Jamie123
-
Posts
2977 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Posts posted by Jamie123
-
-
Protestants are often taught not to trust their feelings, but to check everything against scripture (i.e. the Bible). Since they won't find any unambiguous references to a "restored gospel" (at least not in the sermons they've heard) they'll conclude that it must be false teaching and attack it.Your average Christian should be able to relate to it much better than atheists, but for some reason they still attack it. I have no clue why that is.
Of course, it all rests on the assumption that the Bible itself is "true", and where are you going to get proof of that other than through prayer and subjective feeling?
-
Years ago, I used to argue a lot with Mormon missionaries in exactly the way you describe. In my case it was because a good part of me wanted Mormonism to be true, but couldn't quite bring myself to believe it ("too good to be true"), and wasn't prepared to trust whatever subjective feelings I was told to pray for. My approach was to try to knock holes in Mormon theology and see if it stood up. The missionaries (who are not really trained apologists) sometimes reacted rather badly to this, and things sometimes did turn ugly.
I don't do this any more, because it really gets you nowhere. (Plus I've learned something about the pressures the Sisters and Elders are under, and how they deserve rather more kindness from people in general.) At the same time though, I don't think people who criticize Mormon ideas are necessarily coming against the Church in anger. People often don't know what they really want, and can't bring themselves to accept it when they do find it. They sometimes react in ways that seem odd to people with a clearer world-picture.
-
I have nowhere suggested that they are not bad. Lung cancer is bad, but if a person dies of lung cancer caused by excessive smoking, what killed them? The smoking or the cancer? The answer of course is both, but I think you would agree that the root cause was the smoking.I can think of some passages in Exodus where God does indeed specify acts such as murder and theft as being wrong. Maybe you can think of them, too. :)
Here we must differ. Willfully indulging in murderous thoughts does our souls the same damage as actual acts of murder. (Though obviously the temporal consequences are less severe.) We must strive to be clean in thoughts, as well as in actions. Of course we will slip from time to time (just as we will continue to lust after attractive members of the opposite sex) which is why we need continually to repent, ask God's forgiveness and strive to do better.I fully reject this idea. If I have desires and impulses and I act on them to commit murder and rape, then I am guilty of grave sin. If I do not act on them, I am not guilty of that sin. To think otherwise is to make a mockery of the very idea of individual choice and accountability.
OK so we're in agreement here.It's along these lines: Pride = bad.
Isaac Newton was not a Mormon. Does that mean you don't care about gravity? Seriously though, if you "don't care" about the ideas of anyone outside your Church, then maybe I'd better not mention them again.Why?
Not irrelevant at all - as I've discussed above.Irrelevant, as I've discussed above.
Are you telling me you've never ever done your "own thing" when deep down you've known that God had other plans for you? If so, you're either fooling yourself, or you're a better Christian than I'll ever be in this life!The distinguishing factor between Satan and you (or me) is that you (and I) didn't rebel against God.
Maybe I have a guilty conscience, but I suspect you're talking about me. It's sometimes difficult to put your feelings over in the face of opposition without appearing arrogant. But yes, the cap does fit: Like every other fallen human, I have issues in my life which I need continuously to address.Now I wish some of this site need to see the same [not talking about you Volt].
-
It's interesting that the Catholic Seven Deadly Sins (yes, I know you're not a Catholic - I'll come to that in a minute) make no mention of specific acts like murder and theft - they are all things like pride, envy and greed which might lead to such acts. Real sin is the root-cause of evil deeds - rape and cannibalism (to use your examples) are the symptoms.I suspect that killing and eating your neighbor will have a more negative effect on your worthiness to enter God's presence than thinking you're better or more worthy than he is.
I'm not exactly sure what the Mormon thinking about pride is, but the discussions I've had with missionaries lead me to think it's very similar to that of mainstream Christianity. The Christian writers I was thinking of (David Watson for example, or C.S. Lewis) are not by-and-large Mormons, but I think their ideas are worth "caring about" - even to members of your Church.And I should care about the opinion of theologians because...?
What was the cause of his rebellion if not pride?Rebellion, not pride, was the original and proximate cause of Satan's fall.
-
There is a thread elsewhere on this site asking: “Would you date a convert?” A good many people answered “yes” or “absolutely!”, but I find it troubling that the question should be asked at all.
The “no” argument seems to run: If you are a convert to Mormonism then you must have a pre-Mormon "past", which probably involved a certain degree of "sinning" - maybe even of a sexual nature - and though God has wiped your slate clean, this possibility renders you unfit to marry someone who has lived the Gospel faithfully since childhood.
Bad news indeed for the single convert in a traditionally Mormon area, who (if everyone took this view) would need to search for another single convert to marry, or remain permanently single and never enjoy the blessings of matrimony.
Ergo “converts are second-class citizens”.
It disturbs me deeply that anyone who considers himself "Christian" should even consider this. It seems to go so totally against everything Christ taught - not to mention that Joseph Smith himself was a convert (as were all Mormons of his generation). But of course that's just my opinion.
