mountthepavement

I'll take that as a reply to my question about James. Sounds good, though only hinted at.

Okay, I think I get it: Faith is intended to contrast with mere belie,f in that belief can be something one does entirely internally, which seems to imply tentatively, while faith is active and externally demonstrates belief, hence the emphasis on works. However, couldn't we have correct works with no righteousness but rather calculation behind them? Further, might it be that the old faith vs. works debate is a chicken-or-egg problem?

From Js. Smith: "First, it is the principle of power in the deity as well as in man. Hebrews 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." Is he reading this passage of Hebrews in a way that "through faith" modifies "were framed by... god"? If so, we can describe this grammatical situation as the modification of a verb in a dependent clause (a proposition with the verb "were framed," the proposition being the object of the verb "understand," which can take propositions as objects) by a prepositional or adverbial phrase at the beginning of the sentence, which is a highly irregular and completely ambiguous way of writing English if we accept that a prepositional phrase at the start of a sentence always modifies the verb of the sentence itself rather than that of a dependent clause in correct English. Agree? Is it a bad translation? Or, is the correct reading (and perhaps JS', though it seems otherwise from the context) that which has "through faith" modifying "understand"?

That is very well-thought out. I guess, though, I am just wondering how we as christians can let the orders of a "good government" supersede the commandment, do not kill. Just the same old question. Any more thoughts?

Apparently, this is from 1Nephi 4:13: "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief." Now, do you agree or disagree with the statement, "The gospel is for individuals." Can I hear some thoughts on reconciling this notion with the passage above? For instance, it may be that the calculus above is not of god but was nevertheless given by him to satisfy the "hard hearts" of humans, or something-such. Also, I am led to recall god's stance on the unbelief of other nations and cities: That's when I recall the word "smote" coming into play. I could be wrong. He's a little like Mao in that regard. :)

That's a very interesting point. Then, what do you think is qualitative difference between the OP's situation and war time? Or is the difference between them purely quantitative -- y'know, greater numbers.

aj4u, what do you think about the "epistle of straw," the book of James? It seemed to emphasize works. What's your reading?

well, not me, since the phrase originates with y'all in the conversation, but aj4u would work.

Is Nephi then talking about "present company excluded" or is he recriminating us to our faces?

Makes sense. Can you talk more about the condition of repentance though, and how we get from A to B, sin to repentance. What is the mechanism?

Perhaps there is a physical correlate to this. Try looking up senescence on wikipedia or something to see what I'm getting at. It sounds like you mean mortality was the cause of these things, knowledge of good and evil, agency. I do not see the causal connection. Were they simply simultaneous? Or is perhaps the causal mechanism or details a mystery? I disagree. This does not seem logical. Mortality itself is truly an eternal consequence, if there ever was one, as in, the wages of sin is death. Where does the onus of salvation lie? With Jesus or with us? If it is us, and we are corrupt sinful beings, how can we ever expect to "pick ourselves up by our bootstraps?" Thanks for the conversation here.

I am trying to do that, and y'all have been fairly helpful in that direction, so thanks.

I'm excited about this post: Can we take some time to do this? What would be the best way? I want a rigorous definition. If it is the case that the difference between LDS' and the layman's understanding of "belief" is as different and ineffable as that between red and blue, then I believe only a "circular" definition will be possible for you. In that case, I would ask you to consider the concept of a recursive definition and program, and see whether it applies in this case. This, to me, would place LDS under the category of, if you will, a charismatic religion, meaning it relies on a feedback loop of good feelings that is put in place first by a suspension of disbelief and sustained by periodic and probably frequent exertions of the will. This is my perception, and I am testing it to see whether it is ill-founded or no.

A primary source would convince me of this claim. (I don't like talking about people who aren't present, or, even worse, are quite possibly hypothetical.)

What does Christ do for our sin? I need a doctrinal lesson here.

Also, how is original sin transmitted? Or is it that it is simultaneous: We are all Adams and Eves? Or is it that we all just happen to sin at some point in our lives, thus becoming a sinner, contingently? Perhaps it is heritable? Like DNA? Do we volunteer to share in the sins of our fathers and pass it on like an heirloom? Why would anyone on earth think it is injustice for god to punish rebellion? We may think a ruler himself is bad or unjust, but few would argue with the reasonableness of a ruler of punishing rebellion, don't you think? We rise up against a tyrant, but we can only expect that he will do whatever is in his power to put us down. Now, punishment of insurrection against a good leader must then be even more reasonable, except to the extent that a good leader knows when to punish and when to stay his hand against his subjects favoring other means. Which is to say, I'm not sure I know where the author is coming from, but maybe I need more context.

From the above: " for ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery" ----- This doesn't sound like a very reasonable depiction of human psychology to me. Specifically, if one is to self-consciously call oneself a sinner, it is less likely that one will balk at experiencing misery in their lives. Rather, there is a kind of pride that encourages people to want to shoulder their sins themselves. (Ask an alcoholic if you don't believe me.) If I misunderstand human nature or the verse I quoted, let me know.

Yeah, I just didn't think "America's book" was a very good selling point. But maybe there is some truth to the notion? Some might argue.

Thanks for the welcome!! And, to reply, so it was a sudden and spontaneous biographical or personal event? You could say a pivot in your life narrative? That's all for now. I've enjoyed talking to you and hope to continue!

Also, if I asked you to read a particular text, would you give it a shot? Hopefully, it wouldn't be too overtly satanic, though. Besides: it is a long book. I've read a bit, started chapters here and there.

What if I'm not American?

Even weirder stuff may happen in captivity because of the unnatural setting.

Can we achieve pure knowledge in this life? Also, what is knowledge? Can we define it rigorously so that an arbitrary listener would get what we are talking about?

(context: It is the power of faith, the faith by which the Father creates and governs. ) That's a great question! Can anyone clarify?

I am getting from you that the concept of faith is utterly tied to the concept of power: It is taking up god's power, righteous power? Now, I don't understand this statement; it seems overly poetic and esoteric; can you explain it? "God is God because he is the embodiment of all faith" What does god have faith in? Or is "faith in" the wrong way to think about it? Is faith a state of mind with no object? If not, what is god's object? The good? What is that?