mountthepavement

It's not simple when I don't know what you mean. And just because something is difficult to explain doesn't mean it's not simple in itself. Might one have a relationship with god characterized by rebellion? That is, what you have said is not entirely clear. Are you trying to set up a paradox as well, as in, "we have a relationship with god through faith, and faith is the result of that relationship"? If not, then why is the former statement here any less valid than yours. Just because my suggestion was wordy doesn't mean it's profound.

Is repentance wanting change or acting out change? I can think of an alcoholic weeping over his sins, but staying wedded to the bottle. So how does one go from being an unrepentant sinner to being a repentant sinner (if there is such a thing) to being saved, given that one's will is corrupt? Is it true that the will is corrupt? I do not know if that is LDS' view.

I'm not really angry though, since I can see you are just enthusiastically referring me to something you hold dear and important! Nothing wrong with that.

Really, calling it "America" is an issue? That surprises me. Can you give me more information about this?

Fair enough. But I can still resent it. I just don't like being referred away in a general direction when we are having an immediate discussion. Of course it would be beneficial and sensible to supplement learning about LDS on an online forum with reading its scriptures. It's obvious. I would like to refer you away to something long and written in a different context than the present discussion, but I can understand your refusal. Similarly, I don't say that I refuse in general to read the BoM: only when you tell me. :)

k, sorry, I like being vague since it might open up different possible directions of discussion. But: How do we get from being a sinner to being saved. If we must repent, but we are sinners and our will is corrupt, don't we face a paradox? An answer may be that we are saved by the intervention of a savior: sensible enough. But isn't repentance a requirement for this intervention? Back to square one. How do we "pick ourselves up by our bootstraps." What I should have said, perhaps, is "Repentance... Salvation: Bootstrap problem?"

The meaning of this last one is obscure to me.

Why?

Will you name some? I'm interested.

First: can you bring a verse concerning "all are condemned," bible and/or LDS scripture? Concerning the rest: Isn't it possible to do a "good" act out of earthly calculation rather than faith? For instance, I can think of at least on earthly positive to being in the LDS church, simply that of community. Most people suffer in an earthly since in being isolated and experience need of inclusion. Any church supplies that. Now, if part of being in the community is the requirement to tithe (is this a hard and fast requirement?) then one might commit this good act simply out of, say, the fear of being alone. It is often remarked that satan preys on fears, especially that of being alone. I feel like I've heard this: for instance, in the movie Big Fish, I think, to cite something out of pop culture. Further, what do you think of the old Catholic practice of selling indulgences, which was one of the things that really set Luther of, contributing to his hard stance in favor of "faith alone"?

Perhaps we believe by the grace of god, so to speak?

I like this point. Perhaps PC can illuminate us as to why this is not a work. Or, maybe I do not speak for him.

What are the ordinances?

Rather than depicting nuance, perhaps the gospel, i.e.: the word of god, is trying to communicate a paradox. (Contrast paradox with proposition to get precisely what I mean.)

What do you think of this: We have the power to refuse god, righteousness, etc., (the power to sin) but not to choose christ. (Wasn't it said, you don't choose me, I chose you?) Perhaps this can help reconcile the various factions?

Self-explanatory, unless you want to substitute "cause:effect" or something for the latter.

I would "give you a laugh", but I don't know how.

Agree or disagree: Faith is a state or action experienced or committed by subjectivities that has no object (you might say the subjectivity has no subject, in the sense of citizen of a dominion); it can further be characterized by an "existential" paradox: that it does not exist as a possible object of a subjectivity itself (follows from its being a state of subjectivity). It has that type of existence, I mean. To clarify this: faith is the state synonymous with the concept "objectless" in the human mind (hence the paradox).

He may have been quoting himself, EMcC, that is.

Is faith like "the force"? PS: is that silver surfer?

I agree with this reading that he is paraphrasing JS.

What is Intelligences, capital-I?

Seems very sensible to me, given the bulk of our discussion of faith in this thread, where we have often spoken of faith as the transcendence ("substance") or fulfillment of belief in things unseen. If god sees all, then...

Would you say this type of idea makes an LDS member a democratic type of christian?

Strikes me as the same type of argument aj brings.