The Thread for Mind Expansion on LDS and Agnostic Thoughts

[ElementalMist]

Hello!

I am starting this thread as a continuation of me, DigitalShadow and MissHalfway's challenge of religious readings and the discussions ensuing. This is purely a thread for looking at various religious matterials and sharing one's thoughts. All are welcome to read along and join our discussion, but please remember, THIS IS NOT A CONVERSION THREAD! Could those who post please follow topic and not simply dwell on a bias or try to be singularly preachy^_^? This thread is to look at various pools of thought in an attempt to think more openly and to then discuss our findings. Sorry to be snarly. May the pool party begin!

Challenge!

DigitalShadow is to read the LDS scriptures, not sure if all or just BofM through D&C.

Me and MissHalfway in return will read various agnostic and scientific literature presented by DigitalShadow.

Book List will be posted here.

Pretty much, we figured that if we are trying to teach someone, we should also play fair and also look at the opposing views. Becides, isn't it always interesting to see where other people are coming from? Afterall, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[Misshalfway]

Signing in! I have my swimsuit and my flippers! I am ready to go!

[ElementalMist]

So all we need now is sunscreen and Digi-kun.

[Misshalfway]

Where is he? Did he get distracted by an athiest?

[Moksha]

I volunteer to contemplate my navel in this effort if it will help any.

[Mr_Lazy]

Hello, perhaps this article would be a good place to begin this unique and worthy thread.

I've listed all of the references at the bottom for the quotes used.

There are a lot of myths both inside and outside Mormondom about the LDS claim to be the “one true Church.” That claim is difficult for people of other faiths to accept for obvious reasons. But it may also be difficult for many Mormons to reconcile that claim with their belief in a just and merciful God who loves all his children. I do not expect it will ever be “easy” to accept the “one true Church” claim. However, I think Church members sometimes make it more difficult to accept by drawing implications from the “one true Church” claim that do not necessarily follow from it.

In order to correctly understand what the “one true Church” claim truly means, we first need to understand what it does not mean. The following is my attempt to bust the myths surrounding the “one true Church” claim and its companion doctrines, the Apostasy and Restoration, using the words of Church leaders and Church publications.

Myth: God stopped communicating with mankind for hundreds of years during “the Apostasy,” when the priesthood was not found upon the earth.

MythBuster:

“The line of priesthood authority was broken. But mankind was not left in total darkness or completely without revelation or inspiration. The idea that with the Crucifixion of Christ the heavens were closed and that they opened in the First Vision is not true. The Light of Christ would be everywhere present to attend the children of God; the Holy Ghost would visit seeking souls. The prayers of the righteous would not go unanswered.” Elder Boyd K. Packer

“All down the ages . . . good and great men, not bearing the Priesthood, but possessing profundity of thought, great wisdom, and a desire to uplift their fellows, have been sent by the Almighty into many nations, to give them, not the fulness of the Gospel, but that portion of truth that they were able to receive and wisely use.” Elder Orson F. Whitney, quoted by Elder Howard W. Hunter[ii]

Myth: In Joseph Smith’s day, the Christian churches were completely corrupt and were an abomination to the Lord.

MythBuster:

“Informed Latter-day Saints do not argue that historic Christianity lost all truth or became completely corrupt. The orthodox churches may have lost the ‘fullness’ of the gospel, but they did not lose all of it nor even most of it. . . . [T]he actual LDS view, [] is that the orthodox churches are incomplete rather than corrupt. It is their postbiblical creeds that are identified in Joseph Smith’s first vision as an ‘abomination,’ but certainly not their individual members or their members’ biblical beliefs.” Stephen E. Robinson (as quoted on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)[iii]

Myth: Because Mormons are the only people currently guided by true prophets with the priesthood authority, they are the only people eligible to receive God’s inspiration.

MythBuster:

“[W]e claim that God’s inspiration is not limited to the Latter-day Saints.” Elder James E. Faust[iv]

“All men share an inheritance of divine light. God operates among his children in all nations, and those who seek God are entitled to further light and knowledge, regardless of their race, nationality, or cultural traditions.” Elder Howard W. Hunter[v]

“[T]he Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have.” Book of Mormon[vi]

Myth: As God’s covenant people, Mormons are the people God has chosen to perform his great and marvelous work.

