Evidence Of Mormonism

[Snow]

Hello Snow,

Like I said, I have not studied this issue and have only peripherally thought about this concept. In response to your question, I did not reconcile the two but left it to someone that has looked into that particular chapter. I posted it as a possible example of how it can be reconciled as you asked. Snow, your assertion that “if you can swallow that spin, you can swallow anything” implies an unsound mind and therefore an inability to have problems with other assertion. That does not follow. That is rather Argumentum “ad hominem-esc” sir. For example, I cannot swallow your assertion that “if you can swallow that spin, you can swallow anything” is false. But to answer your question “what the problem?"[sic] murder does not seem to be the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit discussed in the Bible.

Thanks,

Dr. T

Okay - you win the prize for the most pretentious posting of the day. Cue the applause... and we're all duly impressed.

You seem intent on finding a supposed conflict between the BoM and the D&C and likewise intent on explaining away a supposed conflict between John and 1 John.

Your idea that when John said murderer, he meant blasphemer is kind of silly. Why wouldn't he have just said what he meant instead of saying something he didn't mean? That way we'd all be happy.

The issues are much easier to accept once you admit that scripture is written by man - you can check, this is a provable fact. If everyone who wrote scripture was perfectly and completely inspired and could translate that perfect and complete inspiration into a perfectly understandable written record - we'd all get it, but we don't cuz it ain't.

[boyando]

I don't know all the answers - I've decided that I most be kind of slow.

I'v always heard the story's about the missionary's that have convinced some one that the Gosple is true, only to find that there was a murder in the converts past. After letters are sent to the First Precidency, explaining what happened, permission is granted and everything goes well.

I don't know if the story's are true, but it fits for me.

If there is any truth to the story's, it gives hope to everyone.

A.

[Snow]

My problem with murder being "not covered" though is that as sin is a sin is a sin. To lie is equal to lust is equal to murder.

Oh please. That is obviously so untrue. One sin is not as another sin.

If I simply lust after Giselle Bundchen for a minute or you lust after Fran Drescher, the consequences are, um, about nil or close to it - in the bigger scheme. The same for some other sins - like a sin of ommission. If I neglect to love my neighbors - the good Mr and Mrs Gertenslemmer as myself today, big deal.

If however, some fiend brutally rapes and murders a mother of 4 young children and their father also, leaving those children damaged, scarred and being raised by some Piper Laurie foster mom on welfare whose idea of religion is to beat the fear of God into them with a stick if they sneeze at the dinner table - well ten that's a different maater - isn't it - at least if God is just

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Booyah.

[Dr T]

Hey Snow,

Okay - you win the prize for the most pretentious posting of the day.

Pretentious in what sense?

You seem intent on finding a supposed conflict between the BoM and the D&C and likewise intent on explaining away a supposed conflict between John and 1 John.

Sorry but I don’t understand. I’m trying to find conflict between BoM and D&C and explain away conflict in John and 1 John. Sir, you asked me how the John and 1 John could be reconciled. The LDS material of blasphemy and the Bible are at odds-that’s all. Why do you want it to appear that I’m after finding conflict? I am merely calling it the way I see it. Is you’re premise more ad hom to devalue the poster?

Your idea that when John said murderer, he meant blasphemer is kind of silly.

I’d agree. Where did I say that? If I did I will recant that statement. I do not think that murder is blasphemy. That would be Ray’s premise.

Why wouldn't he have just said what he meant instead of saying something he didn't mean? That way we'd all be happy.

Snow, come on. Nothing else needed on that comment.

The issues are much easier to accept once you admit that scripture is written by man

I’d agree with that statement. Did I propose that it wasn’t?

One sin is not as another sin.

agreed. I was not saying that murder is a lie etc. My point was that “sin” being an action or thought, is against God. In that sense all broken laws would be on the same level for God. Don’t try to put words in my mouth, sir. You are looking at sin from a human perspective and your own moral judgment. I was talking about the big picture as God might see it.

I look forward to talking to you Snow. Please clarify what you think I’m saying before running off on a rabbit trail.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[Snow]

Dr. T.

No worries.

I see, somewhat, where you're coming from.

