marge
-
Posts
85 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by marge
-
-
4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:
Today...right now...I am reminded of how grateful I should be to be the father of daughters. 😉
I have a son and this was a super hard decision to make. I got it done at the hospital when he was 5 days old because if I left the hospital without it being done the medical guidelines were to not do it until he was 6 months old. I do think there was religious aspect to my decision making, call it hedging your bets I guess lol
-
13 hours ago, Carborendum said:
I realize you've been on the boards a long time. And you've been very polite. So I'm hoping you meant this in a different attitude than it sounded. Because it sounded pretty dismissive. So, I'll put forth the following.
- There is a whole lot more that we do in helping the poor than just the bishop's storehouse. At the same time, I don't want to diminish what the storehouse does. Their work is much more extensive than most people realize. We probably supply more food to the needy than any other charity in the world.
- We tend to team up with other major charities (like the Red Cross) to help with their efforts. This includes helping with their financial needs to perform specific tasks.
- We have an education fund to help with people who want to pursue vocational training to improve their financial lives.
- We have an adoption agency (sort of) which helps with crisis pregnancies.
- Last year we spent more money on charitable causes than any other non-profit in the world (AFAIK). Nearly $1Billion on charitable work.
The main philosophy that I want to emphasize is that charity isn't just giving people whatever they ask for. We've been entrusted with funds from millions of individuals and families who want to help the poor and needy. It is our responsibility to ensure that trust is not violated. So, we don't just throw food and money anywhere and everywhere. That is just bad stewardship.
We seek out those we believe are really needy and give in a manner that seems to do the most good in the most efficient way possible.
I didn't mean to be dismissive at all, its just different ways of doing things.
-
13 hours ago, LDSGator said:
Hey @marge! I’m a former Catholic too. I got a ton of service hours folding clothes and ringing up customers at my local SVDP store while I was in high school.
Welcome to the forums!
lol fun times right! I'm not a former catholic, I did step away for a while and had a crisis of faith, looked at a lot of other belief systems but I went back to Catholicism in the end.
I like to find the similarities in religious beliefs. I think every denomination is just doing their best and fully believe in what they are doing.
I should update my profile so it says that
-
13 hours ago, estradling75 said:
There is a saying related to charity that I think applies.
Give a man a Fish, and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to Fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
If you are truly trying to be charitable as Christ taught. There are times when you need to give a Fish and a time when you need to teach how to Fish. The Bishop's Storehouse is setup to do/encourage both depending on what it needed. Other charitable setups the church has may lean strongly one way or the other depending on which issue it is attempting to address. Soup kitchens are about Giving FIshes and should be supported, but in many cases that is simply not enough. Ideally soup kitchens should be working to put themselves out of business, realistically that is not going to happen because their will always be a need. But addressing the cause and not just the effect is a greater act of charity
I agree, st vincent de paul do both those things as well. I think I might be confused by what you mean by charity. In my faith charity is when a person loves God above all things for his own sake and loves others for God's sake. Its not about giving necessarily (although giving obviously comes from it) but about love.
-
1 hour ago, Ironhold said:
A big part of it is to ensure that the people seeking aid actually *do* need assistance. Sadly, there are people who try to take advantage of charitable systems.
Additionally, it allows the bishop to help determine *what* specifically you need. Financial management classes? One or two bills paid? A basket of food and household goods to get you through the next month? Et cetra. The bishop may counsel that one or more expenses be given up or some excess personal assets sold to help make ends meet, especially if the person is in financial trouble due to excess spending.
As far as the Bishop's Storehouse goes, it's a mix of items that are available. Some of the items are produced by the church at its various farms and ranches. Some of the items are actually produced by the Seventh-Day Adventists, who provide us with the material as part of a deal in which we help handle logistics for their humanitarian aid systems. Some of the items are "private label" materials produced by reputable third parties under the church's name. And some items are name brand items that the church negotiates with the manufacturers over to get at a discount.
The products available aren't "luxury" brands or big-name items, but they will get you through, especially when supplemented with various other aid programs that may be available locally.
For example, here in the United States we have WIC, the "Women, Infants, Children" program in which women who have children and are earning less than a designated financial amount can receive state aid in purchasing *very* select groceries for themselves and their families.
This is the official website for the State of Texas' WIC program: https://texaswic.org/
WIC allows people to purchase select staple items like milk, oats, beans, rice, yogurt, and so forth, at a free or reduced rate. The website will have a list of what items are or aren't covered under the WIC program here in Texas. Grocery stores are obligated to mark eligible items with a special pink-colored price tag or other pink-colored marker to make these items easier to find.
I'm in Australia, we dont have food stamps here, but everyone who isnt working is eligible for unemployment benefits, its not enough to live off and people often run out of food and struggle to survive, my church has soup kitchens where anyone who needs a hot meal can go, services are struggling to keep up with the demand at the moment with the current financial crisis. St Vincent De Paul will go over finances with people for bill payments, but never for food, I guess they think people that down their luck having to beg for food don't need further trauma. A lot of them are mothers who can't feed their children due to drug habits, its so sad
But at least those children will get to eat something. If they were asked a million questions as to why they are there asking for food they wouldn't come back.
