2ndRateMind

I think 'hate' is too strong a word. Speaking for myself, as a liberal, anyway. We just want everyone, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, gender, creed, colour, caste or class to enjoy as many of the opportunities of the wealthy elite who dominate the world's political, social and economic agenda as are commensurate with an egalitarian society. I cannot find that to be an unworthy ambition, or in any way unChristian. Best wishes, 2RM.

Uh huh. But as I have said elsewhere, Carborendum, I am just a simple Christian. For me, what I have described is quite sufficient to believe. I don't feel any need to extrapolate further. As Occam's razor has it, prefer always the simpler explanation to the more complex. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, to me Jesus is both the saviour of the world, and my personal saviour. He is also something of a life coach, to me. Not that He tells me how many press-ups to do each day, or gives me career advice. But sometimes, when I am in my local pub, mulling on the state of the world over a pint of warm English real ale, I like to wonder what He would make of it all, and what He would say and do. Best wishes, 2RM.

Yes, I think with have two different models of divine intervention here. 1) God parachutes Jesus into humanity, loving all, knowing all, capable of doing all. 2) Jesus is born into humanity, ignorant and vulnerable, and gradually learns and realises His role amongst us, as He grows physically, mentally, and spiritually. It seems you prefer option 1). Fair enough. My reading of scripture leads me to think option 2). I sense this is, though, a topic on which we are likely neither to persuade the other, and so I propose we simply agree to disagree on this matter. Best wishes, 2RM.

Agreed. Best wishes, 2RM

Not necessarily. I would still be bound to my own moral conviction, and the dictates of my own conscience, however diverse or prejudiced the leadership of my (hypothetical) denomination might be. But at least, with a diverse leadership, I would think it more likely that all sides of a question had been considered, discussed and a suitable decision reached, even if that decision were to be messy compromise and not a clearly defined dictat. Of course, one may not want to compromise at all, but that is not an entirely mature way to approach the complexity of the human condition, and the intricacy of the moral maze, that confronts us all. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thank you for enlightening me. I admit I am somewhat (not entirely) wrong. I look forward to the time when I will be completely wrong. Best wishes, 2RM.

By patriarchy, I mean, the government of everyone, by men, for men. I think you would be hard-pressed to cite an example of a Christian denomination that does not favour men in power, and indeed, often limit power to men. That goes for pretty much all other religions, too. Even my friends, those woolly-minded liberal Anglicans, have only just recently allowed priesthoods and bishoprics to pass to women. Best wishes, 2RM.

Indeed, the Jews are one of the most coherent, stable, defined religious communities in the world. It also has to be said, that they are one of the most racist. It took Christ to come among them, and reveal that His mission was not just for Jews, but also for Gentiles, to release the Holy Spirit and the Love of God amongst the whole of humanity. But even Jesus Himself did not immediately realise this, according to scripture: It took the Canaanite woman to challenge His predisposition to minister only to Jews, and reveal to Him the full extent of His mission. Best wishes, 2RM. *Matthew 15: 21-28 KJV

Not really. I can think of patriarchal religious structures that deliberately denied any form of power or influence (and sometimes, still do) to the lower classes, or to women, or to foreigners, though, however wise and talented and Godly such individuals might be. For hecks sake, none of these guys even have a beard! How's that for uniformity? Let us beardies speak! Best wishes, 2RM.

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair. Best wishes, 2RM.

Of course I have. I really am genuinely interested in the replies I get to the questions I ask. Otherwise, I would be no better than a troll. I do not 'plan' to remain aloft from all denominations and their inter-denominational debates. That just seems to be what God has in mind for me for the moment, and where I am spiritually most comfortable. And, I have no methodology decided at present, to choose among them all, other than this: that it may just be that we gain our knowledge and our social and scientific progress not by deciding what is true, but by discarding what is false. When we eliminated the impossible, then what remains, however improbable, might just be the truth. In their different fields, the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, and the writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, thought so, anyway, and unless you can provide me a better strategy, that will probably be the one I opt for. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks, MaryJehanne, for that. There is quite a lot there to take on board, but while I read, mark, learn and inwardly digest, I just wanted for you to know I am not ignoring you, and am grateful for all your efforts on my behalf. Best wishes, 2RM.

