MaryJehanne
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MaryJehanne
-
-
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Well...I would add...sometimes kindness is not the Christlike thing to do/be. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to justify being a jerk. But...I'll just throw it out here:
At least from a Catholic perspective, we would say Christ was being kind there! It is very kind to correct people, and lead them away from sin (which is what was happening there). He was also trying to keep the respect due to His Temple, but even in that dimension, He wasn't hateful to those people, and He knew it was an act that would serve to instruct people in the present and future.
Kindness involves love, and sometimes you have to put on a stern face. Kind of like a parent who puts on a mean face to scold a slightly naughty 2-year-old. I just read about an abbot (or someone along those lines), who faked anger to correct one of the brothers. Once the brother left, he was perfectly at peace again, and asked if he'd seemed to be convincing.
When someone is cruel, not just rough or authoritative, it's seated in a sense of hatred (lack of love).
-
8 minutes ago, lostinwater said:
i've noticed that facades of meanness or unreasonableness are usually very easy to crack - especially when you deliver a few well placed taps of kindness when they are least expected, and least deserved. You can storm the wall with logic and indignation - and it does nothing other than strengthen it. And it's probably worth pointing out that most people who react in ways we consider to be unkind have some darned good reasons hidden deep down for being like they are - and some very pure hearts underneath all that pain.
Anyways, the old maxim that people who need kindness the most deserve it the least is usually true.
And beyond that, i don't usually quote from the conference talks, but i think there was one that James E Faust gave that said something to the effect of 'none of us are usually as much the innocent victim as it may feel'. i've found that to be true quite a bit in my case. What's remarkable, is that no matter how many times i have it pointed out in ways i can't deny, i'm always surprised when it happens again the next time!
And that's part of the value of being kind, too! It's more valuable to God when we love for His sake when people make it difficult. If it was easy, and people were always loving to us, we would never really be tried.
It is true that no one is really innocent! But people may be innocent in some situations, at least (just misunderstood, or maybe the other person was looking for something to snap at). There is a Catholic psychologist who wrote on something similar... the idea of us finding offense where it doesn't exist! But I think, when the offense really does exist, it makes sense that we feel bad. No matter what we've done wrong in our lives, we're creatures of God. He loves us and has told us to love others, so anything short of that is unjust, no matter how much a person seems to deserve it.
-
29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
I like to think I am too.
I still lash out at time...but usually I'm overly tired or hungry or something. Typically now, however, I'm much more likely to respond in a questioning way rather than a caustic statement type way. That being said, (and this is in reply to the OP @MaryJehanne) I have found that it makes little difference how careful I am. I get the same sort of offending vitriolic blame for being horrible when I'm being careful as I do when I'm being horrible. The moral? I make efforts to not be horrible for myself. That's all I can do.
I've said it before, but I'll repeat it again: Offensive is in the eye of the beholder.
That's another thing that's difficult. 😕 At least the most important thing is your intentions! As long as you're trying to be kind, that's what matters to God.
-
25 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
To me, kindness begins and ends with relationships. If you take the time to get to know someone you can find out what bothers them, what doesn't, what topics to avoid, etc. It's all about relationships.
Agressive/rudeness is several things. It can mask insecurity, it can be poor upbringing, it can be a communication gap between two people, or sometimes, it can just be that the person is cruel or mean.
I know where you are coming from @MaryJehanne. I take it deeply too. Someone says something about me in a cruel manner, I hate them forever. That is NOT the best way to live your life, but it's who I am.
Online, I find it best to just ignore people. If they lack the manners/decency to do the same to you, it's on them. It shows what I mentioned above.That is true. Some people have a much higher tolerance for things than others!
Very true.
I guess it's part of being human. No one wants to feel like they're unloved by someone, which is the message being mean/rude/cruel sends... One of the important things I'm trying to remember is that, as much as it feels bad that a person doesn't like me, the only love I should care about having is God's. And His will never go away. 😌
Yes! That's something I have to work on.
-
26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I really do wish I were more like Jane Doe. But as most people know, I'm not.
On the bright side, I am always making an effort to be better. And I feel like I'm making progress.
😄 That's a good approach! That's all we can do, isn't it? Pray, and keep moving forward!
-
21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:
This is how I deal with people in general... on the internet or not. This is, of course, just me.
