How do you avoid absolute power?

[Anddenex]

Andrew, thanks for the heartfelt reply. I get what you mean about faith in Christ taking care of things, but I need more than heartfelt testimony. Elijah could part the Jordan so what makes your prophet special? Because if there is one consistency in all of these holy writings it's that God likes certain people, not certain organizations. The ones that are chosen by God hold heavy responsibility and also the highest punishment for acts of disloyalty to Christ. Moses was severely punished merely for taking credit of the works of God. All of Israel paid the price because of David's sin. This is because these men held very special positions handed out by God and are a reflection of the perfect Love of God. To break that love is no small thing.

It is interesting that you mention Elijah who once shared this (1 Kings 19: 12):

11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a astill small bvoice.

Recognize where Elijah found the Lord, it was in a still small voice, which correlates with our Doctrine within D&C 8: 2 - 3.

Why are our prophets special:

1. They are called by God.

2. They were called in the same manner which Aaron was called in the Old Testament. They were called in the same manner by which Peter, James, and John were called, as with the other apostles. They are given their titles by the Lord as were the apostles of old.

3. We are able to trace our priesthood lineage back to Jesus Christ.

I would agree, breaking that love is no small thing.

In this day in age of religions on every street corner, legitimacy becomes a very big deal. Everyone and their uncle seems to have a religion and they declare themselves just as convincingly as any Mormon that they have exclusive rights to the stories of the Bible. When you speak of Jonah and Israel and even Christ you speak as if your LDS prophets and apostles are the direct successors to those stories. This is very hard to believe even though I don't doubt that you are true believers here. Just for me, it's very hard to swallow.

I am not sure how I am speaking that they are the "direct successors" when we know the difference in time periods. What I was saying is that there is no difference between the calling of Elijah, the calling of Jonah, and the calling of Moses in comparison to the calling of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and now President Thomas S. Monson.

Yes, I agree, however it is only hard to swallow when you only apply men's knowledge and men's testimony. It becomes much easier to accept the moment the Lord testifies truth unto us.

The Jehovah's Witnesses say that Matthew 24:45 is a prophecy for a "class" of people that emerge in the last days. They call themselves the "faithful and discreet slave" class. They teach that they are a line of successors too and millions of people would die for them by refusing a medical procedure that is prohibited by them. Faith in men is scary and so when I see a prophet and 12 apostles ruling any church I want to see them call down fire and consume an offering!

I agree, faith in men is scary, which is why we do not put our trust in men, or in the arm of the flesh, we put our trust in God, and in whom God has called as his prophets and apostles.

For example, when the children of Israel were bitten by poisonous snakes, and all they had to do was look at the brazen serpent. The people who put their trust in men, did not look, and walked away and died. The people who trusted in their God, and that Moses was a prophet, looked and were healed.

I do not put my trust in men; I put my trust in my creator and in the servants he has called.

This is rhetorical, however I think you will see the point, were you there when Elijah called fire from the heavens and consumed the offering?

Or might I say the Lord in a different way has accomplished the same task, except in the manner by which his apostles saw Him. There was no fire from heaven when Peter and all the other apostles saw the risen Lord, but he came to them and told them to teach and baptize.

In the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and others have seen our risen Lord. Joseph Smith, in the sacred grove was visited by our Lord, and by our Father in Heaven.

It may not be fire, but it is no different than how the Lord appeared to His apostles in the New Testament.

Note: I am not trying to convince you of anything, only sharing some thoughts and answering, and to my best ability, your questions.

Ultimately, Sabastious, like every other person you will have to trust in God and find out for yourself, and remember as Elijah once said, God was not in the wind, the earthquake, or the fire, but he was in the still small voice. (D&C 8: 2-3).

Best,

Andrew

[Guest]

Yes, but if I ask the Holy Spirit (however that works) and I am revealed that LDS is not the true church, what then? That's exactly what other Christian denominations say they do. Is the Holy Spirit that, say, a Lutheran experiences impure? How do you identify pure Holy Spirit?

Regards,

-Sabastious

There is only one requirement. That you humbly, diligently, honestly search for truth. If you feel that what you found is the truth, then that's what you should follow. We believe that God judges us according to our knowledge. And we believe that knowledge can only be gained line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little.

