I Want to Know What's Real


Snow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let's look at the flip side:

Let's just say that God is not real, hypothetically ... what do you have to gain by knowing that? Absolutely nothing! Because if there is no God, then everything we do here in this existence turns to nothing, your life has no meaning, my life has no meaning ... there is nothing to gain by even thinking that way. What would you do differently if you knew for sure that God did not exist? No matter what you tell me ... travel the world ... be more sexually active .... go out like Bonnie and Clyde ... or just not work so hard to be good, whatever .... it wouldn't matter because in the end, there would be nothing and it made no difference at all. So what is the point of wondering such things, it serves no purpose at all.

No offense to you personally but I think that is the kind of absurdity that religion drives some people to you.

While you obviously do not, I find great and deeply gratifying meaning in:

the love I have for and the love I receive from my wife

the great joy of rearing children

personal growth and development

being of service to others in need

being of service to those not in need

making my community and neighborhood better and safer

what I do for a living

recreational vivisection

not to mention all the many other things that are just plain fun... hobbies, sports, intellectual stimulation, etc

All these things are sumamente importante and meaningful regardless of whether or not God exists. If you were serious in what you said above, I am saddened for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

About the "there is no God line of thinking." If there is no God and humans are just here by chance. Don't you think given millions of years humans would advance to the point of becoming gods. And if so they would master everything needed to become a GOd including time and space. Thus there would have to be a God. Anyway just an idea.

A "god" in the context of this thread is a supernatural being.

Human beings will never evolve into supernatural beings.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense to you personally but I think that is the kind of absurdity that religion drives some people to you.

While you obviously do not, I find great and deeply gratifying meaning in:

the love I have for and the love I receive from my wife

the great joy of rearing children

personal growth and development

being of service to others in need

being of service to those not in need

making my community and neighborhood better and safer

what I do for a living

recreational vivisection

not to mention all the many other things that are just plain fun... hobbies, sports, intellectual stimulation, etc

All these things are sumamente importante and meaningful regardless of whether or not God exists. If you were serious in what you said above, I am saddened for you.

Why would you be sad for me if God did not exist, in under 100 years there would be no memory of this conversation for you and your sadness would not change a thing in the universe. Love, joy, growth, service all come from God. That list you gave also would be nothing if there was no God. I believe there is a God. It has never crossed my mind that there isn't a God and maybe that is why I can't comprehend people that do not believe in God and yet they say they have a sense for what is "right and wrong." If one does not believe there is a God, which I believe is a very few number because even in those that claim that, in their heart of hearts they really do believe, those people have next to no morals and if they say they do it is all based on selfish, self gratifying tasks.

I am saddened for you that you would make a serious statement about the possibility of there not being a God. "All these things are sumamente importante and meaningful regardless of whether or not God exists." My statement was a hypothetical statement to show how unproductive not believing in God is.... or did you take that out of context again and think those were my personal beliefs?

If one does not believe in God (or supreme being or force, whatever), then they also do not believe in an afterlife. If there is no afterlife then everything we do here has no significance. There is nothing ... why even try to believe that?

And lastly and most importantly, you have no right making judgments about what I find gratifying. "While you obviously do not, I find great and deeply gratifying..."

The joy from those activities has much more of a significance when we know our lives go on after this life and our relationships continue on forever, just like a "till death do us part" marriage is not as gratifying as an eternal marriage. A fullness of joy comes from eternal happiness, not temporal happiness. There is no argument for joy without a God because in the end it amounts to nothing. The only reason you can make that list is because you do believe in God. Now, tell the truth, you believe in God, I know you do. You don't know what the list looks like for gratifying activities if you didn't believe in God, because you do believe in God. You can't pull the wool over my eyes and make it look like those things are possible if there was no God. Sorry, poor try!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you be sad for me if God did not exist, in under 100 years there would be no memory of this conversation for you and your sadness would not change a thing in the universe.

What are you talking about? Why ask me why I would be sad for you if God didn't exist? I wouldn't be.

Love, joy, growth, service all come from God. That list you gave also would be nothing if there was no God.

Bizarre - and sad. I'm guessing then that you do not have a spouse or children of care enough about yourself and others that you find value in the act of serving and giving, in and of itself for no other reason than it brings utility to others.

I believe there is a God. It has never crossed my mind that there isn't a God and maybe that is why I can't comprehend people that do not believe in God and yet they say they have a sense for what is "right and wrong."

Yes - I can see that. You can't comprehend it.