First of all... somebody who was not rude to me in person does not mean that person is nice and kind... especially if that person is rude to me on the internet. It simply means that the person is very good at keeping up pretenses. I would rather you be rude to me in person than pretending you are kind. Make sense? I value honesty over arbitrary rules of civility.
So, what happens if I find somebody being rude to me? First, I give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to miscommunication to where I found something rude that was not intended to be one. I do this because, especially with English only my 3rd language, I tend to seep my Bisaya culture into the way I communicate in English and it ends up sounding rude (Bisaya is not a language of niceties). So, it would be hypocritical for me to assume rudeness without giving the benefit of the doubt when I myself desire for people to give me the benefit of the doubt before calling me rude.
Then, if the person is really intentionally rude, then I can do either one of 3 things: 1.) Give it right back (there are times when I welcome a skirmish, especially of the trolling variety... what can I say, I'm not perfect) 2.) Forgive them and respond to the points made minus the rudeness to continue to the conversation and gain understanding, or 3.) Forgive them and walk away from the conversation if nothing is going to come out of it.
That's really all there is to it for me.
That is true. Although, if someone's putting the effort in to be nice, even if they fail at it interiorly, it at least makes me feel like they care on some level. I wish I could be as objective in thinking about it as you! 😣
That's another thing that's very true. Sometimes people just have bad days! It still hurts in the moment. 😞 But I guess that's to be expected!
-
44 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
Hi @MaryJehanne, it's great to see you again!
Love, gentleness, listening, humility.
First few offenses, speak kindly the message to the gist of "X kind of rude. I'd like to have a polite conversation, can we work in that direction?"
If it become clear the other person is just an aggressive jerk that can't be reasoned with: hit the "ignore" button. I don't need that toxicity in my life.
I hear you there! I have the same struggles regularly.
Some places (like YouTube comments) it's just best to avoid those toxic pits.
Thank you, Jane_Doe! :)
I think that's another struggle I have... ending a conversation. Even if it's completely unfruitful, I keep replying, because I don't want to be rude to them.
It's good to hear someone else say they feel the same! I think, especially on the internet, you can feel so alone, which adds to it. When arguments happen in person, people tend to be less rude, because they can see you. And, you have a sense of community and support, because usually there are people you can see around you.
-
Hey, everyone!
(I'm hoping this will be more of a candid, lighthearted thread!)
What does kindness mean to you? What do you do when someone's aggressive or rude to you?
I have a lot of trouble when people are offensive, which is something I've been trying to work on. When someone's rude, mean, or dismissive, I tend to take it to heart, deeply. Especially lately, I'm now trying to take a deep breath, let things go, and not let it effect how I feel about myself... which can be hard. Especially in the world of the web, most notably things like YouTube comments, I'm continually shocked by how uncaring and harsh people can be. And this isn't to bash people, of course. All of us have had moments where it's hard not to say something biting.
I was wondering how you all deal with unkind or difficult people, and how you manage it online?
-
-
3 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:
I'm not sure if your comment was directed @MaryJehanne or myself. I see that you quoted her, but reacted confused, possibly because of my post that she was quoting? Otherwise I'm equally confused as to why someone saying thank you is confusing in the context of this discussion. Who said anything about believing God doesn't have a son? Is that an assumption about the trinity? Perhaps some view it that way. I've learned that I don't appreciate people telling me what I believe and I try to avoid doing it to others in kind. So in order for me to be consistent and avoid making assumptions about what you are trying to convey I would like to give you the chance to clarify what you're trying to say. (If you like that be sure to read Oh say can You Say by Dr. Seuss 😋)
If I were left to assume I'd believe you are being rude suggesting that that your assumptions about someone else's deeply held beliefs about deity must be a joke because they don't conform to your own current beliefs. Can you please try to clear this up by clearly stating who and what you are referring to?
Thank you, SpiritDragon!
God bless!
-
32 minutes ago, john4truth said:
The book of Genesis starts by referring to God as plural. Husband's and wives should be one like the Father and son are. Doctine is God sent his Son to Die. Jesus is baptized and the Father says behold my Son. And on and on. The can't be one litteraly this false doctrine started by Constantine to take care of politics in his time. This is the difference Christ Church and many others. The Trinity doctrine is false doctrine.
