Can Mormons Believe This?

[Cal]

1) There is more to moral behavior than mindlessly following rules.

2) Be especially sceptical of positive claims.

3) If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to find it.

4) Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

5) Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.

6) It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change yourself.

7) Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.

8) If you must assume something, assume something easy to test.

9) Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.

Are these beliefs compatible with Mormonism?

[Guest Starsky]

1) There is more to moral behavior than mindlessly following rules.

Depends upon the individual.

2) Be especially sceptical of positive claims.

I don't know what this is referring to.

3) If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to find it.

Within certain parimeters, this is true.

4) Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

I would say we are to seek after what ever is virtuous, benevilant, praiseworthy etc...

5) Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.

It will be the only 'test' you will have. It will be the only life inwhich you are placed on an earth with a veil.

6) It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change yourself.

I have found no such doctrine within the church...but if you are referring to doing good works so that men might see them and glorify God...well this is up to us.

7) Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.

True. Though good things can be popular.

8) If you must assume something, assume something easy to test.

I don't get this one.

9) Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.

I believe this is true. We are asked at the end of the BofM to ask to know through the Spirit, if it is true.

[Cal]

Peace--for clarification on some of these---

No. 1---"mindlessly following rules"---I think it means that one should think about why one is doing something before he does it? Not that one has all the answers, but that there is at least SOME reason for doing it?

No. 2--skeptical of claims---I think it means that if someone just comes up and tells you he just saw ELVIS or just saw George Washington or whoever, would you simply believe it or would you require some evidence?

No 8--if you are going to assume something, have it be something easy to test----meaning that, even though you haven't proved it, you are safer believing something that can be tested, so that if you get in trouble with that assumption, you can test it to see if it is worth continuing to believe in. IOW I think it means that one is safer believing something that can be verified, than in something that can never be verified. I guess what it means is that if you believe in something that can never be verified and that belief is getting you into trouble, there will be no way to find out if you should continue believing it.

Now, some people may not be concerned about safety--but IF they are are No. 8 would make sense. I think that is what it means.

[Guest Starsky]

No. 1---"mindlessly following rules"---I think it means that one should think about why one is doing something before he does it? Not that one has all the answers, but that there is at least SOME reason for doing it?

I think they should to. I will agree that the church has put out a phrase which states: When the prophets and apostles speak, the thinking has been done.

To me ... this is wrong. We are encouraged more often to pray about things we hear, than we are exhorted to follow blindly. However, there are zealots in the church...who will totally hold to the 'thinking has been done' idea, than for us to pray about it for our selves.

Brigham Young isn't my favorite person, but he did teach the principle quite often of not just following blindly...asking for yourself.

Here are some of his quotes and quotes from others:Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

"How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves." (JD 4:368)

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied...Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." (JD 3:45)

"...Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another's sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer." (JD 1:312)

"President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']...said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church -- that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls -- applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall -- that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: "Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;" (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

No. 2--skeptical of claims---I think it means that if someone just comes up and tells you he just saw ELVIS or just saw George Washington or whoever, would you simply believe it or would you require some evidence?

If their revelation was for themselves...it has no value for you anyway. It is for them...if they are allowing themselves to be mislead by visions and things from Satan....it is up to them to figure that out. If they were from God, that is for them also, not you. You don't have to believe anyone elses personal revelations.

No 8--if you are going to assume something, have it be something easy to test----meaning that, even though you haven't proved it, you are safer believing something that can be tested, so that if you get in trouble with that assumption, you can test it to see if it is worth continuing to believe in. IOW I think it means that one is safer believing something that can be verified, than in something that can never be verified. I guess what it means is that if you believe in something that can never be verified and that belief is getting you into trouble, there will be no way to find out if you should continue believing it.

I believe Alma was setting the stage for just such a test/proof, when he taught:

Alma 32: 27

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than adesire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

Alma 34: 4

4 Yea, even that ye would have so much faith as even to plant the word in your hearts, that ye may try the experiment of its goodness.