MythBuster:

“God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.” Elder Orson F. Whitney, quoted by Elder Ezra Taft Benson[vii]

Myth: Although well-intentioned, leaders of other religions and churches are unwitting servants of the devil who are deceiving and leading God’s children astray.

MythBuster:

“We believe that most religious leaders and followers are sincere believers who love God and understand and serve him to the best of their abilities. We are indebted to the men and women who kept the light of faith and learning alive through the centuries to the present day. . . . We honor them as servants of God.” Elder Dallin H. Oaks[viii]

“The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals. … We believe that God has given and will give to all peoples sufficient knowledge to help them on their way to eternal salvation.” Elder James E. Faust[ix]

Myth: People belong to either the LDS church or the “Church of the Devil,” also known as the “great and abominable Church.”

MythBuster:

“ndividual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.” Stephen E. Robinson (Ensign magazine)[x]

“We must understand . . . that not everyone is going to accept our doctrine of the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For the most part, our neighbors not of our faith are good, honorable people-every bit as good and honorable as we strive to be. They care about their families, just like we do. They want to make the world a better place, just like we do. They are kind and loving and generous and faithful, just like we seek to be.” Elder M. Russell Ballard[xi]

Myth: If a person doesn’t join the Church after learning about it, that person must not be honest in heart.

MythBuster:

“Perhaps the Lord needs [] men on the outside of His Church to help it along. They . . . can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted . . . the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose.” Elder Orson F. Whitney, quoted by Elder Ezra Taft Benson[xii]

________________________________________________________________

Published by Andrew Ainsworth on January 21, 2008

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boyd K. Packer, “The Light of Christ,” Ensign, Apr. 2005, 11 (quoted on Church website at: Newsroom - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

[ii] Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, Apr. 1921, pp. 32-33

.

[iii] Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 61 (quoted on Church website at Newsroom - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

[iv] Elder James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, May 1980, 12 (emphasis added).

[v] Howard W. Hunter, “The Gospel-A Global Faith,” Ensign, Nov 1991, 18 (emphasis added).

[vi] Alma 29:8 (emphasis added).

[vii] Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59

.

[viii] Dallin H. Oaks, “Apostasy and Restoration,” Ensign, May 1995, 84.

[ix] Elder James E. Faust, “Communion with the Holy Spirit,” Ensign, May 1980, 12 (emphasis added).

[x] Stephen E. Robinson, “Warring against the Saints of God,” Ensign, Jan 1988, 34.

[xi] M. Russell Ballard, “Doctrine of Inclusion,” Ensign, Nov 2001, 35.

[xii] Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59

.

[Snow]

Hello!

I am starting this thread as a continuation of me, DigitalShadow and MissHalfway's challenge of religious readings and the discussions ensuing. This is purely a thread for looking at various religious matterials and sharing one's thoughts. All are welcome to read along and join our discussion, but please remember, THIS IS NOT A CONVERSION THREAD! Could those who post please follow topic and not simply dwell on a bias or try to be singularly preachy^_^? This thread is to look at various pools of thought in an attempt to think more openly and to then discuss our findings. Sorry to be snarly. May the pool party begin!

Challenge!

DigitalShadow is to read the LDS scriptures, not sure if all or just BofM through D&C.

Me and MissHalfway in return will read various agnostic and scientific literature presented by DigitalShadow.

Book List will be posted here.

Pretty much, we figured that if we are trying to teach someone, we should also play fair and also look at the opposing views. Becides, isn't it always interesting to see where other people are coming from? Afterall, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Can we just jam red-hot knitting needles into our eyes instead?

[Misshalfway]

Can we just jam red-hot knitting needles into our eyes instead?

Why do I have this overwhelming need to stick my tongue out at you???

