Theological uncertainties

[prisonchaplain]

Miss 1/2: Concerning your puzzlement at Christians who are not open to the Triple, keep in mind that for you, and perhaps your ancestors, these revelations are 170+ years old--long-ago accepted truths. For us, we've never even read them completely, and the writings have no place in our background, nor that of our churches. And, as you know, our leaders have rejected them. So, even assuming they are true, you ought to predict that, at best, we'd respond like Nicodemus, finding it necessary to ponder at wrestle with truths you consider to be infant's milk.

Ultimately, as I know you believe, it will take a mighty revelatory drawing of the Holy Spirit to convince any Protestant/Catholic of the veracity of your truths. So, what can we do, on this front? Just keep listening, so we can "hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches."

[Vanhin]

You rock PC....

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

I think Hell will be the realization of eternal separation from the Father and out families.. When we realize what a brief moment in time we spent on earth and how long eternity really is.........

When I speak in a forum of LDS members, hell for us, is a eternal separation from the Godhead.

Well spoken.

[Guest ceeboo]

I agree, ceeboo. Totally.

Some people can't accept them because to do so would require that they accept the doctrine therein. And while I daresay any Christian could easily accept the doctrine of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine & Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price are a whole 'nother story.

And even if a Christian CAN accept the doctrine of the Book of Mormon, it then begs the question of whether or not they can accept Joseph as a Prophet, which certainly logically follows acceptance of anything to do with the BoM.

Have you read the Book of Mormon? ...could be dangerous!

HiJolly

Hi HiJolly,

AHHH YES INDEED, I agree :):)

Offered like Hemi would have ( my favorite cousin :) )

As for you contribution " Christians could easily accept the BofM " I would also agree. Only if JS would have stopped there :):):)

God bless,

Carl

[Misshalfway]

Because...we can't.

To explain...I can understand the Trinity in these terms:

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

4. Each is a distinct person.

5. There is only one God, one essential Deity.

I understand who Jesus is, who the Holy Spirit is, who the Father is, how many Gods there are. But, ask me how it works...what's the difference between Jesus and the Father, how are the separate, how are the essentially one...what happened when Jesus (God the Son) died, etc. and I quickly find myself being asked questions "above my paygrade."

Why? Doesn't God want us to understand? Well, how can a two-dimensional creature understand height or depth? How can an infant understand parenthood?

Yes Yes! How can I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time?

I don't argue that there are dimensions of God that can't be understood by the children of men. His ways are not our ways. His views are not our views. You are right some things can't be understood. But that doesn't mean that God doesn't have the ability to help us understand.

And I argue that God IS something that can be understood. That they are simple and as Van said, easy for a child to understand. I so appreciated his remarks. I can know if there is a God or there isn't. I can know if God is spirit or flesh. I can discern the difference of something so simple if God taught it to me.

If I were say... the Brother of Jared and saw the finger of the Lord. Would there be any question in my mind what form God had? If I were Stephen, and I beheld Jesus sitting on the right hand of God, would there be any question that they were indeed separate personages?

Just because something is mystically hard to understand doesn't make it more powerful than something that can be understood. Sometimes the most true answers are the simplest.

And all of the discussions and definitions and conjectures about God can be put to rest by one simple peek. I can tell you all day what I look like, but until you see my face, you will not know. You will have to take it on faith that I have brown hair and blue eyes and that I am dizzyingly beautiful. :lol:

(sorry, you will have to forgive my rouge sense of humor. I simply couldn't help myself. I will flip my hair once, just for Dr.T :) )

[Guest ceeboo]

You rock PC....

Sincerely,

Vanhin

Hey Vanhin,

Are you suggesting PC is Peter or that he is a prophet :):), sorry I could not resist.:)

[HiJolly]

As for you contribution " Christians could easily accept the BofM " I would also agree. Only if JS would have stopped there :):):)

God bless,

Carl

Heh. You think Joseph went too far. I know he had a lot more to teach, but the forces of evil stopped him, both within and without the Church.

Thank God that He (God) can still teach each of us those things that Joseph never was able to speak. I think Joseph Smith was the bravest, most God-fearing man I have ever heard of. Maybe if I knew the entire story of John the Baptist, I'd have a hard time choosing...