If one does not believe there is a God, which I believe is a very few number because even in those that claim that, in their heart of hearts they really do believe, those people have next to no morals and if they say they do it is all based on selfish, self gratifying tasks.

1. You are either making the claim that you, not the people who you are speaking about, know what they really believe, or that they are lying.

Prove it.

2. Apparently you do not know about the low crime rates and rates of incarceration for atheists vs Christians.

I am saddened for you that you would make a serious statement about the possibility of there not being a God. "All these things are sumamente importante and meaningful regardless of whether or not God exists." My statement was a hypothetical statement to show how unproductive not believing in God is.... or did you take that out of context again and think those were my personal beliefs?

You are not sad. You are not even making sense. Any intelligent being can intellectually pr rationally sort through the implications of existence verses non-existance. The ability to reason is hardly a case for sadness but then you aren't really sad - your just saying that because you somehow think it bolsters your case.... or are you likewise sad that Nephi could rationally sort through the non-existence implications or Joseph Smith, or I wonder how long it would take be to find a dozen Church prophets that have speculated on the same thing.

If one does not believe in God (or supreme being or force, whatever), then they also do not believe in an afterlife. If there is no afterlife then everything we do here has no significance. There is nothing ... why even try to believe that?

Yep - you are DEFINITELY not married or have children or care enough about your neighbors welfare to think that doing good to them has a point - period.

And lastly and most importantly, you have no right making judgments about what I find gratifying. "While you obviously do not, I find great and deeply gratifying..."

Whaddaya mean I don't have a right. I just did. Are you going to call the judgement police?

The joy from those activities has much more of a significance when we know our lives go on after this life and our relationships continue on forever, just like a "till death do us part" marriage is not as gratifying as an eternal marriage. A fullness of joy comes from eternal happiness, not temporal happiness. There is no argument for joy without a God because in the end it amounts to nothing.

Did I mention that you obviously don't have a spouse or children?

The only reason you can make that list is because you do believe in God.

Well now ss, no. The reason I can make the list because I have a brain and I can think and reason and I can feel. People that don't believe in God can also reason and feel.

Now, tell the truth, you believe in God, I know you do. You don't know what the list looks like for gratifying activities if you didn't believe in God, because you do believe in God. You can't pull the wool over my eyes and make it look like those things are possible if there was no God. Sorry, poor try!

I've got a crackerjack team of cryptologist trying to figure out what on earth you are talking about but so far we got nuttin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Snow, but all those things you metnioned, even life itself, becomes temporary. Even being good and keeping law becomes meaningless... if there is no God or life after death (one comes with the other).

To be clear - YOU possess the ability to know what others find meaningful and under what circumstance they are allowed to do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now ss, no. The reason I can make the list because I have a brain and I can think and reason and I can feel. People that don't believe in God can also reason and feel.

Why do you have such a hard time keeping things in context? You reacted to my comments about a hypothetical belief as if I actually believe it. That was my point, to show how much of a dead end that thought process is. The truth is that you do not know how much of your 'superior intellect' is coming from your spirit and how much is coming from your brain You said; " The reason I can make the list because I have a brain and I can think and reason and I can feel." You prove that, that those feelings are coming from your brain and not from your spirit. You are making a claim that you know these things through intellect and brain power is inherently false. It is not your brain that gives you or does not give you a belief in God, this is my point, and you just confirmed my suspicion with your comments. You really do believe that understanding of things spiritual is had through your temporal being.

I say that is wrong, spiritual things are not understood by the temporal. Spiritual understanding comes through the spirit. Spiritual significance is lost in things that are just temporal. You may say, well of course everything has a spirit. Yes, but there is a circumstance where the spirit has no say at all and the thoughts are purely temporal, that is the condition in which the heart is hardened and shut off, that is the condition which Jesus says has ears but does not hear. You give way too much credit to your brain, it is your spirit that is giving you the feeling. The only way you could prove me wrong is by completely shutting down your spirit by hardening your heart so you don't feel anything spiritual and then come back here and tell me how you feel (please don't take this out of context now either, I am not asking you to do this, I am making a point about how going down that pathway is fruitless).

" Yes - I can see that. You can't comprehend it." Neither can you, because you believe in God and you still listen to your spiritual promptings whether you give credit to it or not. You try to convince yourself what it is like to not believe in God and shut off the light of Christ but you do not know. I don't believe that you have ever fully shut of your light of Christ to see what your temporal intellect can do on its own. If you think that is where your understanding of God comes from that is false.

