Serg

You have alternatives. Before deciding which voice to follow, before deciding to which " fact"(religious or secular) give some worth in such a trouble, realize what you feel, what you want, what you think you are, what you think you want: think of what you " know" and what you " think" you " know" . If after all that, there is still -wanting- in you, a hazardous impulse of -seeking-, then watch what exactly are you seeking: why? What is your fear? That God may not exist or that your church is not " true" , or both? Do both HAVE to go together? if they do(because you feel so), do you then fear abandonment, loneliness, insecurity, judgement from those close to you who religiously rely eithr on your guideance(children) or support(family)? Do you FEAR to disappoint? Disapoint who? You by not seekig " truth", your relatives for not believing the same things, God because you might be wrong in doubting His alleged true church or death and meaninglesness because " god after all may not exist" ? A -crisis- of -faith- is no different at root from any other -crisis- of teh emotional order. Hence, and as many here would uphold, if rational inquiry, if " historical facts" can be bended on both sides(mormons, antimormons, secular, religious) and ' faith' or that ' attitude' to succumb blindly works anyways and APART from any " account" or " logic" , then find the center of your seeking, of your wanting: what is it tou want now? what is it you fear? what is it you feel? where? how? Is it true that you need something exterior to you to feel your way through life? Is it? Is it a divine voice that comes from outside or a very curious phenomena that guides you from your inside, as to make you marvel and think it is you? Do you need to be directed here? You surely know what you will get from this or any othet forum. Some will try to point you in one direction, others to another: but is it true that you need another man's map to find what YOU and only YOU could conceive in yourself of ever wanting to seek? From whence did that other man get his map? Is it that he holds more power or magic, or is more special to the universe that he can guide you while you must inevitably depend on him? Know your self. Do not fear. Fear compromises you.

Because it would diffuse teh line that so passionetaly you draw between them and you: it woul dbe (as hillman puts it) " teaching to hate hatred". Not only is that a contradiction of the blatant form, but a seed of further evil. Though psicological points of view concerning " the shadow" are of full authority to some of us to quote from, is nicer if we just stay put with our true reasoning and emotions: if we draw so sharp a line between teh <evil>, <frenetic>, <neurotic>, <sychopathic>, then we must in some content differentiate ourselves from <them> not only by name. Wit over sense. But teh Lord put it well when said in teh epistle of James: 18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. 19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to aspeak, bslow to cwrath: 20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. 21 Wherefore lay apart all afilthiness and bsuperfluity of naughtiness, and receive with cmeekness the dengrafted word, which is able to save your souls. just a thought, not so much of an argument, regards,

If a constitutional amendment recognizing gay marriages was adopted (heaven forbid), there'd be no real case to forbid polygamy.-crimsonkairos We are right now in Puerto Rico reviewing our civil code, and it is very debated becausesome want civil marriages to be extended to homosexuals and others do not. I for one have said that i agree, but, well, I will never become an activist for it! I wonder what the term would be for three or more gays who want to share one civil union? Polyunity?-crimsonkairos I dont know, what about naming the wholespectrum of lesbianism that surrounded the Relief Society in periods between 1870-1900, sexual dynamics that were fursnished through polygamy!! Uh, I littlehistorical apreciation would take away all seeming 'fun'from that last statement.

Now I admit that when Joseph Smith taught that the Father had lived a mortal life and now sits enthroned in yonder heavens an exalted man it was revolutionary even in the minds of the LDS -Atrain We can challenge this statement with a reevaluation of his teachings...

It is the very lds notion of judgement. At least, as Ostler explains it. It is the way in which every man "receiveth after the desire of their hearts". In our view,(or at least of few of us), 'punishment' and ' reward' are very uncompelling words to describe the 'ultimate' state of each human being. Thus, it contains a higly level of meaning rather than truth(literal). A world where a Will(a being, free being, i.e.God) directs the state of another is not the ' perfect' and ' coherent' dwelling place of our desiring hearts. To sum up: at last, in our so called ' last judgement' we will not be appointed an abode, a kingdom, a damnation, but we will ourselves in all freedom and sincerity of being approach the abode that we know best fits us. Hence, there will be no lines, no judges, no books....it is all figure of speech. Their meaning will be there(order, authority, truth). But signifiers do not share equal status(obviously) with their significations. Thus, at the end,('end')there will be no right or left in space(as there IS not such notion), also no 'punishment' or 'reward' , but " intelligence that embraces intelligence, mercy that aproaches mercy, justice that understands justice, holiness that walks along holiness, etc..." , thus says Jesus ' he that be filthy, stay filthy yet" , he that just, just. Sorry if it all seems messy, I havent had time to do almost anything these weeks, and this seemed all the time I got.