HiJolly

[Guest ceeboo]

I think Joseph Smith was the bravest, most God-fearing man I have ever heard of.

HiJolly

HiJolly,

As always, I do enjoy you sharing with me:)

To avoid contention, I will simply offer you this for your consideration.

Anyone who feels the way about JS as you offer, certainly would be LDS, No??

Anyone who is not LDS, most probably would differ, No??

God bless,

Carl

[Hemidakota]

Agreeing with HiJolly, Carl, you have to meet the man in person to understand what a precious person Joseph was to this world.

[HiJolly]

Anyone who feels the way about JS as you offer, certainly would be LDS, No??

Sadly, no. There are a number of people that consider themselves 'Mormon' but not LDS. They accept Joseph and the BoM, but not the 'Brighamite' Church in Salt Lake City. People! Whatcha gonna do with 'em?

Anyone who is not LDS, most probably would differ, No??

God bless,

Carl

I certainly agree with you on that one, unless they were excommunicated from the Church.

Wait! Were those questions rhetorical?

HiJolly

[Guest ceeboo]

Agreeing with HiJolly, Carl, you have to meet the man in person to understand what a precious person Joseph was to this world.

Hemi, where have you been my cousin??:):)

Seeing your post to me put a smile on my face ( thanks )

As always, your post was over my head :lol:

Are you saying you have met JS in person??

Thanks and God bless,

Carl

[Guest ceeboo]

Sadly, no. There are a number of people that consider themselves 'Mormon' but not LDS. They accept Joseph and the BoM, but not the 'Brighamite' Church in Salt Lake City. People! Whatcha gonna do with 'em?

I certainly agree with you on that one, unless they were excommunicated from the Church.

Wait! Were those questions rhetorical?

HiJolly

Thanks for the " agree with me on the later " I was starting th wonder if I should go spend time on a Catholic forum, just to build my confidence :):):)

On a more serious note, Where you serious about the former??? If so, I would be interested to know what you mean.

Peace,

Carl

[Misshalfway]

Miss 1/2: Concerning your puzzlement at Christians who are not open to the Triple, keep in mind that for you, and perhaps your ancestors, these revelations are 170+ years old--long-ago accepted truths. For us, we've never even read them completely, and the writings have no place in our background, nor that of our churches. And, as you know, our leaders have rejected them. So, even assuming they are true, you ought to predict that, at best, we'd respond like Nicodemus, finding it necessary to ponder at wrestle with truths you consider to be infant's milk.

Ultimately, as I know you believe, it will take a mighty revelatory drawing of the Holy Spirit to convince any Protestant/Catholic of the veracity of your truths. So, what can we do, on this front? Just keep listening, so we can "hear what the Spirit is saying to the churches."

Thank you for your explanation. And thank you for receiving my "puzzlement" with kindness. I hope you do know, at least from my other posts, that I do understand the difficulty with which it must be to accept such ideas.

When I was on my mission, many would say to me that the BofM had to be false because the Bible said that nothing could be added to it. It seemed to be a conversation that went round and round. Either you believe the canon is closed, or you are open to more. I don't blame anyone for believing what they feel is right, and I thank anyone who allows me to believe what I feel is right. But, since this is a thread discussing the difference between the LDS vs Christian perspectives on revelation and discovery of truth, I felt it may be safe to share my thoughts. I know I can't know what it is like to live in everyone else's shoes all the time. But I do try. Hope you can see that.

Edited October 9, 2008 by Misshalfway

[HiJolly]

Thanks for the " agree with me on the later " I was starting th wonder if I should go spend time on a Catholic forum, just to build my confidence :):):)

LoL.

On a more serious note, Where you serious about the former??? If so, I would be interested to know what you mean.

Peace,

Carl

FORMER HIJOLLY STATEMENT:

Sadly, no. There are a number of people that consider themselves 'Mormon' but not LDS. They accept Joseph and the BoM, but not the 'Brighamite' Church in Salt Lake City.

Y'know, sometimes I think you are a real black-and-white kinda guy, ceeboo. Dale, who sometimes posts to this board, is a member of the Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He believes in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, but NOT in President Thomas Monson (current prophet of the LDS Church). There are thousands of people, if not hundreds of people like that.