-
25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
It is true that anyone can ask for assistance from the Bishop's Storehouse. But they do have to go to the local bishop and interview with them. Membership is not a requirement. But it does influence whether the bishop deems your case appropriate to help out.
One thing (as others have mentioned) is that many will try to game the system. The interview with the bishop is to help ensure that you really are in need, and/or you have a plan to get yourself out of poverty. Here are some examples.
- One ward had several handicapped individuals. This particular bishop determined that as they were receiving aid, they would to something to serve the Church's needs. For example, several of them were able to at least help with cleaning the church building once/wk. It wasn't as onerous as a full 40 hr/wk job. But it was at least participating in the world and helping others. Not all of them were LDS.
- A man told the bishop that he was unhappy with his life and wanted to make a major change by becoming a police officer. He needed financial help and food while he was attending the police academy. The bishop determined that it would be appropriate to help him. And in this particular case, the bishop paid for everything but the mortgage for the full duration of academy training.
- An LDS woman and non-LDS husband. Husband lost his job. The bishop went to offer assistance. The husband was suspicious that this was some sort of ruse to get him baptized. In this particular instance the bishop assured him that if he ever got baptized, it would be under his own terms. The aid being offered would not be contingent on any expectation of baptism. But he pointed out the window and said, you have a very dependable truck with big wheels that can get through mud. From time to time, we may ask you to help out with a service project. Over the course of many years, that husband did, indeed, lend the use of his truck to various service projects for people in the ward and around the area. He was never baptized. And that was ok.
- A man came off the street and walked directly to the storehouse reception and demanded some food. The receptionist asked if he had the order form from the bishop. The man insisted that since this was a charity they needed to give him whatever food he asked for because he was poor. He didn't need any forms... I won't go over the whole story. But it did not end well.
I guess every church has a different view on how they practice charity, each to their own
-
8 hours ago, Carborendum said:
For the most part the "law of the fast" is similar to what I've heard from people of other Christian faiths. But there are tweaks from denomination to denomination. Here are some differences.
- We fast both food and water. Many only fast food. Some only fast specific foods. For us it is a complete fast of all food and drink. Although medical reasons may limit this.
- It is supposed to be for a complete 24 hrs, or as reasonably close to that as conditions may dictate. I doubt anyone has a timer going and say that they still have to wait 12 more seconds before taking the first bite. It is from finishing dinner on Saturday to beginning of dinner on Sunday (whatever times they may be, but relatively close to 24 hrs).
- Prior to the settlement of Utah, there were special instances where a fast was called for. And we invited all those who would participate to do so.
- But during the settlement of Utah, we had droves of people who had given all their worldly goods to make the trek across the country. And they came to Utah, starving. Brigham Young then instituted Fast Sunday wherein we would have a fast and donate the food that would have been eaten to those who did not have anything.
- Even today, our fast offerings go to fund the Bishop's Storehouse which is reserved for the poor. All other fasts do not have the donation associated with it. But I'm sure there are some who give a fast offering for individual fasts as well.
Interesting! 24 hours with no water is so hard core.
Technically our fasts are you can have two snacks that put together would not make a complete meal. No meat, and its only mandatory on Ash Wednesday and Fridays during lent. But many people do Wednesday and Friday every week and go without all food, but still drink water (I do water on Fridays, not that great at Wednesdays yet!). We do it out of reverence for Jesus and offer up our 'suffering' it causes to God to come closer to him and work on the virtue of fasting.
I guess our version of the bishops storehouse is St Vincent De Paul, anyone can go and get food or clothes, or they will deliver it to you if you can't get there, pay utility bills, fuel cards, help with teaching budgeting, housing applications that sort of thing. I didn't know the Bishops storehouse was for everyone, that's awesome, I got the impression it was just for struggling LDS and you had to sit an interview with the bishop first?
-
-
-
8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
You’re certainly right that our theology emphasizes the role of community both as an end of salvation and as a means of salvation, though I might quibble about whether some of the examples you cite are really manifestations of this culture. I imagine in both religions, people can see the way an adherent lives his life and note incongruities between what the adherent claims to believe versus what he actually does.
I guess the question is, in Catholicism, whether the institutional church and/or individual laypersons a) believe that such incongruities may actually cause a third party to lose their salvation, and b) the degree to which they believe that an individual’s losing their salvation represents a loss to the community as a whole, and the nature of any theological/moral obligation the community may have to try to minister to/bring back the wayward.
And perhaps I have over-generalized about Catholicism generally. Frankly, I just don’t know what to think—it was Catholic culture, as I understand it, that gave us Carnival/Mardi Gras with their “go ahead and get all your sins out now” ethos; and it’s odd to me that (from my outsiders perspective) the Catholic hierarchy hasn’t formally condemned this mindset that I trust, per the actual theology, would be widely acknowledged as being spiritually toxic.
