LDS

[tsig]

Another example of what I would call deception comes from the same LDS piece I mentioned earlier. “Good and Evil Spoken Of by Edwin O. Haroldsen.
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/08/good-and-evil-spoken-of?lang=eng#pop_001-95908_000_004


It turns out that Herr Benz has been "late" for the last 35 years, and he had joined the Nazi Party in 1937. Why would anyone care what he had to say about religion in 2013 America? This is a Google translation of a German Wiki article on Ernst Wilhelm Benz.

It is obvious that this LDS writer merely digs for quotes by anyone who says anything remotely interpretable as flattering to the Mormon cause, and then massages it, sycophantically paring it to attract the approval of his pretty much servile, uncritical audience. To my mind, "over the past several years" does not line up semantically with "dead for 35 years"--a nice way of saying prevarication. Frankly, it's just flat out dishonest writing.

This is the sort of infuriating drivel that a lot of politicians, religious dogmatists, or apologists like the "creation science folks", spew out just to gain and keep followers, which, upon subsequent exposure by their "enemies", often becomes just another rallying point for crying foul.

They insult their own readers by assuming that they are either just too dull or lacking in skeptical thinking skills to bother checking the author's claims. It's not even necessary to engage in quoting "anti Mormon" literature to defeat these people--truth is their enemy.




http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/08/good-and-evil-spoken-of?lang=eng#footnote11-95908_000_004

When you have to dig that deep in the quote mine to find that small a nugget that's just pathetic.

It sets well with the faithful but to others is looks like desperation but then apologetics are to buck up the believers and make them think their faith is valid not to convince the outsiders.

 

[Dissolution]

A long dead Nazi said something that could possibly be construed as praise about him? I'm sold!

 

[RandFan]

When you have to dig that deep in the quote mine to find that small a nugget that's just pathetic.

It sets well with the faithful but to others is looks like desperation but then apologetics are to buck up the believers and make them think their faith is valid not to convince the outsiders.

I know Mormons who love to quote any science that would seem to confirm Christian and Mormon beliefs. The problem is that they don't want to even listen to science that is counter to their beliefs. My position is that if you are going to uncritically select empirical evidence then don't even bother. Just rely on faith.

I have a sister-in-law who was all excited to tell me about the disovery of Mitochondrial Eve (she is concerned with my families salvation you see). When I told her why the metaphorical name did not literally imply the Eve from the Bible (see What if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve?) she was nonplussed and dismissive about the science behind the discovery (which she knew absolutely nothing about). Nor was she willing to consider the science that the Y-chromosome Adam lived in a different place and time than did Mitochondrial Eve. That might seem counter-intuitive but keep in mind that the Mitochondrial Eve is a very bad metaphor. It is very misleading (see the link above).

IMO, religious people would be best to stop trying to justify their faith either philosophically and/or scientifically. At the end of the day it is just that, "faith", the belief in things without, or in spite of, logical reasoning and/or empirical evidence.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Still waiting for a single example of spiritual insight from the BoM.

And I'm still waiting for a single example of an ordinance performed in an LDS church or temple that does not acknowledge Christ as the authority for that ordinance.

Oh, but to your question. There are, in fact, dozens of examples of spiritual insight in the Book of Mormon. I don 't expect you and certain others to accept them, but they exist nonetheless. (Reminds me of the couplet "A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still.")
A few examples of spiritual insight in the BoM:

1. There are 23 passages in the BoM that explain/clarify the doctrine of "free will" (known to Mormons as "agency"). Here are two: "Joy is impossible without opposite choices" (2 Nephi 2:23). "God places us in a state to act according to our wills" (Alma 12:31). Commenting on the principle of agency, Victor L. Ludlow said: "The challenges and opportunities of agency define our external existence, and our choices determine our relationship with God and others"
(Living the Book of Mormon: Abiding by its Principles.

2. [Christ's] blood atoneth for the sins of those who have . . . died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned"
(Moro. 8:11-12).

3. Jacob taught that "in our bodies we shall see God" (2 Ne. 9:4). (You are probably aware that many churches teach that the resurrection is spiritual only--not physical.)

4, "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form . . . (Alma 11: 42-43).

5. Much of Christianity believe that the effects of the Atonement are limited rather than infinite as LDS believe, hence: "[Christ] suffereth [the Atonement] that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before [Christ] at the great . . . judgment day" (2 Ne. 9:22).

 

[Pixel42]

A few examples of spiritual insight in the BoM:

1. There are 23 passages in the BoM that explain/clarify the doctrine of "free will" (known to Mormons as "agency"). Here are two: "Joy is impossible without opposite choices" (2 Nephi 2:23). "God places us in a state to act according to our wills" (Alma 12:31). Commenting on the principle of agency, Victor L. Ludlow said: "The challenges and opportunities of agency define our external existence, and our choices determine our relationship with God and others"
(Living the Book of Mormon: Abiding by its Principles.).

The conundrum of free will versus determinism is one of the knottiest in philosophy. These platitudes offer not the slightest help in resolving it.

2. [Christ's] blood atoneth for the sins of those who have . . . died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned"
(Moro. 8:11-12).