I see what your aim is on these posts. It may not be how you are in person, I am not making any judgments about you as a whole because I do not know you, only your focus here and I think this thread is your most revealing, this is your banner thread, the heart of what drives Snow in this forum from what I have seen, "I Want to Know What's Real" and "It - the topic - is worth a whole discussion but something the host said in answer to why he was pursuing the topic. He responded, because I'd rather know what's real than what makes me feel good.

That resonated with me."

The reason that resonates with you is because you have a distaste for faith, at least that is the way it is coming across. It's not just in this thread but many topics and posts. Why does this resonate with you? Have you believed something in the past that has turned out to be not true and so you are scared of faith?

If you got your hearts desire in this life - to know what is real without listening to how you feel, lets say God gave you that, you suddenly know what is real and what is not, then by achieving that you have summarily killed faith. And once achieving your quest you would happily stamp out poor little church mouse' 'faith' last breath singing "We are the champions, we are the champions..." until you realize you have just killed the best way to gain knowledge, through faith in Jesus Christ. We will all know what is real and what is not real at the end of this life. But the desire to know what is real over what makes one feel good - as what you claim resonates with you is not of God. (again, don't take that out of context either, please)

This thread represents your ultimate quest which is to give more credit to temporal earthly reasoning or secular knowledge than to the power of learning through the spirit. The way the spirit teaches is by making one 'feel good.' So, now look at that statement more carefully now, you say it resonates with you to know what is real over what makes you feel good. In other words, you would prefer proof through reasoning over spiritual confirmation. Why does that resonate with you?

I disagree with that approach. And don't try to tell me that Joseph Smith came to an understanding of God through secular learning. He came to an understanding of God by following what is in James1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."

My whole point in giving that hypothetical 'flip side' of pushing the issue of whether God is real or not is to show that all that does in introduce "wavering." There is no benefit in doubtful questioning or disbelief. You cannot know what is God if you approach it with "well, he could be real but maybe not." That is wavering!!!

So when you say you want to know what is real but not listen to how you feel, I believe you. I am just trying to point out that that is listening to the people in the spacious building and not a direct path to knowledge. Faith in Jesus Christ will take you to perfect knowledge more quickly than any other approach including skepticism. I once believed that secular learning was superior to faith based learning, I can empathize with that mode of thinking, but it is wrong. You will not arrive at a higher level of understanding by introducing negative "what-ifs." So, you take your wavering approach and I'll take my direct approach and we will leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow, I want to ask you something...

Do you love your wife because of some chemical reaction in your physical self? Or is it because you find the prospect of eternity pleasing with her? Is "happy" merely a chemical reaction as well? If it is just chemical reaction, would this reaction be the same for a different woman? Why, or why not? If it can be the same for a different woman, if there is no God, wouldn't you find your wife insufficient for happiness?

Just trying to follow your train of thought...

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the spirit teaches is by making one 'feel good.'

This is very much what i thought of when reading the OP. Doesn't the Spirit testify the truth of ALL things? (see Moroni 10:5) And the Spirit gives us a "good feeling" when doing so? (see D&C 9:8, 11:13) So then the best way to know what is real, i.e. true, would be based on a "good feeling." And yet, not all our "good feelings" come from the Spirit. There are the fleeting pleasures of the world that many describe as "feeling good." Therefore, we need to distinguish between the good feeling of the Spirit and the "good feeling" of the natural man.

(See also 1 Thessalonians 1:5 and 1 Corinthians 2)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you have such a hard time keeping things in context? You reacted to my comments about a hypothetical belief as if I actually believe it.

You said: "The only reason you can make that list is because you do believe in God."

Now you say that was only a hypothetical that you do not really believe. Prey tell, then, what do you really believe?

That was my point, to show how much of a dead end that thought process is. The truth is that you do not know how much of your 'superior intellect' is coming from your spirit and how much is coming from your brain You said; " The reason I can make the list because I have a brain and I can think and reason and I can feel." You prove that, that those feelings are coming from your brain and not from your spirit. You are making a claim that you know these things through intellect and brain power is inherently false. It is not your brain that gives you or does not give you a belief in God, this is my point, and you just confirmed my suspicion with your comments. You really do believe that understanding of things spiritual is had through your temporal being.

1. I don't think you know what the word "inherently" means.

2. I would like to see you prove that my thinking is not a function of my brain but is also a function of my spirit.

Do you think I will have to wait long for the proof?