I don't know what Catholics are going with “go ahead and get all your sins out now”, just because you go to confession and are forgiven, you still have to pay for it. Kinda like if Jonny's ball breaks the next door neighbours window, says sorry, apology is accepted - but the window is still broken and needs to be paid for to be fixed. That's a very basic description of purgatory. A state where you are purified so you can enter heaven. Every time a Catholic sins, they're racking up time in purgatory (like spiritual detention lol). You need to do penance here on earth and if its not enough (its never enough lol), purgatory. I'd say the “go ahead and get all your sins out now” is more a protestant thing, they got rid of purgatory (and the scriptures that support it) so their theology is 'once saved always saved' no matter what you do, Catholics on the other hand pay eternally for their sins, you don't get away with anything lol.
Are you talking about Fat Tuesday lol? The original Mardi Gras before it was an LGBTQ+ event. Shrove Tuesday (also known as Fat Tuesday, which means Mardi Gras) is the day before Ash Wednesday, which is the start of the Lenten Season, a time of fasting and penance to grow closer to Christ in preparation for Easter. There's a lot of rules in Lent as to what you can and can't eat/do/etc so on Shove Tuesday you eat all the good things in the house because you can't eat them in Lent and people couldn't afford to waste food (well shouldn't eat them, and should follow lent rules). Back in the day the whole town used to get involved because it was almost impossible to eat all the food on your own, so it turned into a group event, a big feast, to make sure the food wasn't thrown out. Now we have freezers and supermarkets lol so it's basically turned into 'Pancake Tuesday'. Most catholics have pancakes and a really rich cake and fattening food, because we can't eat it again until Easter Sunday. Some cultures still really party on Shrove Tuesday. But this day is certainly not an excuse to sin at all, and those who are using it to do that are acting against Catholic teaching.
I think the LDS church is better at keeping their members together and making sure they are following the rules, where as Catholics either follow them or they don't, its a personal choice. I also think the LDS church is better at making sure members know all the rules, some Catholics don't even know their own faith let alone live it. But they are making choices that will cause them to lose their salvation. I know plenty of catholics who use contraception for example, massive mortal sin, straight to hell deal, but they do it and still go to church. But that's not my business and not my place to judge them. I'd never say anything to them about it (and some of them are really close friends of mine) No one openly talks about those who chose to leave or stay and not follow the rules, to be honest most of us wouldn't even know. Of course a loss of a member is sad, but all we can do is live our faith to be a good example and pray for them. Their salvation is their business. The Church does run a lot of apologetics and information sessions, retreats etc to deepen faith, bring back those who have fallen away BUT they have to want to go, it has to be their choice, we don't actively chase them up so to speak. There are Catholic ministries that do go door to door but they are very few. There does need to be more.
Both approaches have positives and negatives, but witnessing both cultures in action, I do think the LDS culture can be all consuming and overwhelming and it really does feel very 'public', I guess Catholicism puts more emphasis on the person choosing to do the right thing on their own, 'here's the deal, follow it or don't its up to you, you have free will, use it wisely' there is no one checking up on them and you wouldn't know looking in the pews as to who's doing the wrong thing. It's a very private faith.
-
On 4/25/2022 at 12:34 AM, Just_A_Guy said:
The funny thing to me (and this is probably a really superficial take, but it’s rooted in my having served a mission in heavily-Catholic Latin America) is:
—Catholics say works matter, but tend to live as though they don’t.
—Protestants say works don’t matter, but tend to live as though they do. (Even liberal social-justice-type Protestants seem, in practice, to be careful to avoid “sin”; they just redefine what type of activities are “sinful”).
I don’t get it; because I agree with you that the net effect of (what I know of) Catholic theology tends to strongly disincentivize sin, whereas (what I know of) most Protestant theology tends to look rather benignly at sin so long as the sinner can recite the proper soteriological and trinitarian shibboleths.
You must be referring to easter and Christmas catholics lol. Seriously though Catholicism can definitely rival the LDS church with the amount of rules you have to follow (when I was looking at the LDS church I found it to have less rules than Catholicism)
I think the big difference, and this is just my perspective having attended both denominations, is the LDS faith seems very public where as the Catholic faith is very private. In the LDS church your salvation status is very much 'on view' to the rest of the members. If you don't take the sacrament or you can't speak in church you're obviously in some sort of trouble. A temple wedding and if you can even attend as a guest is another example or your salvation being 'on show'. Even the temple recommend itself I guess is too.
In the Catholic Church as long as you get to confession on Saturday you are good to have the Eucharist at Sunday Mass. And even if you don't go to communion, no one says or thinks anything about it. It's not 'clicky' like the LDS church, you're there to worship God not make friends, not to say that there aren't activities and study groups, there is, if you want to be involved.
There's also no 'callings' - I mean people volunteer for things but its not expected. I think the callings also create a 'status' type thing in the LDS church. I don't know how bishops find the time, its a huge sacrifice, to work full-time, be a husband and father and a bishop too. Hats off to them, its amazing. A Catholic priest has a University degree in theology and nothing else to do except look after his parish.
I think protestants do believe in works they just don't want to admit it lol they like to think its 'I'm changed by grace and that's why I do good works' its just a different motivation for doing the same thing.
