It has to be asked....

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Not necessarily. I would still be bound to my own moral conviction, and the dictates of my own conscience, however diverse the leadership of my (hypothetical) denomination might be. But at least, with a diverse leadership, I would think it more likely that all sides of a question had been considered, discussed and a suitable decision reached, even if that decision were to be messy compromise and not a clearly defined dictat. Of course, one may not want to compromise at all, but that is not an entirely mature way to approach the complexity of the human condition, and the intricacy of the moral maze that confronts us all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Obviously, only you can answer that. My experience however is that those who preach about diversity send their kids to overwhelmingly white private schools. Live in overwhelmingly white neighborhoods, and only like diversity when it's skin deep. Any diversity of thought, especially on politically correct issues, is forbidden. 

That's why liberals really hate any conservative minority. Like Clarence Thomas, Candace Owens, etc. 

Edited May 15, 2018 by MormonGator

[2ndRateMind]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Good thing God created us, so we could teach him truths he didn't know and reveal things to him. Yay us!

Yes, I think with have two different models of divine intervention here.

1) God parachutes Jesus into humanity, loving all, knowing all, capable of doing all.

2) Jesus is born into humanity, ignorant and vulnerable, and gradually learns and realises His role amongst us, as He grows physically, mentally, and spiritually.

It seems you prefer option 1). Fair enough. My reading of scripture leads me to think option 2).

I sense this is, though, a topic on which we are likely neither to persuade the other, and so I propose we simply agree to disagree on this matter.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited May 15, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[person0]

14 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

the dictates of my own conscience

See, you are practically Mormon already. You are even spouting Mormon terminology in your value system.  You might as well just start filling the font!  

Quote

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.
(Articles of Faith 1:11) emphasis added

19 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

one may not want to compromise at all

I've never really known God as one to compromise.  The areas where people may interpret a compromise is really just Him waiting for us to ask Him to do something He is already willing to do.  With that in mind, why would God want his leaders to compromise on His doctrine and commandments.  The only way they could make a valid and legitimate change is after a revelation is given.  Of course, this is coming from the LDS paradigm where we believe God still speaks to mankind through revelations to His prophets.

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Yes, I think with have two different models of divine intervention here.

1) God parachutes Jesus into humanity, loving all, knowing all, capable of doing all.

2) Jesus is born into humanity, ignorant and vulnerable, and gradually learns and realises His role amongst us, as He grows physically, mentally, and spiritually.

It seems you prefer option 1). Fair enough. My reading of scripture leads me to think option 2).

You are mistaken. I accept both #1 and #2. The problem is that your application of #2 is faulty.

When you are aware of your own staggering ignorance and become truly open to learning, you will begin down the path. Until then, you will continue in your ignorance, pointing out meaningless things that you think "have to be asked" as if they're important somehow.

[person0]

29 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

1) God parachutes Jesus into humanity, loving all, knowing all, capable of doing all.

2) Jesus is born into humanity, ignorant and vulnerable, and gradually learns and realises His role amongst us, as He grows physically, mentally, and spiritually.

LDS theology would not agree with #1 in the literal sense.  That said, based on your comment about Christ's predisposition being challenged, most would disagree with your interpretation/version of #2.

We believe and teach that Christ was perfect through the entirety of His mortality.  He never did anything wrong, nor did He ever do anything contrary to the will of God.  Christ did not change His disposition after speaking with the Canaanite woman.  The gospel was not preached to the gentiles until after Peter received a vision and instruction to do so, which happened after Christs mortal mission was complete.

Edited May 15, 2018 by person0

[Mike]

@2ndRateMind, I'm quite interested to learn more about your viewpoint. Given--unless you disagree that it is a given--that God is The Father of all of us would you object to Him making His will (as it pertains to all of us) known through a Prophet, i.e. one individual? And if He did so would you object against that individual's identity?  I tend to suppose you'll perceive where my line of thought is headed. 

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

5 hours ago, mordorbund said:

5 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

5 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I want to explore this idea that if there's a lack of diversity in the leadership of any organization it is inherently a BadThing(TM) - and if that organization is a religious one, then this structuring is not God's will.

@2ndRateMind Can you think of any precedents for God working within only a narrow demographic in working His salvific mission?

Not really. I can think of patriarchal religious structures that deliberately denied any form of power or influence (and sometimes, still do) to the lower classes, or to women, or to foreigners, though, however wise and talented and Godly such individuals might be. For hecks sake, none of these guys even have a beard! How's that for uniformity? Let us beardies speak!

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

When you say "patriarchal", do you mean "men-only" or do you mean "father-governed"? Since we're talking about the history of God's dealings with His children, it makes a difference.

Are these religious structures you can think of part of the documented Christian organization as chronicled in the New Testament? The historical Old Testament revelations that preceded it? or are you referring to some extra-biblical organizations?

By patriarchy, I mean, the government of everyone, by men, for men.

I think you would be hard-pressed to cite an example of a Christian denomination that does not favour men in power, and indeed, often limit power to men. That goes for pretty much all other religions, too. Even my friends, those woolly-minded liberal Anglicans, have only just recently allowed priesthoods and bishoprics to pass to women.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks. That's one question down. I don't think you're understanding the intent of my other questions, so let me try phrasing them differently.

God has revealed His will in the past, through prophets, and even formed organizations through these revelations. This is documented in the Old and New Testaments. In these documents (and I'll even accept others that you accept as bona fide histories of God manifesting His will), is there a record of God working within only a narrow demographic (in terms of leadership or even just recipients of His message)? After listing any examples you can find, why do you think that was the case?

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

LDS theology would not agree with #1 in the literal sense.  That said, based on your comment about Christ's predisposition being challenged, most would disagree with your interpretation/version of #2.

We believe and teach that Christ was perfect through the entirety of His mortality.  He never did anything wrong, nor did He ever do anything contrary to the will of God.  Christ did not change His disposition after speaking with the Canaanite woman.  The gospel was not preached to the gentiles until after Peter received a vision and instruction to do so, which happened after Christs mortal mission was complete.

Or... in other words.  Christ is God.

And by the way, just to stir the pot a bit for @2ndRateMind... LDS and the rest of Christianity do not have the same understanding as to what God is - basically, they both accept Christ is God.  But both have a different understanding of what that actually means.

Edited May 15, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest]

10 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Indeed, the Jews are one of the most coherent, stable, defined religious communities in the world. It also has to be said, that they are one of the most racist. It took Christ to come among them, and reveal that His mission was not just for Jews, but also for Gentiles, to release the Holy Spirit and the Love of God amongst the whole of humanity.

But even Jesus Himself did not immediately realise this, according to scripture:

 

It took the Canaanite woman to challenge His predisposition to minister only to Jews, and reveal to Him the full extent of His mission.

Best wishes, 2RM.

*Matthew 15: 21-28 KJV

Ok.  So, what exaclty is your belief about Jesus?  Who was he?  Who is he to you?

[2ndRateMind]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Ok.  So, what exaclty is your belief about Jesus?  Who was he?  Who is he to you?

So, to me Jesus is both the saviour of the world, and my personal saviour. He is also something of a life coach, to me. Not that He tells me how many press-ups to do each day, or gives me career advice. But sometimes, when I am in my local pub, mulling on the state of the world over a pint of warm English real ale, I like to wonder what He would make of it all, and what He would say and do.

Best wishes, 2RM. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, to me Jesus is both the saviour of the world, and my personal saviour. He is also something of a life coach, to me. Not that He tells me how many press-ups to do each day, or gives me career advice. But sometimes, when I am in my local pub, mulling on the state of the world over a pint of warm English real ale, I like to wonder what He would make of it all, and what He would say and do.

Best wishes, 2RM. 

Forgive this bluntness.  But I was looking for more detail about your beliefs.  What you've given is a very superficial attitude only.  This really says nothing.  Billions of people who know very little about Jesus and never really do anything in their lives that would indicated they even give Jesus a second thought say the same thing. 

What was he?  Who was he?  How did he get here?  What was his purpose? How did he do that?  What is his work today?  Consider the context of your post you made earlier that motivated my original question.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Guest

[2ndRateMind]

Uh huh. But as I have said elsewhere, Carborendum, I am just a simple Christian. For me, what I have described is quite sufficient to believe. I don't feel any need to extrapolate further. As Occam's razor has it, prefer always the simpler explanation to the more complex.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

That's why liberals really hate any conservative minority.

I think 'hate' is too strong a word. Speaking for myself, as a liberal, anyway. We just want everyone, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, gender, creed, colour, caste or class to enjoy as many of the opportunities of the wealthy elite who dominate the world's political, social and economic agenda as are commensurate with an egalitarian society. I cannot find that to be an unworthy ambition, or in any way unChristian.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I think 'hate' is too strong a word

You are correct, I should have used despise, loathe, detest or abhor. 

[2ndRateMind]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You are correct, I should have used despise, loathe, detest or abhor. 

Maybe just 'dislike' and 'disagree with', would be adequate? Or, perhaps the politics in the US are more polarised than they are here, in the UK.

Best wishes 2RM.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

 Or, perhaps the politics in the US are more polarised than they are here, in the UK.

 Yup. 

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Yup. 

Considering that the British Liberal in this thread was willing to accuse anyone that disagreed with his views on how to help the poor as being totally OK with people starving... I do not see that as being any less polarizing

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Considering that the British Liberal in this thread was willing to accuse anyone that disagreed with his views on how to help the poor as being totally OK with people starving... I do not see that as being any less polarizing

Eh, that's the internet @estradling75. That's how it works. Decorum, manners, decency-it's easy to ignore those things when you don't have to use your real name or show your face. That's how it was in 1998, that's how it'll be in 2028. 

Heck, even when you do show your face and use your real name, people still act classless! 

Edited May 16, 2018 by MormonGator

[2ndRateMind]

estradling75. As I showed in that thread, which was taken down because of your persistent lack of netiquette, there is quite enough wealth in the world to feed the hungry. The problem is with how those resources are distributed. It does not take a genius philosopher to realise that if one is not OK with the (voluntary) redistribution of those resources that I advocated, one must be content for the starving to starve.

Anyway, I have said my piece on that topic, and do not propose to engage in conversation with you further, unless you have something pertinent to this particular thread to contribute.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

27 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

estradling75. As I showed in that thread, which was taken down because of your persistent lack of netiquette, there is quite enough wealth in the world to feed the hungry. The problem is with how those resources are distributed. It does not take a genius philosopher to realise that if one is not OK with the (voluntary) redistribution of those resources that I advocated, one must be content for the starving to starve.

 

Classic Liberal bait and switch.  Take two ideas, one of which is pretty much universally acceptable and good (Like people volunteering their resources to help the poor and needy), link it to a second idea that is going to draw fire (Like wealth re-distribution where no one has more the X dollars).  Then if someone protests the Linkage with facts (It is clear that 'volunteering' is not enough and you will have to use more questionable tactics) or the second idea with facts (Massive wealth re-distribution will [and has historically] failed do to the fact that it disincentives work).  Instead of addressing the clear flaws in the presented plan and ideas.  You (liberals in general) attack the character of the person questioning by saying they are against the universally accepted and good idea that you set out a bait.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Uh huh. But as I have said elsewhere, Carborendum, I am just a simple Christian. For me, what I have described is quite sufficient to believe. I don't feel any need to extrapolate further. As Occam's razor has it, prefer always the simpler explanation to the more complex.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I believe you misunderstood my intent. 

• You asked a question.  "Why should I become a Mormon." 
• In the course of discussion, you said something that is quite different from mainstream Christian thought (which BTW, I didn't agree or disagree with).
• I asked you to clarify so that I would have a better understanding of where you're coming from so I might more accurately answer your question.
• You said a generic statement that could mean anything.
• I asked you to clarify further.
• You have now refused.
• I am unable to see where you are or have been so I have no way of directing you in the direction you should go.

You've now stated

• You don't know why you should become a Mormon.
• You don't want to know any further information about the Mormon faith (i.e. you have refused to read important material to help understand why you should become a Mormon).
• You don't want us to understand you any better.

How exactly are we supposed to communicate anything meaningful with these conditions?

Edited May 16, 2018 by Guest

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

How exactly are we supposed to communicate anything meaningful with these conditions?

I don't like 2RM's misleading statements or pretense at reasoned discussion while ignoring any germane comments that don't fit his particular (very common and very naive) worldview. But to be fair, his "Why should I be a Mormon?" question is a different thread. This is his "Why all the old white men leading the Mormons?" thread. I believe "pale, male, and stale" was his hateful, intolerant way of trying to be clever about his open bigotry.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Vort

[unixknight]

4 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

As Occam's razor has it, prefer always the simpler explanation to the more complex.

Occam's Razor is the most misused philosophical technique ever, and these days is almost always used to justify settling on a preferred conclusion rather than consider new evidence.  That's why it get misstated.  People leave off the first part:"All other things being equal"

Which explanation is simpler: 

Jesus of Nazareth was a revolutionary Rabbi who founded a religion, or

Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God who came to Earth by being born of a virgin, performed miracles and saved humanity from its own sins by being tortured to death, after which He resurrected 3 days later.

What does Occam's Razor tell you to believe?  Is it possible that sometimes the more complex answer is correct?  maybe it's worthwhile to see if all other things truly are equal before drawing a conclusion.

Edited May 16, 2018 by unixknight

[mordorbund]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't like 2RM's misleading statements or pretense at reasoned discussion while ignoring any germane comments that don't fit his particular (very common and very naive) worldview. But to be fair, his "Why should I be a Mormon?" question is a different thread.

True, but for this thread @2ndRateMind hasn't clarified his OP any except to define "patriarchal". He has left the question generic, so he's going to have to be satisfied with a generic answer.

So I'll answer it now with the same generic answer he's been ignoring. It's not an issue.

18 hours ago, mordorbund said:

22 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

23 hours ago, mordorbund said:

23 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

On 5/15/2018 at 12:10 PM, mordorbund said:

I want to explore this idea that if there's a lack of diversity in the leadership of any organization it is inherently a BadThing(TM) - and if that organization is a religious one, then this structuring is not God's will.

@2ndRateMind Can you think of any precedents for God working within only a narrow demographic in working His salvific mission?

Not really. I can think of patriarchal religious structures that deliberately denied any form of power or influence (and sometimes, still do) to the lower classes, or to women, or to foreigners, though, however wise and talented and Godly such individuals might be. For hecks sake, none of these guys even have a beard! How's that for uniformity? Let us beardies speak!

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

When you say "patriarchal", do you mean "men-only" or do you mean "father-governed"? Since we're talking about the history of God's dealings with His children, it makes a difference.

Are these religious structures you can think of part of the documented Christian organization as chronicled in the New Testament? The historical Old Testament revelations that preceded it? or are you referring to some extra-biblical organizations?

By patriarchy, I mean, the government of everyone, by men, for men.

I think you would be hard-pressed to cite an example of a Christian denomination that does not favour men in power, and indeed, often limit power to men. That goes for pretty much all other religions, too. Even my friends, those woolly-minded liberal Anglicans, have only just recently allowed priesthoods and bishoprics to pass to women.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Thanks. That's one question down. I don't think you're understanding the intent of my other questions, so let me try phrasing them differently.

God has revealed His will in the past, through prophets, and even formed organizations through these revelations. This is documented in the Old and New Testaments. In these documents (and I'll even accept others that you accept as bona fide histories of God manifesting His will), is there a record of God working within only a narrow demographic (in terms of leadership or even just recipients of His message)? After listing any examples you can find, why do you think that was the case?

 

[2ndRateMind]

Quote

 

Which explanation is simpler: 

Jesus of Nazareth was a revolutionary Rabbi who founded a religion, or

Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God who came to Earth by being born of a virgin, performed miracles and saved humanity from its own sins by being tortured to death, after which He resurrected 3 days later.

What does Occam's Razor tell you to believe?  Is it possible that sometimes the more complex answer is correct?

 

 

Good question, unixknight. To my mind, had Jesus only been a revolutionary rabbi, the religion would never have been founded. Or, if it was, would have quickly and permanently diverged from what is Godly.

Thing is, He still saves souls, in that if in need, and if He is sought open-heartedly, He will bow hither, out of heaven, and answer the prayer. Or at least, so I have found, and many testify, from all corners of the Christian communion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind