Defending the Gospel


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I cannot find scriptural reference for "defending the faith" or "defending the gospel".   Something I find ironic for those that demand others provide scriptural reference to back their opinions.

 

The Traveler

It really shouldn't be "ironic" identifying the topic. "Defending the faith" is a question proposed by the OP, not doctrine. Those who usually request "scriptural reference" to back a claim is in relation to "doctrine" (i.e. God is 6'5" tall and that is the height of all resurrected beings).  I would need to provide "scriptural reference" for that opinion.

In this case though, scriptural reference can assist, but the question isn't doctrinal so "scriptural reference" isn't essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

It really shouldn't be "ironic" identifying the topic. "Defending the faith" is a question proposed by the OP, not doctrine. Those who usually request "scriptural reference" to back a claim is in relation to "doctrine" (i.e. God is 6'5" tall and that is the height of all resurrected beings).  I would need to provide "scriptural reference" for that opinion.

In this case though, scriptural reference can assist, but the question isn't doctrinal so "scriptural reference" isn't essential.

Hey, let's have another debate about what is and isn't "doctrine".

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The gospel, being true, does not need to be defended. Truth exists in its own sphere independently of what mankind does or does not do, and nothing anybody does can ever change the truth. I think that most of what we do here on this forum is explaining the gospel rather than defending it. The gospel is not self-explanatory, it needs explainers to be understood. I also suspect that some of what happens on this forum is people explaining their own, personal understanding of the gospel, which might or might not be correct. It seems to me that some of what goes on here is one believer disputing/negotiating/discussing their understanding of the gospel with another believer who has a different understanding and I’m not sure if that counts as defending the gospel.

Is "the gospel" truth alone though? Or is it the work of saving souls? If the gospel is just a bunch truths then I see the point. If the gospel is application and understanding of those truths then I would say a hearty defense is likely in order.

I think the separation of "defending" vs. "explaining" is of less use. Why can't explaining be a form of defending?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a serious note: Which do you disagree with? (Actually enumerating this time for ease of response).

Thank-you.  But to go back to the original statements i said i respect (still do), but can't quite get behind.

On 11/7/2017 at 12:22 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Kindness and compassion are virtues to be applied when appropriate. They are not the gospel.

i guess this is one.  To me, that's more or less what it is.  Other stuff i feel to one degree or another is just another law-of-moses-like layer on the way to just pure kindness and compassion.  i honestly don't know what love is, so i won't use that term.  But that probably is the common one used.

On 11/7/2017 at 12:22 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

At a simplistic level, 2 + 2 is 4. Thinking it is 5 may be a perspective, but one who knows that it is 4 understands that differing perspectives are wrong.

No arguments on the math.  However, i struggle when religions (or anyone) holds views i disagree with to be self-proving.  Yes, i do it too.  It's darned hard to reason with a Mormon about lots of things.  i mean, i get it.  i lived it, talked it, taught it, hoped for it for a real long time.  But when someone tells me not to do X because X is senseless, and uses as their defense, 'well, that is as senseless as 2+2 = 5", and then calls me willfully disobedient for not recognizing their opinion or the opinions of those whose authority they recognize as fact.  To some extent, we all hold some concepts to be self-proving - have to.  But i think you and i have a fundamental disagreement on what those self-proving precepts are.  Not wanting to argue or belittle what you believe - and hope that feeling is reciprocated - but just acknowledging the difference.

On 11/7/2017 at 12:22 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Someone can argue all day that their preference for oranges supersedes the standards set by those in authority but their views amount to kicking against the pricks and hold no water.

Well, authority is the keyword here.  So while i don't disagree with the statement, i am saying that perhaps what you view as kicking against 'the pricks', i view as kicking against 'a prick' :).  And no, that prick is not you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thank-you.  But to go back to the original statements i said i respect (still do), but can't quite get behind.

I was literally referencing this:

On 11/7/2017 at 1:34 PM, lostinwater said:

  i can't agree with most of what you've enumerated

 

16 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i guess this is one.  To me, that's more or less what it is.  Other stuff i feel to one degree or another is just another law-of-moses-like layer on the way to just pure kindness and compassion.  i honestly don't know what love is, so i won't use that term.  But that probably is the common one used.

How do you fit in things like Christ whipping people from the temple, calling people hypocrites and a den of vipers, etc.? Or Captain Moroni literally putting to death those who wouldn't take an oath to freedom? Or Joseph Smith commanding, “SILENCE, ye fiends of the infernal pit. In the name of Jesus Christ I rebuke you, and command you to be still; I will not live another minute and hear such language. Cease such talk, or you or I die THIS INSTANT!”? These instances can hardly fully be called "kind" or "compassionate". What about when God (Christ, Jehovah) commanded the Israelites to kill men, women, children, and beasts of the Ammorites? What of Satan being damned for all time to outer darkness? Kind? What of other's who become sons of perdition?

24 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

No arguments on the math.  However, i struggle when religions (or anyone) holds views i disagree with to be self-proving.  Yes, i do it too.  It's darned hard to reason with a Mormon about lots of things.  i mean, i get it.  i lived it, talked it, taught it, hoped for it for a real long time.  But when someone tells me not to do X because X is senseless, and uses as their defense, 'well, that is as senseless as 2+2 = 5", and then calls me willfully disobedient for not recognizing their opinion or the opinions of those whose authority they recognize as fact.  To some extent, we all hold some concepts to be self-proving - have to.  But i think you and i have a fundamental disagreement on what those self-proving precepts are.  Not wanting to argue or belittle what you believe - and hope that feeling is reciprocated - but just acknowledging the difference.

They are not self-proving though, and no reasonable person should claim you should do something because it is self-proving, though you do see a lot of this about. What I, myself, claim is that you (and everyone) need to go to God and He will make the truth of it known unto you. Because God is the arbiter of truth. God is the source of truth. God is truth. Go to God, find truth, then follow it. There is no argument to be made beyond that.

My witness that something is true is nothing more than that. It does not prove anything. It is only a testimony of what I have experienced. But I could be a liar or an idiot or simply self-deluded for all you know. Only God can reveal God.

28 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Well, authority is the keyword here.  So while i don't disagree with the statement, i am saying that perhaps what you view as kicking against 'the pricks', i view as kicking against 'a prick' :).  And no, that prick is not you.

Who then? The prophet?

As I said, find truth from God and follow it. That is all. If the prophet is God's authority on earth then find out from God and follow. If it's the Pope, then do the same. If it's Tom Cruise then find out and follow Tom Cruise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is "the gospel" truth alone though? Or is it the work of saving souls? If the gospel is just a bunch truths then I see the point. If the gospel is application and understanding of those truths then I would say a hearty defense is likely in order.

I think the separation of "defending" vs. "explaining" is of less use. Why can't explaining be a form of defending?

I think that one of the differences between defending and explaining is the mind-set of the defender or explainer. I almost see it as something like the difference between a soldier and a doctor in a war setting. The soldier is engaged in action that at times might appear to be somewhat forward and confrontational on behalf of an organisation, usually a country, while the doctor is working with love and care and compassion for an individual. Another difference is on whose behalf the defender or explainer is acting. The way I see it is that an explainer is helping, and working with a doubter or critic by helping them to understand, whereas a defender is primarily acting on behalf, and in the interests, of the gospel, often by way of disputing points of doctrine and differing ideas. This sort of points to the question of which is more important, the gospel, or the individuals it is intended to save.

This is just my own way of seeing things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This sort of points to the question of which is more important, the gospel, or the individuals it is intended to save.

Interesting question. Not sure it really works. But interesting. It's kind of like asking which is more important, providing food, shelter, oxygen, warmth, etc., or people's lives?

The gospel is life. Without it is death. So...

17 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

whereas a defender is primarily acting on behalf, and in the interests, of the gospel, often by way of disputing points of doctrine and differing ideas.

But if the point of doing so is for the salvation of people then it amounts to the same as on behalf of people.

19 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

The soldier is engaged in action that at times might appear to be somewhat forward and confrontational on behalf of an organisation, usually a country, while the doctor is working with love and care and compassion for an individual.

A defensive soldier, although forward and confrontational, fights to keep his people from even needing the doctor in the first place. Which is more compassionate, to help someone who's been hurt or to keep them from being hurt in the first place? Clearly the answer is both. But the idea that succoring the wounded is superior to protecting a people from the wound in the first place strikes me as inaccurate. They are both of immeasurable value.

22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think that one of the differences between defending and explaining is the mind-set of the defender or explainer.

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that when it comes to the gospel, at times explaining is a means of defending -- a subset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How do you fit in things like Christ whipping people from the temple, calling people hypocrites and a den of vipers, etc.? Or Captain Moroni literally putting to death those who wouldn't take an oath to freedom? Or Joseph Smith commanding, “SILENCE, ye fiends of the infernal pit. In the name of Jesus Christ I rebuke you, and command you to be still; I will not live another minute and hear such language. Cease such talk, or you or I die THIS INSTANT!”? These instances can hardly fully be called "kind" or "compassionate". What about when God (Christ, Jehovah) commanded the Israelites to kill men, women, children, and beasts of the Ammorites? What of Satan being damned for all time to outer darkness? Kind? What of other's who become sons of perdition?

Thank-you.  Well, i want to agree with you.  That anger is a sign of no compassion.  i wonder at times.  But your point is valid.  It's basically the reason why i don't read great swathes of the Old Testament.  Much of that anger seems inconsistent with the God and Jesus i feel i know, at least a little.  So i guess the answer to your question is that i:

1.  Justify it as 'for the greater good of the creature' where it doesn't feel to insensitive to do so

2.  Reject it when it does feel too insensitive and there isn't a tremendous amount of inner conflict

3.  Mostly ignore it when #1 or #2 clearly won't work, and i can't find a balance that feels right. 

So far, it's worked pretty well.  Admittedly, not perfect, though.  i guess most of us have things we don't understand that we ignore.  Though i figure that if i err, i'd rather err on the side of too much compassion and kindness - even if my understanding of the perfect application of compassion and kindness is no doubt slightly flawed.

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My witness that something is true is nothing more than that. It does not prove anything.

This is refreshing - thank-you.  Maybe self proving is not the right term.  Maybe faith is the right word.  Everyone has things they take on faith because they've failed miserably to explain it any other way.  i know i have those things.  i just wrote about one of those things for me in the previous paragraph. 

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But I could be a liar or an idiot or simply self-deluded for all you know. 

True for me too. Honestly, i sometimes look back and realize that i intentionally chose not to allow myself to be exposed to anything that could alter my religious worldview.  i painted these demonic faces on those i disagreed with, because it made it easier to justify never listening to what they had to say.  And while i can hardly claim any degree of intelligence on my part for the circumstances that forced that questioning upon me, i think it's (very slightly) balanced out the way that i think.  The the same goes for everyone here.  i could spend lots of time on an ex-mormon reddit board and get plenty of pats on the back for demeaning and generalizing a group of people in a way that's entirely unjustified.  But the perspective you have here is, as much as i hate to admit it at times, quite valid. And i think that there are very few people who can really believe something if they just stuff a pricked conscience under rug - which i know is what i did for a long time.

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Who then? The prophet?

OK - you got me here.  Sadly, i probably would admit that 'a prick' to me usually just whoever is saying something i don't like in a way i don't think should be said.  However, what i should have meant by that is that 'a prick' is not a person, but an idea i can push back against.

Edited by lostinwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can He? Can God's work press forward without us? I mean, sure, without one individual...sure. But without the collective "us" who do the work of the Lord...?

He certainly can; how He does it is according to the faith of the meek (see 2 Nephi 27:23, 30).  2 Nephi 27:20-21, "Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee. Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He certainly can; how He does it is according to the faith of the meek (see 2 Nephi 27:23, 30).  2 Nephi 27:20-21, "Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee. Touch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work."

He can do His own work...through the meek. Take away the meek and...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/7/2017 at 11:10 AM, omegaseamaster75 said:

Many members do spend a lot of time talking about their testimonies, I think it is a slippery slope if you are looking to the examples of their lives as living testimonies, if you are watching to see if they behave in a Christ like manner you will only set yourself up for disappointment.

Bolded part done by me, because we can all make that statement, if you are observing you will undoubtedly see members at their weakest, when they are not being Christlike in their attitudes or actions because we fail miserably on a daily basis. When we bare testimony we are making an effort to express how we feel about the gospel and its truths. Living up to those standards is a difficult proposition.

Mosiah 3:9 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

I suppose this depends on the individual and how you look at it.  I'm inspired by the desire and commitment of an individual to live the gospel.  Nobody achieves perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 1:22 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

 At a simplistic level, 2 + 2 is 4. Thinking it is 5 may be a perspective, but one who knows that it is 4 understands that differing perspectives are wrong.

 

Sometimes we make assumptions based on partial knowledge.  Under some circumstances 2 + 2 = 4.  However, number theory and mathematics is well defined and the answer to 2 + 2 can result in something different than 4.  Not as an observation or opinion but as a result of the very definition of number theory and mathematics.  My keyboard will not allow me to provide the exact characters so I will have to use my keyboard as best as I can – The proper representation is as follows:

2 =< 2+2 <= 4

But these concepts are not taught at the rudimentary (simplistic) levels of number theory and mathematics.  This is because we must build foundations of understanding of simple things before we can begin application of much more complex things.  In scripture, this is called line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  There is a reason that the above level of number theory and mathematics is not taught in k-12 education and it is for the same reason we do not teach fractals and Bessel functions.

Someone at a simplistic level may learn that 2+2 = 4 and ask a master of mathematics if 2+2 is always = 4.  A master may say no and someone that is not well versed in advanced number theory say, “That is just your opinion.”  The scripture notion of such thinking is – that there is none so blind as those that “will not” see.

We LDS have an article of faith that states that we believe there are things (doctrine) yet to be revealed concerning the kingdom of G-d.  Does this mean that something is only doctrine if we understand or think it to be - Now?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Sometimes we make assumptions based on partial knowledge.  Under some circumstances 2 + 2 = 4.  However, number theory and mathematics is well defined and the answer to 2 + 2 can result in something different than 4.  Not as an observation or opinion but as a result of the very definition of number theory and mathematics.  My keyboard will not allow me to provide the exact characters so I will have to use my keyboard as best as I can – The proper representation is as follows:

2 =< 2+2 <= 4

But these concepts are not taught at the rudimentary (simplistic) levels of number theory and mathematics.  This is because we must build foundations of understanding of simple things before we can begin application of much more complex things.  In scripture, this is called line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  There is a reason that the above level of number theory and mathematics is not taught in k-12 education and it is for the same reason we do not teach fractals and Bessel functions.

Someone at a simplistic level may learn that 2+2 = 4 and ask a master of mathematics if 2+2 is always = 4.  A master may say no and someone that is not well versed in advanced number theory say, “That is just your opinion.”  The scripture notion of such thinking is – that there is none so blind as those that “will not” see.

We LDS have an article of faith that states that we believe there are things (doctrine) yet to be revealed concerning the kingdom of G-d.  Does this mean that something is only doctrine if we understand or think it to be - Now?

 

The Traveler

As usual, you overcomplication of an idea that isn't that complicated leads you to miss the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Sometimes we make assumptions based on partial knowledge.  Under some circumstances 2 + 2 = 4.  However, number theory and mathematics is well defined and the answer to 2 + 2 can result in something different than 4.  Not as an observation or opinion but as a result of the very definition of number theory and mathematics.  My keyboard will not allow me to provide the exact characters so I will have to use my keyboard as best as I can – The proper representation is as follows:

2 =< 2+2 <= 4

But these concepts are not taught at the rudimentary (simplistic) levels of number theory and mathematics.  This is because we must build foundations of understanding of simple things before we can begin application of much more complex things.  In scripture, this is called line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  There is a reason that the above level of number theory and mathematics is not taught in k-12 education and it is for the same reason we do not teach fractals and Bessel functions.

Someone at a simplistic level may learn that 2+2 = 4 and ask a master of mathematics if 2+2 is always = 4.  A master may say no and someone that is not well versed in advanced number theory say, “That is just your opinion.”  The scripture notion of such thinking is – that there is none so blind as those that “will not” see.

We LDS have an article of faith that states that we believe there are things (doctrine) yet to be revealed concerning the kingdom of G-d.  Does this mean that something is only doctrine if we understand or think it to be - Now?

 

The Traveler

Aye. I wonder just how receptive we will be when a few major shifts in doctrine occur.

BTW, number theory is equvilant to the Catholics belief of the Godhead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Aye. I wonder just how receptive we will be when if a few major shifts in doctrine occur.

First...fixed it. Second. If that happens I suspect there would be a great many who struggle with it, but on whole I don't think it would cause too much trouble. My biggest problem with your theory is that it comes from you made up by your brain entirely outside the method and means the Lord uses to give us His gospel and doctrines. If the same theory was presented in general conference by the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve I would say, "Oh...okay."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As usual, you overcomplication of an idea that isn't that complicated leads you to miss the point.

 

I have discovered things are as likely (actually more likely) to be oversimplified than it is to be overcomplicated.  Especially if those claiming something is simple have difficulity explaning how simple it is or end up in an argument about it.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

I have discovered things are as likely (actually more likely) to be oversimplified than it is to be overcomplicated. 

You would say that, of course. Your entire life approach is about complicating things it seems.

2 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Especially if those claiming something is simple have difficulity explaning how simple it is or end up in an argument about it.

Well you may be able to make the argument all day long that you paid me 5 dollars when you really only gave me 4 and use all sorts of fancy math to prove it. But I still only have 4 of the 5 dollars I was promised.

I guess, in that case, it'd be pretty easy for you to view that complicated, fancy math to be all sorts of useful as it saved you a dollar.

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