Ha Ha! My flat is about as messy as you can imagine a flat to be! Partly because I am trying to get 3 businesses off the ground, and partly because it is just small, and even a small amount of disorder makes it seem untidy. And one of these nascent startups is a craft project, and gets about as messy as you can imagine, and the other two are not so messy, but require a certain amount of storage space, which I just do not have. Anyway, I have nothing to hide, and I am quite content for people to take me as they find me, or not, as they prefer. And I would prefer to be among my books and references, for a meeting on this topic. Best wishes, 2RM.

I may well do this, in due course, when I am ready. I like discussions! But, for the moment, I only have two chairs in my flat, and it seems I might need more than that. Best wishes, 2RM.

Thank you, Anatess2, for your reply. But I am still not entirely sure what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints actually brings to the communion, that is not already present in the Gospels. In other words, what makes you different? And what makes that difference good, and right, and true? Best wishes, 2RM.

I think love is transcendent and ineffable, and quite outside the realm of ordinary definition. But those who know it, know they know it, and by that knowledge, (of a state part joy, part agony, wholly ecstasy) know God. Sometimes, in one of my more analytic philosophical moods, I toy with the idea that the extent of sacrifice one is prepared to make, is proportionate to the extent of love one harbours. Best wishes, 2RM *1 John 4: 7-8 KJV

Hmmm. To summarise a sub-theme of the thread thus far: Me: Why should I be a Mormon? Reply: Read the Book of Mormon. Me: Why should I read the Book of Mormon? (given my current reading list is sufficient for the next 5 years, or so.) Best wishes, 2RM.

I'm not sure if you see the irony here. The irony is that you are still a self-centered atheist. You only care about how things benefit you right here, right now. No, I don't see any irony. To love, wholly, completely and utterly, is far from self-centred. And materially, it certainly does not benefit me right here, right now. It is, however, one of the pleasant paradoxes of the Christian faith that by giving all, you gain all. As Jesus discovered, when He gave up His life in the here and now, for all of us, and gained eternity in Heaven, for Himself and all of us. Best wishes, 2RM.

Hmmm. If you asked me why I am a Christian, I would say simply that I have a far better quality of life loving God, His World, and His children, then ever I did as a self-centred atheist. I am merely looking for this kind of summary justification from you, for your denomination. Best wishes, 2RM.

That's OK. I guess I am asking whether there is any underlying philosophical justification for your Church, rather than a purely faith determined, religious commitment. Best wishes, 2RM.

Uh huh. That seems to me to be one heck of a lot of reading, when I am simply looking for a rational, straightforward, direct, reason. Best wishes, 2RM.

So, in another thread, now taken down by the moderators, I gave two reasons why I should not be a Mormon. Reason #1. I like diversity. I like differences of opinion. It seems to me it saves us from 'group think', the phenomenon where no one notices a mistake, because everyone is making the same mistake. Reason #2. Even within the Christian tradition, I am sure all Anglicans would prefer we were all Anglican, all Catholics that we were all Catholic, all Jehovah's witnesses that we were all Jehovah's witnesses, all Quakers that we were all Quaker, etc. How to choose among them all? So, for the moment, until persuaded otherwise, I am quite content to remain a simple Christian, who loves God, and His world, and His children, without partiality, bias or favourites. So, I know many of you to be familiar with, and trained in, evangelical (missionary) techniques and arguments. Now is your chance. Persuade me I am wrong to be uncommitted to any specific denomination, and yours in particular. Best wishes, 2RM.

I offer a deal. You quit accusing me of bias, etc, and stop the insults, and I will treat your posts with greater seriousness. Hopefully, this way, the forum will gain in some increase of intellectual level. Best wishes, 2RM.

An important point. Best wishes, 2RM.