-
On 11/25/2021 at 4:48 AM, Traveler said:
Thank you again for your response. I think I understand a little better concerning your thinking. I will disclose a little about myself. I have studied for decades and find ancient text fascinating but with the caveat that I am unable to read directly must rely on secondary translations (versions). Without making this post too long, I will attempt to explain where I am in my journey. The first point I would make is that I have great difficulty coming to unalterable conclusions. I have had too much experience in my work traveling in our modern world to realize that much is lost in translation and even versions of things discussed with others that speak the same language. I have a dyslexic view and must be careful reading and hearing. I often ask very direct questions with examples to insure I understand what I think I am hearing. Statements like "the word of G-d" are too ambiguous by themselves for me to understand what someone intends to convey.
I also like to do as much of my own research as possible. For example, the last time I was in Paris I spend hours in the Louvre researching the origins of worshiping a golden calf (think the book of Exodus) and was able to find artifacts that link the golden calf worship in Exodus to a type of Baal worship taking place in Egypt at the time of Moses. I have done a great deal of research concerning Baal and am astonished with the similarities between the New Testament narratives of Jesus of Nazareth and ancient Baal epoch millennial before. An example of my research in science I am astonished with the Kardashev scale of civilization and the unique scale of resurrection glory offered by a young Joseph Smith over 100 years previously.
I would also highlight insights received from research in ancient text done by Ivan Engneill and F. C. Fensham (not LDS) into incredible correlations between concepts of "divine rights of earthly Kings" (especially anciently in the Middle East) and the concepts of G-d the Father as the King of the Kingdom of Heaven (Universe). Especially the expressions of Suzerain and their Vassal Servants treaties and the concept that a Suzerain and their Vassal Servants are "one". Especially as an explanation of the Messiah being "anointed" as servant vassal (mediator) G-d over fallen or exiled population of a kingdom. Sorry for the overuse of "especially".
As an armature student of ancient text - I am aware of the definition of original text as "autograph" or "autogram". An autograph text is written in the hand of the author whereas an autogram is text written in the same era and in the same language as the author. There are no original Biblical text. It is interesting to me that there are many original ancient text from the same time periods as as Biblical text (you referenced one concerning a flood) but there are none from the sacred Biblical text that have survived for our modern era. I do not agree with your conclusion about flaws in sacred text - though I have often encountered such thinking especially among Traditional Christians. Buddhists and Muslims seem to have a very different concept of ancient text to which I tend to somewhat agree.
Traditional scholars of ancient text also have a definition of historic and pre-historic that I was somewhat surprised to learn. The ancient text of Homer (about 750 BC) mark the change or threshold between what is considered historic verses pre-historic. Historic text are considered to be factual representation of history given by a historian where as pre-historic text are considered to be fantastic symbolic representations of history. This puts the book of Revelation (New Testament) into the category of pre-historic type of literature even though it was written in a historic time period.
Now I must introduce another surprise that I have learned. Anciently it was believed that only a prophet of G-d could create sacred writings because such "formats" were beyond the abilities of fallen mankind. Then it is only through the power of G-d that a student could read and understand sacred text. Jesus expressed this notion with the eyes that see and ears that hear. This also made coping ancient text - especially into another language almost impossible - unless the copy was directly "Inspired". Studying ancient Hebrew text from a standpoint of a Rabbi can change forever a person's view of ancient sacred text. The most prominent (that was not rediscovered until the 20th century) is the "Chiasm". This very quickly become popular among LDS scholars because of the many Chiasms discovered in the Book of Mormon that was impossible for young Joseph Smith to accomplish without some "supernatural" assistance. It is interesting to me that the Book of Genesis at the beginning of the Bible forms a Chiasm when the Book of Revelation become the end of text. Other ancient Biblical text have chiastic formats - the most prominent is the Book of Isaiah.
There is another ancient text (The Book of Enoch) that follows the chiastic format - but this text is omitted from our modern Bibles. Even though the Book of Enoch is the most quoted of Old Testament era text in the New Testament. Jesus himself quotes the Book of Enoch more than any other text - especially in public addresses such as the "Sermon on the Mount". However, traditional Christians and Jews have considered the Book of Enoch, available in by the 3rd century AD, to be corrupted copies made from New Testament texts - that was until the discovery of the Book of Enoch among the scriptures of the Dead Sea Scrolls that was from 300 BC. and predated all New Testament authors.
It is my opinion that there are original sacred text that were very ancient and such originals have been lost in time. Many such sacred text were prophetic of things that would come and others were text of things that had taken place. Some were written in sacred format that required "education" before they could be understood properly. I also believe that there are intelligent forces that are not sacred but can better be understood as corrupted or demonic. It has been a purpose of corrupted intelligence to alter, edit and change sacred scripture. But beyond corrupting scripture such forces also seek to corrupt divine law, ordinances and covenants (as expressed by the Prophet Isaiah). Thus there is a cycle of the divine "Word of G-d" given to man that becomes corrupted through an evolutionary process. We see this cycle from Adam to Noah, the from Noah to the tower of Babel and so on down to Jesus and then to the end of times and return of Christ to reign for a thousand years and the end of the era of fallen mankind.
The Traveler
Ok now I have to study for the next year 😂. Seriously though, thank you for such a detailed response, you've given me a lot to look up and research. I think you are a very interesting and obviously very intelligent person.
-
On 11/26/2021 at 12:18 PM, JohnsonJones said:
I cannot speak for you or what you felt. I do not know. I will say it could have been the Holy Ghost saying something, but the question comes on how one knows what it is telling them.