[LionHeart]

Thank you L.H.,

Sorry for the delay. I like that thought. My problem with murder being "not covered" though is that as sin is a sin is a sin. To lie is equal to lust is equal to murder. They are all "not god" acts and separation from God/hurtful to God or however you want to put that. From what I'm reading, Jesus can cover ALL those.

That is my issue.

Thanks,

Dr. T

But you see, it's not the sin that matters, it's the capacity to sin that truly matters. Like I have posted on other threads, we are not judged by our deeds, but by what we have made of ourselves. One who has attained to a state of Godliness, is way above the capacity to commit murder. And down the ladder a little: someone who might swipe a candy bar out of a convenience store, will not neccesarily have the capacity to murder someone. That being the case, he would be on a higher level of perfection than a murderer; thus gaining a higher exaltation in the after life. So yes, Jesus does cover all of them, meaning that they are saved from outer darkness, but they still enter into the kingdom that they are worthy of.

Some have said that money is the root of all crime. I challenge that notion. I say that selfishness is the root of all crime. Why would someone murder someone else? Because the victim in some way, stood in the way of some selfish desire which the murderer had; money, love, jealosy, etc. Same with the child who stole the cany bar. He was thinking of himself. He was not thinking of the work put forth by someone else to be able to acquire that candy bar.

On the other hand, however, Godliness is a complete lack of selfishness. They are completely opposite. The best way to get close to God is by serving our fellow man.

L.H.

[boyando]

One theme that I think keep's popping up, amoung those who are not of this Church, goes something like - I want a Church that has the rule's that I believe in. God will not force you to do something against what you want to believe.

He has and will, invite you and I, to live commandments that will help you do two thing's. Love God, with all your heart, mind, might and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

I love the Gosple of Jesus Christ. I also know that I have weaknesses. In my prayer's, I ask for thing's that I want, but always try to end with "never the less, thy will be done", because I know, that I don't know everthing. There is a time to grow and develope our own idea's. I'm thankfull for the Holy Ghost, the scriptures and a Prophet who can tell me when my thoughts, differ from what the Lord wants me to do.

For all other's who want to go it alone or with just the Bible and the writing of men to tell you what the Bible say's - good luck. You will always have an invite to hear the word's of the Lord from a living Prophet. You can always read the additional scriptures that the Lord has prepared for you. And you can always recieve the gift of the Holy Ghost after babtism into his Church.

Any way you look at it, you will get what you want. Your friend - allmosthumble

[Serg]

Dr.T

Well, although it may be true that a sin is a sin(be it murder or lies), and in terms of salvation both(or any) stand in our way in the same way(please Snow see that where ever "murderer" is listed in Scriptures as those "not to enter heaven" it also lists-side by side- the liars ), although this is true in terms of the Law that requires perfection(given in Christ alone), it is also true, as Snow said, that a sin is different from another sin, at least (not necessarily on "how grave") but indeed in terms of progress. It is true that it is FAR more difficult for a murderer to repent and progress(in love towards each person) than it is to a mere liar to stop lying(although lying can and often is compulsive). So in God's eyes, a "murder" is quite "grave", more than a "lie", not because it is another "sort' of sin of a "higher scale", but because the damage it causes(to both the perpetrator and the victim) seem often to be very difficult to make right again. Hence, a murderer(in comparison to a liar) is seen as "without forgiveness", not because God would not forgive him, or because God has more tolerance toward a sort of sin than to another sort, bu because it is truly more likely that a murderer will not repent, and even if he does, it is painful to God to se that there is absolutely no remedy for th evictim, thus, it requires more from a murderer to progress, (as he cannot return the life he took).

Regards,

[Dr T]

Hi L.H.,

I like your thoughts about this. I understand the concept of "growing in godliness" and "putting off old habits." If that is what you are talking about, I'd have to agree. Selfishness is also something that I agree with. All have some amount of self-centered (egocentric) bent and many (it might be possible to argue all) sins come from that in one form or another. Some you said:

Like I have posted on other threads, we are not judged by our deeds, but by what we have made of ourselves.

does not seem to follow. You are saying that "we are not judged by our deeds" but then go on to describe how our "deeds" as evidenced by "growth" is what we are held to. Those, in fact, seem like deeds, sir. Please clear up my misunderstanding if I'm misrepresenting what you are saying. :)

Thank you sir,

Dr. T

[Serg]

Lion heart, explain to us that principle in light of the words of Nephi: "... and if their works have been filthiness they must needs be filthy; and if they be filthy it must needs be that they cannot dwell in the kingdom of God..." 1 Ne. 15: 33-34.