Edited July 26, 2008 by Misshalfway

[DigitalShadow]

I am still in the process of looking for a book that sums up my religious viewpoint. I'm ashamed to admit that I don't have time to read much lately, and I would like to read a book before presenting it as from my viewpoint :)

[Maya]

Mr Lazy very good attempt me thinks. Good points!

[ElementalMist]

Why do I have this overwhelming need to stick my tongue out at you???

Why bother? He wants to poke his eyes out, I say lets watch. :)

Anyways, Thanks Mr.Lazy for your post, it was interesting to read. I admit I learned some things. I have been bugging Digi-kun to find our reading material but work keeps us all busy, lol. Alas for being slaves, or so it feels at times.

[Misshalfway]

It is all good, DS. No rush. Except that I really want that chocolate!!! Haha

I started a little research of my own. Have no idea where to start but I am looking into different things. Perhaps such an effort with lead to me to something relevant.

[rameumptom]

DS, I have found few books that completely agree with my world view. Perhaps it would be quicker and easier if you were to write some expositions on your views, referencing where possible. From there, we can then discuss them at length, pros and cons, etc.?

Knitting needles in Snow's eyes could only be an improvement.

As for the "One true Church", there is no statement that says that. D&C 1:30 states it as "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased".

If we parse this statement correctly, it suggests to me that there may be more than just one "true and living Church upon the face of the whole earth", but that of all these, there is currently only one with which the Lord is well pleased.

Are there others that the Lord is "somewhat" pleased with? These are important questions to consider.

God's main concern to Joseph about other churches, was that their creeds were an abomination, and that they approached God with their lips, but their hearts far from God.

As for creeds, there are many creeds that most Christians would consider an abomination. St Augustine taught that small children needed baptism before death, or they would burn in hell. Even Catholics shy away from that creed from traditional Christianity's most powerful priest. How does that fit in with Jesus calling for little children to come to him, "for of such is the kingdom of heaven"?

How about the creed of limited atonement from Calvin's TULIP? Anyone like the notion that few will be saved, and God will burn all others, regardless of their efforts to be righteous? How about the TULIP concept that we cannot do anything regarding our salvation, because God will cavalierly choose whom he will save, and casually burn the rest? How does that fit in with John 3:16?

I could add more, but hopefully that should suffice for us to see that there are some damnable heresies that have come about over the centuries, and adopted as creeds by many Christians. What is a creed? A teaching that was accepted by a religious group that is extra-Biblical (outside the Bible's teaching). These are brought forth through discussion groups/councils or the writings of powerful Christian philosophers, such as Augustine or Calvin. But they are lacking one key thing: current prophetic revelation that explains things the way God would have them be understood.

Clearly, this would be a key reason why God would wish to renew his Christian covenant through a Restoration of the Gospel and the "True and living Church."

The second concern noted above, about men's lips endearing God, but their hearts far from Him; suggests that there is a belief in God involved, but it is insufficient. I believe this is due to the fact that it is hard to worship what we do not understand. In Joseph's time, many religions preached hell fire and damnation; while the battle between Catholicism and Protestantism continued in the world. Some religions were beginning to teach that a profession from the lips, "I believe" was sufficient for salvation. Even today, many Christians teach the concept of once saved, always saved; and that profession from the lips, even if the heart isn't fully into it, is enough for salvation. Is this not, then, what Isaiah was warning about? Hadn't God always been angered by Israel's lip service, but their refusal to show true faith by their good works? Didn't Isaiah tell them that God was tired of their sacrifices, festivals, and new moons; and now required the heart? Didn't Jesus condemn the Pharisees as hypocrites for doing some external stuff (lip service), while neglecting the weightier matters? And didn't he command us to love one another? "If ye love me, keep my commandments" was not a suggestion, but a noteworthy point showing that those who do love (heart) Jesus will be obedient to his commands. How then can so many Christians believe they are saved, but break the very commandments he condemned the Pharisees over?

So, we see that there are two key points to this controversy, and both are arguably correct from the viewpoint of scripture.

