Tough Subjects

[Justice]

I've been discussing scriptures and beliefs with a man at work. He comes to my desk at lunch time with his Bible and we dicuss whatever is on our minds. He stopped asking questions when he learned I am LDS. Instead of asking me, he went to his "sources" and studied what I believe. One day, after I had him really pondering over the need for water baptism with a surprising scripture (he doesn't believe water baptism is necssary) he fell back on "Yeah, but I'll never believe God was once a man."

Since that time he used it often. So, one day I told him it was time we discussed it. He jokingly said that there isn't enough time in a day to talk about it. I told him we didn't need that much time. I asked him if he believed that Christ was born of a mortal mother. He responded yes. I asked him what that made Him. He said it made Him a man. To which I responded, "So, He is God, but was once a man?"

I realize it's very simplistic, but it helped him understand.

A few days later he started with the, "I don't believe man was alive as a spirit before he was born" ploy. He quoted the usual evidence, or lack of supporting evidence, in the Bible, and said it's "convenient" to my belief that we forget at birth. After a few of those comments over the course of several weeks, I told him I had something for him to think about. I asked him as Jesus laid in the manger if He expounded the doctrines of the kingdom to Joseph and Mary. He said no, that he had to go through a normal childhood like other men. I said, "So, that means He forgot who He was?"

Anyway, I had never thought of those scriptures as direct evidence of those things before.

Anyone have any other ideas or comments about these stories or others for this topic?

Edited August 20, 2011 by Justice

[Suzie]

5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Jeremiah 1 

[Seminarysnoozer]

When I have similar discussions with friends, probably not as in depth as yours, I have fallen back on the belief that Christ' atonement is complete. I have asked my friends, 'why couldn't you believe that God was once man?' and they seem to always respond that God is perfect. I think that is a 'perfect' set up to explain that Christ atonement is full and complete. I think there are many, even in the LDS faith, that think if one sins it will always be with them. I think that belief is a restriction in obtaining full faith in Christ. One has to believe that we can be as completely clean from our sins here through Christ' atonement to then comprehend how God could once be man.

The other issue, that is a little harder to comprehend is that we 'share' glory, we inherit glory. That may be a totally different conversation but I think that hoop has to be jumped through also for a person to accept the idea that God could have once been man. In other words, He doesn't have to reinvent truth and the way things are done before Him, He can inherit it just like we can. If God inherits all that was before Him then He becomes the author of all that was before and becomes eternal in that sense. The idea of inherited glory I think is not discussed often and there are varying views of what that means. Some hold onto the idea that inherited glory still means it has to be reinvented and obtained individually, I don't think that is what 'inherited' means. We should use the word 'earned' glory if that is what it really means.

[Dravin]

Jeremiah 1*

The big thing is interpretation, being able to bring out a scripture is only useful/convincing/an answer in as much as you can help someone see how you are interpreting it. Now getting someone to see how you are interpreting it is not the same thing as getting them to agree with said interpretation (but that's okay, that comes later... sometimes).

I remember bringing that scripture up with someone and they are adamant that it was a scripture talking about God's omniscience. I was expecting an 'Aha!' moment (it was earlier on in my mission before I matured up a bit) and came to realize after that incident and others that the slam dunks we LDS think we have aren't quite as convincing from an outside perspective. It was a little humbling and I learned how important it was to get them to see how the scripture could be saying what we believe and then work from there if any sort of understanding was to be gained. I think I surprised more than one person (sometimes a companion) when I as a missionary said, "I see how it could mean that/be read to mean that." to someone's interpretation that was opposed to LDS theology.

P.S. I'm not accusing you of pulling out an "Aha!" it's just the scripture you quoted reminded me of my experiences.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Dravin

[Justice]

"I see how it could mean that/be read to mean that." to someone's interpretation that was opposed to LDS theology.

I do this all the time. I figure if I expect to be understood then I have to seek to understand.

Often, understanding how others interpret a scripture will lead me to another that I use to interpret the one in question. So, then I can share that scripture and hope they understand what I'm saying.

It works great until I realize the scripture I use to interpret the one in question with is actually from the Book of Mormon! Then I have the opposite of an "aha" moment. I have a "doh" moment.

One way I believe scripture discussions fail before they even begin is that each side expects that the other will agree with them before the discussion is over or they will have failed in the discussion. If you enter into a scripture discussion with this attitude, it's a failure already. We discuss scriptures to understand each other. If agreement happens, that is icing on the cake.

[Dravin]

It works great until I realize the scripture I use to interpret the one in question with is actually from the Book of Mormon! Then I have the opposite of an "aha" moment. I have a "doh" moment.

Actually I never felt bad about that . You explain that you interpret that Bible scripture to means X because of the Book of Mormon gives additional context. If you can get them to understand how that given the Book of Mormon scripture in question your interpretation makes sense then that's not a bad place. The question becomes "Is the Book of Mormon scripture?" Now they may not be interested in seeking the answer to that question (or they may conclude differently from you) but it isn't a bad question. The Book of Mormon (and other modern scripture) heavily influences our understanding of the Bible, nothing wrong with that (it is the same process as having scripture X in the Bible influence our understanding of scripture Y in the Bible).

A lot of time I heard people refuse to pray because they felt praying was demonstrating they didn't believe the Bible, but if they can see how praying about that means how they were reading something rather than what they were reading was wrong then the feeling that they are being asked to doubt the Bible is less common. And if the goal is just an intellectual understanding of each other's position then there is nothing wrong with going to the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price, because it is part of your understanding.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Dravin

[Justice]

Yep... agreed on all accounts.

Right now I am discussing the Bible with a friend at work who literally shuts down when I bring up the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith, so currently I have to stay in the Bible, and was the basis of my comments.

But, yes, when he stops shutting down and opens his mind a little, I'm excited to show him how and where I get my beliefs.

He mentioned to me yesterday that the on-line Bible he used to search with is shut down (wanted to say that's what he gets for using fly-by-night sites for his scripture study, and that if he wanted one that would be available through the Millenium he could use our Church site, but didn't). I suggested he try the Church's award winning scriptures on the LDS web site. After a 10 minute discussion where I tried to convince him that the KJV on the web site is the same as the one he brings to study with, he refused.

Long way yet to go...

But, I don't give up easily and I actually enjoy the challenge.

[Suzie]

The big thing is interpretation, being able to bring out a scripture is only useful/convincing/an answer in as much as you can help someone see how you are interpreting it. Now getting someone to see how you are interpreting it is not the same thing as getting them to agree with said interpretation (but that's okay, that comes later... sometimes).

Yep. Interpretation is key. And even people of the same religion may interpret a passage differently.

P.S. I'm not accusing you of pulling out an "Aha!" it's just the scripture you quoted reminded me of my experiences.

No problem Dravin, I didn't take it like that at all. :)

[RipplecutBuddha]

A good friend of mine once vented on me (in a respectful manner) about how the LDS church sends missionaries to people that really aren't interested.

"Why would you bother doing such hard work among people who don't want it?"

I thought about it briefly and then asked him some questions.

"Do you remember going to a movie and absolutely loving it?"

"Well sure."

"How did you feel at the end of the show? Good? Excited? Happy you went?"

"Yeah, all those feelings."

"When you ran into a friend that you knew hadn't seen the movie yet, what did you say to them?"

"Um...I don't wanna talk about it anymore..."

He was joking, and we talked a little longer.

We share the gospel with whomever will hear us because we've experienced something that's made us feel wonderful. We look at missionary work as an opportunity to help others have the same experience we have had. It's an amazing thing, and we want to share it with everyone we can. Of course many won't be interested, but the invitation is extended to all. Maybe you won't be interested at the first, or even the twentieth invitation. However because we look at the human race as our spiritual brothers and sisters, we don't like the idea of withholding something so great from family, no matter the reason.

[livy111us]

Why would God create us on this earth and subject us to pain and anguish which comes along with life, and also putting us in the situation with the possibility never being with Him, while knowing that many of His children would be damned forever and not just create us in heaven and bypass the unnecessary loss of millions of souls? What would be the point of creating us here? Why did He not just create us in heaven with Him?

Here is a good article on it: Plan of salvation/Premortal existence - FAIRMormon