If you don't believe God has a son there's a problem. They work together as one like a family,town, country but each is a totally different being. Jesus sits at the right hand of God.
I hope you are joking. LOL
There is an expert on this that shows the Trinity to be impossible in the Church. I heard him speak.
Thank you, John4Truth!
-
35 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:
I think a large part of the confusion that one will encounter on this topic is simply semantic. Some are willing to accept certain usages of terms while others don't see it the same way. What one might consider polytheistic is clearly not accepted by all. In some cases, it appears that a strict definition of only one God as seen in Judaism and Islam would be indisputably monotheistic whereas Christianity is definitely more nuanced if not apparently convoluted from an outside perspective and LDS teaching is no different in this respect. We teach for sure that God is our Eternal Father, the literal father of our spirits, Jesus Christ is the First Born of the Father in spirit and the only begotten in the flesh, The Holy Ghost is a divine personage of spirit who has not as of yet been tabernacled with a physical body. Those who are true and faithful will become joint heirs with Christ and receive all that the Father hath, even a fullness. It is absolutely LDS doctrine that faithful members can become gods in their own right, but will continue to reverence their Father and Christ forever.
From there things can get hazy, because it's doctrinally not spelled out. For instance, @prisonchaplain asked:
This appears to be at least two questions. The first is will the faithful exalted become part of the Godhead? The second is will they all be united in purpose with Heavenly Father? The second question can be definitively answered with a resounding yes. They will abide a Celestial Glory having chosen to abide Celestial Law and will have an eye single to the Glory of the Father. However, when it comes to becoming a part of the godhead, I think any answer one way or the other would be speculation. Whether multiple godheads are formed to govern over the affairs of their own creation or they are all brought together in one, or both we just don't know. What we do know is that we will always worship the one true God which includes God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost as seems more common in lds vernacular as per our first article of faith.
I agree with @anatess2 that those who go on to be exalted and attain godhood will be perfectly united with God and one of the best examples in scripture is the intercessory prayer where the Saviour petitions the Father that His followers can be one with them even as they are one. To me this very much seems as something that is attainable. It makes little sense to me that the Lord would pray for something to be that cannot be. So while I accept that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, I also accept that they are ONE. Where I likely differ from others is that I'll admit I don't understand how. For me, being of one will or one purpose or one family or one office doesn't quite fit perfectly to explain just what it means to be one, I simply accept that God is one because He has declared it to be so. Therefore, I have no qualms accepting that any other number of perfected persons or beings (individuals) can also be one.
All that being said, I see no reason why LDS teachings would not fit into the monotheistic umbrella using the definition you have given above. If we can accept that God has three persons why can we not accept that God has an infinite number of persons? If the different physical entities becomes a problem for oneness, let me just say that I am more open minded as to what it might mean to be one than to try to pigeon hole what God declares to be one into my mortal understanding of mathematics.
Thank you, SpiritDragon!
-
4 hours ago, CV75 said:
I wasn’t saying you were doing that. I was explaining, in another way, my invitation to you to perform a thought experiment that shows why polytheism isn’t appropriate to use as a descriptor for the Restored Gospel any more than it is to describe Catholicism... though arguments can certainly be made that it does apply to Catholicism.
I still think it would be fun for you to try what I proposed.
Thank you, CV75.
I'm sorry I misunderstood you!
-
3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
I'm sorry that some folks have been unkind and attacking (even if they don't mean to / don't realize). I've seen what things you're talking about and ... it's not right. I'm sorry and my heart goes out to you.
I myself love to investigate other faiths-- like I investigated Catholicism at a distance for 10 years and then intensively for 11 months, and I very much can related to your frustration / hurt here. People... can be jerks, frequently without realizing it. Try to understand a different belief system is HARD, even without that obstacle.
Thank you, Jane_Doe. It really means a lot.
I think sometimes it's harder over the computer, too. You can't get tonal cues from written words.
-
5 hours ago, estradling75 said:
When did you do it??... when you quoted LDS church leaders and then claimed they supported you in your claims that the LDS church is Polytheistic. That is you happy twisting our teaching and practice to suit your preconceived ideas. You did this right there plain as day in the post I quoted when I made the statement.
You do not get to do that, and then play hurt and confused when you get called out on doing it.