I know a fella that left the church (resigned) who totally believes in Joseph and the BoM, but not in the current Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He lives in Washington state now, and there are others like him as well. He's currently into the Occult or some-such, now, FWIW.

Think of these as sort-of 'protestants'. Hope that helps.

HiJolly

[Moksha]

[rameumptom]

PC,

I don't think it is a matter of how much we do or don't know, but how much each of us seeks from the Lord. Are we, as individuals or congregations, limiting what God can do in our lives by delimiting him today?

Why is it that many evangelicals have gifts of the Spirit, but the Church of Christ has none? It is primarily an issue of choice and belief. the Church of Christ has rejected all modern gifts, and so does not experience any of them. They have closed the door on spiritual abilities that many other Protestants enjoy.

And so it is with LDS revelation. If it is true, then it becomes another level up on the truths and gifts God wishes to reveal to mankind. Some are ready to accept it. Others, such as yourself, are at least keeping an open mind on these things and taking the time to read and consider them. You have allowed these things to enlighten you, even if you haven't fully embraced all of it. Meanwhile, many close the door to possible new light and truth from God.

Jews reject the New Testament. Some Christians reject the gifts of the Spirit that Paul teaches about. And there are modern revelation which many also reject.

Each of us is on a road of discovery. The issue isn't how much of the unknown we are willing to accept, as we all must accept many unknowns (LDS scripture reveals many things, but it is still a drop in the bucket compared to God's vast knowledge), on this journey. The reall issue is: are we choosing to permanently stop somewhere along the path, satisfied with the amount of light and truth offered at that spot? Even many LDS have this problem, IMO. Hugh Nibley used to condemn the BYU student attitude of: I have the gospel, so I don't really need to learn anything else.

[prisonchaplain]

Rameumptom, brilliant point. In fairness, though, I'd point out that your church, and I would assume its whole membership, also does not experience all the gifts of the Spirit, at least not as explicated by Pentecostal theology and experience. If I'm not mistaken, any member that did, and who affirmed these experiences (such as saying glossalalia was indeed from the Lord, even if it's not a human language) might find themselves charged with heresy.

And, likewise, if I ever do come to validate LDS revelations. It's the risk we take when we engage in interfaith dialogue with open minds and spirits. To whom much is given, much is required. I'm sure we'll all agree to do what God reveals to us is true to do, believe what the Spirit reveals we ought to believe, and align ourselves with those we have a testimony we should join with.

[rameumptom]

You are correct, PC. In fact, our scriptures teach that the Lord gives to each of us severally of the gifts, but not necessarily all of the gifts of the Spirit.

However, we are to pray for the gifts of the Spirit we need. Brigham Young's counselor, George Q. Cannon stated:

"No man ought to say, 'Oh, I cannot help this; it is my nature.' He is not justified in it, for the reason that God has promised to give strength to correct these things, and to give gifts that will eradicate them . . .He wants His saints to be perfected in the truth. For this purpose He gives these gifts, and bestows them upon those who seek after them, in order that they may be a perfect people upon the face of the earth, notwithstanding their many weaknesses, because God has promised to give the gifts that are necessary for their perfection . . .If any of us are imperfect, it is our duty to pray for the gift that will make us perfect. Have I imperfections? I am full of them. What is my duty? To pray to God to give me the gifts that will correct these imperfections. If I am an angry man, it is my duty to pray for charity; which suffereth long and is kind. Am I an envious man? It is my duty to seek for charity, which envieth not. So with all the gifts of the Gospel. They are intended for this purpose." Marvin J. Ashton, The Measure of Our Hearts, p.24-25

[lindsayjane]

2 Nephi 9: 28-29

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.

I have experienced this question from both sides. For many years, I was voracious in my appetite for knowledge, feeling that the more I knew the closer to God I would be. I read the Pearl of Great Price when I was 10 and truly believed I could see what Abraham saw in this lifetime. I felt no restrictions on the possibility of gaining knowledge of any truth or mystery in this life. I read the scriptures like an addicting novel when I was young. I read everything I could get my hands on published by FARMS during college. I often went to the temple weekly when I was endowed. I can still replay every detail of the endowment and initiatory in my head. I was in gifted and honors programs growing up, and knowledge has always come quickly and easily for me. I directed my passion for knowledge toward my quest for knowledge of God. Unfortunately, all of this knowledge didn't equate to a stronger relationship with God. My heart was turned toward Him in a sincere desire to do what was right, but I don't think my relationship with Him was any more personal or deep than any other member who just read and lived by the basic principles.

