Snow: What If We Were Both Wrong?


Jason
 Share

Recommended Posts

Snow, you said in the ordinances thread:

I am at least as open-minded and a student of history as you, probably more so.

I've thought a lot about that statement. And I've taken it to heart. What if we're both so biased in our belief systems, that we're not really seeing the big picture?(or maybe it's a smaller picture, I don't know.)

What if it's true that the texts of the NT are corrupted? That's the conclusion of the Jesus Seminar. What if Paul completely altered Christianity from it's original source? What if the Apostles really never "got it" and went in a direction not in complete harmony with what Jesus actually taught?

Are you willing to lay aside your current belief-set, and to join me in a quest to discover exactly what Christ taught? Even if it means that we both are wrong, and we both have to move in a new direction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Not exactly. Im not banking on their scholarship.

To be honest, Im looking at the Old Testament, and saying: "Hey, there's a whole lot there that we purposely overlook."

Frankly, it looks like "El" is in fact God. Whereas "Yahweh" is a minor desert deity who attempted to replace El.

Lots of things in the OT that Im looking at right now. This "honest" look at it could possibly lead me to rejecting the Christianity as it exists today, or possibly entirely.

Im willing to go where the "truth" leads me. Even if that means yet again (sigh) changing my religious stance. Im not saying that Judaism is right, because if my theory in progress is anywhere near accurate, then they're just as wrong as we are.

It's a very tense proposition, not unlike giving up on one's first religion. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...not sure zakly what you have in mind, but yes, I can be open-minded but I don't really intend to lay aside my current beliefs. What I mean is that I am always willing to consider facts or truths, if I were not so willing, I couldn't consider myself Mormon - beliving that a Mormon's obligation is always to accept truth where ever it is found. What I hope I am good at, or at least competent, is seperating what belongs in the realm of fact from what rightly fall under within the realm of faith.

So, if you want me to set aside my faith - not going happen. If you want me to consider how my faith stacks up against facts - and so be willing to align my faith to match reality (as we can perceive it), you bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow,

I like to think that it was my LDS upbringing that allowed me the intellectual freedom to think for myself without skewing facts with my paradigm of belief.

Im not saying ignore your beliefs as you go, but be honest to say: "Hmm, that doesn't fit." if or when such a thing does happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jason@Jul 20 2005, 09:04 PM

Im not saying ignore your beliefs as you go, but be honest to say: "Hmm, that doesn't fit." if or when such a thing does happen.

I agree to that.

What has happened to me as I have learned how religion in general and more specifically Mormon really is and all the historical backdrop behind them is that my context, not my faith has changed. I believe more than ever that the gospel and the Church are true, I just believe it in a different, and I say healthier, more mature way.

Remember Antishock? He and I learned essentially the same things at the same time. He became angry, disenfranchised and dissolutioned. I became (after some tribulation) more secure and more at peace with myself and my beliefs. So that's where I'm coming from... but your not asking me to bear my testimony, so if you have something in mind...have at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jason@Jul 20 2005, 10:00 PM

Not exactly.  Im not banking on their scholarship. 

To be honest, Im looking at the Old Testament, and saying: "Hey, there's a whole lot there that we purposely overlook." 

Frankly, it looks like "El" is in fact God.  Whereas "Yahweh" is a minor desert deity who attempted to replace El. 

Lots of things in the OT that Im looking at right now.  This "honest" look at it could possibly lead me to rejecting the Christianity as it exists today, or possibly entirely. 

Im willing to go where the "truth" leads me.  Even if that means yet again (sigh) changing my religious stance.  Im not saying that Judaism is right, because if my theory in progress is anywhere near accurate, then they're just as wrong as we are. 

It's a very tense proposition, not unlike giving up on one's first religion.  ;)

What part does (or will (or should)) faith play, Jason? None of this is "provable". None of it. Are you willing to give up on the hope that fills you to try to prove some thing that is not (and never was) provable?

It's a very tense proposition, not unlike giving up on one's first religion.  ;)

Boy, do I know what you mean. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What part does (or will (or should)) faith play, Jason?  None of this is "provable".  None of it.  Are you willing to give up on the hope that fills you to try to prove some thing that is not (and never was) provable?

In spite of the assertion of Thomas Aquinas, I don't believe you can prove the existence of God. So faith must and does play a significant role.