And I do not have to be upset or angry or hurt to point out that you are being hurtful and provoking.
Thank you, Estradling75.
I thought it was LDS teaching. I've heard from other members that it's LDS teaching, and I guess I misunderstood what they understood to be plurality of gods. Asking and talking about someone's beliefs isn't being nasty... (I thought I was quoting a legitimate source in a legitimate context) people have been challenging Catholicism and the Trinity all over this thread. I'm not offended by that. I'm offended by personal attacks. I'm sorry I made you feel hurt. Hopefully I won't do it again.
God bless
-
2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:
LDS people can admittedly be sloppy in word choices at points. Also it's not uncommon for an LDS person mistakenly think that "the Trinity" = "modulism"-- that Trinitarians believe Christ prays to Himself, etc. These flaws can make these conversations inadvertently more clumsy.
Thank you, Jane_Doe.
I mean, the part about the Trinity can be a little upsetting, but it's usually okay... I get it; it's different and hard to understand. I'm more rattled about some of the personal attacks happening... all for saying stuff I've heard other LDS members teach. Maybe people don't realize how they're coming off, but I've just been crying and think I need to step away from LDS stuff for a while to recover. I'll probably stick around for a few more hours, and then pull the plug, so to speak.
Thanks for being kind.
-
5 hours ago, zil said:
I thought the difference was explained long ago:
Polytheism: implies not just the existence of multiple gods, but the worship of them (and that they are validly worshipable). It also implies things like competing powers and hierarchy.
Plurality of gods in the beliefs of the Church simply means that they exist. None of them are validly worshipable except God. (While one can choose to engage in acts which one might call "worship", it will do no good - you may as well worship a stone idol as to worship Joseph Smith or Abraham or Moses.)
Okay, thank you.
-
5 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Neither was I. I was simply explaining to you the difference in the Trinitarian versus LDS understanding of what makes God God and what makes God One.
I haven't read past page 1 so I don't know what the false consensus is. But I have to say, a lot of LDS may not have a full understanding of Trinitarian teaching so it may be that they're trying to phrase their beliefs into something they think you'd understand but causing confusion instead. But that's just a guess.
I'm so sorry, Anatess. I thought that was what your post was saying... I'm a little beaten down right now, so I'm probably expecting an attack.
The false consensus is I thought LDS taught multiple gods and that the members on this forum believed that.
I thought LDS thought that (for instance, 3 Mormons YouTube claimed they do... I probably won't be watching them for a while). And even some members on here said, that LDS taught multiple gods. 😥 Not a lot of good feelings right now.
-
5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:
.... * Jane struggles to find the words to express her thoughts right now.... so she looks through the emoticons but can't find the right picture.... so she decides to phone a friend....
@zil, can you and your fountain pens draw me a picture of my brain exploded?
Yes, though the best ever couple you'll see on Earth is trash compared to God's fantastic perfection and unity. Also note- an ideal husband is 100% one with Christ, having His same perfect love, charity, patience, etc. Same with the ideal wife. And the union between them is sealed with God's magnificent power, so that they (the husband, wife, and God) may all be one.
Heh heh...
Thank you, Jane_Doe. I think this helps!
-
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:
I did not read past page 1. The thread moved so fast and I don't have much time. So what I'm saying here has probably been discussed already. I'm LDS converted from Catholic. So, I completely understand where you're coming from about the monotheistic/polytheistic nuance.
Calling LDS Polytheists is an insult. There is ONE GOD. It is very clear in scripture that there is one God and that those who believe in other Gods but the God of Israel need conversion. So to say we should just accept the label is, well, calling as sinners.