Now, after many difficult and confusing years have passed, I have a much different perspective about the search for knowledge. I realize that every interesting detail I learned about the nature of God or the afterlife only led to more questions. There was never a point at which the questions and uncertainty decreased because as the old questions were answered new questions were created. There is always plenty of uncertainty in the LDS church (as Bytor pointed out), we just have different questions. Protestants claim to know some things and are unsure about others. It's the same with the LDS.

I think we are all equally searching for knowledge as well as shut down about many details we hold as absolute truth. For a Protestant to say there is no way Joseph Smith is a prophet is no different than a Mormon saying there is no way he isn't. Just as a Protestant saying the Trinity is a true doctrine is no different than a Mormon saying the doctrine of separate personages is true. That's all beside the point. We are all closed minded AND comfortable with uncertainty to some extent (some more than others, or course). Mormons don't claim to have all the answers, they just have different answers.

For better or worse, I don't seek after knowlege much anymore. I am more content with uncertaintly now than I ever have been. I have some core beliefs that I haven't been able to shake, even when I wanted to, but I am very open minded about truth and possibility. I guess I recognize now that those things I feel are absolute truth could feel that way because they settled in my heart at such a young age. (Yes, yes, I know what that implies about my testimony, but I still believe it all anyway. I'm just realistic about the nature of that belief.)

[HiJolly]

I have experienced this question from both sides. For many years, I was voracious in my appetite for knowledge, feeling that the more I knew the closer to God I would be. I read the Pearl of Great Price when I was 10 and truly believed I could see what Abraham saw in this lifetime. I felt no restrictions on the possibility of gaining knowledge of any truth or mystery in this life. I read the scriptures like an addicting novel when I was young. I read everything I could get my hands on published by FARMS during college. I often went to the temple weekly when I was endowed. I can still replay every detail of the endowment and initiatory in my head. I was in gifted and honors programs growing up, and knowledge has always come quickly and easily for me. I directed my passion for knowledge toward my quest for knowledge of God.

Love your post!! I have often bemoaned my poor memory. I too have sought knowledge all my life.

Unfortunately, all of this knowledge didn't equate to a stronger relationship with God. My heart was turned toward Him in a sincere desire to do what was right, but I don't think my relationship with Him was any more personal or deep than any other member who just read and lived by the basic principles.

I would suppose you are better prepared to accept the true state of all things as they truly are, than those who don't seek. That is actually a BIG deal in regards to a relationship with God. As Joseph said, it is life eternal to know the nature of God. It's also scary, in a sense, for we must be willing to jettison our misperceptions and treasured misconceptions. It is the Holy Ghost's job to lead us through it--- both the removal of error and the teaching of truth. Thank goodness.

Now, after many difficult and confusing years have passed, I have a much different perspective about the search for knowledge. I realize that every interesting detail I learned about the nature of God or the afterlife only led to more questions. There was never a point at which the questions and uncertainty decreased because as the old questions were answered new questions were created. There is always plenty of uncertainty in the LDS church (as Bytor pointed out), we just have different questions. Protestants claim to know some things and are unsure about others. It's the same with the LDS.

You'll have to take this on faith, but there is a point where the search for knowledge *can* result in concrete answers. The Apostolic Gnosis is the ultimate example. Generally, though, I agree with you: many times knowledge does bring with it many more questions, just as one's view is increased as we climb higher on a mountain. If the mountain is Mt. Carmel, then you're in good hands.

"And when we gain knowledge in that thing that we *used* to

have faith in, then that new knowledge introduces us to new

realms of possibility, in which we can now exercise new faith.

So, rather than knowledge eliminating faith, what it does is

spark or create whole new vistas in which faith for the

first time becomes active."

-- Cliff Bentley

Of course the meaning of faith in this context is not of Webster's, but is rather of the scriptures.

"Faith is not so much something we believe; faith is something we live."

