourself.

zerinus

Zerinus:

I tell you the truth: I was not trying to deceive you. I might have been deceived, but after reading your reply #530 i have no clear idea what that deception might be.





***Picture of a String of Lies ***

---

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You will have to go to this link to understand:

scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/1/18a

Reason through the spirit…or with the spirit.

WhyMe:

Please tell me your thoughts on God. What do you get out of the link to which you pointed me?

 

[Giovanni]

Couple of things that I found peculiar about Mormons of course the polygamy issue, though eventually, due to pressure from social norms they got away from it. Another was the Mormon churches doctrine on blacks, and this is really disturbing, their teaching was, up until the Civil Rights movement of the 60’s, that blacks were satans representation on earth. The leaders decided to meet on this mid 60’s I believe, and some who were not there claim that it was a tongues of fire and gusting wind due to the presence of the Holy Spirit as on Pentecost, while discussing and meditating on this subject. Yet, one of the leaders that was there claimed that it was just a calm and peaceful meeting, to where they concluded that blacks were not a representation of satan on earth.
They obviously came to that conclusion, because they knew that the world could never accept them as a legitimate religion with that kind of mentality,
Than look at the Catholic church, where we have had black popes and saints through out our long history.
I guess my post was a con.

 

[truthsilence]

TS:

If i don’t have time, it will certainly make time for you (God willing)! You have certainly been an encouragement to me and i’d like to return the kindness if i can.



I have read Euthyphro many times and enjoy the way Socrates points out to the religious sage how the man cannot know he is pious since the man has no idea what piety is!

Before i read the article you suggested, please tell me what thoughts you have about it, or what question you’d like me to explore with you.

http://www.athens.psu.edu/2004/2004WebFiles/socrates.gif

Thank you, soc!

It is sort of a dense read and somewhat difficult for me to break down because of my own limitations. One of those being that, I know little to nothing of Philosophy. But in my opinion, from what I’ve seen, people with a knowledge of Philosophy seem to make wonderful Theologians! I think there must be something to that.

One of the key things I hear in listening to Pope Benedict’s teaching is that Faith and Reason have a common source, which is in God. I believe that if one or the other is frustrated, it is impossible to be truly free. We should - and better said - we must be able to apply reason to our faith. One way to do that is by looking at evidence. We really can look to history and find evidence to support our beliefs. Obviously that adds to our reasoning capabilities. When what we try to accept on faith is constantly challenged by real evidence, lack of any evidence at all, or worse - contradictory evidence, reason becomes frustrated. We should be able to hold up our faith to history and evidence and find something reasonable. But I’m looking mostly at one side of the equation here. The other side of course is what exactly is truth and how do we know it when we find it and how can we put our faith in it? In Christianity, Truth itself is a Person. As Pope Benedict said in his speech, Truth means more than knowledge. *"The purpose of knowing the truth is to know what is good. This is also the sense of Socrates’ way of questioning: What good thing makes us true? Truth makes us good and goodness is true. This optimism dwells in the Christian faith because it was allowed to see the Logos, the creative Reason that, in God’s incarnation, revealed itself as that which is Good, as Goodness itself leads to goodness and Christ is Goodness itself’.
*

I hope this is making some sense. I am not the best at explaining things and I am still learning myself. So at some point, and I know you are busy with many things right now, but if you do find time, I would love to hear your thoughts and impressions.

The Lord bless you, and keep you;
The Lord make His face shine on you,
And be gracious to you;
The Lord lift up His countenance upon you,
And give you peace.

Tami

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That is not exactly how the question started. I had quoted you a passage from Elder Boyd K. Packer, which included this paragraph:

But if you learn by reason only, you will never understand the Spirit and how it works—regardless of how much you learn about other things.In response to which you asked this question:

Quote:Or are you, Zerinus, saying that faith is opposed to reason? …

Zerinus:

Perhaps i have miscommunicated my intentions to you clearly. Please let me try to be clearer: My questions about faith were not to help me understand Elder Boyd K. Packer, they were, rather, designed to help me understand the passage of Scripture you quoted:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:14)

I may be wrong, but i thought you were quoting this passage to prove that a person receives faith (or trust) in the truth apart from reason. So, i assumed that coming to an agreement about the meaning of faith would be essential building a bridge for us so that we might then reach an agreement about what this verse means. This is why i asked you what faith is.

Please think about it: If you mean one thing when you say faith and i mean something different when i say faith, we will be talking at each other but never understanding one another. Contrary to what you might think, i really want to understand you.

So, now that i understand what you mean when you use the word faith, i next want to understand what you believe 1 Corinthians 2:14 means, and more importantly, why.

If you are interested in talking me through understanding you, please answer this question about the verse:

Do you agree that the natural man rejects the things of the spirit because he does not have faith, but the spiritual man receives the things of the spirit because he does have faith?If you have no intention of helping me understand you, i will not be offended, and please do not feel obligated to reply.

 

[why_me]

Yes, TOm, i agree with the wisdom of your words, and i share your desire to see Jesus face to face.



I’m also surprised at your openness to the idea that even Joseph Smith is not immune to deception. At least, i think that is what you are suggesting by saying by pointing out that only Jesus was perfect. I concur, and also add that only the man who called Himself the Truth has a perfect understanding of the truth.

The other fork (Y) in the road of my discussion with you is the path we are now on. For, you have given me your sincere opinion that Mormon prophets are susceptible to fallibility, yet you have also said that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are infallible in doctrinal teaching. Of course, i might be misunderstanding you.

If i had to choose, i’d take (Y) and hope to come back to (X) later. Hence, i’d like to ask you to briefly describe the reasons why you believe the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price to be infallible.

http://www.greenstreetads.com/images/ForkInRoad3253553.gif

Prophets are human beings and as such they are fallible. I am sure that it was true for old testament likewise. No one is perfect. No mormon can claim that prophets are perfect and if a mormon does claim so, they would be sadly mistaken. Think of it this way: If a mormon would claim that prophets are perfect it would mean that prophets as men can not make a mistake. And we all know that such reasoning is fallible.

The book of mormon and other mormon scripture for the lds are perfect books in their teachings about god and his ways and in their doctrine. But the prophets who wrote the books were not perfect as men.

JS would be the first to claim that he was not perfect. In fact, my favorite quote by JS is:

Joseph Smith Quotes
… I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don’t want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)

JS was a frontier man who had his own problems as a human being and he was the first one to admit it.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Prophets are human beings and as such they are fallible. I am sure that it was true for old testament likewise. No one is perfect. No mormon can claim that prophets are perfect and if a mormon does claim so, they would be sadly mistaken. Think of it this way: If a mormon would claim that prophets are perfect it would mean that prophets as men can not make a mistake. And we all know that such reasoning is fallible.

The book of mormon and other mormon scripture for the lds are perfect books in their teachings about god and his ways and in their doctrine. But the prophets who wrote the books were not perfect as men.

JS would be the first to claim that he was not perfect. In fact, my favorite quote by JS is:

Joseph Smith Quotes
… I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm, and administering to the poor and dividing his substance, than the long smooth faced hypocrites. I don’t want you to think I am very righteous, for I am not very righteous. God judgeth men according to the light he gives them.
Words of Joseph Smith, p.204 (18 May 1843)

JS was a frontier man who had his own problems as a human being and he was the first one to admit it.

Would you say, WhyMe, that Joseph Smith was not perfect in everything but he was perfect in his transmitting the Book of Mormon and other sacred LDS texts?