I know you can, this is just to make it even more serious and give something to hang on to Dr.T. Come on, i know you can

[Dr T]

Thank you AMH and Serg. :)

[Serg]

Lion heart?

[boyando]

I would like to recommend or even challenge those who are not Mormons to listen to a talk by Elder Dieter Uchtdorf (no thats not my fingers tripping over themselves).

http://byubmp3.byu.edu/edweek06/ElderUchtdorf.mp3

I hope it will link - I'm not good at working my computer.

Thanks -Allmosthumble

[Dr T]

Thanks AMH for the link. I was able to access it to play it but it will not play on my comp for some reason.

[LionHeart]

Hi L.H.,

I like your thoughts about this. I understand the concept of "growing in godliness" and "putting off old habits." If that is what you are talking about, I'd have to agree. Selfishness is also something that I agree with. All have some amount of self-centered (egocentric) bent and many (it might be possible to argue all) sins come from that in one form or another. Some you said:

Like I have posted on other threads, we are not judged by our deeds, but by what we have made of ourselves.

does not seem to follow. You are saying that "we are not judged by our deeds" but then go on to describe how our "deeds" as evidenced by "growth" is what we are held to. Those, in fact, seem like deeds, sir. Please clear up my misunderstanding if I'm misrepresenting what you are saying. :)

Thank you sir,

Dr. T

Here's the way I see it: Our deeds are more of a measuring stick rather than what we are judged by. If it is in our character to commit a certain sin, our past will be evidence of it. Our acts, whether good or bad, will be evidence of how well we did in this life; not what we are judged by, but as a way to track our progress to Godliness.

L.H.

[Dr T]

Good evening L.H.,

Thank you for your thoughts on this. Please be patient with me as I am having difficulty with some parts of your reply. When talking about your post that said

...we are not judged by our deeds, but by what we have made of ourselves.

and I was trying to show that there is in fact a judgment in the "what we have made of ourselves" also you said,

Our deeds are more of a measuring stick rather than what we are judged by.

I know you are trying to separate them but I'm having a hard time seeing how that works. My difficulty comes from the fact that a "measuring stick" is used as a judgment of length or symbolically as degree. Again, I think they both are focused on measuring/judging the deeds. Is that correct? You then said,

Our acts, whether good or bad, will be evidence of how well we did in this life; not what we are judged by, but as a way to track our progress to Godliness.

Again, my difficulty is that measuring this "evidence" and "progress to godliness" is a form of judgment and being measured against some standard. That's all I was saying. Hope I didn't frustrate you. Maybe we are comparing apples and oranges. Please let me know.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[LionHeart]

Good evening L.H.,

Thank you for your thoughts on this. Please be patient with me as I am having difficulty with some parts of your reply. When talking about your post that said

...we are not judged by our deeds, but by what we have made of ourselves.

and I was trying to show that there is in fact a judgment in the "what we have made of ourselves" also you said,

Our deeds are more of a measuring stick rather than what we are judged by.

I know you are trying to separate them but I'm having a hard time seeing how that works. My difficulty comes from the fact that a "measuring stick" is used as a judgment of length or symbolically as degree. Again, I think they both are focused on measuring/judging the deeds. Is that correct? You then said,

Our acts, whether good or bad, will be evidence of how well we did in this life; not what we are judged by, but as a way to track our progress to Godliness.

Again, my difficulty is that measuring this "evidence" and "progress to godliness" is a form of judgment and being measured against some standard. That's all I was saying. Hope I didn't frustrate you. Maybe we are comparing apples and oranges. Please let me know.