However, we don't need faith to look at our sacred texts and determine if they've been tampered with. That's the direction im going. If my theory is correct (and I stress that its a work in progress) then Yahweh is no more God than Baal. That Yahweh is a usurper, and that EL is in fact the Most High God. That the Yahwehist priests distorted the original texts to make it look like Yahweh was the Most High God in stead of El.

That it was Yahweh who was the "jealous" god, but that EL was neither jealous nor did he lose his temper.

This is where Im going.

Boy, do I know what you mean.  :( 

Do you still accept the teachings of Joseph Smith and his so-called restoration? Or would you say that he was just another mis guided "reformer" in the broader sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jason@Jul 21 2005, 09:39 AM

Boy, do I know what you mean.  :( 

Do you still accept the teachings of Joseph Smith and his so-called restoration? Or would you say that he was just another mis guided "reformer" in the broader sense?

After having so much of a problem with recognizing the RLDS/CoC going into apostasy, and reading various parts of the NT without blinders on, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that the restoration is not true, Jason. It is one of the reasons I have not been hanging around here so much.

Thanks for asking.

I will keep you in my prayers that you might find the answers you are looking for.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jenda@Jul 21 2005, 11:33 AM

After having so much of a problem with recognizing the RLDS/CoC going into apostasy, and reading various parts of the NT without blinders on, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that the restoration is not true, Jason. It is one of the reasons I have not been hanging around here so much.

I have noticed that you have not been around as much. :(

You said it's one of the reasons why you haven't been around as much...what else is keeping you away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jenda@Jul 21 2005, 10:33 AM

...and reading various parts of the NT without blinders on, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that the restoration is not true...

Hey Jenda,

When you say "restoration" are you referring to Mormonism?

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jul 21 2005, 10:55 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jul 21 2005, 10:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jul 21 2005, 11:33 AM

After having so much of a problem with recognizing the RLDS/CoC going into apostasy, and reading various parts of the NT without blinders on, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that the restoration is not true, Jason.  It is one of the reasons I have not been hanging around here so much. 

I have noticed that you have not been around as much. :(

You said it's one of the reasons why you haven't been around as much...what else is keeping you away?

Well, I was at church camp for 9 days, and since returning, trying to get my garden back under control is the other main reason. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Maureen+Jul 21 2005, 11:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Jul 21 2005, 11:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jul 21 2005, 10:33 AM

...and reading various parts of the NT without blinders on, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that the restoration is not true...

Hey Jenda,

When you say "restoration" are you referring to Mormonism?

M.

Well, I have always believed that "mormonism" was wrong, :P , but more specifically, I was meaning the whole restoration story. I do not believe, any more, that the church needed to be restored as I do not believe it went into apostasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Setheus@Jul 21 2005, 09:07 AM

I want to know what Snow and Antishock learned together. I am always in a state of tribulation so I belive that I would wade through it with realitive ease. Seriously. What were the things you learned Snow?

Any of the stuff that we, who hang out on the internet, come across... JS and his magic world view, the Adam-God view as possibly taught by BY, the Kinderhook plates, The BoM and DNA, BOM anachornism... all of the stuff we talk about... anything but the clean and tidy viewpoint we learn in Sunday School.

If you let the antiMormon crazies define and distort what it all means then one can go tweaky. If you investigate it thoroughly, not letting other's do your homework for you and keep your head about you, then it's not a problem and in fact can be faith promoting or at least faith maturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Snow+Jul 21 2005, 05:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jul 21 2005, 05:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Setheus@Jul 21 2005, 09:07 AM

I want to know what Snow and Antishock learned together.  I am always in a state of tribulation so I belive that I would wade through it with realitive ease.  Seriously. What were the things you learned Snow?

Any of the stuff that we, who hang out on the internet, come across... JS and his magic world view, the Adam-God view as possibly taught by BY, the Kinderhook plates, The BoM and DNA, BOM anachornism... all of the stuff we talk about... anything but the clean and tidy viewpoint we learn in Sunday School.

If you let the antiMormon crazies define and distort what it all means then one can go tweaky. If you investigate it thoroughly, not letting other's do your homework for you and keep your head about you, then it's not a problem and in fact can be faith promoting or at least faith maturing.