Most people do not know or cannot say themselves, it being more of a feeling to them rather than a distinct wording or statement. They do not have an angel come and visit them in person (and frankly, most Christian religions today except for Pentecostal teach that this would be impossible as visions and prophets do not continue in their theology) nor does the Lord come in person to tell them (as per the prior statement on their theology saying this no longer occurs).
The spirit that the Pentecostals seem to listen to seems to be on an opposing end of the spirit we claim to listen to in some of their more lively churches. The pentecostal in those branches of their religion tend to feel it is a very loud thing to make one jump and shout, to be boisterous and speak in gibberish which they claim to be tongues (but from which, at times, those who actually know those tongues will say that the words they speak are not words from any version or form of that language). Not ALL Pentecostals feel this, but there are some that do. This spirit is very different (and perhaps almost the exact opposite of what we claim to listen to and be inspired by). They feel the way they do, we feel the way we do.
The bigger question i would have is how do you KNOW exactly what it was saying? Is it by the way that the very lively Pentecostals claim (and they are one of the few of theology that claim they can hear specific things and statements...unlike many other theologies that deny that the Lord speaks to men in this way anymore, nor that the Lord visits or creates prophets anymore), or is it by some other means. Is it by the same way the Missionaries said, which, if so, why would it speak in that manner to you in opposition to what other religions claim?
I know there are many, even in our own religion, who claim to have felt the Holy Ghost but no more felt it manifest or can tell if it is there than a Baptist or Catholic or any other member of any other church would say. When the wind blows, if it blows (and hopefully it will not, but sometimes it does) it is shown. They refuse to follow the prophet (for example, we see a LOT of that these days with those openly in defiance of our Church leadership in preaching against vaccines, masks, and the items asked of us by our Church leaders in the highest positions of leadership today) and claim that the spirit told them to do this. We see others say they feel this same spirit to deny the Holy Ghost and the Gospel, claiming that they are resigning from membership because of this. These are members of our church that claim these things at times...and if they cannot identify the Holy Ghost in their lives...I can imagine it may be difficult for someone who is new.
I think you could have very well felt the Holy Ghost. The bigger question is how do you know what it was telling you? How are you sure?
I do not know. I am not you. It may be that there are things in your life that you have yet to do. Personally, I HIGHLY doubt it was specifically saying the Book of Mormon was not true, but then, I was not there and I am not you. I have no idea what it told you or what you felt. Perhaps it was telling you what you need to know or feel...I don't know. I think there could be mistakes about what exactly it was trying to say...but once again, I'm not you and did not participate in your experience.
In my estimation, the Holy Ghost does not lie, it reveals truth. In that light, in my understanding, it would never actually specifically say that the Book of Mormon was false. It would only testify that it was true and that it contains the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, there may be other things it may indicate or state that could mean any number of things. It may be that you misunderstood what was being said or told...I don't know.
Two years is a long time to try to find the truth and I can understand the weariness of it. I can understand being invested in something and not receiving the answers one wishes or hopes for. I hope that you can continue to pray and read the Book of Mormon, and hope to receive the blessing of belief, but you must do what you feel is necessary for you and your life and your choices of faith and belief.
Either way, whether you choose to continue to study and pray, or to go your own way and follow a different path or faith, I think you are always welcome here to discuss with us faith and our joint love of Jesus Christ.
Thank you for such a kind christlike response, I really appreciate it. I don't get into Pentecostal beliefs, not really my thing at all.
It was a strong feeling, an uncomfortable feeling, along with a knowing and almost like someone was talking to me in my head, while I was praying, it left a very strong impression. I had it happen several times, I tried to ignore it because I was so in love with the LDS church and way of life. Maybe I'll get a different answer one day, maybe it was the adversary trying to stop me, I don't know.
Again, thank you for being so kind
-
Serious question for those reading who are LDS.
If it wasn't the Holy Ghost then who was it? Do you think it was an evil spirit or a demon? Why would they be so clear?
Serious question, not trying to be argumentative or anything.
-
2 hours ago, Anddenex said:
Let's not play a victim here. Were you planning on doing something that would ban you from this forum? If not, why wouldn't you be welcome to stay on the forum? I am just as capable of being banned from this forum as you would be if we decide to break the rules of the site.
The scriptures, both Bible and Book of Mormon, are clear as to the purpose of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost clearly will not bear witness of opposing tenets (as both being true which they can't be), which is what you are sharing with regards to your witness.
The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth, there isn't a "version" of it as you are describing. It is truth. The Book of Mormon is either the word of God or it is not. The Holy Ghost will not bear record of opposing tenets. He will not say to one person, "It is true," and to another, "It is not true." So, the outcome is just as it is -- one is true and one is false.
You appear to be confusing circular reasoning with additional witness. You have said the Holy Ghost said it is not true. I provided the witness and testimony of another person in the Book of Mormon that will be given at the last day. This witness is either true or false, there is no in between. Either at the last day it will be true, or it will be false.