Thanks,

Dr. T

I believe I see what you are saying. Look at it this way: Say for example, back in 1990, I was low enough that I robbed a bank. I later repented, and improved my character, so now I'm a good guy but not quite at the point of Godliness. So then tomorrow, I go out for a walk, and a rabid dog comes up and tears off my arm. I then chase after the dog to retrieve my arm, and he runs out into the street. I carelessly follow, which action causes me to get hit by a semi truck moving 60 miles per hour. I get launched into the air, and hit a nearby power line. Sparks fly everywhere, as my charred black body rolls down an embankment; at the bottom of which, I am backed over by a bulldozer. Okay, I am dead. As dead as they get. (reader discretion is advised) So I go to the other side, where I am met by the creator. He takes me at face value. If I am worthy, at that point, to enter His kingdom, He invites me in. Not because of my past actions, but because of who I am now. The whole point of this is to ensure that I will not defile the Lord's kingdom. If I have submitted myself to the laws of that Kingdom, I will be allowed to enter. But in this case however, I have not progressed far enough so He says "I can see by this "record" that you were making good progress. Taking that into consideration, along with your untimely demise, you may enter into this kingdom where you will have further opportunity to progress. Here, keep this for your records. I will check back with you after, oh, say a million years and see where you're at." I can see how one might understand it to mean that our actions in the past are what God refers to when passing judgment, which, I believe is actually the case, however, only the actions in our immediate past. Our actions thirty years ago would say nothing about who we are today. But when it comes to the actual sin, I don't believe He says: "Well, let's see, you committed such and such outrageous atrocities thirty years before you died. For this, you must be punished; enter ye into eternal torment." This is what I meant by saying that our sins have nothing to do with our judgement. Or to word it better: The Lord will not condemn us for our sins. Even though we might condemn ourselves.

There is one other concept I have failed to mention, however. That is that when we sin against God, those sins will be forgiven so long as we repent. But when we sin against our neighbor, although we may be forgiven by God, we still must be forgiven by our neighbor. At this point, our neghbor might have a little bit of say so as to where we end up in the afterlife. However, Jesus says that we must forgive everyone or we will not be forgiven. This would give our neighbor a pretty good incentive to forgive us. But if we were to murder someone, that would be a bit harder to let go of. Therefore, someone might be willing to burn in hell if it means they get to watch their murderer suffer the same fate.

L.H.

[Serg]

That is somewhat thoughtful, i completely agree with you.

[Dr T]

Thank you L.H.,

Your story reminded me of a 20 year old that I evaluated who did get hit by a semi. Even though a quarter of his skull was gone, he was one of the smartest (IQ wise) that I assessed-but that is another story. I hear what you are saying about the progression and access to the kingdom by our character. I have trouble with that though on multiple levels. Like I've asked before, what do you think God requires? Would you say perfection or blemished? Secondly, in you last post there is a backdrop of time that this character building needs to take place. We are looking at earthly time (80 years?) to show good character and if we don't in the afterlife (I know it was only an example when you said it) 1 million years before god "checks in" with us. If we couldn't do it in the 10-100 years we had on earth, do you think it would take 1 million years to accomplish that in the afterlife? There too, is god just looking for "improvement" or "perfection"? From what I'm reading, I don't see god settling for any imperfections at all. I'm cynical about human perfection as I don’t believe anyone is perfect but God (that is how I philosophically picture a divine being) and none of us are (or should that be is?) God. I look forward to hearing what you think.

Thanks,

Dr. T

[LionHeart]

Thank you L.H.,

Your story reminded me of a 20 year old that I evaluated who did get hit by a semi. Even though a quarter of his skull was gone, he was one of the smartest (IQ wise) that I assessed-but that is another story. I hear what you are saying about the progression and access to the kingdom by our character. I have trouble with that though on multiple levels. Like I've asked before, what do you think God requires? Would you say perfection or blemished? Secondly, in you last post there is a backdrop of time that this character building needs to take place. We are looking at earthly time (80 years?) to show good character and if we don't in the afterlife (I know it was only an example when you said it) 1 million years before god "checks in" with us. If we couldn't do it in the 10-100 years we had on earth, do you think it would take 1 million years to accomplish that in the afterlife? There too, is god just looking for "improvement" or "perfection"? From what I'm reading, I don't see god settling for any imperfections at all. I'm cynical about human perfection as I don’t believe anyone is perfect but God (that is how I philosophically picture a divine being) and none of us are (or should that be is?) God. I look forward to hearing what you think.