I say that is wrong, spiritual things are not understood by the temporal. Spiritual understanding comes through the spirit. Spiritual significance is lost in things that are just temporal. You may say, well of course everything has a spirit. Yes, but there is a circumstance where the spirit has no say at all and the thoughts are purely temporal, that is the condition in which the heart is hardened and shut off, that is the condition which Jesus says has ears but does not hear. You give way too much credit to your brain, it is your spirit that is giving you the feeling. The only way you could prove me wrong is by completely shutting down your spirit by hardening your heart so you don't feel anything spiritual and then come back here and tell me how you feel (please don't take this out of context now either, I am not asking you to do this, I am making a point about how going down that pathway is fruitless).

" Yes - I can see that. You can't comprehend it." Neither can you, because you believe in God and you still listen to your spiritual promptings whether you give credit to it or not. You try to convince yourself what it is like to not believe in God and shut off the light of Christ but you do not know. I don't believe that you have ever fully shut of your light of Christ to see what your temporal intellect can do on its own. If you think that is where your understanding of God comes from that is false.

Why are you lecturing me? I read the rest of your post but it neither accurate nor insightful. Frankly I have no clue what you are trying to accomplish but it's not worth bothering with.

Should you want to drop the lecturing, let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow, I want to ask you something...

Do you love your wife because of some chemical reaction in your physical self? Or is it because you find the prospect of eternity pleasing with her? Is "happy" merely a chemical reaction as well? If it is just chemical reaction, would this reaction be the same for a different woman? Why, or why not? If it can be the same for a different woman, if there is no God, wouldn't you find your wife insufficient for happiness?

Just trying to follow your train of thought...

I'm not a biochemist, nor do I care. The relationship with my family makes me happy, independent of my religious ideology.

If one's happiness with their relationship depends upon one's belief in God, I'd say that person doesn't know what a real relationship is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. I would like to see you prove that my thinking is not a function of my brain but is also a function of my spirit.

Do you think I will have to wait long for the proof?

I am not affected by you responding with telling me my comments are "bizarre" or "sad" or that I am "lecturing you", whatever, I know I am not perfect in my speech or thought process but still believe this can be a fruitful way of expanding my understanding and other readers may gain some insight. If you really want to have a conversation then I will try one more time but please try not to get caught on one aspect of my imperfect speech or try to "figure out what I am trying to accomplish" and miss the topic. I can tell you one thing I am not trying to accomplish, change your opinions, because I see that is next to impossible. If you think what I am saying is not accurate, fine, tell me what it is that is not accurate through all the persuasive, long suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned and kind authority you have in you... nobody on this forum is perfect.

Another attempt; Boyd K. Packer said; " But if you learn by reason only, you will never understand the Spirit and how it works—regardless of how much you learn about other things.

The scriptures teach that “great men are not always wise.” Spiritually you may “know not, and know not that you know not,” and be “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (refering to 2 Timothy 3:7)

My point was that if you try to find a back door to the truth instead of the way the scriptures tell us to know the truth then you will "know not that you know not." Simply put, drop the "prove it" in other words. You are a priesthood holder, you know that it doesn't work that way, and yet you keep coming back with prove it, prove it, prove it. "I would like to see you prove that my thinking is not a function of my brain but is also a function of my spirit.

Do you think I will have to wait long for the proof?"

...asking for proof when my point is that it can't be done with proof, how bizarre is that, or how closed minded, or contentious ... one of those.

It is impossible to arrive at a 'real' knowledge of God when ones thought process is "He could be real but maybe He is not." It is only when the "maybe He is not real" is dropped, becoming unwavering and through obedience to His commandments then the spirit can confirm that knowledge. There is no back door to that knowledge, no amount of secular reasoning or education or "great minds" lecture that you "resonate" with, presenting a "He may not be real" argument will do it. By considering He is not real, takes you away from that knowledge, so what's the purpose of that thought process other than to drag people away from the truth like the voices in the spacious building. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways and is faulty in his thinking. Please teach me then, through all the high held values of a priesthood holder, if what I am saying and what Elder Packer is saying is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a biochemist, nor do I care. The relationship with my family makes me happy, independent of my religious ideology.

If one's happiness with their relationship depends upon one's belief in God, I'd say that person doesn't know what a real relationship is.

Snow, the problem with my side of the argument (if I may call it such) is that I believe humans are of God. It is in their nature. And that is why my family makes me happy. I cannot make the claim of what will happen if there is no God (regardless of whether I believe in Him or not) because, quite simply, I believe humans will not act like humans as we know it anymore if it were.