WOW Snow....that was deep, and I quite liked your post.

If you investigate it thoroughly, not letting other's do your homework for you and keep your head about you, then it's not a problem and in fact can be faith promoting or at least faith maturing.
I don't think that truer words could have been said.

My two cents...Faith is a very personal thing....and if you leave it up to someone else to tell you how or what you feel....you could be in trouble.

I walk to my own tune....and hey... my faith is still here! Maybe not clean and tidy (good Sunday School verbage) ;) but nothing will sway how I feel, or what I think. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jason@Jul 21 2005, 08:39 AM

However, we don't need faith to look at our sacred texts and determine if they've been tampered with. That's the direction im going. If my theory is correct (and I stress that its a work in progress) then Yahweh is no more God than Baal. That Yahweh is a usurper, and that EL is in fact the Most High God. That the Yahwehist priests distorted the original texts to make it look like Yahweh was the Most High God in stead of El.

That it was Yahweh who was the "jealous" god, but that EL was neither jealous nor did he lose his temper.

This is where Im going.

Boy, do I know what you mean.  :( 

Do you still accept the teachings of Joseph Smith and his so-called restoration? Or would you say that he was just another mis guided "reformer" in the broader sense?

Jason,

I dunno what you're thinking but when you start thinking ancient scripture... it's ALL a matter of faith. If you think that original untampered scripture is the proof-text, that is an act of faith. Who's to say that if there were original untampered texts, that the tampered with texts weren't an inspired improvement.

It's all an act of faith.

On another topic... and don't get me wrong because there is no judgement (positive or negative) from me but what's going on with your Orthodox yearnings? Are you moving on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jenda@Jul 21 2005, 12:08 PM

I do not believe, any more, that the church needed to be restored as I do not believe it went into apostasy.

I imagine that has been a long time brewing but it is quite a difference from your stated position of even a couple months ago. I made a post about 6 weeks ago that I thought it must an awfully hard road to hoe down the RLDS part - what with the changes and the drift towards mainstreamism and the schisms, etc. Still I don't know what's in your head and what your motivations are.

Whatever you're going through must be difficult and profound. Can you walk us through it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Snow+Jul 21 2005, 09:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jul 21 2005, 09:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jul 21 2005, 12:08 PM

I do not believe, any more, that the church needed to be restored as I do not believe it went into apostasy.

I imagine that has been a long time brewing but it is quite a difference from your stated position of even a couple months ago. I made a post about 6 weeks ago that I thought it must an awfully hard road to hoe down the RLDS part - what with the changes and the drift towards mainstreamism and the schisms, etc. Still I don't know what's in your head and what your motivations are.

Whatever you're going through must be difficult and profound. Can you walk us through it?

Snow, thanks for asking, but I hesitate to get into it. As an LDS, you have no concept what I have been going through for the last 20+ years of the church changing, the last 5 years seeking a different path from the CoC, but one that still held true to what I considered the truth, and the last couple of years believing the church has gone into apostasy. And, to be honest, I don't want to have to deal with posts dripping with sarcasm in response to me posting how I came to the decision I did.

Maybe you honestly want to know, but it is hard for me to know when a sincere request is made (especially on forums like this), and if I have misjudged you, I am very sorry. And if I have misjudged you and you seriously want to know, I am fine with talking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, makes sense to be on guard Jenda. I know how I come across with you... but's that's mainly an argument or annoyance technique. When we aren't arguing about whatever, I genuinely respect, appreciate, and like you and I sincerely care that you are going through something that must be quite tramatic. When it comes to honest and well-intentioned feelings/beliefs, I have no desire to argue or annoy.

I think that you have some valuable insight that is worth sharing... if you want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to know where to start because it literally goes back to the time I was in college and seeing the church changing from what I considered to be the truth to trying to become a "mainstream" Christian church. That is well over 20 years ago.

I honestly tried to give the change a try. I became liberal with the rest of the church. I voted to open communion when it came up at World Conference. Same with changing the name of the church. I gave it the old college try. But, starting about 5 years ago, I saw what I considered a disturbing trend. Not only was the church moving away from restoration values, it was moving away from Christian values, too. That is when I felt I could no longer endure a close relationship with the church anymore, and after several months of talking with an elder from a restoration branch, I made the decision to become a restorationist. I did this mainly because that is where I felt the presence of the Spirit.