The LDS church holds these 2 articles of our faith:

* We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

* We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

As you can see, we don't claim that we are the only source of truth. The Spirit may lead you to a place that best suits your learning process.

I was devout Catholic for 30 years before I became LDS. The things I learned as true as a Catholic as I was prompted by the Holy Spirit did not cease to be true just because I learned more truths as LDS. The same Holy Spirit guided me all my life. I don't subscribe to the "my Holy Spirit is better than your Holy Spirit" battle.

So, if you honestly, diligently, humbly search for truth of the BOM and you don't receive confirmation of its truthfulness, then there are 2 possibilities: 1.) you're not ready for that precept, 2.) it's not true. Of course, my answer is #1, but I can't really answer that question for you. You're the only one that can find that out for yourself.

How do you find out if the Spirit you feel is evil or truth - if it leads you to do bad things, chances are its not good. If it gives you lasting peace, chances are it is good. It's like an experiment in a way. You get to learn to recognize the voice of the Spirit after a few experiments. And, you're going to get tired of me saying this - you're the only one who can find out if what you're hearing is evil or good.

Edited July 10, 2012 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

A lot of your members seem to have unique supernatural experiences. However this can be semi-explained with confirmation bias and like you said God works in personal ways so it may be impossible to prove someone else's revelation.

Exactly. Joining the church because someone else told you about their revealation, is another not-too-good reason. The promise is - you get your own. You hold your knowledge of confirmation bias, and myside bias, and experimenter's regress, and subjective validation and groupthink and authority-driven methods of altering reality, and the phenomenons of self- and group-hypnosis, and good plain old wishful thinking, and you say to yourself "Huh - I was just spoken to by God - and it was different than all of those things."

Nothing else would (or should) suffice for you sabastious.

The problem is that if benevolent spirit forces exist, than that also means that malevolent forces do too. So then you are to the point where you have to identify the experience as from something that is interested in helping you.

Heh - Are you sure you're not me from 15 years ago?

Back when I was searching for answers, I came within a few credit hours of a minor in philosophy. But I never really found anything that made sense to me past Descartes' "I think, therefore I am". He continued his line of thinking, but I didn't follow. From where I'm standing, yeah, this life may be the matrix. There may indeed be some great deceiver taking nefarious glee in making me think my perception of reality is actually reality - when the real reality is I'm sitting in a vat somewhere hooked up to wires. From that standpoint, the only thing that made sense to me, was to stay true to my own understanding of right and wrong. My willingness to assume God, the BoM, and the prophet are all what they claim to be, is a function of my ability to choose what to do with the reality my senses present to me. I think that's what they call 'faith'. So far, it's led me to happiness in this life.

Does the LDS prophet say that being a Lutheran will cost you your salvation?

I don't think so... Look, if you wanna be a Lutheran, go be one. I know several - they seem to be good people. I've also never seen a rude wiccan. Again, typing words into a glowing box, and reading the words that others type - this may set the LDS church apart from all the other options, but no really - there's only one way to know. Edited July 10, 2012 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[rameumptom]

Major decisions must be approved not only by the prophet but the other quorums, as well. If the decision is big enough, then it must be brought before the entire church for a sustaining vote. Annually, the membership is given the chance to sustain the Church leadership. If at any time the membership felt a General Authority was acting inscrupulously, they have the responsibility to not sustain him and ask for his removal.

If the prophet or an apostle goes off the reservation, then the others may judge him and require sanctions, which may include excommunication. Some apostles have been excommunicated over the years, but none since the 1950s. Usually, by the time a person is called to be an apostle or prophet, they have spent decades of righteous living and being an example to show that they will not stray from God.

Finally, we believe all of these are called via revelation from God. We believe God is very careful on whom he selects, and it shows in the quality of our leadership.

[Guest]

Does the LDS prophet say that being a Lutheran will cost you your salvation?

Regards,

-Sabastious

I asked this question once. The answer my husband gave me was the pivotal point in my "search for truth". See, I married my husband when I was Catholic, he was a mostly inactive LDS. Before we got married we agreed that our religious differences will not stand in the way of our marriage but we will have to pick one religion as the religion that the kids will be raised under before I get pregnant.