Now, some people may not be concerned about safety--but IF they are are No. 8 would make sense. I think that is what it means.

I agree.

[Cal]

Peace--so you believe all these things then. Interesting, because what I posted is the creed of the ATHEISTS posted on atheists website. I guess we're not so far removed from them after all.

My next question is: How is it that Mormons and Atheists, having the same fundamental beliefs about how to get truth, arrive at such different conclusions?

[Guest Starsky]

Our center is different.

If our center is God, the same beliefs may appear to be the same, but not be the same.

For instance.....a dog must eat, sleep, exercise, etc, and so does a human. Does it mean we are the same thing?

[Cal]

You have just agreed that they are essentially the same. The fact that the Atheist (and by the way, I am not one) and the Theist differ only in the belief or lack of belief in an entity that no two people define the same way, is hardly much of a difference, is it?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 9 2004, 12:07 PM

You have just agreed that they are essentially the same. The fact that the Atheist (and by the way, I am not one) and the Theist differ only in the belief or lack of belief in an entity that no two people define the same way, is hardly much of a difference, is it?

They are essentially the same But have a totally different fundamental focus and center. Which makes them totally different.

You only hear what you want to hear. And that is going to keep you really messed up.

Take two theories....one based upon the Sun existing and the other upon the Sun not existing.

You apply the same process of living according to your theory in both cases.... is the out come the same? NOT HARDLY! LOL

[Cal]

Well, Peace, I have finally discovered your true sense of logic---"different" and "same" mean the same thing!

I wish I could justify twisting the meaning of words that much---then no matter what I believed I could ALWAYS justify it!

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 9 2004, 12:28 PM

Well, Peace, I have finally discovered your true sense of logic---"different" and "same" mean the same thing!

I wish I could justify twisting the meaning of words that much---then no matter what I believed I could ALWAYS justify it!

Different core foundations require different outcomes, even if the basic elements remain the same.

If you can't get that...gadfreeze!

Okay...lets explore the Sun belief/disbelief for a moment:

Sun believer:

1) There is more to moral behavior than mindlessly following rules.

moral/conscience/right/wrong for receiving benefits. So people who believe in a Sun mindlessly follow the rules of safety in the sun or behavior according to what is right or wrong/what will bring benefits.... both.

Sun disbeliever:

1) There is more to moral behavior than mindlessly following rules.

moral/conscience/right/wrong for receiving benefits. If there is no sun, there is no benefits and no bad consequences. I don't understand why I have this painful red skin when I am outside in the brightness, but I consider it is just fate.

Sun believer:

2) Be especially sceptical of positive claims.

Some will say the Sun if beneficial and had vitamin D in it...therefore they claim you must get a lot of sun. If I am not skeptical, I may become burned so badly I get skin cancer...so I will be skeptical.

Sun disbeliever:

2) Be especially sceptical of positive claims.

I don't believe there is a Sun, therefore I don't believe in any benefits and will be skeptical of all and any claims that there is something out there called a sun that can be beneficial in any way shape or form.

Sun Believer:

3) If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to find it.

Knowing there is a sun, doesn't make me gain benefits from it, it is up to me to find ways and make the efforts to use it for my benefit. One of the ways I find meaning to life is in helping others who are going to get BURNED because they don't believe in the sun, so I find some meaning in life through my effort to make them see the truth about the existence of the sun.

Sun disbeliever:

3) If you want your life to have some sort of meaning, it's up to you to find it.

My life has meaning only if I make the effort to find meaning. But the Sun will have nothing to do with my finding meaning. However, inspite of my disbelief in the existence of the Sun, my focus of life will be on proving, arguing and debating against those who believe in the sun, because I must find ways to keep this disbelief alive in dealing with all that light outside.

Sun believer:

4) Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

I search for what is true about the Sun, even if it makes me uncomfotable. In so doing, I feel I can know and understand the sun so that I won't get burned.

Sun disbeliever:

4) Search for what is true, even if it makes you uncomfortable.