I'll give you a juxtaposition... my kids' snakes are "designed" to be anti-social. The father "beds" the mother and leaves the nest before even finding out if the eggs were hatched. The mother acts protective towards the kids until they hatch out of their eggs and that's it for her too - the kids are left on their own. That's just the way they are - the way they are designed.

Comparing that with humans, definitely, there is a completely different psychological build-up between the snakes and our family. A human is "designed" to be social. You will find that even those children who has never seen their mother since day 1 of their birth will always have the desire to search for her. So you can say, "The relationship with my family makes me happy, independent of my religious ideology", it still doesn't change the fact that the reason is because that is how you are designed - and the design, in itself is of God. You can deny his design, of course, and we'll never know if it is God that made it that way, or just an accident of nature that makes man cling to his family. But Seminarysnoozer is correct when he says that rejecting God's hand in the design serves no purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snow, the problem with my side of the argument (if I may call it such) is that I believe humans are of God. It is in their nature. And that is why my family makes me happy. I cannot make the claim of what will happen if there is no God (regardless of whether I believe in Him or not) because, quite simply, I believe humans will not act like humans as we know it anymore if it were.

I'll give you a juxtaposition... my kids' snakes are "designed" to be anti-social. The father "beds" the mother and leaves the nest before even finding out if the eggs were hatched. The mother acts protective towards the kids until they hatch out of their eggs and that's it for her too - the kids are left on their own. That's just the way they are - the way they are designed.

Comparing that with humans, definitely, there is a completely different psychological build-up between the snakes and our family. A human is "designed" to be social. You will find that even those children who has never seen their mother since day 1 of their birth will always have the desire to search for her. So you can say, "The relationship with my family makes me happy, independent of my religious ideology", it still doesn't change the fact that the reason is because that is how you are designed - and the design, in itself is of God. You can deny his design, of course, and we'll never know if it is God that made it that way, or just an accident of nature that makes man cling to his family.

Sounds like elephants.

But Seminarysnoozer is correct when he says that rejecting God's hand in the design serves no purpose.

What he said was that he was saddened by me making a statement that contemplated the non-existence of God. 1. He's not really sad. 2. It's a patently dumb point. People with brains can speculate on the implications of all sorts of things. 3. No body rejected God's hand in creation and design. 4. His other relevant points were equally as absurd - that without an afterlife, life has no significance. He really has no clue was is significant to anybody but himself; and that non-believers are amoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to the original point of the thread-

I like the idea of trying to understand the truth of things for the sake of knowing what is real, as opposed to believing a lie that makes us feel good, whatever that lie is (even lies about God's nature or His plan for us). The remark that Snow quoted resonates well with me, too.

I think that's a tenet of our faith- believing in things that are true, because they are true. Knowing the truth brings comfort only if we abide by eternal principles- nothing is more hard then knowing what is right and doing that which is wrong. Ultimately, faith is only rewarded if we have faith in that which is true- as Paul said, if our faith in Christ is misplaced, then we as believers are the most miserable of all men. Therefore, we ought to be concerned with finding the eternal principles of truth and applying them to our lives- it should become one of the consuming pursuits of our lives. As Moses said to Satan: "I will not cease to call upon God, I have other things to inquire of him".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it. In a search for the truth man kind has two tools . intelect and insperation i.e Revalation.

It has been my experiance that the former usualy amount to not much more than an educated guess. while the latter brings assurance and only a slitely clearer picture of the unkownen.

I find that "Truth" which i define as the reality of things as they are. is seldom if ever complety as we preceive or understand it to be. At least as far as God and faith and Science is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stidgeion and Maxel,

Can you kind of get to the bottom line of it all - Yes I agree that it is faith and inspiration that matters - but what is the difference between our faith that makes us so certain and all the others of believers who also have faith in their own version of theology and are just as certain that they have the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stidgeion and Maxel,

Can you kind of get to the bottom line of it all - Yes I agree that it is faith and inspiration that matters - but what is the difference between our faith that makes us so certain and all the others of believers who also have faith in their own version of theology and are just as certain that they have the truth?

There's not a bottom line that I'm aiming to reach. I posted in support of your OP, that it's knowing the truth that matters, not believing what makes us feel better about life and ourselves.

As far as what makes Mormons different from 'other religion A'- the simple difference is that either the Mormons are right, 'other religion A' is right, or both are wrong. Faith only benefits us if said faith is in something that is true- hence the importance of an unyielding search for the real truth, whatever that truth maybe. As far as proving via the scientific method that the Mormon faith is true- such is impossible. The plan of God is that we're not presented with enough evidence to prove the truth to a fallen mind through scientific means.

Mostly, I wanted to post in support of your OP, Snow, since we're rarely on the same side of these kinds of issues. There's no bottom line I'm going for here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not a bottom line that I'm aiming to reach. I posted in support of your OP, that it's knowing the truth that matters, not believing what makes us feel better about life and ourselves.

As far as what makes Mormons different from 'other religion A'- the simple difference is that either the Mormons are right, 'other religion A' is right, or both are wrong. Faith only benefits us if said faith is in something that is true- hence the importance of an unyielding search for the real truth, whatever that truth maybe. As far as proving via the scientific method that the Mormon faith is true- such is impossible. The plan of God is that we're not presented with enough evidence to prove the truth to a fallen mind through scientific means.

Mostly, I wanted to post in support of your OP, Snow, since we're rarely on the same side of these kinds of issues. There's no bottom line I'm going for here.

I'm not being argumentative Maxel - I am looking for an answer that I don't have.

What is qualitatively better about our belief that sets it above other faiths - other than we say we are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God = Hope is what I said on the other thread mentioning this subject. ;0) I told you when I joined this site that I am in my Nursery mode. Making it simple which is such a problem with me because I love to talk? It is the writing that gets me. :0) I guess this thread attracts me because I wonder why would a man search for a God he does not believe in. Now here is the kicker. If he is a true learned man then he realizes that when you go in search of something. There is the possibility you might find it. Then what will he do then. (Feel good) No, because he will keep looking for his point. I believe he wants to feel bad. Mmmm or is he really searching for God? In either case you get God = Hope. It would depend on why you are searching and the methods you are using. Then you start branching out. In my case it was God + Faith = Hope. ;0) Funky Town are you saying you want to live for ever. :0) I have another way. Just ask. Are you ready for what you might find? God = Hope

Ok, here is another kicker. I believe every man has his or her right to feel the way he believes. For every man there is a search. Something he is looking for. We only have to look to the headlines to see that this can lead to the good or the bad. This depends on the man. Ok, now that could be another thread. Lol This site makes me think and it makes me laugh again. (Also makes me go to spell check and grammar) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not being argumentative Maxel - I am looking for an answer that I don't have.

What is qualitatively better about our belief that sets it above other faiths - other than we say we are right.

Well Snow, thats THE question. Is there anything "better" in mormonism? Can one even compare it? Is there any religion that is "qualitatively better" than another?

We always claim to be the only ones with "fulness" of the gospel, indicating to others they are limited in their understanding.

What about our own church history?

There are so many doctrinal changes that I wonder what to believe even if our own prophets and apostles said it.

1830s polygamy= sin

1840s polygamy= eternal law, never to be taken away and necessary for salvation

now polygamy = sin, resulting in excomunication

Brigham taught blacks shall never have the priesthood - now they do

Think of all the editing that has been done to the "History of the Church" or our lesson manuals to present more "faith promoting" stories. Is the church going with the flow? Is it all about making sure you feel good in sunday school or is it about the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Snow, thats THE question. Is there anything "better" in mormonism? Can one even compare it? Is there any religion that is "qualitatively better" than another?

We always claim to be the only ones with "fulness" of the gospel, indicating to others they are limited in their understanding.

What about our own church history?

There are so many doctrinal changes that I wonder what to believe even if our own prophets and apostles said it.

1830s polygamy= sin

1840s polygamy= eternal law, never to be taken away and necessary for salvation

now polygamy = sin, resulting in excomunication

Brigham taught blacks shall never have the priesthood - now they do

Think of all the editing that has been done to the "History of the Church" or our lesson manuals to present more "faith promoting" stories. Is the church going with the flow? Is it all about making sure you feel good in sunday school or is it about the truth?

The examples you give are changes in practice, not changes in doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless

Yes, Snow, but all those things you metnioned, even life itself, becomes temporary. Even being good and keeping law becomes meaningless... if there is no God or life after death (one comes with the other).

I disagree. Morality is an essential part of our survival as a species. Immorality (defined as rejection of social mores for the purposes of this thread) creates chaos, and that could easily lead to our extinction. It behooves us to follow the laws set in place by society and lead good lives so that the human race can continue to flourish. I believe there's plenty of meaning to be found in that.

I'm saying anything that is worth having temporarily is only made better if it is permanent

Which begs the question: Is it better if it makes us feel good, even if it may not be true?

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