As @Jane_Doe has explained, the only difference between Trinitarian and LDS is "what makes them ONE". Trinitarians believe what makes God a God is because he is God Substance (substance is not quite the right word and there is no English word that encompasses the meaning... what I'm actually calling substance is the latin word Ousia so I'm going to use that word from here on). What exactly that ousia is, is a mystery because there is no other entity in the universe like it and therefore it is beyond human experience or understanding. Trinitarians posit that there is this ousia that is God, there is only one entity with that ousia and that is God, and this ousia has the ability to manifest itself into certain personages, is eternal, all-knowing, ever-present, etc. etc. The LDS, on the other hand believe that there is One God and what makes it ONE and what makes it God is not their ousia but their WILL exercised freely in perfect knowledge. Therefore, God is God because he Wills as God does. One who Wills differently is not God. Beelzebub, Zeus, etc are not God because they do not have the Will of God. Polytheists do not have any belief in the Will of God. With that Will comes that perfect knowledge of certain physical characteristics/substances of the God ousia and the elements of the universe - such as the substance of the body to which the spirit of God resides, the substance of the body to which our spirit resided and will reside post mortality, etc. A spirit achieving this Godly Will in Perfect Knowledge becomes a Person in that Godhead. The Father is a person in One God because he has the will of God. The Son is a person in One God because he has the will of God. The Holy Spirit is the same.
So, you posit that the LDS God cannot possibly be God because he is not the originator of creation. The ex nihilo understanding has a lot more problems than the God of the elements. The ex nihilo understanding makes the God ousia the only eternal entity of the universe - this makes it so that only God is not created, everything else is, and that his eternal quality is another reason He is God and nobody/nothing else is (i.e. Who created God? can only be answered by, He is God). This becomes problematic because for God to be God he creates something into existence with Purpose and Perfect Knowledge (LOVE). So, problems such as - God would have to know that certain people are going to end up in the fires of hell, so why create them? Isn't never having existed better than Eternal Damnation? Etc. etc. The LDS understanding is that matter and energy is eternal and God is matter and energy, so therefore, eternal. Our spirits are matter and energy and also eternal. We exist eternally. The question of why God would create something out of nothing into existence to end up in eternal agony does not apply because God did not create us out of nothing - rather, He saw our existence and we were barren. He chose to Love us, and therefore, He put us on a path of transformation to be like Him (pure joy) - this involves creating bodies for us - spiritual bodies and mortal bodies and eventually perfected bodies - to which we progress line upon line, precept upon precept, so that we may know what He knows and will as He Wills. His greatest gift to us, therefore, is our Free Will, as it is the only way we can attain the Will of God. We either succeed or we fail to which the worst of failure leads us to eternal darkness which is better than the barren existence that has never been touched by the love of God.
So, regardless of where our logic ends up in our meager understanding of God, the fact remains... LDS believe in ONE GOD.
Thank you, Anatess!
I wasn't intending to argue about whether the LDS Heavenly Father is the true God or not. I wanted to talk about a term, and, to my misfortune, understood there as being a what turned out to be a false consensus.
God bless!
-
2 hours ago, Zaccheus said:
Hello all. I’ve been a lurker for a number of years. I know I’m late to this conversation but thought I’d pitch in my 2 cents. A warning – it’s kind of long.
I’m a Roman Catholic and, by way of full disclosure, formerly LDS – born and raised in the church, seminary grad, mission, temple marriage, the works. The topic of the Holy Trinity is dear to my heart; the Holy Trinity is the God I worship. There is a lot of confusion about what we Trinitarians mean by God, including among some under-catechized Catholics. To understand Catholic teaching and specialized terms like being, Being (note the capitalization), person, essence, nature and existence (and the Greek and Latin terminology which these English words are used to translate, especially ousia, prosopon, hypostasis, ens, and esse), understanding them in the Catholic sense requires thinking about them in reference to the most fundamental of all Catholic ideas about God – that God is not a being among beings, but is Being itself.
