Jacob Hansen: Yesser No?

[PseudoPaul]

This is where I think you might be mistaken. On the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah and that He was indeed resurrected from the dead, the first fruits of them that slept...I would be looking for something in the world today that would represent Him well and doing His work. Whatever that might look like in today's world. The CofJCofLDS and the fruits thereof seem to fit the bill in my estimation.

Well, messiah meant something different to you than it did to Jesus. For Jesus, messiah meant King of Israel. Meaning Jesus would be the king of hte land after God kicked the Romans out of power.

We have some elements from the past...prophets and apostles.

The names are the same, but the function is totally different.

We have power to act in the name of God/Jesus.

Jesus didn't go around preaching about priesthood. He did seem to talk about authority from God, but it wasn't like formal ecclesiastical thing.

More importantly, the gospel that is taught in the LDS Church is centered around families, progression, obedience to correct principles, faith in a Higher Power, knowledge of the character/being of God, Resurrection and Eternal Life, service, discipleship, etc.

Jesus' message was kind of anti-family. He told people to abandon their families and live a life of voluntary poverty and homelessness. He thought that celibacy was superior to family life.

If I was to look around the world for something representing that which I think God is behind and supporting I would go with the LDS church. The fruits in the lives of members who dedicate their lives to strict obedience and faith seem to demonstrate that there is something unique and special about the church.

I don't really see much connection between Jesus' movement, which was kind of a utopian eschatological Jewish thing, and the church, which is kind of a variation on modern protestantism with a bit of a Catholic influence.

What it looks like in comparison to the "wandering band of pacifists" in ancient times is not as of much interest to me as to whether or not the doctrines, principles, practices, ordinances, and authority lead a man/woman towards Christ, along with their families and associates. If a critic of the church chooses to believe that there is 'something else' that leads them and their families towards a Greater Good than that which is found within the CofJCofLDS, then more power to them.

How can a group that ignores almost everything Jesus actually taught lead you to Jesus?

What are your views in regard to existing in some form as an individual after you die? Do you think that Jesus was resurrected? Do you think that Jesus did not teach that "In my Father's house are many mansions?"...that this was a later doctrine inserted into the scriptural canon?

Regards,
MG

Jesus himself absolutely believed in the resurrection. For him the reward was a physical resuscitation of the body and the ability to continue living on earth, this time in peace and prosperity. Jesus seemed to think that the poor would be granted resurrection and life in the new imperial kingdom of God on earth, while the rich would not.

Do I think he was really raised from the dead? I'll say that's not a historical question - history has nothing to say about miracles of God. Personally I don't think there is life after death. It seems highly improbable to say the least.

Jesus probably went to his death bitterly, as was depicted in the Gospel of Mark. He wasn't supposed to die, he was supposed to see the Romans defeated and himself anointed king. It's a shame that Christianity elevated him to the status of a god after his death and created a religion that basically ignores everything he stood for. I feel bad for Jesus. I think he would hate Christianity if he knew anything about it.

Do I hate Christianity? No, it's my culture. But I feel bad that Jesus is pretty much ignored in the religion that is supposed to be about him.

Did Jesus say "In my Father's house are many mansions." Probably not. That comes from John, the last of the four canonical gospels, and the one least likely to have any authentic sayings of Jesus. It seems to presume the idea that people go to heaven when they die - Jesus definitely didn't believe that. The righteous would live on earth, and the wicked would die a painful death, which meant for Jesus that they would no longer exist at all.

[MG 2.0]

This is where I think you might be mistaken. On the assumption that Jesus was the Messiah and that He was indeed resurrected from the dead, the first fruits of them that slept...I would be looking for something in the world today that would represent Him well and doing His work. Whatever that might look like in today's world. The CofJCofLDS and the fruits thereof seem to fit the bill in my estimation.

Well, messiah meant something different to you than it did to Jesus. For Jesus, messiah meant King of Israel. Meaning Jesus would be the king of hte land after God kicked the Romans out of power.

We have some elements from the past...prophets and apostles.

The names are the same, but the function is totally different.

We have power to act in the name of God/Jesus.

Jesus didn't go around preaching about priesthood. He did seem to talk about authority from God, but it wasn't like formal ecclesiastical thing.

More importantly, the gospel that is taught in the LDS Church is centered around families, progression, obedience to correct principles, faith in a Higher Power, knowledge of the character/being of God, Resurrection and Eternal Life, service, discipleship, etc.

Jesus' message was kind of anti-family. He told people to abandon their families and live a life of voluntary poverty and homelessness. He thought that celibacy was superior to family life.

If I was to look around the world for something representing that which I think God is behind and supporting I would go with the LDS church. The fruits in the lives of members who dedicate their lives to strict obedience and faith seem to demonstrate that there is something unique and special about the church.

I don't really see much connection between Jesus' movement, which was kind of a utopian eschatological Jewish thing, and the church, which is kind of a variation on modern protestantism with a bit of a Catholic influence.

What it looks like in comparison to the "wandering band of pacifists" in ancient times is not as of much interest to me as to whether or not the doctrines, principles, practices, ordinances, and authority lead a man/woman towards Christ, along with their families and associates. If a critic of the church chooses to believe that there is 'something else' that leads them and their families towards a Greater Good than that which is found within the CofJCofLDS, then more power to them.

How can a group that ignores almost everything Jesus actually taught lead you to Jesus?

What are your views in regard to existing in some form as an individual after you die? Do you think that Jesus was resurrected? Do you think that Jesus did not teach that "In my Father's house are many mansions?"...that this was a later doctrine inserted into the scriptural canon?

Regards,
MG

Jesus himself absolutely believed in the resurrection. For him the reward was a physical resuscitation of the body and the ability to continue living on earth, this time in peace and prosperity. Jesus seemed to think that the poor would be granted resurrection and life in the new imperial kingdom of God on earth, while the rich would not.

Do I think he was really raised from the dead? I'll say that's not a historical question - history has nothing to say about miracles of God. Personally I don't think there is life after death. It seems highly improbable to say the least.

Jesus probably went to his death bitterly, as was depicted in the Gospel of Mark. He wasn't supposed to die, he was supposed to see the Romans defeated and himself anointed king. It's a shame that Christianity elevated him to the status of a god after his death and created a religion that basically ignores everything he stood for. I feel bad for Jesus. I think he would hate Christianity if he knew anything about it.

Do I hate Christianity? No, it's my culture. But I feel bad that Jesus is pretty much ignored in the religion that is supposed to be about him.

Did Jesus say "In my Father's house are many mansions." Probably not. That comes from John, the last of the four canonical gospels, and the one least likely to have any authentic sayings of Jesus. It seems to presume the idea that people go to heaven when they die - Jesus definitely didn't believe that. The righteous would live on earth, and the wicked would die a painful death, which meant for Jesus that they would no longer exist at all.

Thank you for your response. I suppose the primary point on which we differ is our view of existence vs. nonexistence after death. A number of years ago after I went through a few years of agnosticism/atheism as I had many unanswered questions about many things, I slowly came to the realization that a creator God made more sense to me than some other god or gods. Creator, as in the Being that created me in His image through His power and knowledge of all things. Once I decided there was a personal God everything else also slowly started moving into place. I could make a long list.

Jesus being the literal Son of God and creator under the direction of His Father being number two on the list. Anytime we look through the lens of history many of the details do not come fully into focus. It’s the larger picture I’m more interested in. The plan of salvation. Atonement and repentance. Eternal progress. Etc.

I’ve mentioned a number of times on this board that it is the belief/hope in a creator God that comes first in the hierarchy of beliefs. Without that, everything else is essentially superfluous and without real meaning.

I wish you well on your chosen path. You’d be an interesting guy to have in our ward! I sometimes wonder if there are other folks sitting in the folding chairs who are not totally on board with God, afterlife, etc.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Jesus' message was kind of anti-family. He told people to abandon their families and live a life of voluntary poverty and homelessness. He thought that celibacy was superior to family life.

That seems to be a humongous point of difference between what Jesus taught and what Mormonism claims He taught, which they claim they are the restoration of. In fact, if Jesus did extol those things, then Mormonism isn’t a restoration at all. Where are you getting that impression of Jesus from PseudoPaul?

[PseudoPaul]

Jesus' message was kind of anti-family. He told people to abandon their families and live a life of voluntary poverty and homelessness. He thought that celibacy was superior to family life.

That seems to be a humongous point of difference between what Jesus taught and what Mormonism claims He taught, which they claim they are the restoration of. In fact, if Jesus did extol those things, then Mormonism isn’t a restoration at all. Where are you getting that impression of Jesus from PseudoPaul?

So a couple of examples:

Matthew 19:29 says, "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life".

And in the same chapter:
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Most scholars seem to think eunuch is a term here that is being used as a metaphor for those who choose to abstain from sex.

And of course Jesus taught that in the resurrection there would be no marriage, but that instead people would be like the angels (who were thought to be sexless).

Pretty much the opposite of what is taught in the LDS tradition!

[MG 2.0]

That seems to be a humongous point of difference between what Jesus taught and what Mormonism claims He taught, which they claim they are the restoration of. In fact, if Jesus did extol those things, then Mormonism isn’t a restoration at all. Where are you getting that impression of Jesus from PseudoPaul?

So a couple of examples:

Matthew 19:29 says, "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life".

And in the same chapter:
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Most scholars seem to think eunuch is a term here that is being used as a metaphor for those who choose to abstain from sex.

And of course Jesus taught that in the resurrection there would be no marriage, but that instead people would be like the angels (who were thought to be sexless).

Pretty much the opposite of what is taught in the LDS tradition!

From what we can see, the communities and practices of the early followers of Jesus didn’t make it much beyond the first generation of believers before things morphed. We then end up with a state sanctioned religion. It is THAT church that moved throughout the known world. The question is whether God/Jesus, knowing the end from the beginning, ordained this to be so.

It is from THIS seed that we later have Protestantism which ends up with an overhaul that many revere to be a ‘fullness’ of God’s Kingdom on earth. One that will never leave until the Savior returns to take up a his jewels.

Is it a grand scheme or is it a fluke? Depends on where your sitting.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

From what we can see, the communities and practices of the early followers of Jesus didn’t make it much beyond the first generation of believers before things morphed. We then end up with a state sanctioned religion. It is THAT church that moved throughout the known world. The question is whether God/Jesus, knowing the end from the beginning, ordained this to be so.

It is from THIS seed that we later have Protestantism which ends up with an overhaul that many revere to be a ‘fullness’ of God’s Kingdom on earth. One that will never leave until the Savior returns to take up a his jewels.

Is it a grand scheme or is it a fluke? Depends on where your sitting.

That's a fantastic summary of Christian history, MG.

Is it a grand scheme or a fluke? The answer, of course, is both! It’s a magnificent, divinely-inspired fluke and it's a scheme so grand and so convoluted that it involves emperors, reformers, peep stones, polygamy, gold plates, Egyptian funerary papyri, racism, a sex cult and fake civilizations/history. It's also the biggest fluke of all time and the fact there are thousands of different religions is proof that God has a truly wicked sense of humor. Or that humans are just really gullible and really good at making things complicated.

Depends on where you’re sitting, I suppose.

[MG 2.0]

From what we can see, the communities and practices of the early followers of Jesus didn’t make it much beyond the first generation of believers before things morphed. We then end up with a state sanctioned religion. It is THAT church that moved throughout the known world. The question is whether God/Jesus, knowing the end from the beginning, ordained this to be so.

It is from THIS seed that we later have Protestantism which ends up with an overhaul that many revere to be a ‘fullness’ of God’s Kingdom on earth. One that will never leave until the Savior returns to take up a his jewels.

Is it a grand scheme or is it a fluke? Depends on where your sitting.

That's a fantastic summary of Christian history, MG.

Is it a grand scheme or a fluke? The answer, of course, is both! It’s a magnificent, divinely-inspired fluke and it's a scheme so grand and so convoluted that it involves emperors, reformers, peep stones, polygamy, gold plates, Egyptian funerary papyri, racism, a sex cult and fake civilizations/history. It's also the biggest fluke of all time and the fact there are thousands of different religions is proof that God has a truly wicked sense of humor. Or that humans are just really gullible and really good at making things complicated.

Depends on where you’re sitting, I suppose.

Ah! You are revealing a bit more about yourself. You have a hard time recognizing a God that would be doing a work through and in between a convoluted mess…from our perspective. Makes you wonder what kind of God would be/do the kinds of things that would result in something with so many moving pieces. Some of them, for all intents and purposes, seemingly leading AWAY from God.

What’s up with that? Have you figured it out?

Regards
MG

[Marcus]

From what we can see, the communities and practices of the early followers of Jesus didn’t make it much beyond the first generation of believers before things morphed. We then end up with a state sanctioned religion. It is THAT church that moved throughout the known world. The question is whether God/Jesus, knowing the end from the beginning, ordained this to be so.

It is from THIS seed that we later have Protestantism which ends up with an overhaul that many revere to be a ‘fullness’ of God’s Kingdom on earth. One that will never leave until the Savior returns to take up a his jewels.

Is it a grand scheme or is it a fluke? Depends on where your sitting.

That's a fantastic summary of Christian history, MG.

Is it a grand scheme or a fluke? The answer, of course, is both! It’s a magnificent, divinely-inspired fluke and it's a scheme so grand and so convoluted that it involves emperors, reformers, peep stones, polygamy, gold plates, Egyptian funerary papyri, racism, a sex cult and fake civilizations/history. It's also the biggest fluke of all time and the fact there are thousands of different religions is proof that God has a truly wicked sense of humor. Or that humans are just really gullible and really good at making things complicated.

Depends on where you’re sitting, I suppose.

Mg is cut and pasting AI again, because his paragraphs you quoted make no sense. They are a "fantastic summary of Christian history" indeed. I'd like to ask him where he got the 'take up his jewels' bit (because it clearly isn't the Mormon version), but he's shown repeatedly that he doesn't have the capacity to explain himself.

[I Have Questions]

That seems to be a humongous point of difference between what Jesus taught and what Mormonism claims He taught, which they claim they are the restoration of. In fact, if Jesus did extol those things, then Mormonism isn’t a restoration at all. Where are you getting that impression of Jesus from PseudoPaul?

So a couple of examples:

Matthew 19:29 says, "And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands for the sake of my name will receive a hundred times more, and will inherit eternal life".

And in the same chapter:
10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Most scholars seem to think eunuch is a term here that is being used as a metaphor for those who choose to abstain from sex.

And of course Jesus taught that in the resurrection there would be no marriage, but that instead people would be like the angels (who were thought to be sexless).

Pretty much the opposite of what is taught in the LDS tradition!

When you demonstrate what Jesus taught like that, if Mormonism was a restoration of what Jesus taught then Mormons should be single, virgins, and have left their family to live a life of celibacy and poverty.

[Hound of Heaven]

Seems like cult member. Don’t we see these types of people in Scientology and MAGA?

And Marxist progressivism!