He was attending Catholic services with me so I was pretty hopeful that he would get baptized Catholic soon. So, I asked him, "Are you ready to be baptized Catholic?" and he looked at me in that no-nonsense serious way of his and said - I'm sorry but I know the LDS Church is true, so I can't possibly become Catholic. I was kinda taken aback by it. I mean - the guy was barely going to the LDS Church! He was attending Catholic church more than he was going to his own church. Anyway, so I asked him, "So, you think I'm going to hell?" and he answered, "No, I have a bigger chance of ending up in hell than you do". That really got me thinking. It was actually the very first moment that sparked my curiousity about the LDS Church that led me to research what he was talking about that eventually - years later - led to my baptism.

After serious study, I learned that what he meant by that answer is - he has knowledge that he knows - with the confirmation of the Holy Spirit - is true. But, he is not acting on that knowledge. Whereas I, knowing what I know as true as a Catholic, was acting on my knowledge in a devout manner and is diligent in seeking more knowledge.

It's really a beautiful thing. I love that the LDS Church never says - You're going to hell. They only say - There's something better. Salvation is given to anyone who accepts the Atonement of Christ. You get it by faith. If you were born in the remote mountains of Sri Lanka and died without having heard of the name Jesus Christ in your life - how can you accept the Atonement? Well, we believe that knowledge does not cease just because you died. You continue to learn and progress beyond death and you can gain knowledge and accept Christ's Atoning sacrifice then.

Now, exaltation - that's another matter altogether.

[FunkyTown]

Hey Sabastious.

Just as an aside, I am pretty good at ferretting out people who have a specific axe to grind. As a 'Sabastious' posted about a month ago that they thought the LDS church was a mind control cult on a Jehovah's Witness board while talking about the Missionaries they had over, I thought I'd take a few guesses:

1) You had missionaries over and were confrontational.

2) The missionaries stopped coming over.

3) You enjoyed this confrontation and came over here to try to engage it.

How close am I? I get why you're doing it. You had posted that you had just escaped a religion you thought were 'mind controlling' you. I'm sorry you feel that way.

However, you might want to consider that, since you're aware of a thing called Confirmation Bias(You've used it in this very thread), if you come in to something expecting to learn and you've already made up your mind, it is unlikely you will discover anything new.

That's fine, and I wish you well if that's the case. If not, and you find yourself truly looking for truth rather than a sounding board for your own anger towards religion, then you might want to have a more open mind.

For those who are wondering, you can go to google and type in 'mormon sabastious' and see exactly what I saw.

[Vort]

For those who are wondering, you can go to google and type in 'mormon sabastious' and see exactly what I saw.

No! It cannot be! It must be a different Sabastious who happens to be fixating on Mormonism as a mind-control cult. Surely our own Sabastious would not be so hateful and dishonest as to employ such a deception. No, FT, you must be mistaken, though I am sure innocently so.

Signed,

Jane Bennet

[sabastious]

Funky_town that thread was indeed mine, but I fear you have misrepresented it's contents in this one. I made that thread to discuss Mormonism within a community that I am a large part of. My intent was not to expose Mormonism, but to give a perspective to my community. Most people on that forum believe Mormonism to be a dangerous mind control cult and I wanted to find out for myself.

I have no axe to grind (except for the Watchtower), but I am extremely wary of ANY group who calls themselves the true church and I will not shy away from asking every tough question I can think up. I know that you probably have a chip on your shoulder about people attacking you and calling you a cult. I don't believe in this approach. But I do consider any group who considers themselves the true church a dangerous cult until proven otherwise, that's what inquiry is for.

I'm not sure what you read in that thread that made you think I have an axe to grind. I put a great deal of effort trying to remain a neutral interviewer. I in no way want to bash the LDS church.

In fact I am going to be having the Mormons over again for the 8th week in a row. They have really enjoyed spending time with me and I them. I enjoy what I am learning and I have concluded so far that the JWs and the Mormons are starkly different. Before I had the LDS missionaries over and made my thread in my community I would have told you that Mormonism is probably a dangerous cult. Now I have my doubts about that assessment and I would go as far as to defend you to anyone who didn't have the facts and was brashly judging.