What on earth does it mean to say that God is Being and not a being? Beings with a lowercase ‘b’ are created things like individual human beings, trees, rocks, dogs, dolphins, all of them entities that exist and move within the matrix of being, time, space, matter, everything, the cosmos created by God out of nothing. Let’s call it ‘the world.’ All of these entities are beings among other beings and can only be understood when compared and contrasted with each other. A dog is not a cat, is not a tree, is not a human being. God is not that kind of thing. God is not a kind of thing that can dwell as God as a type of thing within the world. God exists outside of it and created it. He exists independently of it in an absolute sense. If God had not created, He would still be God in undiminished goodness and greatness. God would still be God, even if nothing else except God existed. This is what Catholic philosopher and priest, Robert Sokolowski refers to as the ‘Christian Distinction.’ As Sokolowski put it:
“The Christian distinction is appreciated as a distinction that did not have to be, even though it in fact is. The most fundamental thing we come to in Christianity, the distinction between the world and God, is appreciated as not being the most fundamental thing after all, because one of the terms of the distinction, God, is more fundamental than the distinction itself...God is understood not only to have created the world, but to have permitted the distinction between himself and the world to occur. He is not established as God by the distinction…The Christian distinction between God and the world is therefore a distinction that is, in principle, both most primary and yet capable of being obliterated, because one of the terms of the distinction, the world, does not have to be. To be God, God does not need to be distinguished from the world, because there does not need to be anything other than God alone. “
So what ‘kind’ of ‘being’ is God? God is God. God exists. God is. God cannot be classified or categorized. Or, as St. Thomas Aquinas put it, God’s essence is existence. His essence or nature is to exist. God is existence itself. God is Being. Nothing else but God exists in that mode, hence God is incomparable. Created beings are essences that need not have existed. An essence is defined as what a thing is; existence is defined as that it is. Existence is added to essence by God and something new, e.g. a human being, is brought forth into the matrix of being. Because God does not belong to the matrix of being, He made it, God is the only ‘being’ where his essence just is existence full stop. God is Being.
This is radically different from what is posed in LDS thought, where matter and intelligence is eternal and Heavenly Father, along with all of the other exalted heavenly fathers in existence, exists within the same eternally-existent material cosmos where the laws of physics hold, the same as all of us. Theoretically, I could use the Millenium Falcon and travel to wherever it is in the universe or multiverse where God dwells (somewhere near a star named Kolob) and visit him (assuming God lets me and I’m able to travel between universes or dimensions, if that’s what’s required to get to him). This is unthinkable from a Catholic standpoint. There’s no ‘where’ or ‘there’ where God can be found. God as He is is not localized. He is everywhere present and fills all things. Try to think of God existing alone, with nothing else existing but Him. Are you imagining something floating around in endless darkness? If so, you’re still not thinking like a Catholic. The darkness and the space it fills are creatures, God made them. Get rid of them and now try to think of God alone. It can’t be done. It’s literally unthinkable, which is why Catholics say God as He is is incomprehensible.
I think a lot of the confusion about what Catholicism teaches derives from thinking of the Catholic God from within a materialist context, forgetting or not understanding that, for Catholics, God created matter, time, space, the universe and all multiverses, everything that exists apart from God, out of nothing.
It’s not possible to properly understand what Catholicism teaches about the Trinity, about one God in three persons, without grasping this fundamental “distinction between the world understood as possibly not having existed and God understood as possibly being all that there is, with no diminution of goodness or greatness.”
I hope this helps. I tried to keep it layman-friendly.
May the peace of Christ be with all of you.
Thank you, Zaccheus! I'm very glad for you help!
God bless!
-
2 hours ago, Traveler said:
Just so you can understand - I am an engineer and scientist and work in the field of industrial automation, robotics and artificial intelligence. The problem I have with the thought that G-d creates each soul ex-nihilo is that would make G-d responsible for the "will" of that soul - because he created that as well. This would also include the will of Satan and his proclivity towards and love of sin. So for the record I find such a concept unacceptable, illogical and an affront of the nature of G-d as the only possible source of evil and sin. Also as a scientist there is a great deal of misunderstanding of nothingness. What was thought to be an empty void is itself actually something.
In another thread we have discussed the subject of Dark Energy and Dark Matter - stuff we are learning more about but 100 years ago would have thought to have been an empty void of nothing - but we are learning that for things to be very complex and ordered requires something (not nothing) - some have even summarized nothing to be intelligent. In fact intelligence for all practical purposes can be classified as nothing - except for the effect it has to create order and learn. Sort of the idea of a difference between a computer loaded and running software and a newly created computer without any program. A computer is comprised of states of Zero or One that can be ordered to create what we now call artificial intelligence.
Most everyone understand intelligence as the ghost within a machine. It is the intelligence of man that separates humanity from beasts. It is intelligence of humanity that defines or comprehends religion and religious belief (including a relationship to G-d) as well as a proclivity towards sin (to assume the characteristics and nature of Satan) or charity (to assume the characteristics and nature of G-d). It is very problematic to blame G-d for individual human intelligence - making the claim of sinners that oppose the nature of G-d claiming, "G-d made me this way - and everyone the way they are". I prefer the doctrine, idea and reality - that there is something intelligent that G-d did not create called individual intelligence - that he is not responsible for nor the one to blame.