Thanks,

Dr. T

Excellent question. Let me see if I can explain this. First of all, I beleive the term "perfection" is not absolute. For example, things that might be considered perfect so far as this wolrd is concerned, might be mediocre on another, more perfected world. I think the pursuit to perfection is an eternal pursuit.

As far as what the Lord expects from us before we will be allowed into His kingdom, (being the highest degree within the Celestial Kingdom) I beleive we are expected to "Live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God." In other words, we are ecpected to live His commandments without slipping up. Joseph Smith taught that it was possible to attain to perfection in this lifetime, however it was unlikely that very many people would reach it. This is how I define perfection; being able to live God's commandments completely. And when one reaches to that point, they are granted a certain amount of freedom to act on their own. "Whomsoever you curse, I will curse, whomsoever you bless I will bless" This is the point when God trusts them enough to know that it is not a part of their character to do anything contrary to His will. This is when one knows for certain that he has made the grade.

I also beleive that if one is making good progress in this life, they will be granted the opportunity to continue that progress in the next life. However, I believe it will be much more difficult to progress over there.

I am out of time though, so if you would like more explaining on this, just make it known, and I will do my best.

L.H.

[Ray]

(Snow) Your idea that when John said murderer, he meant blasphemer is kind of silly.

I’d agree. Where did I say that? If I did I will recant that statement. I do not think that murder is blasphemy. That would be Ray’s premise.

Heh, I just caught this...

... and to explain what I mean once again...

When someone intentionally kills a person they know is an innocent person... aka murder... with "an innocent person" defined as someone who is innocent of doing anything which would be a good reason to kill that person, not that they never did anything wrong in their whole life... that murder involves blasphemy against the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost has told or assured that would-be murderer that the person they are about to murder is an innocent, and that there is no good reason to kill him/her, and the would-be murderer, in choosing to deny an assurance from the Holy Ghost and kill that person anyway, is denying the Holy Ghost and acccountable for the sin of murder as well as denying the Holy Ghost.

And btw, I am NOT saying either one of those sins involves the act of killing someone that person doesn't know is an innocent person or may not realize is an innocent person as they kill in a moment of fear or uncertainty, because that would not be denying an assurance from the Holy Ghost, because that person didn't realize what he/she did at that moment.

Now, if you still don't understand me, or if you think I am wrong, I really don't care what you think.

I think you are wrong... I know you are wrong... but you can think whatever you want to. :)

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

(Snow) Your idea that when John said murderer, he meant blasphemer is kind of silly.

I’d agree. Where did I say that? If I did I will recant that statement. I do not think that murder is blasphemy. That would be Ray’s premise.

Heh, I just caught this...

... and to explain what I mean once again...

When someone intentionally kills a person they know is an innocent person... aka murder... with "an innocent person" defined as someone who is innocent of doing anything which would be a good reason to kill that person, not that they never did anything wrong in their whole life... that murder involves blasphemy against the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost has told or assured that would-be murderer that the person they are about to murder is an innocent, and that there is no good reason to kill him/her, and the would-be murderer, in choosing to deny an assurance from the Holy Ghost and kill that person anyway, is denying the Holy Ghost and acccountable for the sin of murder as well as denying the Holy Ghost.

And btw, I am NOT saying either one of those sins involves the act of killing someone that person doesn't know is an innocent person or may not realize is an innocent person as they kill in a moment of fear or uncertainty, because that would not be denying an assurance from the Holy Ghost, because that person didn't realize what he/she did at that moment.

Now, if you still don't understand me, or if you think I am wrong, I really don't care what you think.

I think you are wrong... I know you are wrong... but you can think whatever you want to. :)

So every murderer in History(including OJ Simpson) that carefully PLANNED to kill their partners or anybody that(under our eyes) did nothing to deserve that, actually HAD a testimony of the Holy Ghost as to the innocencse of their victims? Wow, what do you knw, Hitler certanely was a prophet! LOL

Interesting belief, lol

[Ray]

...I don't see god settling for any imperfections at all. I'm cynical about human perfection as I don’t believe anyone is perfect but God (that is how I philosophically picture a divine being) and none of us are (or should that be is?) God. I look forward to hearing what you think.

