LDS

[abaddon]

OK, forget dogma, in bunches or otherwise.

OK, good. It was a pointless sidetrack anyway.

1) One reason for Christ's atonement was to appease justice. This principle is well known, but only the BoM explains it adequately: "Alma asked, 'What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay, not one whit" (Alma 42:25). Scharffs explains: "In other words, in order that we be granted mercy if we follow his teachings, Jesus offered himself as payment for our sins so that the requirements of justice could be met."

Which leaves you with the obvious. Why could god not just forgive sins? Why did god need to send himself to rape and impregnate an innocent girl, in order to incarnate himself, get raised, climb up on a cross and be crucified, in order to be raised from the dead two days later (not three), and that was somehow insufficient, so so some angel had to come down and clarify the message, but managed to bork the message enough that it didn't work. Huh?

2) Scharffs: "Many Christians think of the Fall as a great tragedy and believe that Adam and Eve were wicked sinners and that the Atonement was necessary to compensate for their mistake. . . . The BoM clarifies the relationship between the Fall and the Atonement." Scharffs then quotes Lehi who explains that if the Fall had not occurred, "all things must have remained in the same state" forever. Adam and Eve would not have had children. Moreover, "there would be no joy because there would be no sorrow, no righteousness because there would be no evil" (Scharffs).

"You cannot know happiness unless I hold you down and kick you in the fork". Really?

3) Satan's power is not clearly explained in the Bible; thus, the Bible overlooks a critically important purpose of the Atonement. But the BoM does not: "O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to . . . the devil" (2 Ne. 9:8). "Abinadi [explained] that the devil would have power over mankind because the Fall 'was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish . . . subjecting themselves to the devil" (Mosiah 16:3).

The bible seems pretty clear that god and satan are pretty pally, and are simply messing about with man.

4) Scharff: "Most people recognize that human beings have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, but many wonder what the conscience really is. . . . Mormon taught, 'The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil' (Moro. 7:16). The fact that man's conscience is enlightened by the Spirit of Christ gives a new dimension to the role of and office held by the Lord Jesus Christ."

It matters not whether you agree that these statements constitute unique insights contained in the BoM. The fact is, they do. They are not in the Bible, nor--to my knowledge--are they found in other writings held sacred.

*Unique Insights on Christ from the Book of Mormon," Gilbert W. Scharffs,
Ensign, Dec., 1988.

Atheists know good from evil, so that's plain flat out wrong. Also, there is nothing in those statements which has not pre-existed mormonism by thousands of years. They cannot be described as new, or even old insights. They are ancient.

Now, before you wander into victimhood, all of the above is genuine. I cannot see how any of that is anything more than superstitious belief. There is not a whit of evidence for any of it. I fail to see how anyone could buy it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It matters not whether you agree that these statements constitute unique insights contained in the BoM. The fact is, they do.

They are simply statements of things that Mormons believe. It's still no different than a Catholic stating that the truth of his doctrine is supported by the teachings concerning transubstantiation, or a Scientologist offering the auditing of engrams as evidence of the truth of his beliefs.

They are not in the Bible, nor--to my knowledge--are they found in other writings held sacred.

So what? Every religion has tenets that are unique to itself.

An insight that would validate Mormonism would be, as already pointed out, something like a statement by Joseph Smith that there was an eighth planet very similar to Uranus, or a declaration that God had informed him that the cosmos is expanding at an accelerating rate. Dogmatic assertions are nothing unique, and they do nothing to establish facts.

 

[RandFan]

OK, forget dogma, in bunches or otherwise.

I am on record as stating that the BoM contains unique spiritual insights. Earlier I listed two or three, which were immediately derided and dismissed. Here are four more, which, I am confident will receive the same treatment, notwithstanding the fact that they are true:*

1) One reason for Christ's atonement was to appease justice. This principle is well known, but only the BoM explains it adequately: "Alma asked, 'What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay, not one whit" (Alma 42:25). Scharffs explains: "In other words, in order that we be granted mercy if we follow his teachings, Jesus offered himself as payment for our sins so that the requirements of justice could be met."