The Traveler
Thank you for expressing your belief.
-
4 hours ago, CV75 said:
In consideration of your OP, I invite you to come up with 5 ways Catholicism could be portrayed as polytheistic. Do you think God would find that to be a fair representation of Catholicism? Then come up with what you think are the 5 most important things the Catholic Church has in common with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do you think God would find that to be a fair representation of Christianity?
Thank you, CV75. I wasn't debating whether the LDS were Christian in this thread... The topic of this thread was created on a presumption of a shared principle that turned out not to be shared after all. I did not create this thread with the thesis of "Polytheists aren't Christian so the LDS aren't Christians - Ha!". I was only saying that, since the LDS believe in multiple gods (a presumption I thought was agreed upon, although the course of this thread has proven otherwise), why isn't polytheism used as a descriptor? That's all the topic was supposed to discuss.
-
4 hours ago, zil said:
And some will think that you are the one doing the twisting. The simple fact is that our beliefs don't fit into the overall concept of polytheism as understood by the average person (and the average understanding is more important than a sterile dictionary definition - those tend to be a starting point, and usage takes it from there to expand into real understanding). In other words, it appears that you are bound and determined (as a non-believer looking at it from the outside, and therefore not fully understanding it any more than a non-Catholic fully understands Catholicism) to force The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into a polytheism cubby-hole, rather than acknowledging that perhaps it fits elsewhere better (and none of the existing -theisms entirely, though @Scott's "monolarty" seems most accurate).
(Not saying that's your intent, just that it sure appears that way.)
I never accused the LDS members on this forum as twisting anything, even when they express incorrect ideas and understanding about my religion... Why? Because twisting implies intent. You can say I have things wrong or I'm misunderstanding, that I have things incorrect about your religion - that's all right and respectful - but once you use the word "twisting" you're accusing me of malice, something you cannot truly know, because you are not inside my mind. It's judging my subjective moral state, something I thought LDS believed belonged to God.
Thank you for the explanation!
4 hours ago, zil said:Wow, seriously? So if Catholicism doesn't recognize an -ism, it cannot exist? It cannot be understood or discussed? Catholicism defines the cubby-holes and you must go into one of them and there can be no others? In that case, why discuss at all? Why ask us anything when our answer isn't "allowed"? Just cram us in the cubby-hole you prefer, call us nitwits for not recognizing the cubby-hole's correctness and call it a day.
(No, none of that was hateful or offended, just blunt - and seriously, I don't get it - why ask the question if the only options are "things in Catholicism"?)
I'm sorry; I was trying to be gentle and give the LDS religion the benefit of the doubt. I should not have said it had something to do with my religion. I should rephrase what I said: I do not understand that statement logically. As far as I understand the plurality of gods, it means more than one god. Polytheism means many gods. So I was deeply confused. My comment was an invitation to either drop the idea or try to explain it to me. I did not say it wasn't allowed. What I mean by "that's not a thing," I meant (assuming it was a concept in the LDS religion that could be explained to me) that it was not a concept I was familiar with. If it is not explained, you can't be upset with me for not understanding it. Just because someone states there is a difference, without explaining the difference (since it should be clear that I thought there was no difference, hence this thread), it does not mean the information will automatically pop into my head. If I show a small child the word "cat" and they can't understand it, I can't be mad at them for not reading it because I haven't taught them to read in the first place.
4 hours ago, zil said:Really? Which? I've seen passionate and closely-held beliefs expressed, but not hate.
Maybe I'm interpreting the written word with emotions that aren't there... But more than just passionate beliefs, I've been getting some people who are trying to insult my religion so that I'll feel the way they do (emotional abuse wasn't my intent, although they seem to be expressing that it is theirs), accuse me of evils, and very aggressively dismiss and insult me. I have done none of these things (I have upset some people with this topic, apparently, but the goal in itself was not to cause anguish), and am hurt that LDS members feel at liberty to abuse me like that. At the very least I would think members would desire to leave a good impression of Latter-Day Saints on me, not a bad one, and offer gentle correction, even if they didn't really desire to be kind!
Kindness & the Internet
in General Discussion
Posted
Oh, my! 😋