Jesus said that you must examine the fruits of people who claim to speak for and with him. This does not just mean an examination of the exterior, but you must also take a few bites. A fruit can appear perfect in it's exterior, but if you take a bite there might be worms. So far the fruit of the LDS church has been pretty sweet and I have not found any worms.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[sabastious]

You had posted that you had just escaped a religion you thought were 'mind controlling' you. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Mind control is a very real thing and the Jehovah's Witnesses employ the tactic pervasively on their members. Take a look at this video that the Jehovah's Witnesses just produced for their youth:

Sparlock - The Warrior Wizard - YouTube

I showed the missionaries this clip and one of them said that "one man's magic is another man's religion." They were all appalled at the idea of using scare tactics and forcing kids to throw away toys. The Watchtower wants acts of loyalty from their members and throwing away a toy because they said so will work just fine.

The Watchtower is a dangerous mind control cult and I was born into it. I can go over every aspect of how they seize the mind because I have been deprogramming myself for almost 3 years. It will never fully go away.

Did you see the picture of Adam and Eve in the clip? They were all decrepit and old. The Watchtower constantly has their adherents studying up on original sin. They believe all of our woes to be the fault of Adam and Eve and they strongly resent them for it. I have since gave up this idea and now feel that Adam was merely a victim of celestial circumstance. The story is utilized by the Watchtower to enact emotional control over their members. They preach the doctrine of Total Depravity.

Total depravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regards,

-Sabastious

[estradling75]

Official Mod Warning

Please remember the site rules that everyone agreed to before joining LDS.net

2. Please be conscious of the fact that although LDS.NET is aimed towards an LDS audience, that the membership of this site consists of friends from an array of different backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures. Please be respectful and courteous to all, and know that everyone who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of LDS.NET are welcome to participate and be a member of LDS.NET

This includes the fact that this site is not to be used to attack other Religious Organizations.

[Traveler]

Funky_town that thread was indeed mine, but I fear you have misrepresented it's contents in this one. I made that thread to discuss Mormonism within a community that I am a large part of. My intent was not to expose Mormonism, but to give a perspective to my community. Most people on that forum believe Mormonism to be a dangerous mind control cult and I wanted to find out for myself.

I have no axe to grind (except for the Watchtower), but I am extremely wary of ANY group who calls themselves the true church and I will not shy away from asking every tough question I can think up. I know that you probably have a chip on your shoulder about people attacking you and calling you a cult. I don't believe in this approach. But I do consider any group who considers themselves the true church a dangerous cult until proven otherwise, that's what inquiry is for.

I'm not sure what you read in that thread that made you think I have an axe to grind. I put a great deal of effort trying to remain a neutral interviewer. I in no way want to bash the LDS church.

In fact I am going to be having the Mormons over again for the 8th week in a row. They have really enjoyed spending time with me and I them. I enjoy what I am learning and I have concluded so far that the JWs and the Mormons are starkly different. Before I had the LDS missionaries over and made my thread in my community I would have told you that Mormonism is probably a dangerous cult. Now I have my doubts about that assessment and I would go as far as to defend you to anyone who didn't have the facts and was brashly judging.

Jesus said that you must examine the fruits of people who claim to speak for and with him. This does not just mean an examination of the exterior, but you must also take a few bites. A fruit can appear perfect in it's exterior, but if you take a bite there might be worms. So far the fruit of the LDS church has been pretty sweet and I have not found any worms.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Hmmmmm - Interesting. What possible eternal benefit is a church that does not claim to be true?

There is a saying among the LDS and you have already heard it - bring whatever truth you have encountered with you - including the truths you have learned through your skepticism.

The Traveler

[sabastious]

This includes the fact that this site is not to be used to attack other Religious Organizations.

My post was in response to funky_town's quotations marks around the term "mind control" followed by him saying that he was sorry that I felt that my former religion was using it on me. He was implying that mind control doesn't exist in the way I likely believe it does. The post had an air of superiority and I felt compelled to educate on the matter. I am not here to attack the Watchtower, but if someone brings up a past thread of mine on another website and accuses me of calling you all cult members then I will also speak up 100% of the time. I know what is a dangerous cult and what is not. I have learned a lot about mind control and the post you removed was very accurate. If you are interested in censoring the truth I then I have no place here.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Guest]

Okay, no more drama. Let's just leave the Watchtower be and get back to your questions. Those were interesting.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with being called a cult. English is my 3rd language and in my "english book for daily use" I don't see how cult got associated with something negative... I mean, sure, wikipedia says it's a cult if it has abnormal or bizarre beliefs. I say all religious groups fall in that category. I mean, the Catholics have the Eucharist which is kinda bizarre, the Mormons have garments which are kinda bizarre, I mean just as bizarre as the Jewish cap and the Muslim burqa. Southern Baptists don't dance which is kinda bizarre and the First Baptists have the people falling to the ground which is kinda bizarre. And the Assemblies of God have the speaking of tongues which is kinda bizarre...

[sabastious]

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with being called a cult. English is my 3rd language and in my "english book for daily use" I don't see how cult got associated with something negative... I mean, sure, wikipedia says it's a cult if it has abnormal or bizarre beliefs. I say all religious groups fall in that category. I mean, the Catholics have the Eucharist which is kinda bizarre, the Mormons have garments which are kinda bizarre, I mean just as bizarre as the Jewish cap and the Muslim burqa. Southern Baptists don't dance which is kinda bizarre and the First Baptists have the people falling to the ground which is kinda bizarre. And the Assemblies of God have the speaking of tongues which is kinda bizarre...

"Cult" is the first four letters in the world culture. I have been educating myself on cults ever since I left my former religion. I have identified two classes: dangerous and non dangerous. Think about films that are largely referred to as "cult classics." This is because the affect the film had on society was so strong that a group of people consider themselves adherents to the ideas contained within. For example I consider myself to be a member of the Princess Bride cult. It doesn't matter who you are if you like the Princess Bride then we will have much to talk about.

A dangerous cult is one that uses that "closeness" centered around a set of ideas and use it to further a preconceived agenda. When popular ideas are used to control the thoughts, emotions, information and behaviors of people is when the cult that surrounds the idea is considered highly dangerous and participating in mind control.

Absolute power is what dangerous cult leaders look to obtain. The leaders seek total devotion and will employ highly unethical means to obtain it. The fact that dangerous cults exist makes me extremely reserved about organizations that have a leadership that claim a special connection to God.

I am interested in hearing the explanation of how Mormon's can be so sure that the Mosaic Priesthood was required to be restored in the first place. The story of Exodus has Aaron and Moses having control to perform very powerful signs. Philip, in Acts 8, is actually shown to have the power of teleportation. Today, all of those powerful works can only be identified by documents like the New Testament. It's extremely important for me to understand exactly why God stopped giving humans the power to call down fire on an offering or teleport themselves.

Also Moses and Aaron were revolutionaries just like Jesus. Does the Mormon church consider themselves to have the same revolutionary spirit? If so, how does it manifest within the world today?

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Vort]

"Cult" is the first four letters in the world culture. I have been educating myself on cults ever since I left my former religion. I have identified two classes: dangerous and non dangerous. Think about films that are largely referred to as "cult classics." This is because the affect the film had on society was so strong that a group of people consider themselves adherents to the ideas contained within. For example I consider myself to be a member of the Princess Bride cult. It doesn't matter who you are if you like the Princess Bride then we will have much to talk about.

A dangerous cult is one that uses that "closeness" centered around a set of ideas and use it to further a preconceived agenda. When popular ideas are used to control the thoughts, emotions, information and behaviors of people is when the cult that surrounds the idea is considered highly dangerous and participating in mind control.

Absolute power is what dangerous cult leaders look to obtain. The leaders seek total devotion and will employ highly unethical means to obtain it. The fact that dangerous cults exist makes me extremely reserved about organizations that have a leadership that claim a special connection to God.

I am interested in hearing the explanation of how Mormon's can be so sure that the Mosaic Priesthood was required to be restored in the first place. The story of Exodus has Aaron and Moses having control to perform very powerful signs. Philip, in Acts 8, is actually shown to have the power of teleportation. Today, all of those powerful works can only be identified by documents like the New Testament. It's extremely important for me to understand exactly why God stopped giving humans the power to call down fire on an offering or teleport themselves.

