elinz

"The core doctrines of mormonism and Christianity are so different that they cannot work towards the same goal, because both have different goals." "...last night with Mel Gibson and Barbara Walters" I don't think it was Barbara Walters. Was it "Primetime Special Edition" on ABC? Mainstream Christianity and the LDS Church are not totally different. Obviously the "fixed creed" aspect of most mainstream churches goes against the idea of revelation and building testimonies, but the bible is still mostly the same between the two. Sin is still error, though most Catholics figure a confession will due as a cure rather than serious work and change. I'd say the LDS Church is simply more serious about things than the other Churches. Sort of the Marines vs. the National Guard?

I agree 100%. The culture war in America is getting more vicious all the time. The pro-sin-freedom-expression side seems to be winning unfortunately. Now is the time. People are ready to hear the other side again and if done well the tide might turn. Even if it doesn't, the tragedies that the expression side lead us into will ultimately end in collapse. After the fall, the survivors will be trained and ready to start again. The cycle goes on and on...

This movie is going to place a lot of significance on something that the LDS church does not value as a significant thing. I have never talked to a mormon who talked like they thought the cross was as important as Christians think it is.I just wonder if it will become a competition or if itwill become a cooperation. Once this movie is over there isn't much in the way of a sequel. In some ways this will further open the publics interest in religious material. "Joan of Arcadia" is a very popular tv show and it never mentions Christ or the cross. (at least so far) Being an optimist I'll say it's a good sign...

Is God really Santa Claus? That's almost what your asking. If you begin with an idealized, simplified view of God (that could pass as Santa Claus) you might find yourself questioning the character of God. Why do that? Isn't it sufficient to see the patterns of the universe that are the "clues" of God? To define God's MOTIVATION seems pretty presumptious doesn't it? There's a great scene from the movie "The Devils Advocate" that goes along those lines: "God?" "What about God?" "He's a sadist" "He loves to watch people suffer" "He says 'look, but don't touch'" "touch, but don't taste" "taste, but don't swallow" ...maybe God is a sadist?

This movie is likely to be as significant culturally as "Schindlers List" was. There are many issues that might be raised about it: 1. Is the anti-semitic claim valid? Is the Jewish population simply happier if the story of Christ never gets told? 2. What about the teachings of Christ? There's apparently nothing but the crucifixion. Catholics focus on the crucifixion, but the LDS church does not to such a degree. Is this a bad thing from the LDS perspective? 3. Given that the movie skips over the life of Jesus does that give plenty of room for the Mormon Movie business to create it's own identity in the media that is not in direct competition with mainstream Christianity? 4. What can you say about character assassination as far as the people involved in this movie? Okay, that will get you all started. If anyone can think of other issues go right ahead... B)

You can study something without choosing to agree with it. By your logic you would NEVER want to learn because it might threaten the status quo. In fact, even in warfare you want to study your enemy so that you know them better than they know themselves. Then you might have to destroy them. Afterwards do you ask yourself whether that knowledge is useless? What about evil people? Wouldn't you want to understand how their minds worked so that you could be wise to them? Ignorance may be bliss, but you can get in some serious trouble if danger comes along...

The most logical conclusion is physical addiction. Scientific American this month has an article on the brain and it's addictive qualities. The pleasure center can be addicted by many types of stimulus. One is gambling. Are people born with a "gambling gene"? My guess is that we all have the ability to be addicted to things, it's being human, and some simply "forget" the ability to choose they once had. The "gay gene" idea is a rationalization. It's a fraud... B) But once addicted to anything the only way to get beyond it is by (surprise) accepting the error (repent) and humbly learning to live a new way. The spiritual perspective is just a different language that describes the physical reality of addiction. The brain actually CHANGES when you get hooked on something. Physical change. That "damage" does not heal quickly and in some things like smoking it can be 10 or 20 years after the fact and the ex-smoker will still get urges from time to time. So in a way your "sins" are semi-permanent.

So, God didn't know what He was creating? God has rules. If we use these rules wisely things turn out better. If we ignore them they get worse. We control the outcome by our actions. We ultimately have the choice. (you do see the patterns don't you? Cause -> Effect)

You must think for yourself. There is no official creed.

An LDS scholar: http://www.einarerickson.com/ Scroll down to find: Gnostic Gospels http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/ldsbooks.html It's pretty much accepted as a source of study...

This site compares LDS with Gnosticism: http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom/bom/naghamm.html

Gnosticism seems to have been derived from ideas that were common in the eastern religions like buddhism. The big change in Juhaism and Christianity was the idea of bringing the "kingdom of God" to the earth rather than simply allowing the knowledge to be wasted. I don't agree with the old Gnosticism irresponsibility. But as a historical part of the story of religious history it seems that this was in existence during the time of Jesus. If you're Mormon you're supposed to be smarter and wiser. More knowledge, even if it's historical, is never a bad thing. I'm not "selling" Gnosticism. It's primative. But the LDS Church claims to being sensitive to the issues of the early church. You should be responisble for at least knowing what the view was by the Gnostics.

Are suggesting they are forgeries or that they are politically motivated slander directed toward Jesus? Forgeries maybe. Technically difficult. The political motivation seems odd because the Jesus movement hadn't gained that much strength yet and it seems strange that such a radical fraud would be pulled off. What exactly are you opposing? Their information or their association with Jesus? Again, in my mind knowledge is good if it's good. Are you sure you're just not afraid to read something outside of the standard doctrines?

Don't the apostles qualify? You don't think they are consistent with the teachings of Jesus? Hmmmm. I just don't see it. Why do you think they differ?

True in what sense? True in that they educate? True that they stretch your understanding? Just like all things you need to ask yourself if they are true. I can't tell you what to know. Would you want me to restrict you in any type of knowledge? No. You must sift through all knowledge and learn what is true. You are a free person...

Okay. The power of the imagination to make sense of the world is enormous. We watch tv and movies and also read books. They all communicate a message. Joseph Smith seems to be sending a message in all the things he wrote. Is that message always literal? Some might prefer that it is literally true. Others might admire the other aspects of his stories. It's up to you to decide if it's valuable to you. What might Joseph Smith be saying about the "new land" by revealing such a story? What if this "new land" was the "garden of eden". Wouldn't we be "home" then? Would all things make sense this way? Symbolism and literalism are opposite ends of the spectrum.

They did find some old texts that are pretty reliably dated to near the age of Jesus. I'm not saying that they are 100% correct transcriptions. But it does seem interesting. Either way, parables were used in that era. The issue is primarily the use of parables as an art form to communicate and teach. After that era the shift was toward the narratiive. I'm just saying parables are cool too. (and the bible does have parables)

I had a neighbor kid named Adam. He lived in America. Does that count?

You have it backwards. God doesn't make the monster, we do by not being sure that the guy turns out right. The Muslims go so far as to kill off all their mistakes before they get that bad. Hmmmm, that's an idea. But free choice seems to be our way. We are free to choose evil over good. The only thing that is really bad is when someone really doesn't have a choice. If this guy was abused as a child and never learned he even had a choice he would simply react to life and choose his default pattern, evil. If he really was aware that he had a choice I doubt he would choose evil. Most failures are also clueless. Trash creates more trash. That's why the real power is in "changing" the default pattern. That's power, spiritual power. That''s creating new worlds...

And don't worry. If you're afraid it will show up on an exam somewhere I doubt it. This is what you call "Extra Credit" knowledge

Correct me if I wrong here, but since the LDS Church believes that new Revelation is expected over time, this simply confirms the conviction. Something that had been hidden becomes revealed. Is there something wrong with new Revelation? (I'm not saying the texts were perfect either, they might have left them out because they were simply not considered very good for what was desired)

Try looking here: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Portions of Greek versions of the Gospel of Thomas were found in Oxyrhynchus Egypt about one hundred years ago and these can be dated to about 140 A.D. or somewhat before. A complete version in Coptic (the native Egyptian language written in an alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet) was found in Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. That version can be dated to about 340 A.D. The Coptic version is a translation of the Greek version. Thus most, if not all, of the Gospel of Thomas was written prior to 140 A. D. Have you heard of these texts before? "Nag Hammadi"

If we really were faithful to God we would have beenresponsible for knowing the guy that did it well enough to be able to redirect his failed and miserable life into something positive. We ignore the creep and he rapes and murders. God's will is visible in that, isn't it? God is loving if you turn toward his way. That's the responsibility part, if we let human soul pollution rule the earth we have to expect the consequences.

Didn't the Ten Commandments say: "Do not Murder?" and then the meaning was transcribed incorrectly to become: "Do not kill?" It's one thing to murder someone without good reason, but when someone is "killed" it might be in the process of completing justice. So you have to be careful in your basic premise.