I don't know enough about you to say one way or the other as to your efforts. I do know your witness wasn't from the Holy Ghost. It doesn't mean it wasn't experienced, it just wasn't the Holy Ghost. I have beaten the dead horse enough. It is a simple principle of truth, opposing truths can't both be true --- there isn't a version of it as they are opposing. Again, it would be similar to someone saying, by the Holy Ghost, they were informed that Christ was not the Savior of the world but a good prophet. And then someone else saying the opposite, by the Holy Ghost I know Christ is the Savior of the world. Which is the "version"of truth you are presenting. It can't be both, no matter how many times someone says it can, it can't.
I still wish you all the peace and happiness in this world.
I'm not playing a victim, I'm not playing anything, I've answered the same question over and over and keep being told I'm wrong and the Holy Ghost didn't communicate with me, something you can't possibly know yet insist is what happened to me, even though you weren't there.
If you insist on it being so black and white then I guess you're right, one of us must be wrong.
-
8 hours ago, Traveler said:
I am very interested when anyone has come to a different conclusion that I have. For this reason I ask specific questions - mostly to examine if there is something that I should consider that I have left out. To be honest I am confused when someone says that the Bible is the "Word of G-d" but is not literally accurate. My personal background is in science - my education was math and physics and my profession (most of my life) was automation, robotics and artificial intelligence - I am currently retired.
I am most interested that you have received the impression that the Bible is divinely accurate and appointed but that the Book of Mormon is flawed and unworthy to guide concerning divine instruction. I wonder that you are so impressed with the text of the Bible over the Book of Mormon because my studies of over 60 years is the exact opposite. But for this discussion (for which I am most grateful for your kind responses) I would focus on what I think you are saying is your impression concerning the Bible as the perfect word of G-d.
What rigors have you applied to the Bible that has convinced you it is the word of G-d? For example lets look at the order of the creation of things concerning this planet earth upon which we live as recorded in Genesis chapter one beginning with verses 11 through 19. These verses explain the order of things during the 3rd and forth periods of creation. In modern versions of the Bible this is expressed as the 3rd and 4th day or time periods of creation. Do you believe that it is the "word of G-d" that vegetation (plant life) on earth existed before there was a sun and moon providing daytime and nighttime light and seasons? Or is this a new concept of the order of things to you?
Thanks
The Traveler
You're super interesting to talk too! I think I kinda answered this in the last page, but this thread has gotten a bit crazy so I'll put it here again and try to elaborate as best I can for you.
I don't think the bible has to be perfect to be the word of God, men wrote it down so its not going to be perfect, its going to be written from their point of view to a certain extent. It's also going to be their perspective on things they can't understand. I think a lot of stories in the bible (old testament more than new) were passed down verbally for a long time before they were written down. There are different versions of the same stories throughout the world, everyone has a flood story, giant stories, creation story, first human stories, and there are similarities in them all, some stronger than others, and a lot of them older than the bible.
I think people wrote down with sincerity what they saw, what was passed down by verbal knowledge for probably 1000s of years, and what they felt guided by God to record. I think it's better to compare it to a child looking at something they can't possibly understand and trying to explain it. A child's description of seeing a rocket ship take off would be a lot different to yours or my version of the same story. Read Ezekiel for example (or Genesis creation story), they are trying to explain something they don't understand. So I can't take it all literally, but that doesn't mean there's no truth in it or that it's not what they saw, or that its not divinely inspired by God.
I think the bible is a record of people trying their best to explain something they don't (and can't) truely understand with Gods guidance. That doesn't make it not the inspired word of God.
I have prayed about whether the bible is true or not, in very much the same way I prayed about the BOM. The bible, especially the old testament, has been held as sacred scripture for 1000s of years. It is accepted by Jews and Christians as scared scripture. The dead see scrolls add to the evidence by showing that the bible says today what it said 1000s of years ago.
-
9 hours ago, Anddenex said:
I'm glad you believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. I'm glad you believe in the word of God. I never said you weren't a Christian, please don't put words in my mouth; it is a naive way to make a statement. The answer you feel you received wasn't from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth (John 14:26, Moroni 10: 3:5) not of lies or error.
To think, or believe, the Holy Ghost will tell, show, or witness someone something is not true when it is true is naive, and clear evidence you have a misunderstanding of the roll of the Holy Ghost from scripture.
Recognizing your answer isn't from the Holy Ghost isn't an assumption, its a reality. I accept you received an answer, it just wasn't from the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth. That is clearly defined in scripture -- not of lies or error. The Holy Ghost will not, and cannot witness both to be true. They are in direct opposition. It will be similar to someone saying they received witness from the Holy Ghost that Christ is not the Savior. I don't need to assume anything. I can call it out for what it is.
Thus we have the following scripture:
I didn't say you said I wasn't a Christian, I was simply stating not believing in the book of mormon doesn't make me more or less of a Christian than you are. I didn't put any words in anyone's mouth.
The issue I have here is that the only answer an LDS person will accept to Moroni's promise to know if the Book of Mormon is the word of God is the one they themselves agree with. If I don't come to that conclusion then apparently it wasn't the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost is a testator of truth, but only your version of it? And you are using scripture from the very book I'm praying about to know if its scripture as evidence of that? Thats circular reasoning. Interesting.
For the record I really did want it to be true for me, I love the LDS church and the life you live being part of it. I did not come to my answer through anything other than the witness of the Holy Ghost I told you about, but according to most of you, that couldn't have been the Holy Ghost at all. I hope I am still welcome to stay here on the forums, but I can't deny the spiritual experience I had, just as you can't deny yours. I would never tell you yours was the wrong answer or not the Holy Ghost or not a valid experience though.
-
42 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
That's fine. I'm perfectly fine with others and their personal belief system, but this isn't what we are discussing. God is not an author of confusion, and if He says Jesus Christ is his son, and then someone says, "God told me Christ isn't his son." Both witnesses can't be true. One is right, and one is wrong. There is no way around it.
If God says, "You shall know by the power of the Holy Ghost these things are true." And a person says God told me it is false. They both can't be true. What make a spiritual experience greater or of more value. The answer is simple -- truth. If as a Christian you think a person saying God said, "Christ is not his son," is the same as the witness that Peter received of the Messiah -- than we are fooling ourselves into believing all Spiritual experiences are the same. They are not in this regard.
I choose to believe God's words. That we can know with certainty of truth and our belief system. If you don't choose to believe such, then that is fine. You can believe as you wish. If we are unable to know for a "certainty" then what's the purpose of the Holy Ghost or answer to prayers?
I do enjoy a lot of quotes from Socrates; however, do you think Christ "knew" he was the Son of God, or do you think it was a mere belief system? I would specify he knew for certain he was the Son of God. He knew for certain what he was about to accomplish on Golgatha. I prefer to believe in Christ's words when it comes to his gospel.
I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Holy Ghost, I believe the bible is the word of God. My answer that book of mormon isn't true, that doesn't make me not a Christian, that doesn't make you more of a Christian than me. I believe Gods words, we just have a different witness of where to find those words.
The Holy Ghost gave me a different answer than he gave you. But to assume that I did not receive my answer from the Holy Ghost because I got an answer you can't accept. I think that's really naive.
-
1 hour ago, person0 said:
So are you a universalist or something? It sounds like you believe all paths lead back to God.
On a contradictory note, this statement as a question makes no sense in relation to your claim to having received an answer that the Book of Mormon is not true. If you believe that all religions can be right, there's no reason you couldn't have simply chosen to be a member of the Church, and more importantly, if those religions you named are not wrong, why would ours be? By that question I mean to suggest that your own logic indicates it would not be possible to have received an actual answer from God that the Book of Mormon is not true.
As a related aside. The things you are saying really point more and more to validate my statement that you must have not fulfilled God's promise as declared by Moroni. You are beginning to write in ways that indicate you adhere to what we commonly refer to as the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.
Once again, I have no intention of meanness, but I will be bold in my testimony of the truth of God.
I'm not a universalist I was just responding to something Anddenex said where she seemed to discount a Hindu's experience and perspective, i would not discount anyones spiritual experience or just assume its wrong because its different to mine, that does not mean I do not have strength and conviction in my own beliefs.
That does not mean I believe in any of those religions and has nothing at all to do with my witness that the book of mormon was not true or somehow invalidates that witness.
I believe all people who belong to a religion believe that their religion is right (otherwise why would they join it), and who am I to tell them that they are not? Who are any of us to discount every religion on earth as wrong except the one we believe in? What makes us right and them wrong?
I believe in Jesus, I believe the bible to be the word of God, (the abrahamic God) but the Hindu believes in Vishnu just as passionately and holds the Vedas as scripture.
-
27 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
You can see from Marge's response that her answer received from God, "no, its not true." This is in direct opposition against what God said he would do. They both can't be right. It would be similar to someone teaching someone about Christ (let's say someone who grew up Hindu -- with no Bible background and is not a Christian). That person then saying they devoted their lives to learning about Christ, reading the Bible, and then coming away with the following, "God spoke to me and told me Christ is not his son." Did this person do something wrong? I think we probably would both come to the same conclusion.
You see I would not discount the Hindu's experience as misinformed, or assume they did something wrong. What makes your spiritual experiences any greater than theirs? What makes the Hindu or the Buddhist or the Jew wrong? Why is it so hard to accept their experience as genuine? Or that you might be wrong? Only one third of the world is Christian, and Christianity only spread as far as it did at the tip of a sword.
I don't think we can ever know for certain that we are right in our belief system.
Socrates once said ' I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is I know nothing'
-
Just now, person0 said:
Oh but it does. Either the Book of Mormon is what we claim it to be (a genuine and true historical and scriptural record of God's dealings with some of the ancient inhabitants of theAmericas), or it isn't. There is no in between.
I am curious, do you claim that you received a specific witness that the Book of Mormon is not true, or simply that you never received a witness that it is?
My witness was that the book of mormon is not true, that the LDS church is a good organisation of well meaning people but unfortunately it was built upon a book that was not the word of God.
I received the same witness numerous times over a period of 18 months, I ignored it for a long time because I wanted to join the LDS church. I was heartbroken. I wanted an eternal family and I thought the LDS church was the only way to achieve that.
I have found a lot comfort in realising that eternal christian marriage was first taught by Emanual Swedenborg in the early 1700s. Also there are a lot of much older pagan religions that believe in eternal marriage as well.