I search for what is true, even if it makes me uncomfortable, but anything to do with the sun, I totally reject, because I know it doesn't exist...even if the truth says otherwise.

Sun believer:

5) Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.

I will make the most of this life, because I know it is the only one I will have in the Sun on earth.

Sun disbeliever:

5) Make the most of your life, as it's probably the only one you'll have.

I will make the most of this life because it probably is the only one I'll have. But making the most of this life will not include the accessing the sun in this life because I do not believe it exists....I will probably die soon because I now have cancer...but that has nothing to do with the sun....I just can't figure out why I have skin cancer and why I am red all the time with skin burns. But I will make the most of my very very short life.

Sun believer:

6) It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change yourself.

Actually, I work with the sun as an external power to change myself. It makes me healthier, I work with it's cycles to organize my work day, and my yard work and garden. I find that this external power is very influencial and beneficial to making the most of my life.

Sun disbeliever:

6) It's no good relying on some external power to change you; you must change yourself.

Absolutely....there is no good relying on some external power, I just can't understand the burns on my arms....or why I seem to get lost at night when it is dark, and I don't know when it will be light again, because I refuse to believe in the source of that light or anything else about it.

Sun believer:

7) Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.

Laying out in the light seems to be popular, but it isn't a good thing. So I don't believe something is good just because it is popular...however, the knowledge of using the Sun to our benefit is popular and is good.

Sun disbeliever:

7) Just because something's popular doesn't mean it's good.

Just because a thing is popular doesn't mean it is good. I find the belief in the sun to be very popular and to me that is very bad.

Sun believer:

8) If you must assume something, assume something easy to test.

If I must assume something, about the sun, I will assume something easy to test. I can test the reality of the sun by going out and looking up (process of prayer) and feeling the heat and seeing it's source.

Sun disbeliever:

8) If you must assume something, assume something easy to test.

If I must assume something, I assume something easy to test. I can test whether or not there is a sun by not looking up and not going outside into the light.

Sun believer:

9) Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.

I don't believe things just because I want them to be true. I believe them because they give me great benefit, are accessable, and change my life when I do access them.

Sun disbeliever:

9) Don't believe things just because you want them to be true.

I don't believe things just because I want them to be true. When it comes to the non-existence of the sun, I don't believe it doesn't exist just because I want it to not exist...I don't believe the sun exists because i just don't know any better.

Okay....do you see how different the center believe/focus can make the outcome different...yet they played off of the same beliefs, which were diametrically opposed.

[Cal]

Your posting has a fundamental flaw in logic---assuming the truth of the thing you are trying to prove.

Your "sun" analogy ASSUMES the truth of the existance of the sun, in the first place. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to make the argument.

This is what you have done in your argument that there is a difference between you and the atheist's creed. You have had to ASSUME there is a God (or sun, in your example) before you can show there is a DIFFERENCE between the God (or sun) "believer". A proof based on an assumption of its truth is vacuous.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 9 2004, 01:57 PM

Your posting has a fundamental flaw in logic---assuming the truth of the thing you are trying to prove.

Your "sun" analogy ASSUMES the truth of the existance of the sun, in the first place. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to make the argument.

This is what you have done in your argument that there is a difference between you and the atheist's creed. You have had to ASSUME there is a God (or sun, in your example) before you can show there is a DIFFERENCE between the God (or sun) "believer". A proof based on an assumption of its truth is vacuous.

And you always assume there is no sun. So you are flawwed, because there is a sun!

[Cal]

We can both agree there is a sun because there is impartial, direct, observational and scientific evidence that we can both agree upon.

Now, where is the same kind of evidence for YOUR God?

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Cal@Feb 9 2004, 03:12 PM

We can both agree there is a sun because there is impartial, direct, observational and scientific evidence that we can both agree upon.

Now, where is the same kind of evidence for YOUR God?

Your are living on it! And some of it is shining down upon your little head.

[Cal]

Peace--sorry but you lost me there. Just how is the existance of the earth and sun EVIDENCE of YOUR God? How do you know it isn't evidence of MY GOD?