Can you explain why you dont buy it?

An Idea came to my mind not long ago. Suddenly, while going through Buber's writtings it hit me again, and I saw it there, printed, laying materialized on a paper surface, written by another man. It felt, as unfaithfulness. In free space there is neither right nor left. In the same way, there is reward and punishment only in this, and not in the Messianic world. Martin Buber's ten rungs, collected Hassidic saying, p.116 Brilliant.

The only good book is the one I can mark.

I agree. I studied the issue, specially a great book, The Orthodox Corruption os Scripture, etc...though yes, many deliberate mistakes were committed(as well as many unwilled mistakes), in translation, it is a mater of fact that the same willful mistakes happened to the BoM and the same unwilled mistakes also. Please! I for one dont detest the bible, but love it, I believe that it's accuracy in describing historical contexts may not be 100% good, but hey, its sufficiently accurate and that is why it was intended. Scripture is not a Divine-human interaction for liability-fraud dynamics, nor for historical fun. It is an exercise of faith and knowledge.

Well its not that simple. There are some intellectuals in our Church that do believe(and I find no problem with it), that teh BoM was mostly affected by JS's contemporary ambience, thought , etc... That doesnt make it a lie. Just like symbols arent lies because they dont portray what actually is they only portray. Put it like this: Scripture says that streets in heaven are made of gold. We die, and find that there are neither streets in Heaven to say the least of any gold. Did Scriptures lie? Well it may be contended, they did portray wrongly the true nature of a thing x. But then again, Scripture is not purposedly developed to make us know certainties of literal knowledge. It is more valueable as a means of knwoing God than as a source of knowing Him...I dont know if i am being coherent. Its a complex issue that of considering scripture a dynamic interaction between man and god. Suffice be to say, pelase, that to call the BoM a mostly 19 century composition doesnt go to assert that lie is at play or that we shouldnt admire Smith as prophet(more than composer). It si an issue that we may do good to retake in a whole thread,

Im sure we will all be shocked and appalled to find when we get there that not every word of every book was literal and true , and not every teaching was to the letter. But guess what, we have been warned we are not suppose to have exactness, assurance and proof. Its all about faith , honey. -Starchild Very true.

Very Wise. "True the experiences will be for our good but I do not believe that that path is marked for me and I am an ant following the scent path with little or no choice because every step is already planned out for me."

Above all, because we do have some strange beliefs*, lol.

That is right Crimson and I am glad i am not th eonly one with this idea, hey, I suggest you a great reading on it, Ostler's treatment of this theory of redemption in his second volume, there he states why teh allegory of teh Father being obligated to punish someone for the sake of an abstarct non willing justice, and Christ as scapegoat, is incoherent. There he explains how truly may redemption work and atonement function within us.... you will surely enjoy it pal. regards,

Inded you have all been thoughtful; I particularly believe, that Love is a reality beyond the Self, and yet only comprehended(and virtually given existence to) through the former. The Lord loves in all comprehension, he a-prehends all into his very Being, He loves by nature as much as he has chosen through this loving attitude, to live . He is free, he may be said that in each moment decides to retain his goodness, but as the other brother said, not likely to mortality, not as if he were tempted as much to do otherwise, but because he Is a Self, and properly free, but then again, if we recognize in humans(free) a commitment that sometimes lasts a lifetime, in which no variation occurs, as in belief in something, how much more should we celebrate God's commitment that is unvarying and yet free? Isnt that the great paradox of Love? Free and bonded? Bonded freely? It is so beautiful to contemplate Morality not as a requisit to be a God, no, but a freely chosen nature, a commitment that arises from an already loving self... Real conversion, as Brown said comes from within*. a QUOTE in Bubers I and Thou, reads: "God is the mysterium tremendum that appears and overthrows, but he is also the mystery of the self-evident, nearer to me than my I... How would man exist if God did not need him, and how would you exist? You need God in order to be, and God needs you— for that is the meaning of your life." Also: "Some would deny any legitimate use of the word God because it has been misused so much. Certainly it is the most burdened of all human words. Precisely for that reason it is the most imperishable and unavoidable. And how much weight has all erroneous talk about God's nature and works (although there never has been nor can be any such talk that is not erroneous) compared with the one truth that all men who have addressed God really meant him? For whoever pronounces the word God and really means Thou, addresses, no matter what his delusion, the true Thou of his life that cannot be restricted by any other and to whom he stands in a relationship that includes all others.... Whoever abhors the name and fancies that he is godless— when he addresses with his whole devoted being the Thou of his life that cannot be restricted by any other, he addresses God." Regards,