-
1 hour ago, Anddenex said:
I would agree with you if the promise we are discussing were to be coming from "man" and not from God. Within the promise provided the Lord provides conditions and stipulations to receiving a witness from him:
Conditions:
1) Remember how merciful the Lord has been to his children
2) Ponder these things in your heart
Stipulations: Ask with
1) Sincere heart
2) Real intent
3) Faith in Christ
Promise:
* You will receive a manifestation from the Holy Ghost that these things are true.
If a person has fulfilled all of the above and has received no witness then this would make God a liar, and we know God is a God of truth and cannot lie. As such, the default then falls back upon us, and always will fall upon us. It will never fall upon God.
In these cases, if a person remains without "witness" which we know wouldn't be true if they followed the given conditions and stipulations, they will one day (if at judgement) see every witness God gave by the power of the Holy Ghost by which they were past feeling. Otherwise once again, God would be a liar.
This goes back to Christ living among the Jews. Why were there some who received witness that he was the Son of God, the prophesied Messiah, and why were those there who did not receive the same witness? God's fault, or does the responsibility and accountability fall upon us? Is God unable to provide according to his promises? No. Then the default is always at us -- individual accountability and responsibility.
This isn't arrogant, nor does it have any hubris, because we recognize God is a God of truth and cannot lie and it is his promise.
I followed all these conditions as well as embracing the church and its teachings, read the book of mormon everyday, followed the WoW, FHE, regular church attendance, gospel principles lessons, Come follow me, read the pearl of great price, prayed a lot. I really tried and I was very sincere, I wanted it to be true, I was actually really upset when I finally accepted I was being told 'No'. I did everything right.
Please don't take my no answer as insincerity or lack of faith, or lack of dedication. It was none of those things at all. I was told no, just as you were told yes. That doesn't make either of us bad people, or either of us wrong or right.
I still have great respect for the LDS church, its members and its focus on family.
-
3 hours ago, person0 said:
It is true. Neither your nor my wants have any bearing on it. It simply is. Don't get me wrong, I understand your perspective. What you perceive as arrogance is confidence in God and the witness of His Spirit. My relationship with my Heavenly Father and my Savior, Jesus Christ, and the manifestations of God's power in my life, both temporal and spiritual have led me to this knowledge time and time again. I know you can come to this knowledge, too.
I don't know the circumstances surrounding your efforts to seek an answer, so I can only judge based on God's promise that I know for myself to be true. If you are interested and willing to hear it, I will gladly share my experience with the fulfillment of that promise in the hopes that it may help you. Would you like me to share my witness and would you be willing to hear the Spirit witness to your Spirit that my experience and testimony is true?
You seem completely unwilling to hear mine, and are in fact dismissing my experience as wrong and claiming yours is right, yet both of us got our answers from the same source. I also have great confidence in God and the guidance he gives me.
I was a very sincere investigator of this church, I devoted two years of my life to it, and my answer was no, its not true. Does that mean I don't see value in the church, of course not. Does that mean I call all those who believe it to be true wrong or misinformed, and that only my answer is the correct one? Of course not, that would be arrogant, rude and narrow minded.
I do find it extremely off-putting when I hear members basically say 'I'm right, you're wrong, you must have missed something, you weren't sincere enough, you did something wrong'. You can say 'I know it's true' all day long, it doesn't make it so for everyone.
Perhaps my view will change in time, perhaps yours will. But I wouldn't ever call someone else's beliefs wrong because they decided after two years of investigation not to join my chosen religion.
-
54 minutes ago, Traveler said:
also that Adam's life span approached almost 1,000 years) and that there was a global flood about 5,000 years ago and that all land creatures (including humans) that survived the flood of Noah - did so on the Ark of Noah with the dimensions as specified in our modern versions of the Bible? In other words are the Biblical claims from ancient texts - symbolic and fantastic or are they historical? THANKS
The Traveler
With regards to the lifespan of early biblical figures, God for some reason decided that living that long was a bad move so he cut it down to 120 years (I find it super interesting that the maximum lifespan for humans is 120 - I think there was one person who lived until 122) A lot of Genesis is focussed on Genetics, kill the giants, wipe out this city etc etc. Maybe that's why there was a flood in the first place, to wipe out the bad genetics? (Genesis 6:4 for example produced abominable offspring in the eyes of God). I don't know but I'll be sure to ask when I get to heaven 😂
I think people wrote down with sincerity what they saw, what was passed down by verbal knowledge for probably 1000s of years, and what they felt guided by God to record. I think it's better to compare it to a child looking at something they can't possibly understand and trying to explain it. A child's description of seeing a rocket ship take off would be a lot different to yours or my version of the same story.
I think the bible is a record of people trying their best to explain something they don't (and can't) truely understand with Gods guidance. That doesn't make it not the word of God.
Mandatory reporting and ministering visits
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by marge
This extra level of reporting responsibility is giving me Dan Andrews vibes, can I ask what state you're in?
Edit to add, upon reading the entire thread (which I probably should have done in the first place!) it appears you're in the NT somewhere, I lived in Darwin city for a few years, I loved it. See you in the NT