Thanks,

Dr. T

Doc,

Do me a favor and explain your concept of the atonement, would you?

Does God have the power to forgive all of our sins, and make us "at one" with God?

Thanks,

This is Ray. :)

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

(Snow) Your idea that when John said murderer, he meant blasphemer is kind of silly.

I’d agree. Where did I say that? If I did I will recant that statement. I do not think that murder is blasphemy. That would be Ray’s premise.

Heh, I just caught this...

... and to explain what I mean once again...

When someone intentionally kills a person they know is an innocent person... aka murder... with "an innocent person" defined as someone who is innocent of doing anything which would be a good reason to kill that person, not that they never did anything wrong in their whole life... that murder involves blasphemy against the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost has told or assured that would-be murderer that the person they are about to murder is an innocent, and that there is no good reason to kill him/her, and the would-be murderer, in choosing to deny an assurance from the Holy Ghost and kill that person anyway, is denying the Holy Ghost and acccountable for the sin of murder as well as denying the Holy Ghost.

And btw, I am NOT saying either one of those sins involves the act of killing someone that person doesn't know is an innocent person or may not realize is an innocent person as they kill in a moment of fear or uncertainty, because that would not be denying an assurance from the Holy Ghost, because that person didn't realize what he/she did at that moment.

Now, if you still don't understand me, or if you think I am wrong, I really don't care what you think.

I think you are wrong... I know you are wrong... but you can think whatever you want to. :)

So every murderer in History(including OJ Simpson) that carefully PLANNED to kill their partners or anybody that(under our eyes) did nothing to deserve that, actually HAD a testimony of the Holy Ghost as to the innocencse of their victims? Wow, what do you knw, Hitler certanely was a prophet! LOL

Interesting belief, lol

Have you ever tried the "hooked on phonics" program, Serg?

That might improve your reading comprehension skills, but somehow, I kinda doubt it.

And btw, if you still don't get it, I wonder if you ever will.

Hint: in other words, what you said is not what I meant.

[Serg]

Ray;

Look, when I say something concerning what YOU say, and i am wrong, you simply correct me, THAT is charity. When I am wrong but before correcting me you MOCK me, that is everything but love. When as you mock me, before you correct me you state "that is"(as in, "i mean, ,etc..) that is pride.

Look Ray, is it hard for you to have patience towards somebody like me, that has done NOTHING to bother you but that in so many times has joined you in your minicrusades with Dr.T and others?

You stated: "When someone intentionally kills a person they know is an innocent person... aka murder... with "an innocent person" defined as someone who is innocent of doing anything which would be a good reason to kill that person, not that they never did anything wrong in their whole life... that murder involves blasphemy against the Holy Ghost because the Holy Ghost has told or assured that would-be murderer that the person they are about to murder is an innocent, and that there is no good reason to kill him/her, and the would-be murderer, in choosing to deny an assurance from the Holy Ghost and kill that person anyway, is denying the Holy Ghost and acccountable for the sin of murder as well as denying the Holy Ghost."

Now as to this incoherent principle of "truth'("eternal" by the way), i understood what most people in their right mind would, that when "someone intentionally kills a person" obviously first the "Holy Ghost has told or assured that would-be murderer that the person they are about to murder is an innocent, and that there is no good reason to kill him/her, " and hence such an act is "[denial] of the Holy Ghost ".

So then i comment :

"So every murderer " then that "carefully PLANNED to kill" somebody, "obviously"(as you say) knows first "of the Holy Ghost as to the innocencse of their victims", hence, it IS what you JUST said. Thus i find it funny cause it follows that(in some sordid sense) "Hitler certanely was a prophet".

I understood correctly what you said, if your principle here is not coherent, not subject to Scripture or any other source of sense(other thaan your daily talks with Elohim), that is not my problem, although i DO care for your mistakes(as i also commit many) and this is all an ongoing matter of progress.

Dont take it out on me if what i ask or say concerning at least, this dubious principle sounds uncomfortable, its your idea, you posted it, make it stick!

(oh, sorry, i know you dont care)

regards,