Also Moses and Aaron were revolutionaries just like Jesus. Does the Mormon church consider themselves to have the same revolutionary spirit? If so, how does it manifest within the world today?

Regards,

-Sabastious

You are looking at things through a distorted lens. Like a Marxist who insists on viewing everything as a contest between the proletariat and the evil owners of means of production, or the feminist who insists on viewing everything as the female struggle for sexual power and ownership against the evil patriarchy, you insist on casting everything in political terms and as revolution. Using such a viewpoint, you close yourself off almost entirely from understanding what the gospel of Jesus Christ is about.

Skepticism is fine, in its place. But at some point, you must be willing to engage on a deeper level. As long as you are unwilling to do so, we will continue to go in circles, as we answer your questions and you keep coming up with new ones.

[Guest]

For those who are wondering, you can go to google and type in 'mormon sabastious' and see exactly what I saw.

Yeah, there's a lot more than one thread (misrepresented? Calling our missionaries "wheelers and dealers" is hard to misunderstand). There are pages of the OP insulting and deriding Mormonism in different places.

[skippy740]

Based on his prior religious experiences, I would say that his guard is up very high and is afraid of lowering it for the fear of 'being deceived'. If I were him, I'd be doing the same thing.

It all comes down to faith and letting the spirit guide, versus analyzing every little nuance. There are plenty of reasons to love the church and there are plenty of reasons to doubt. The question is: Which would make you a better person?

Reminds me of one of my favorite movies: Secondhand Lions. Hub is giving a portion of "what it takes to be a man" speach:

Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.

[sabastious]

You are looking at things through a distorted lens. Like a Marxist who insists on viewing everything as a contest between the proletariat and the evil owners of means of production, or the feminist who insists on viewing everything as the female struggle for sexual power and ownership against the evil patriarchy, you insist on casting everything in political terms and as revolution. Using such a viewpoint, you close yourself off almost entirely from understanding what the gospel of Jesus Christ is about.

Who is Christ? The only evidence for his existence is what is written in the Bible and a small amount of information from historians from his era. The Gospels do not agree on many issues which makes the clear picture of Christ very hard to ascertain. There is nothing I can do but have a limited perspective on the person that lived in the 1st century and was crucified by the Roman government. I do find it fascinating that after killing him they decided to take his message and use it for themselves. It shows the power and influence of what he did all those years ago. I can't help but generalize, Vort, just as everybody does when they start out on the search for truth in this existence. I get the feeling that you are saying I am not humble, which is very judgmental and not really your place. Humility is not something that concerns me because it's not something that I can consciously obtain. If I tell a person standing next to me to "be spontaneous" I have just stripped that person of the ability to be spontaneous because being such would require one to NOT be asked. I am having a hard time understanding where you feel I lack the ability to understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Should it not be eloquent and simple?

Skepticism is fine, in its place. But at some point, you must be willing to engage on a deeper level. As long as you are unwilling to do so, we will continue to go in circles, as we answer your questions and you keep coming up with new ones.

Skepticism is the anchor of reality and it's something that was bestowed upon us by the One True God. There is no wrong way to be skeptical, however cynicism is not a virtue by any means.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[sabastious]

Yeah, there's a lot more than one thread (misrepresented? Calling our missionaries "wheelers and dealers" is hard to misunderstand). There are pages of the OP insulting and deriding Mormonism in different places.

It would be respectful to address your concern with me instead of speaking into the wind. Where are these insults? I will explain them here if you wish.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Guest]

I believe it's against forum rules to quote posts from different forums here. I believe funky's advice to google your name and mormonism is the best advice if anyone else wants to see those things.

[sabastious]

Based on his prior religious experiences, I would say that his guard is up very high and is afraid of lowering it for the fear of 'being deceived'. If I were him, I'd be doing the same thing.

Thanks skippy for pointing this out. You all are solid in your faith and are better people because of it. However from my perspective coming out of a church that wanted to control my every thought, emotion, behavior and information I shake in my boots when I am amidst people who follow a human entity who claims to follow Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

I urge everyone to not take my candor as aggression. It will only serve to derail this discussion.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Edited July 10, 2012 by sabastious

[sabastious]

I believe it's against forum rules to quote posts from different forums here. I believe funky's advice to google your name and mormonism is the best advice if anyone else wants to see those things.

You still want to judge me as an insulter of your religion, but you don't want to give specifics? Then you should have just left the posters to their own accord with "google instructions" instead of passing judgement in this thread. If you want to accuse me I think I deserve the respect of knowing why.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Vort]

Who is Christ? The only evidence for his existence is what is written in the Bible and a small amount of information from historians from his era.

Wrong. This is not evidence of his existence in any meaningful sense.

The only meaningful evidence of Christ's existence is what is revealed to you by God and the change it makes in your life.

I can't help but generalize, Vort, just as everybody does when they start out on the search for truth in this existence. I get the feeling that you are saying I am not humble, which is very judgmental and not really your place.

Don't you find it humorously ironic that you suppose me to be saying something that I clearly have not said, then pass judgment on me and condemn me for being judgmental? Even you must concede that's pretty funny.

I am having a hard time understanding where you feel I lack the ability to understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You ask questions. They are answered. So you ask more questions, which were answered previously, only you don't connect the dots.

Should it not be eloquent and simple?

Why?

Skepticism is the anchor of reality and it's something that was bestowed upon us by the One True God.

So when God stands physically before me, the appropriate response is to say, "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato." And if God then dares to question my questioning, I can simply remind him that skepticism is the gift he gave to me, so of course I'm justified in using it at all times.

If you are sincere in your questions, then my advice is to listen to the answers given you rather than arguing them.

[Leah]

Yeah, there's a lot more than one thread (misrepresented? Calling our missionaries "wheelers and dealers" is hard to misunderstand). There are pages of the OP insulting and deriding Mormonism in different places.

Somehow, I am not surprised.

[sabastious]

Wrong. This is not evidence of his existence in any meaningful sense. he only meaningful evidence of Christ's existence is what is revealed to you by God and the change it makes in your life.

We would not know about Christ if it were not for the Hebrews, the Jews, the Romans and eventually the Roman Catholic Church. Even you use the King James Version of the Bible which is a cannon of 66 books that was bound together and closed in the late 16th century. If the Holy Spirit is the only true evidence of Christ then why have anything else? Why have a Mosaic Priesthood? Why contact Joseph Smith and translate the Golden Plates?

Don't you find it humorously ironic that you suppose me to be saying something that I clearly have not said, then pass judgment on me and condemn me for being judgmental? Even you must concede that's pretty funny.

You accused me of acting "like a Marxist" or "feminist" that looks at "everything" a certain way. You are accusing me of generalizing (which is judgmental) and I said that generalizing is required because of the lack of information in many respects. I like you Vort. I feel the need to say that because I often get into conversations where people think I don't. I enjoy challenging others and being challenged.

Why?

The Gospel, at least to me, IS simple and elegant. It's man who creates convoluted doctrines in order solidify power and authority. Jesus was reported saying that he would only give the "sign of Jonah" to the people of his time. This meant that he was going to die for three days and then resurrect himself meaning that he was more powerful than any prophet who had every existed. The Jews were very "sign oriented" and are constantly asking for signs which Jesus obliged, but the true sign he gave was where he came to life again without the means of a live prophet. At that point his authority was solidified and then we all had access to the free salvation that he offered. He came to save the world not to judge it.

So when God stands physically before me, the appropriate response is to say, "You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato." And if God then dares to question my questioning, I can simply remind him that skepticism is the gift he gave to me, so of course I'm justified in using it at all times.

Moses told God that he wanted to be blotted out of the Book of Life because he felt that God was abandoning his promise to the Israelites. Moses felt a deep-seated love for his people because of what they all had went through together. Momentarily Moses was blinded to the issues of his people and didn't understand their punishment. He was being very skeptical of God's actions and God's reaction was he simply ignored the wrong conclusions of Moses because of his own emotions towards his people.

The same goes for Abraham when he was arguing with God about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. He pinned God down about the loss of innocent life because of the sins of others. God ends up saying that if there are only 5 people in the city that are worth saving then the whole city would be spared.

Reason is God-given and we are never to be fearful of our own ability to sort things out logically. However we should never LEAN on our own understanding because that will eventually lead us away from God. However questioning God is very much encouraged.

Regards,

-Sabastious