Former Oklahoma City Temple President Apostatized

[_bcspace]

Let's play a guessing game....what sin did these people commit?

Notice that the tail includes doctrinal questions but never says what they were.

[_Roger Morrison]

CC said:

No, the evidence is good. The New Testament, Josephus, and Tacitus are more than sufficient to establish the existence of Jesus. (And those aren't the only sources.)

I agree, it is established: there was a man named Jesus who was an intinerant teacher... Further:

The record keeping was just fine and whether you believe Jesus was the Son of God or not, the New Testament is sufficient to establish his character..., (UL added by RM)

I think therein comes the rub... In my seriously considered opinion (IMSCO) "...his character..." (whether he was a ficticious, or real person, granting "real") is THE most important element in the presentation and perpetuation of the Christian tradition.

It seems this question divides Christianism into its many sects. All of which agree, there was/is a Jesus. The debate centres on what kind of a person was he? His character? What were his expectations of his followers? Was his message more, or less, about this mortal life than about an immortal life? Are we best to take his social-gospel, or the more popular redemptive salvation-gospel to heart and implimentation?

Again, IMSCO, his "...being the son of God..." is irrelevant to his general, Universal Social message which, if followed, could/would have humans living together harmoniously rather than combatively as has been our rather destructive disparate way through history... Seemingly justified by biblical practices and history...

Might those thoughts have troubled the Temple Pres? Concluding LDS Temple Ritualism to be wasteful of time and resources sacrificed on a journey to nowhere? Might he have taken a furthur step and recognized Christianism's emphasis on eternity as THE anti-Christ message?

A diversionary tactic duping believers away from the practical and pragmatic to the mythological imaginary denial approach to resolving human needs--when Jesus comes agin??? Get real...
Roger
*
*

[_Jason Bourne]

With regards to what Jason said about maintaining integrity/honesty while staying a member of the church, here goes...

1. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church when they have lost faith in the integrity of the church?

2. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church without sharing with their family (spouse/children) that they have lost faith in the integrity of the church?

3. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church without sharing with their children that they have lost faith in the integrity of the church, knowing that their children will likely make marital unions with other church member, thus involving themselves further in a religious community that may not function based on integrity?

4. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while continuing membership in a church without sharing with their children that they have lost faith in the integrity of the church, knowing that their children will likely go on missions and draw in other converts to that which lacks integrity?


5. How does one maintain integrity/honesty while not being fully honest with spouse and children?

I will try to answer in more detail tomorrow. But simply put, I do not think the LDS Church is any more or less true than any other religious system. There is no one true faith or one totally fraudulent. I believe in God and believe he allows a number of various expressions of faith and religion because one form does not fit all the diversity we have among humans. I overall think the LDS Church is a force for good. I like religion, want it in my life and my families life. The LDS Church meets that desire for me.

Actually thinking this over, perhaps for now my response is satisfactory to all the questions above, at least for me.

[_Roger Morrison]

Jason said:

...simply put, I do not think the LDS Church is any more or less true than any other religious system. There is no one true faith or one totally fraudulent. To which I, and most honest thinking people will agree... I believe in God What type, kind, form of "God"? and believe he allows How can "he" do otherwise?a number of various expressions of faith and religion because one form does not fit all the diversity we have among humans. You are correct. "God" seems to work that way. Making similar things/objects,species yet with individual distinctions--snow flakes differ, as do finger-prints, etc I overall think the LDS Church is a force for good. As are most in varying degrees I like religion, want it in my life and my families life. The LDS Church meets that desire for me. Why not be where one is comfortable? Sounds that you would have little trouble moving/leaving if or when you were more discomforted with LDSism...

I think there are many more than imagined in that (healthy) position...
Roger
*
*

[_TAK]

I will try to answer in more detail tomorrow. But simply put, I do not think the LDS Church is any more or less true than any other religious system. There is no one true faith or one totally fraudulent. I believe in God and believe he allows a number of various expressions of faith and religion because one form does not fit all the diversity we have among humans. I overall think the LDS Church is a force for good. I like religion, want it in my life and my families life. The LDS Church meets that desire for me.

Personally, I don’t see how you can juxtapose that statement and answers in a temple worthiness interview leading to a recommend. But that is your deal..

[_antishock8]

I agree, it is established: there was a man named Jesus who was an intinerant teacher... Further:

Would you mind providing the sources for your assertion? I'm interested in how Roger Morrison came to this conclusion.

I, for one, am extremely distrustful of ancient copyists and their penchant for error, unscrupulous additions/subtractions of text, and bias.

Also, if a writer/copyist/historiographer is simply repeating what he was told by Christians, say in reference to Jesus, who they themselves simply derived their opinion from whatever variant of the New Testament (epistles, letters, gospels, etc..) then the text in question does not provide independent confirmation of Jesus. The claims involved are simply hearsay.

The best thing for me would be to see a Roman legal document, say... An execution record of a political dissident and two thieves, upon which is inscribed the name "Jesus of Nazareth". Presumably it wouldn't be a 'patent fraud' like the ossuary of James, brother of Jesus (which was debunked by various types, including the Israel Antiquities Authority), or the Testimonium Flavianum (and the variations of hearsay and textual corruption from other historians).

Was there a Yeshua/Joshua/However you spell it? Sure. Why not? There were plenty. It's not a stretch to imagine a street preacher named Yeshua claiming to be the Son of God, the Messiah, or a prophet. This happens all the time, past-present-future. I just don't see anything that says, "Hey, this is THE Yeshua of THE New Testament. He really did exist."