I was happy with this change, for the most part. The biggest problem was that there was no restoration branch in driving distance for me to attend, so I continued to attend the CoC. That was a very stressful situation for me.

In 1984, the church received a "revelation" stating that women could be called to the priesthood. I initially tried to go along with this, but it was never confirmed to me, and it always seemed wrong. When I became a restorationist, I accepted (gladly) their ban on women in the priesthood, but the number of women in the priesthood in the CoC was becoming increasingly large, even infiltrating the major quorums. This decreased the number of what I considered authoritatively ordained members, and the problem with the change in presidency a few months ago was one that cannot be recovered from. There are no authoritatively ordained members in the First Presidency now, and the number in the Council of 12 has dropped below half. That, coupled with the change in beliefs made me realize that the church had gone into apostasy.

Now the restorationists have long believed that God would cleanse the church (kinda like what happened at Nauvoo :P ), but if we accept free will as our basis of belief, those of us that think about things like that will come to the belief that God will not step in. And that is how I felt.

God gave the restoration a promise that this would be the last time the church was restored before He came in glory, so I was really looking forward to the imminent return of Zion. Just as I was praying and pleading with God to tell me how He could let all this happen, someone posted a scripture on another board. That scripture was the one where Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18).

I was brought up short upon seeing this. Here were two nearly identical promises. One to the early Christian church, one to the restoration. And they couldn't both be true. And if you follow them out to their logical conclusion, the only way either of them could be true is to believe that the one given to the early church is true. And if it is true, then there was never a need for a restoration because the church never left the earth.

It was something that hit me so suddenly that I didn't know it was coming. Literally, one day I believed in the restoration and said I did no want to leave it, and the next I didn't. That happened on June 27th. (Anyone see a significance in the date?)

Anyway, that is my story. And to be honest, I am so very happy. I like to compare my world to balls. My world went from being the size of a soccer ball in 2000 to the size of a tennis ball in 2001 when I became a restorationist, and in 2005 it went to being the size of a medicine ball. The world is sooo much larger now, and God has granted me so many blessings. My world had to be so small, and I had to be so completely pressed against the wall to see the truth, but when I did, it was so liberating.

Thanks for asking. If you want to ask more questions, feel free. :)

(Jason, sorry for diverting your thread, you can have it back now. :ph34r: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jenda@Jul 22 2005, 06:00 AM

That happened on June 27th. (Anyone see a significance in the date?)

Yes, of course, both Helen Keller and King Louis XII were born on that date.

Thanks Jenda.

Now - not to dispute you or argue with you - I accept your position and have no quarrel with it - but to flesh out a point, that being what we do on these message boards... your new understanding of Matthew 16:18 is only one of many possible interpretations, no?

What is it that the gate of hell won't prevail against? Peter, the Church, revelation, etc?

What does not 'prevailing against' mean?

I, who believes that there was an apostacy, do not believe that Satan has prevailed, nor will yet prevail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Snow@Jul 22 2005, 09:33 PM

Thanks Jenda.

Now - not to dispute you or argue with you - I accept your position and have no quarrel with it - but to flesh out a point, that being what we do on these message boards... your new understanding of Matthew 16:18 is only one of many possible interpretations, no?

What is it that the gate of hell won't prevail against? Peter, the Church, revelation, etc?

What does not 'prevailing against' mean?

I, who believes that there was an apostacy, do not believe that Satan has prevailed, nor will yet prevail.

I agree that many people attach many meanings to that verse, yes. The point for me is that it is the same interpretation I have always placed on that verse (the gates of hell prevailing part), I just saw it with new eyes. I do believe the rock is revelation, but it is the church that the gates of hell will not prevail against.

I am not out to change anyone's mind, that is why I didn't speak of it until you asked. And the only reason I did speak of it is because you asked. And unless someone else asks questions, I will not speak of it again except in how it might reflect in my posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jason@Jul 20 2005, 11:00 PM

To be honest, Im looking at the Old Testament...

If you can't rely on the NT, then what makes you think you can rely on the OT? If Paul was a fraud, then why can't Moses be one as well?

Don't you see where your heading? How will you be able to rely on anything for truth regarding the Gospel, save science and Man....?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share