The idea that Christ's suffering could atone for anybody's sins has never made much sense to me.

3. Jacob taught that "in our bodies we shall see God" (2 Ne. 9:4). (You are probably aware that many churches teach that the resurrection is spiritual only--not physical.)

A spiritual resurrection doesn't make much sense in the light of what we now know about how consciousness is generated by the brain but a physical one makes no sense whatsoever. Where, pray? Thanks to entropy the universe cannot support a physical existence forever, so the much vaunted immortality would be impossible in it.

4, "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form . . . (Alma 11: 42-43).

This doesn't even make grammatical sense.

5. Much of Christianity believe that the effects of the Atonement are limited rather than infinite as LDS believe, hence: "[Christ] suffereth [the Atonement] that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before [Christ] at the great . . . judgment day" (2 Ne. 9:22

This is the judgement day that Jesus assured his disciples would happen within their lifetime and is consequently already nearly 2000 years overdue? The one that also makes no sense whatsoever in view of what we now know about the past, present and probable future of our universe, world and species?

So you guessed right: I'm deeply unimpressed with these "spiritual insights".

 

[skyrider44]

. . . This doesn't even make grammatical sense [referring to the spirit and the body]: Do you also believe that one and one are two?

 

[Craig4]

And I'm still waiting for a single example of an ordinance performed in an LDS church or temple that does not acknowledge Christ as the authority for that ordinance.

Oh, but to your question. There are, in fact, dozens of examples of spiritual insight in the Book of Mormon. I don 't expect you and certain others to accept them, but they exist nonetheless. (Reminds me of the couplet "A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still.")
A few examples of spiritual insight in the BoM:

1. There are 23 passages in the BoM that explain/clarify the doctrine of "free will" (known to Mormons as "agency"). Here are two: "Joy is impossible without opposite choices" (2 Nephi 2:23). "God places us in a state to act according to our wills" (Alma 12:31). Commenting on the principle of agency, Victor L. Ludlow said: "The challenges and opportunities of agency define our external existence, and our choices determine our relationship with God and others"
(Living the Book of Mormon: Abiding by its Principles.

snip...

I stopped here. What a bunch of mindless word salad. This prophet sucks.

 

[RandFan]

1. There are 23 passages in the BoM that explain/clarify the doctrine of "free will" (known to Mormons as "agency"). Here are two: "Joy is impossible without opposite choices" (2 Nephi 2:23). "God places us in a state to act according to our wills" (Alma 12:31). Commenting on the principle of agency, Victor L. Ludlow said: "The challenges and opportunities of agency define our external existence, and our choices determine our relationship with God and others"
(Living the Book of Mormon: Abiding by its Principles.

2. [Christ's] blood atoneth for the sins of those who have . . . died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned"
(Moro. 8:11-12).

3. Jacob taught that "in our bodies we shall see God" (2 Ne. 9:4). (You are probably aware that many churches teach that the resurrection is spiritual only--not physical.)

4, "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form . . . (Alma 11: 42-43).

5. Much of Christianity believe that the effects of the Atonement are limited rather than infinite as LDS believe, hence: "[Christ] suffereth [the Atonement] that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before [Christ] at the great . . . judgment day" (2 Ne. 9:22).

None of this is novel.

1. The debate about free will or the lack thereof, theologically and philosophically is thousands of years old (see History of Free Will). Other than an assertion of a millenia old claim it offers no spiritual insight, unless you presume Mormonism is true and then it's just a delineation. Which is simply circular reasoning. Further, the concept, depending on how you define free will, is contradicted by modern science (see Saplosky on Toxoplasma and Split Brain Patients).
2. Thousands of years old. Mormonism reveals nothing new here but is simply a retread.
3. You must be aware that many religions believe literally in physical resurrection.
4. Again, a belief in the union of body and spirit is thousands of years old and actually predates Christ by hundreds of years and was common among some Jewish Sects (see 1 Corinthians 15:29).

A spiritual insight, IMO, ought to be something new to the world. Not thousands of year old, well worn and well debated concepts by luminaries such as Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, C.S. Lewis and Calvin to name a few.

 

[Slowvehicle]

And I'm still waiting for a single example of an ordinance performed in an LDS church or temple that does not acknowledge Christ as the authority for that ordinance.

"Acknowledging" christ "as the authority" for a practice is not the same as having biblical support for a uniquely LDS practice...which is one reason so many other xianists are loath to declare LDS as fellow xianists.

What, if any, is your scriptural supprt for baptizing the dead? What, if any, is your scriptural support for maintaining the family unit in the afterlife? For your "three levels of glory"? For the whole multiple 'gods'/people becoming 'gods' thing?

Oh, but to your question. There are, in fact, dozens of examples of spiritual insight in the Book of Mormon. I don 't expect you and certain others to accept them, but they exist nonetheless. (Reminds me of the couplet "A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still.")
A few examples of spiritual insight in the BoM:

1. There are 23 passages in the BoM that explain/clarify the doctrine of "free will" (known to Mormons as "agency"). Here are two: "Joy is impossible without opposite choices" (2 Nephi 2:23). "God places us in a state to act according to our wills" (Alma 12:31). Commenting on the principle of agency, Victor L. Ludlow said: "The challenges and opportunities of agency define our external existence, and our choices determine our relationship with God and others"
(Living the Book of Mormon: Abiding by its Principles.

2. [Christ's] blood atoneth for the sins of those who have . . . died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned"
(Moro. 8:11-12).

3. Jacob taught that "in our bodies we shall see God" (2 Ne. 9:4). (You are probably aware that many churches teach that the resurrection is spiritual only--not physical.)

4, "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form . . . (Alma 11: 42-43).

5. Much of Christianity believe that the effects of the Atonement are limited rather than infinite as LDS believe, hence: "[Christ] suffereth [the Atonement] that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before [Christ] at the great . . . judgment day" (2 Ne. 9:22).

In other words, if it supports your particular brand of superstition, it is "spiritual insignt"...

 

[RandFan]

"Acknowledging" christ "as the authority" for a practice is not the same as having biblical support for a uniquely LDS practice...which is one reason so many other xianists are loath to declare LDS as fellow xianists.

What, if any, is your scriptural supprt for baptizing the dead? What, if any, is your scriptural support for maintaining the family unit in the afterlife? For your "three levels of glory"? For the whole multiple 'gods'/people becoming 'gods' thing?

In other words, if it supports your particular brand of superstition, it is "spiritual insignt"...

To be fair, I'm arguing the opposite, to be a spiritual "insight", a concept out to be novel. Just because someone thousands of years ago mentioned something that is in the BoM doesn't give license for Mormons to call that concept an "insight". FWIW: Baptism for the dead is mentioned in 1 CORINTHIANS 15:29.

 

[Slowvehicle]

To be fair, I'm arguing the opposite, to be a spiritual "insight", a concept out to be novel. Just because someone thousands of years ago mentioned something that is in the BoM doesn't give license for Mormons to call that concept an "insight". FWIW: Baptism for the dead is mentioned in 1 CORINTHIANS 15:29.

The words are there, yes, but not as an xianist ordinace, but as a fruitless pagan practice...http://carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29.

IOW, Paul is not instituting "baptism for the dead" as something xianists should do. This passage is not support for the claim that Christ is the "authority" for the practice of baptism for the dead...

 

[tsig]

To be fair, I'm arguing the opposite, to be a spiritual "insight", a concept out to be novel. Just because someone thousands of years ago mentioned something that is in the BoM doesn't give license for Mormons to call that concept an "insight". FWIW: Baptism for the dead is mentioned in 1 CORINTHIANS 15:29.

If baptism for the dead is true then it makes more sense to wait til after you die to convert to Mormonism. That way you know for sure and don't run the risk of pissing off some other god who is very jealous.

 

[RandFan]

The words are there, yes, but not as an xianist ordinace, but as a fruitless pagan practice...http://carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29.

IOW, Paul is not instituting "baptism for the dead" as something xianists should do. This passage is not support for the claim that Christ is the "authority" for the practice of baptism for the dead...

I concede your point. Only that Mormons can make an argument that Baptism for the dead predates Mormonism.

 

[RandFan]

If baptism for the dead is true then it makes more sense to wait til after you die to convert to Mormonism. That way you know for sure and don't run the risk of pissing off some other god who is very jealous.

Good point.

 

[RandFan]

If baptism for the dead is true then it makes more sense to wait til after you die to convert to Mormonism. That way you know for sure and don't run the risk of pissing off some other god who is very jealous.

Good point.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

If you widen it to mean universalism (all shall be saved) as Skyrider seems to be implying, the Mormons certainly weren't the first to think of that. Origen suggested it back in the early third century and plenty of Christians have agreed since, even though universalism has generally been considered to at least border on heresy. In its modern incarnation universalism is a founding principle of the Unitarian Universalist church of the US, but plenty of believers in other denominations also hold it. I do, for one.

 

[RandFan]

The words are there, yes, but not as an xianist ordinace, but as a fruitless pagan practice...http://carm.org/baptism-for-the-dead-in-1-corinthians-15-29.

IOW, Paul is not instituting "baptism for the dead" as something xianists should do. This passage is not support for the claim that Christ is the "authority" for the practice of baptism for the dead...

You and I agree completely. Unfortunately the Bible is not so clear. There is enough room to drive a truck through for Mormons to justify the practice.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You and I agree completely. Unfortunately the Bible is not so clear. There is enough room to drive a truck through for Mormons to justify the practice.

At the same level of scholarship that accepts the BoA as Abraham's autographic account of his time in Egypt...or the whole mesoamerican chariot thingy

 

[Prometheus]

. . . This doesn't even make grammatical sense [referring to: "The spirit and the body shall be reunited again in its perfect form"]

Do you also believe that one and one are two?

(ftfy)

Yes, don't you? BTW, did you know that Mike and Dave are my brothers?

 

[skyrider44]

(ftfy)

Yes, don't you? BTW, did you know that Mike and Dave are my brothers?

"One and one" is a unit; thus the correct verb is. . .is. By the same grammatical reasoning, "ham and eggs" is a unit; thus, "Ham and eggs is Mike's breakfast favorite."