-
So, if this young man decides that her past is too complex and emotionally dense and he decides to pass, it is his choice. He is also entitled to expect someone that has upheld the same values, under the same social pressures, and kept her virginity.
This suggests that man can "earn" the right to a "pure" wife by being pure himself. But Jesus said: "...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt 5:28). Don't tell me that the most morally upright man in the world hasn't done that (at least occasionally) when he's seen a pretty girl walk past. We are all sinners. None of us is any better than anyone else. It is only by Grace that any of us can be considered righteous.
Of course, I'm not saying that every convert "with a past" is necessarily right for every non-convert who's spent his whole life trying (and that's the best any of us can do) to live out the Gospel. Some pairs of people are compatible, others are not, but for a man to rule out any "convert" as a potential marriage partner on the basis of their previous "sins of the flesh" (real or imagined) is surely a sin in itself. Apart from anything else, it shows a lack of faith in God's power to change people's lives.
I think forcible rape is probably worse. Also, killing and eating people is probably worse than thinking you're better than they are. Not sure, but I might be able to come up with one or two more.
The things you mention are certainly worse in terms of their temporal consequences, and (for the good of society) must merit a greater punishment. But I don't believe God is a consequentialist: It is not the consequences of our sins that damage our relationship with God, but the effect those sins have upon ourselves - i.e. making us less worthy to enter His presence. Most theologians would agree that pride is the most detestable sin in the eyes of God and the original cause of Satan's fall. C.S. Lewis once wrote that "most evil is good gone wrong" but "pride comes to us straight from Hell". (I no longer have a copy of that book so I'm quoting from memory.)
-
If I was single and an LDS convert, I'd have serious misgivings about dating anyone who answered "no" to this question. We all have "pasts" and we have all sinned - born "in the covenant" or not. The worst sin of all is thinking that you're better than other people.
-
Considering that the names other two kingdoms are from Latin, probably not. The first two missionaries who I asked didn't seem to have ever considered the question. All they could say was that it was a word revealed to Joseph Smith.I highly doubt it was a greek word...
-
Our faith believes, not the Mormons, that the Celestrial Heaven is for those who lived out the celestrial life while on earth. They knew about the Gospel, accepted it and preached it elsewhere so others would know.
The Terrestrial are for the fine folk who led a good life, but were never given the chance to understand or hear the gospel.
The Telestrial are for those who had denied the gospel but after meeting Christ for the second time decided to claim Jesus is Lord and are therefore worthy of rightesouness.
The rest of the people all now know and have made the choice to decline God's eternal invitation and thus are thrown into the lake of fire.
My understanding is rather different:
Celestial Kingdom - those who accepted the gospel and fully lived out the covenant.
Terrestrial Kingdom - those who accepted the gospel in this life but were lukewarm, together with those who rejected the gospel but otherwise lived good lives.
Telestial Kingdom - those who rejected the gospel and/or lived wicked lives, but who paid the price for their own sins after death (by going temporarily to hell).
Outer Darkness - those who actively allied themselves with Satan and his angels.
Side note: Does anyone know meaning of the word "telestial"? The missionaries told me it's from the Latin tellus=earth, but that would give it roughly the same meaning as "terrestrial". The only alternative I can think of is the Greek teleos=complete, perfect (in the sense that souls who go there cannot progress further). Does anyone else have any ideas?
-
When I'm listening, it sounds strange, disrespectful when they don't say Thou when speaking directly to Heavenly Father and Jesus.
It's odd that you should think that: In the 16th. C, the "you" pronoun was deferential while the "thou" pronoun was familiar. Consider Macbeth, Act 4 Scene 2:
Lady Macduff: Yes, he is dead; how wilt thou do for a father?
Son: Nay, how will you do for a husband?
The mother "speaks down" to her child, addressing him as "thou", while he replies to her with the more respectful "you". The modern use "thou" in religious contexts has almost reversed this convention.
-
I've never totally understood what Mormons mean by the word "testimony". For most Christians, the act of "giving one's testimony" means telling the story of one's conversion, which is often quite lengthy and involved. For Mormons, it's a simple statement like "I know JS was a prophet" or "I know the church is true". Rarely any elaboration, apart from vague statements about "revelation" or "the Spirit".
During my investigation of Mormonism I was often asked: "Did you feel the Spirit?" to which I'd reply "I don't know - what does the Spirit feel like?" The church member would usually mumble something about "burnings in the breast" (whatever that means) but promptly add that it's not necessarily like that for everyone. The bottom line was always: "You'll not mistake it when it happens". However, if I ever complained that I hadn't felt the Spirit, the response was usually "Well, what were you expecting to feel?" We'd just go round in circles.
Having said that, the idea of "trusting the scriptures" in order to "gain a testimony" (that the scriptures are true) is a classic example of begging the question - so I would agree that it's difficult to look at this question logically.
-
Pleased to meet you. I'm new here too.
-
Thanks :) I hope it didn't seem like I was being disrespectful. I certainly didn't intend to seem so. I too want to discuss intelligently, and not get into unpleasant and hurtful arguments.
The point I was making is that that discussion needs common ground. If LDS and Non-LDS are going to have any meaningful communication, the ground-rules cannot state that LDS doctrine is definitely true and make it an insult to suggest otherwise. (Not that I think that's what this site is about - but some LDS-people I've met would want it that way.) Each side needs to meet the other where they are, not where they would want them to be.
-
I'm new here too - pleased to meet you :)
-
For years I've had a kind of love/hate relationship with Mormonism.
Until my mid-20's I was only vaguely aware that the church existed (it's not really a major religion in the UK), but then I was visited by two nice-looking American girls who began to give me the "Missionary Discussions" - until they discovered I was not the "golden contact" they had hoped for. Even then they kept visiting me - even offering to start the discussions afresh - but I knew it was going nowhere and I was just wasting their time as well as my own.
Let me try to explain my mindset at that time: Firstly I didn't believe in God. Secondly, I was beset with what I then regarded as highly-serious "sins of the flesh". Thirdly, I was terrified that if there was (by any chance) a God, He must be very angry with me - both for not believing in Him and for my aforementioned sins. Consequently I didn't much want to pray about the Book of Mormon, or anything else for that matter. And having the sisters tell me "don't be afraid" never did a thing to calm my fears.
On the subject of sisters and "elders" (I still can't get over them being called that - most of them are barely 18!), I've sensed that many of them are not really happy in their work. I'm not talking about the sisters who first came to my house (they seemed to shine with joy in what they were doing) but others I've met over the years. For some it comes out as sarcasm, for others snappiness and aggressively defensive attitudes. I know better now than to blame them for it (given the strict rules they have to live by) and I always make a special point of being nice to them. But in the past I've got into some very unpleasant arguments: Some missionaries (as well as many regular members) seem to regard it as a personal insult that I don't accept that they "know" that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is "true".
Example:
[Elder] I take it you know that we're a unique restoration of Christ's original Church?
[Me] I know that's what you believe you are.
[Elder] We don't just believe. We know!
There's no good answer to that. The world is full of people who claim to "know" things - most of which contradict each other. (The 9/11 terrorists would probably have told you they knew they were going straight to heaven....not, of course, that I'm comparing Mormons to Islamic Fundamentalists!). The conversation merely turns into an epistemological debate about the difference between "knowing" and "believing", how we can distinguish "revealed truth" from "wishful thinking", and ends with "You are NOT a humble person!", "You are NOT worthy!", "The message is not for you!" (and other unpleasant things besides). But on one occasion it went differently: An elder told me he thought I already had a testimony and was in denial about it - a very scary thought which pushed me away from Mormonism for a long time.
It was shortly after this that I went to my local Anglican parish church. It was an Anglo-Catholic church (where the vicar was always addressed as "Father Michael") which I'd been avoiding for the past 2 or 3 years. I was sort-of brought up C of E, but had spent some time drifting between churches (Methodist, Baptist etc., having various "conversion experiences" along the way) before dropping out of mainstream Christianity altogether and calling myself an "agnostic". I had issues with theological concepts which I didn't really understand at the time (and still struggle with now). For a while Mormonism had seemed to offer a "way out" of these dilemmas, which was partly what made it seem so attractive. But anyway, the words of the Mass, the hymn-singing, the sheer beauty of the church itself seemed to weave a spell around me. To be fair, it wasn't just the service at St. Botolph's which changed me: I'd recently read a book called "The Great Divorce" by C.S. Lewis, which gave me a different outlook on Christianity. (I'd read books by Lewis before then, but none of them hit me the way that one did.) I've also noticed that many Mormons seem to be C.S. Lewis fans, and that puzzles me a little too: Though Lewis was an Anglican, he never pressed people to join any specific church, but concentrated on what he called "Mere Christianity" - the core of beliefs which all Christians adhere to whatever their denomination.
Anyway, that's only part of my story. I've been through many changes since then: I've read much, taken on new ideas, thrown off old ones. Found out the old ideas were true after all: Gone around in circles. I've married and had children, but I still worship as an Anglican. I have to some extent mended my arguments with Mormonism, and I have a fondness for the LDS church. I've become friends with many Mormon people, including my sister-in-law who lives in Maine. Quite why I'm posting here on this website, I'm not sure: Maybe God is showing me something new, or maybe I am just wanting to relive part of my past. If Mormon teaching is false, it is best left alone (as Dumbledore said "It does not do to dwell on dreams...") but that's not to say I don't cherish the friendship I've known from many LDS members over the years.
God bless,
Jamie.
P.S. I called this message A Delayed "Welcome". I used the wrong word: I should have said "Introduction", but it won't let me edit the title.
Explain your screen name/avatar,
in General Discussion
Posted
"Jamie" is short for James - my middle name. Some people know me as "Jamie" in real life.
My avatar is "Titch and Quackers", an almost-forgotten British kids' TV show from the late 60's and early 70's, which features in some of my earliest childhood memories. This is the only picture of them I have ever been able to find on the web.