-- Joseph B. Wirthlin

I think we are all equally searching for knowledge as well as shut down about many details we hold as absolute truth. For a Protestant to say there is no way Joseph Smith is a prophet is no different than a Mormon saying there is no way he isn't. Just as a Protestant saying the Trinity is a true doctrine is no different than a Mormon saying the doctrine of separate personages is true. That's all beside the point. We are all closed minded AND comfortable with uncertainty to some extent (some more than others, or course). Mormons don't claim to have all the answers, they just have different answers.

Yes.

For better or worse, I don't seek after knowlege much anymore. I am more content with uncertaintly now than I ever have been. I have some core beliefs that I haven't been able to shake, even when I wanted to, but I am very open minded about truth and possibility. I guess I recognize now that those things I feel are absolute truth could feel that way because they settled in my heart at such a young age. (Yes, yes, I know what that implies about my testimony, but I still believe it all anyway. I'm just realistic about the nature of that belief.)

Me too, though it seems to run in waves. Seek, find, rest, become restless, seek... Like that.

I also choose to believe, as long as that belief is compatible with my knowledge. The Jewish mystics study and meditate on Understanding and Wisdom as attributes of Godliness, but they never directly contemplate Knowledge (Da'at). I think it is because they know is a dangerous thing, by itself.

HiJolly

[Hemidakota]

For better or worse, I don't seek after knowlege much anymore. I am more content with uncertaintly now than I ever have been. I have some core beliefs that I haven't been able to shake, even when I wanted to, but I am very open minded about truth and possibility. I guess I recognize now that those things I feel are absolute truth could feel that way because they settled in my heart at such a young age. (Yes, yes, I know what that implies about my testimony, but I still believe it all anyway. I'm just realistic about the nature of that belief.)

Never be satisfied or content with our testimonies or level of knowledge given. We should always seek for those items that will benefit our personal spiritual edification that will aid us to be closer to the Godhead or those across the veil.

[Hemidakota]

Hemi, where have you been my cousin??:):)

Seeing your post to me put a smile on my face ( thanks )

As always, your post was over my head :lol:

Are you saying you have met JS in person??

Thanks and God bless,

Carl

We only meet the prophet [living in this mortal body] if there is instruction that is needed for our personal edification. That means, we have further work either in this life or preparing us for the next, to serve the Savior and those who is in-charge of the last dispensation. There are few people here that has met the prophet in this probation.

[rameumptom]

In the Relief Society General Meeting a few weeks ago, I think the quote was: "Always texting, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth...."

[Justice]

Because...we can't.

I think people overlook the obvious. Sometimes, just because we don't understand the words God uses, we try to overcomplicate them. When He tells us to call Him Father He does so for a reason. He *wants* us to relate it to what we know about Fathers. There are some very logical questions that can only be answered one way.

Where was there ever a father without a mother?

Where was there ever a father without children (offspring)?

I think it's just a matter of overcomplicating the simple. Since He told us He is Our Father in Heaven, it cannot be a lie. There must be a Mother and children if He is to be a Father.

He put us in family units on earth with father, mother, brother, and sister to *show* us what these eternal relationships are, not to confuse us about who He really is.

This is the great mystery of the LDS faith, PC... that Joseph Smith was shown to take Him at His word.

[prisonchaplain]

I think people overlook the obvious. Sometimes, just because we don't understand the words God uses, we try to overcomplicate them. When He tells us to call Him Father He does so for a reason. He *wants* us to relate it to what we know about Fathers. There are some very logical questions that can only be answered one way.

Where was there ever a father without a mother?

Where was there ever a father without children (offspring)?

I think it's just a matter of overcomplicating the simple. Since He told us He is Our Father in Heaven, it cannot be a lie. There must be a Mother and children if He is to be a Father.

He put us in family units on earth with father, mother, brother, and sister to *show* us what these eternal relationships are, not to confuse us about who He really is.

This is the great mystery of the LDS faith, PC... that Joseph Smith was shown to take Him at His word.

I find this approach to faith and thinking about God frought with difficult. "IF...then" statements inevitably lead to human reasoning and false dichotamies, imho.

If there is a Father, there must be a mother? Really? Is this official LDS doctrine--that there is a Mother God?

Irregardless, I avoid presuming that certain characteristics of human society, or certain patterns, must carry over into heaven. Quite often, when we ask God, "A or B???" his answer is, "Yes." or "No." or "C."