LDS

[kerikiwi]

Envy and pride.

Envy and pride tempt us to do what?

 

[DragonLady]

Envy and pride.

5 points for directly answering a question!

To me, I put the two books on the same level. And if I'm honest, I can't deny that there are errors in both. As I've been reading this thread over the last several days, I got to thinking, well... maybe the Lord just had Joseph Smith call things by names that we'd recognize. So instead of saying the Lamanites (or whoever) rode pickadoos, he had Joseph write horses, but that didn't really work because he mentions cureloms (unidentified), so if my logic worked out then why use cureloms instead of something we'd be more familiar with? I think the main difference between science and religion is that religion relies on faith which, as it's taught in Hebrews, "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." And that's pretty much what people have to rely on with any religion. Sorry for rambling, I think I answered the question by admitting that there are errors, and that I put both books on the same level. The problem is there's just not always logic when it comes to religion, it's just a feeling and that's why it's not science.

Welcome to the 'raptor pit.

Interesting thought about the cureloms. I have no idea what those are, and have never heard the word before. Reading your post instantly made me think of authors like Frank Herbert, who used a lot of foreign-sounding words to describe everyday objects. I often like the story and keep reading despite the fact a headache begins growing on page one.

I kinda like your rationalization that God might use familiar words and concepts to describe unfamiliar objects or ideas. But...I do have to point out that as far as I know we haven't found any domesticated beasts of burden that might have been explained with the words for a "horse" or even "deer".

I do agree that religion is based on feelings and hopes and faith. Sometimes I feel compelled to point out obvious problems with religious beliefs -especially Christian beliefs, but at the end of the day I don't fault anyone who chooses to go on believing just because it makes them happy.

That is a curious answer. Your answer distills down to "I don't know." I much prefer "I don't know" to an empty "God did it" or, worse, "there is no conflict." You also imply you are willing to accept additional evidence as it comes along and will adjust and adapt as appropriate.

Agreed. A simple "I don't know" or "I don't understand, either" gains my respect better than "reality is a lie" or "contradictory evidence comes from Satan".

 

[Jomante]

How do you reconcile the condemnation of Lucifer and the Plan of Salvation?

Just a guess here... Lucifer had his free agency, and God knew what he was going to do and worked it into the plan?

 

[Cat Tale]

Welcome to the velociraptor pit. While you're not overseeing Pup as he cuts the lawn, does the dishes, etc. stop in some of our other forums.

Thanks, unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to spend in the threads, and I've been spending a lot of time looking up stuff for this thread when I should've been doing more important things. But if I see anything I'll jump in. Thanks again!

 

[openeye]

Just a guess here... Lucifer had his free agency, and God knew what he was going to do and worked it into the plan?

Sure, but my understanding of the Plan of Salvation (and I may be wrong on this) is that it is eternal, meaning that even Heavenly Father went through the same experience to achieve his godhood. So would not of the same thing have to of happened in his premortal/mortal existence? Meaning a temptation and fall of man.

 

[Janadele]

In our Pre-Mortal existence, as Spirit-children of God and intelligent individuals, we each were at a different stage of progression and knowledge. We possessed the power and opportunity to choose both the course we would pursue and the leaders we would follow.

Lucifer and his followers sought to destroy our God given Free Agency and compel all to obey his will. Compulsion for others was the basis of his selfish ambition to aggrandise himself, without regard to the rights and agency of others. He envied the power of our Heavenly Father and wanted it for himself.

War resulted when his plan was rejected by our Heavenly Father, and as the losers of that war, Lucifer and his followers were cast down to this earth and given no opportunity to progress and obtain their mortal bodies. Instead, they will eventually regress back to the state they were at the beginning, as an intelligence only, without even a Spiritual body.

Than what is the cause of envy and pride in a perfected state (as I assume we were in at the time as we had not yet had mortal bodies and were in the presence of Heavenly Father)?

And I must ask again, since the deception was part of the plan of salvation why is Lucifer condemned for simply playing his part?

 

[openeye]

Lucifer and his followers sought to destroy our God given Free Agency and compel all to obey his will. Compulsion for others was the basis of his selfish ambition to aggrandise himself, without regard to the rights and agency of others. He envied the power of our Heavenly Father and wanted it for himself.

War resulted when his plan was rejected by our Heavenly Father, and as the losers of that war, Lucifer and his followers were cast down to this earth and given no opportunity to progress and obtain their mortal bodies. Instead, they will eventually regress back to the state they were at the beginning, as an intelligence only, without even a Spiritual body.

Sure, but why was there a war at all?

I do not mean to oversimplify here, but if Heavenly Father is omnipotent why did he not simply snap his fingers and bind Lucifer and the sons of perdition in eternal darkness then and there?

 

[asydhouse]

Naw, the missionaries had the doctrine correct (I mean, they were correctly reporting doctrine, not that I think it's correct correct, if you know what I mean.)

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/m...covenants-the-three-degrees-of-glory?lang=eng

Scroll down to the terrestial kingdom to see what most decent folks will get. "Were honorable people who allowed themselves to be blinded by the craftiness of men," is the get-out-of-jail free card, to explain the cognitive dissonance over why nice honest decent people just can't get that burning in the bosom to join the church.

The really bad guys will get the telestial kingdom, but of course if a Mormon gets angry at somebody and doesn't want to be charitable, he or she will put them in that category and gloat about it, but even it isn't really like the stereotypical hell, with fire and pitchforks.

The fire-and-pitchforks place would be outer darkness (scroll down to find it here), but only Mormons can go there. Lends a whole 'nuther aspect to Pascal's wager. If you want to guarantee that you'll never go to outer darkness, don't become a Mormon.

I see, so although you lot are exempt, I as a deserter mormon am doomed to "outer darkness" (hasn't god heard of the concept of recycling?!).

Well that makes skyrider and janadele's complete disinterest in my plight even more a callous attitude!

They are so quick to wash their hands of this particular apostate... no second chance for me, then!

Lucky for me I've long since discovered that science fulfils all my existential needs, and I have no vestige of a belief in such a petty creature as their god. It took me decades of mental work to finally rid myself of those pesky vestiges, but now I readily dismiss coincidences and stress-related mental "trips" of fear (brought about through paranoia of drugs police many years ago... it's a long story), as mental tricks my mind can play on me if I'm having troubles in life.

I no longer have those ideas, and no longer pursue those thoughts... no longer waste my time on them. Science has reinforced my natural tendency to rationality, and studying science has shown me that I can trust it as a method (the only method) of exposing delusions, and avoiding deceiving oneself. As these two are so ably demonstrating, self-deception is a prickly bush of tendrils that doesn't let go.

Well, I won't be back in this thread for at least a month, if ever, as we are going to India for 4 weeks today!

Happy new year and all everyone. Bye.

 

[DragonLady]

Well, I won't be back in this thread for at least a month, if ever, as we are going to India for 4 weeks today!

Oh, what fun! I hope you have a wonderful time.

 

[Pixel42]

As these two are so ably demonstrating, self-deception is a prickly bush of tendrils that doesn't let go.

Well put. I have nothing but admiration for those that manage to escape.

Well, I won't be back in this thread for at least a month, if ever, as we are going to India for 4 weeks today!

Happy new year and all everyone. Bye.

Have a great time.

 

[Cat Tale]

I see, so although you lot are exempt, I as a deserter mormon am doomed to "outer darkness" (hasn't god heard of the concept of recycling?!).

Outer darkness is only reserved for those who who've had a sure knowledge of Christ and have denied him. They're mean, nasty folk you don't want to be associated with. I'd say by and large most fallen away members have never had that knowledge. Based on what little I know of you, I'd say you don't have to worry about that, err... I mean... well... this is a skeptics forum, so yeah, you're not worried, I get that

Well, I won't be back in this thread for at least a month, if ever, as we are going to India for 4 weeks today!

Figures, I join and people just gotta get away. India's a little overdoing it though, don't you think? Have a great time!

 

[tsig]

In our Pre-Mortal existence, as Spirit-children of God and intelligent individuals, we each were at a different stage of progression and knowledge. We possessed the power and opportunity to choose both the course we would pursue and the leaders we would follow.

Lucifer and his followers sought to destroy our God given Free Agency and compel all to obey his will. Compulsion for others was the basis of his selfish ambition to aggrandise himself, without regard to the rights and agency of others. He envied the power of our Heavenly Father and wanted it for himself.

War resulted when his plan was rejected by our Heavenly Father, and as the losers of that war, Lucifer and his followers were cast down to this earth and given no opportunity to progress and obtain their mortal bodies. Instead, they will eventually regress back to the state they were at the beginning, as an intelligence only, without even a Spiritual body.

So your god isn't omnipotent?

ETA: ninjaed by openeye.

 

[tsig]

Outer darkness is only reserved for those who who've had a sure knowledge of Christ and have denied him. They're mean, nasty folk you don't want to be associated with. I'd say by and large most fallen away members have never had that knowledge. Based on what little I know of you, I'd say you don't have to worry about that, err... I mean... well... this is a skeptics forum, so yeah, you're not worried, I get that


Figures, I join and people just gotta get away. India's a little overdoing it though, don't you think? Have a great time!

They were never really true Mormons?

 

[Pup]

I see, so although you lot are exempt, I as a deserter mormon am doomed to "outer darkness" (hasn't god heard of the concept of recycling?!).

I see Cat has already answered this, but I was going to say, there's a get-out-of-jail free card for that too. Just as non-Mormons may have been prevented from joining by the influence of others, Mormons who fall away didn't really have full knowledge. Oliver Cowdry, David Whitmer and a few others are probably pretty lonely down there.

I notice this kind of thing in most religions, or really, most human interactions. People are quick to condemn groups, but have a lot less guts when it comes to condemning individuals one-on-one, face-to-face, whether it's religion, racism, or whatever.

So if a meme is going to spread, there has to be a way to condemn a group while allowing people not to condemn individuals they meet.

The solution in this case is the ever-helpful No True Scotsman. Anyone who would fall away from the church surely didn't really understand it in its fullness. Anyone who would refuse to join is surely being deceived by anti-Mormons.

 

[Pup]

Than what is the cause of envy and pride in a perfected state (as I assume we were in at the time as we had not yet had mortal bodies and were in the presence of Heavenly Father)?

First thing that occurred to me was Exodus 20:4-5 (well, not the chapter and verse numbers, I had to look those up):

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

That seems pretty close to envy and pride.

 

[pakeha]

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml

There are many LDS Scholars who have researched and written on the Book of Abraham... Such as Jeff in the above link. They are their own opinions, but are interesting for those who intrigued by the subject.

Personally, I accept the Scriptures, Doctrine and teachings as received by the Prophets of God and which have been canonised as official LDS Scripture, and have no personal need for further elaboration or research. The Lord has given us more than enough for us to study, understand and abide by... there is little time for more in all the days of our mortal life.

Hi, Janadele.
Thanks for the link; it contains a lot of material which is really thought-provoking.
Still, unless I'm very mistaken, the author doesn't mention the Egyptus origin confusion.

Is it really not note-worthy the Book of Abraham begins with two false etymologies, that of Egyptus and that of Pharaoh?

Perhaps I'm straining after gnats, but I lose all interest in the message of a book if there are glaring errors at the very beginning of it.

Anyway, welcome, Cat Tale!
Have a great trip, asydhouse!

 

[Resume]

Well, I won't be back in this thread for at least a month, if ever, as we are going to India for 4 weeks today!

Happy new year and all everyone. Bye.

Bring me somethin'!

 

[Pup]

I do agree that religion is based on feelings and hopes and faith. Sometimes I feel compelled to point out obvious problems with religious beliefs -especially Christian beliefs, but at the end of the day I don't fault anyone who chooses to go on believing just because it makes them happy.

It reminds me of the old joke:

You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine.

Only it's:

You know what they call the parts of religious texts that are proven to be true? History.

By definition, if something can be supported by logic and evidence, it moves from religion to history.

I totally get the point of "make believing" things, in the sense of fantasy, playing pretend, fiction, etc. I even get the idea of "knowing" things are true without evidence, in a moral sense, like the fact that people should have basic human rights, with no need to invoke the logic of game theory or whatever to justify it.

Personally, I just don't see how people take that step beyond and make themselves believe specific things are really, really true, without evidence. But still, by definition, if it can be supported by logic and evidence, it's not going to be religion anymore.

 

[eight bits]

Pup

The solution in this case is the ever-helpful No True Scotsman. Anyone who would fall away from the church surely didn't really understand it in its fullness. Anyone who would refuse to join is surely being deceived by anti-Mormons.

It might be a little more complicated than that. The salvific principle in question is much older in Western Christianity than Mormonism, and surely older than Antony Flew's identification of a fundamentally different idea.

It is dogma in the Western branch of the oldest surviving limb of Christianity, Roman Catholicism. The core problem is justice, since the majority of people who have ever lived have never heard of the Gospels or Jesus. The Catholic solution in that conscience is authoritative and God-given to everyone, and who follows their conscience is saved. A conscience may be ill-informed, and a person mistaken despite being well-informed, but if that is the guidance a person has received, then they won't be punished by God for following it.

Thus, who isn't saved according to Catholic doctrine is very much like the Mormon formula related to us by your missus (and welcome aboard, Cat Tale)

Outer darkness is only reserved for those who who've had a sure knowledge of Christ and have denied him

As to the age of the principle, Justin Martyr (who was not proto-orthodox, but nevertheless influential, and Second Century) First Apology, chapter 46

... We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious...

If you need a Protestant source to link Smith to the idea, then it can be done through the prominent Lutheran mystic Swedenborg. He also has the idea of post-mortem choices saving the day.

Finally, the idea is sufficiently "surface" that it may be subject to independent re-invention. For example, Billy Graham (of all people) famously articulated a parallel principle in the late Twentieth Century, p-ing off his natural constituency, conservative Protestants (...[Non-Christians of various sorts] turn to the only light they know, and they are saved... There is a wideness to God's mercy).

 

[Pup]

The core problem is justice, since the majority of people who have ever lived have never heard of the Gospels or Jesus. The Catholic solution in that conscience is authoritative and God-given to everyone, and who follows their conscience is saved. A conscience may be ill-informed, and a person mistaken despite being well-informed, but if that is the guidance a person has received, then they won't be punished by God for following it.

Good point. It's a different solution to the same problem, of how to deal with the cognitive dissonance of "good" people being punished by God, through no fault of their own.

Mormonism has the same problem of course, but can approach the solution differently, because those who never lived to hear the LDS gospel aren't out of luck. They'll have another chance to hear it, accept it, and be baptised in the afterlife.

That means the LDS church can stand firm on the fact that people who don't accept the gospel are stuck in a lower degree of glory (their version of semi-hell), because everyone theoretically can accept it, either here on earth or afterwards. So Mormons just know that good people will accept it after they're dead, when they can see it's obviously true and the missionaries come knocking on their door again in the afterlife.

Other religions, that rely only on what people do only when they're alive, need a slightly different escape clause to accomplish the same thing.

Finally, the idea is sufficiently "surface" that it may be subject to independent re-invention.

I agree. It crops up every time a convert to a new religion says, "This is wonderful, but what about grandpa, who died last year and never heard this stuff?"

A religious leader can't say both: "People who don't believe are definitely going to hell," and "Your grandpa's definitely going to hell." He needs the first to give people an incentive to join, but the second will drive them away.