2) Scharffs: "Many Christians think of the Fall as a great tragedy and believe that Adam and Eve were wicked sinners and that the Atonement was necessary to compensate for their mistake. . . . The BoM clarifies the relationship between the Fall and the Atonement." Scharffs then quotes Lehi who explains that if the Fall had not occurred, "all things must have remained in the same state" forever. Adam and Eve would not have had children. Moreover, "there would be no joy because there would be no sorrow, no righteousness because there would be no evil" (Scharffs).

3) Satan's power is not clearly explained in the Bible; thus, the Bible overlooks a critically important purpose of the Atonement. But the BoM does not: "O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to . . . the devil" (2 Ne. 9:8). "Abinadi [explained] that the devil would have power over mankind because the Fall 'was the cause of all mankind becoming carnal, sensual, devilish . . . subjecting themselves to the devil" (Mosiah 16:3).

4) Scharff: "Most people recognize that human beings have the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, but many wonder what the conscience really is. . . . Mormon taught, 'The Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil' (Moro. 7:16). The fact that man's conscience is enlightened by the Spirit of Christ gives a new dimension to the role of and office held by the Lord Jesus Christ."

*Unique Insights on Christ from the Book of Mormon," Gilbert W. Scharffs,
Ensign, Dec., 1988.

1. First off, I suggest you take a course in theology. The claim here is indicative of a failure to understand two thousand years of Christian theology, discussion and debate. This "insight" and other views of the atonement have a history that long predates Smith. From lumaniers such as Aquinus, Augustine, Calvin and C.S. Lewis (see Satisfaction Theory of Atonement).
2. Again, this is millennial old ground. Skyrider44, before you make such claims it would be helpful to you to do opposition research first. The fall and atonement are two of the most studied and debated concepts in all of religion. You could argue that the BoM predates the contributions of these writers but you can hardly say that the BoM revealed something new. You have portrayed thousands of years of debate and analysis of Judeo-Christian theology into a caricature that isn't remotely fair to Jewish or Christian scholars.
3. First off, the concept of the devil in either Mormon or Classical Christian theology is demonstrably the result of a compilation of characters that predate Christianity and are rooted in Paganism rather than the OT (see History of the Devil). Second, there is absolutely nothing new here.
4. Our conscience is an evolved trait that we share with many other species Morality: It's not just for humans - CNN.com. In any event, to say that our conscience is "the spirit of Christ" is neither novel nor is it profound. It's simply pushing the problem back a level and giving it a place holder.

It matters not whether you agree that these statements constitute unique insights contained in the BoM. The fact is, they do. They are not in the Bible, nor--to my knowledge--are they found in other writings held sacred.

This is just rhetoric. Worse than that it is demonstrably wrong.

 

[RandFan]

4. Our conscience is an evolved trait that we share with many other species Morality: It's not just for humans - CNN.com. In any event, to say that our conscience is "the spirit of Christ" is neither novel nor is it profound. It's simply pushing the problem back a level and giving it a place holder.This is just rhetoric. Worse than that it is demonstrably wrong.​

​

I could post dozens of links but one more I particularly like is the one by Franz de Waal. Moral behavior in animals. Which raises the question, do animals like chimpanzees have the "light of Christ"?

​

 

[joobz]

Which raises the question, do animals like chimpanzees have the "light of Christ"?

​

The Power of Christ Flings Poo!
The Power of Christ Flings Poo!
The Power of Christ Flings Poo!

 

[skyrider44]

You do know that Adam and Eve never really existed, right? That it's just a story? That homo sapiens evolved over millions of years? That there was no "Fall"?

You are well settled into an atheistic paradigm. I would have thought, however, that within the context of scripture and attendant religious belief, you would have been able to see that the BoM offers some unique insights.

Courses are offered at universities virtually worldwide entitled "The Bible as Literature." Professors who teach those courses and the students who take them are not necessarily Christian. Yet they have the intellectual maturity and academic curiosity to set aside personal beliefs and examine the Bible on its merits as literature.

I regret that you seem unable to do that with the BoM.

 

[skyrider44]

They are simply statements of things that Mormons believe.

I didn't post the statements to argue that Mormonism is true. I posted them to show that the BoM contains some unique spiritual insights.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Indeed you did. Note, however, that context counts, and your "host of definitions" fails to take that into account. Foster Z (Post 6545) refers to my statement as "a bunch of dogma." It's clear he was using "dogma" in the pejorative--if not prejudicial--sense.

...speaking of the dogs barking after the caravan has moved on...

The issue has been settled by Foster Zygote's own claim. The word is NOT inherently pejorative. Foster Zygote did NOT intend to be offensive.

If "a (neutral collective noun) of (proper use of a descriptive noun)" offends you, perhaps you should examine your conscience.

Your sect promulgates a bunch of dogma. Instead of demonstrating a thin skin, why not work on providing practical, objective, empirical evidence for what appear to be demonstrably untrue claims made by your sect?

 

[Foster Zygote]

You are well settled into an atheistic paradigm. I would have thought, however, that within the context of scripture and attendant religious belief, you would have been able to see that the BoM offers some unique insights.

Courses are offered at universities virtually worldwide entitled "The Bible as Literature." Professors who teach those courses and the students who take them are not necessarily Christian. Yet they have the intellectual maturity and academic curiosity to set aside personal beliefs and examine the Bible on its merits as literature.

I regret that you seem unable to do that with the BoM.

It might help if you define "insight". As already mentioned, but apparently missed by you, there is a vast amount of literature that offers a sort of insight into the human condition. A major theme of the Harry Potter series was loyalty to, and sacrifice for others, as well as standing up for what is right whatever the personal cost. But these insights don't make the characters, settings and situations portrayed in the books any less fictional.

We can happily address the BoM as a work of literature if you like. We can put it alongside the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the Egyptian Book Of The Dead, the Koran and the Gurū Granth Sāhib. But keep in mind that the academics who study such works as literature aren't claiming that the values and doctrines expressed in the books are evidence that they accurately describe reality.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You are well settled into an atheistic paradigm. I would have thought, however, that within the context of scripture and attendant religious belief, you would have been able to see that the BoM offers some unique insights.

Courses are offered at universities virtually worldwide entitled "The Bible as Literature." Professors who teach those courses and the students who take them are not necessarily Christian. Yet they have the intellectual maturity and academic curiosity to set aside personal beliefs and examine the Bible on its merits as literature.

I regret that you seem unable to do that with the BoM.

I wonder that you do not realize that your claim of "artistic merit" does not change the fact that "אָדָם" & "חַוָּה" could not have been actual historical characters, as is demonstrated by human genetics? If you understood how evolution works, you would know that speaking of the "first pair of humans" is nonsensical.

How does claiming that a physical impossibility is a point of doctrine represent a "unique 'spiritual' insight"?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I didn't post the statements to argue that Mormonism is true. I posted them to show that the BoM contains some unique spiritual insights.

Back in post #6497, you stated:

Critics fail to point out--in the spirit of fairness--that those difficulties [the evidence of fraud and gross historical inaccuracy of the BoM and BoA] are at least mitigated by the remarkable spiritual insight found in certain passages of the BoM and the BA.

If you aren't arguing that these "insights" support the veracity of Joseph Smith's writings, then what do you mean by "mitigate"? Are you just saying, "He may have told a lot of lies, but at least he said some nice things too."?

 

[RandFan]

You are well settled into an atheistic paradigm. I would have thought, however, that within the context of scripture and attendant religious belief, you would have been able to see that the BoM offers some unique insights.

The "insights" you have quoted thus far are not necessarily novel. You argue as if Christian theology is monolithic and/or has not provided much insight since Paul and the early Christian writers. Neither of these are remotely true. The differences of opinion as to the fall, the atonement and other concepts you point out have resulted in thousands of perspectives and very little in the way of Mormonism is novel.

Courses are offered at universities virtually worldwide entitled "The Bible as Literature." Professors who teach those courses and the students who take them are not necessarily Christian. Yet they have the intellectual maturity and academic curiosity to set aside personal beliefs and examine the Bible on its merits as literature.

There are also Christian theological courses taught at local/junior colleges and universities world wide. You really should take one.

I regret that you seem unable to do that with the BoM.

I graduated seminary (for those who don't know, Mormon seminary is a High School level curriculum) and I served a mission. Following my mission I took a course in theology at the University of Utah. I can't name anything that is truly novel in Mormon theology. Much of it is not mainstream but other than the notion that god was once a man and humans can become gods, there's nothing new.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't post the statements to argue that Mormonism is true. I posted them to show that the BoM contains some unique spiritual insights.

It might help if you define "insight".

I'm either on ignore or you are choosing to ignore me. In any event, if you can see this, I think it fair to ask you skyrider to explain what you might mean by "insight"? IMO, the "insight" ought to at least be new (novel). What you seem to not understand is that by the time of Smith there had been many thousands of books written on various religious concepts.

IMO, an insight ought to also be compelling. I think the notion of god once being mortal and humans having the capacity to become gods is a compelling narrative. I honestly don't know how novel the specifics of the Mormon concept is but I'm not sure that is itself, per se, novel. I honestly don't know.

But what you have posted thus far isn't particularly compelling or novel.

 

[RandFan]

I can't name anything that is truly novel in Mormon theology. Much of it is not mainstream but other than the notion that god was once a man and humans can become gods, there's nothing new.

At the moment I'm struggling to find a precursor to the notion that god was once a mortal or that mortals can become human gods (Thanks to Olowkow who picked up on my mistake).

 

[Olowkow]

At the moment I'm struggling to find a precursor to the notion that god was once a mortal or that mortals can become human gods.

I think you mean "gods" in the above. Is this what you are looking for?

People who have been considered deities.

 

[RandFan]

I think you mean "gods" in the above.

Yes, thank you.

Is this what you are looking for?

People who have been considered deities.

Leave it to the JREF.

From the link:

Ancestor worship involves the elevation of all deceased ancestors to the status of deities.

One of the oldest, and at one time, the most ubiquitous of religious beliefs. I was thinking of the mortal to deity transition and was sure I had heard at least of one instance. I'm sure there are many more.

Also from your link:

Followers of ancient Egyptian religion, by the New Kingdom, believed that all deceased (not just pharaohs) became the god Osiris.

I think this very well could also be a precursor and is, IIRC, popular in some if not many Eastern and new age beliefs. Particularly becoming one with god. God's Debris by Dilbert comic strip writer Scott Adams, I believe, is an example of a popular theme of a cycle of god to human to god.

 

[tsig]

[/LEFT]
[/INDENT]I could post dozens of links but one more I particularly like is the one by Franz de Waal. Moral behavior in animals. Which raises the question, do animals like chimpanzees have the "light of Christ"?

​

Does it appear to them in the form of a large black monolith?

 

[tsig]

The "insights" you have quoted thus far are not necessarily novel. You argue as if Christian theology is monolithic and/or has not provided much insight since Paul and the early Christian writers. Neither of these are remotely true. The differences of opinion as to the fall, the atonement and other concepts you point out have resulted in thousands of perspectives and very little in the way of Mormonism is novel.

There are also Christian theological courses taught at local/junior colleges and universities world wide. You really should take one.

I graduated seminary (for those who don't know, Mormon seminary is a High School level curriculum) and I served a mission. Following my mission I took a course in theology at the University of Utah. I can't name anything that is truly novel in Mormon theology. Much of it is not mainstream but other than the notion that god was once a man and humans can become gods, there's nothing new.

Some forms of Buddhism seem to have a similar idea:


"Samantabhadra, the primordial Buddha whose nature is identical with the tathagatagarbha within each sentient being, is the ultimate ground of samsara and nirvana; and the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this infinite, radiant, empty awareness. Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the bhavanga to the tathagatagarbha to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."
—Dr. B. Alan Wallace[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_Buddhism

 

[tsig]

At the moment I'm struggling to find a precursor to the notion that god was once a mortal or that mortals can become human gods (Thanks to Olowkow who picked up on my mistake).

I believe that Roman Emperors where promoted to godhead after death.

 

[RandFan]

Some forms of Buddhism seem to have a similar idea:


"Samantabhadra, the primordial Buddha whose nature is identical with the tathagatagarbha within each sentient being, is the ultimate ground of samsara and nirvana; and the entire universe consists of nothing other than displays of this infinite, radiant, empty awareness. Thus, in light of the theoretical progression from the bhavanga to the tathagatagarbha to the primordial wisdom of the absolute space of reality, Buddhism is not so simply non-theistic as it may appear at first glance."
—Dr. B. Alan Wallace[40]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_Buddhism

Thanks, reminds me of one of my favorite quotes.

Carl Spackler: A looper, you know, a caddy, a looper, a jock. So, I tell them I'm a pro jock, and who do you think they give me? The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.