[Misshalfway]

I have one question. Atheism makes sense to me. It is a decision and gives one peace. There is no God and I live my life peacefully within that position. The agnostic position, however is one that feels more like limbo. Perhaps there is safety in not making a decision. But during my "dip in the agnostic pond", I felt so alone and lost and unsettled. The question drove me nuts and I wanted any answer one way or the other. Is there a God? If there is then that changes my course significantly. If there isn't, then I can free myself from all the pressure and move to a place of relying upon myself for answers. Does this make any sense? Perhaps my anxiety came because I had once been a believer and had lots of powerful experience to support such a position and the thought that there was no God was a great betrayal to me.....not to mention something that made me feel rather duped.

I guess I am hoping to understand that benefits to living with the possibility that God exists but not completely committing to such. From what I have read of you DS, you lean towards the absence of a God but are holding open the possibility that a supreme being may in fact be there.

I suppose that if there is a God, one must then determine the nature of such a being. Is it a person or a force or kind or mean or absent of such capabilities? And then perhaps the next question is what is man's relationship to such a being if in fact it does exist?

Having the brief experience with "not knowing" that I did, I can completely understand the confusion that comes with such questions.

Edited July 28, 2008 by Misshalfway

[funkymonkey]

I was once told that belief in God can't come from books, but rather what you feel in your heart.

[rameumptom]

The problem with atheism is the hubris it suggests. That one can affirmatively announce and insist that there is no God at all, when one cannot know the extent of the universe, is an amazing thing. It is even more astounding for me to think of the hubris of those atheists, who seek to impose their "lack of belief" system on others.

Agnosticism, OTOH, is a genuine belief system. One cannot be certain of what one has never seen nor experienced. Almost every believer of God has been agnostic at one point or another, as we all have doubts as to whether this is all real or imagined. Only faith and hope allows us to overcome the doubtful feelings and struggles that Ms Halfway expressed.

Now, be assured that some who call themselves atheist are actually agnostic. I would place Elphaba more in the agnostic than atheistic realm. Why? Because she keeps an open mind. Whereas, some atheists have stated that if evidence of God were to appear, they would happy to see that evidence destroyed/removed (I believe Francis Crick once stated something to this effect).

I would state that if I were to ever reject Mormonism, I'd have to reject all of Christianity and the other Biblical sects (Judaism, Islam, etc)., as being false, as well. The problems some insist are in Mormonism can also be found in the Judaeo-Christian faiths, as well. I would invariably be an agnostic, keeping an open mind that there might be a god, but not knowing if that god were moral or amoral; loving or hating or indifferent; anthropomorphic, material or immaterial; aware or unaware; etc. I would not feel any more guilty over living a wild lifestyle as an agnostic as I would as an atheist; as morality is primarily tied to the Christian/Jewish/Islamic Gods.

[Misshalfway]

Ok. So I found this defn of Agnostism.....

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Do DS, do you fall into this catagory? That you believe that it is impossible to know the truth about God and life after this?

Or does this fit better?

An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

[Moksha]

...as morality is primarily tied to the Christian/Jewish/Islamic Gods.

Those others have ethics instead?

[DigitalShadow]

Technically the word atheist is simply the 'a' prefix which in this case meaning not, applied to the word theist which refers to a person who believes in God or Gods. So in that sense, yes, I am an atheist, I don't firmly believe in a God or Gods. Since non-believers tend to be not very well liked by believers, the word 'atheist' has picked up a lot of negative connotations along the way and has come to mean, in many people's minds at least, one who believes God does not exist with the same conviction that theists believe God does exist.

To avoid confusion and having stones thrown at me, I usually refer to myself as 'agnostic' because the term applies as well and is better understood. I believe that it is not possible to know for a fact whether there is a God or isn't because it relies entirely on the subjective experience and feelings which can and often do lead people astray. If I had to guess, I would say that God (as any of the current religions portray Him) does not exist. I say that because I have found no compelling objective evidence that He does exist, but I do not have the arrogance to say that I know for sure and that I have closed my mind to all other possibilities.

For me, that is where the conflict with religion comes in. It goes against my nature to believe that anything is unquestionably true, especially when based almost entirely on warm fuzzy feelings and subjective experiences.

[Misshalfway]

How do you reconcile the fact that you discount all subjective experience and still maintain that you haven't closed your mind? To me, it is closing your mind to the other dynamic half of what it means to be human.

[DigitalShadow]

The problem with atheism is the hubris it suggests. That one can affirmatively announce and insist that there is no God at all, when one cannot know the extent of the universe, is an amazing thing. It is even more astounding for me to think of the hubris of those atheists, who seek to impose their "lack of belief" system on others.

The same hubris goes for theists. That one can affirmatively announce that there is a God and that their particular sect has exclusive knowledge from Him and all other people who think they know God are wrong is amazing to me. It is even more astounding to think of the hubris of those theists who seek to impose their "God" on to others.

Agnosticism, OTOH, is a genuine belief system. One cannot be certain of what one has never seen nor experienced. Almost every believer of God has been agnostic at one point or another, as we all have doubts as to whether this is all real or imagined. Only faith and hope allows us to overcome the doubtful feelings and struggles that Ms Halfway expressed.

Some people are perfectly ok with simply not knowing.

Now, be assured that some who call themselves atheist are actually agnostic. I would place Elphaba more in the agnostic than atheistic realm. Why? Because she keeps an open mind. Whereas, some atheists have stated that if evidence of God were to appear, they would happy to see that evidence destroyed/removed (I believe Francis Crick once stated something to this effect).

The word atheist has been somewhat redifined by theists. It is true though that few people deny the existance of God with the same conviction and close-mindedness that theists believe the existance of God. Most people who refer to themselves as atheists, simply don't believe in God, not dogmatically deny the existance of God like many seem to think the word implies.

I would state that if I were to ever reject Mormonism, I'd have to reject all of Christianity and the other Biblical sects (Judaism, Islam, etc)., as being false, as well. The problems some insist are in Mormonism can also be found in the Judaeo-Christian faiths, as well. I would invariably be an agnostic, keeping an open mind that there might be a god, but not knowing if that god were moral or amoral; loving or hating or indifferent; anthropomorphic, material or immaterial; aware or unaware; etc. I would not feel any more guilty over living a wild lifestyle as an agnostic as I would as an atheist; as morality is primarily tied to the Christian/Jewish/Islamic Gods.

(bolding was mine)

Look at my other thread about morality. I won't rehash it all here, but there are many ways of coming to a reasonable moral Code that don't involve religion at all. I really find it annoying when people act like Abrahamic religions have some type of patent on simple moral concepts that any culture would need to not fall apart right away.

[DigitalShadow]

How do you reconcile the fact that you discount all subjective experience and still maintain that you haven't closed your mind? To me, it is closing your mind to the other dynamic half of what it means to be human.

I don't discount all of the subjective experience. I was only noting that conclusions based exclusively on subjective experience are demonstratably less reliable than conclusions based on objective experience. I never claimed that it was worthless all together.

I would also like to emphasize that I don't take ANYTHING for absolute truth, whether it comes from objective or subjective.

[Misshalfway]

I don't discount all of the subjective experience. I was only noting that conclusions based exclusively on subjective experience are demonstratably less reliable than conclusions based on objective experience. I never claimed that it was worthless all together.

I would also like to emphasize that I don't take ANYTHING for absolute truth, whether it comes from objective or subjective.

Ok. That actually really helps me understand you. So, when do you value subjective experience to the point of relying on it for feedback about the world? and is there ever a time when subjective experience trumps the objective?

[DigitalShadow]

Ok. That actually really helps me understand you. So, when do you value subjective experience to the point of relying on it for feedback about the world? and is there ever a time when subjective experience trumps the objective?

There aren't any times that I can think of offhand.

[Misshalfway]

Doctrine and Covenants 1:34-39

"And again, verily I say unto you, O inhabitants of the earth: I the Lord am willing to make these things known unto all flesh: For I am no respecter of persons, and will that all men shall know....."

"Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled."

"What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same."

"For behold, and lo, the Lord is God and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen."