How hard is it to believe when you know "the stuff"

[_truth dancer]

Hi Digger... it is great to "see" you!

His point is that most religions don't claim they are the one and only true one.

The world over various religions believe they are the one and only true one, the one and only true path to God. The verbage may be different but the idea is the same.

JW, Scientology, Quakers, FLDS, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholicism, Chen Tao, Branch Davidians, Jesus Army... the list could go on and on and on. Then you get into the Eastern Religions which believe there is a one way and they know it. Does anyone believe Islam doesn't think they understand the one true way to God?

He admits that God has different ways of dealing with different children.

I'm asking for some evidence that the LDS church is different from all the rest. I'm not asking for claims that are different because every church has individual unique, and exclusive claims. I'm asking for evidence that would give anyone an indication that the LDS church is the real one God directs with the only teachings (ritual, convenants, ceremony) that will allow one to return to God.

What more are you asking for?

I'm trying to understand MGs perspective. I truly don't get it.

I find this perspective close to saying .... my church is the one and only true one. There are no reasons to believe this and it is just like every other church but it is the one God is directing (more than all the other ones). You won't be able to tell because prophets are men just like every other leader but God comes in now and then to direct the church if it gets too far off base. Of course other churchs get little course corrections at times too but those are just from the leaders while in my church they are from God. And just like every other chuch we can't really know when something is from God or when it is the opinion of the prophet but it doesn't matter because the church is true.

:-)

~dancer~

[_rcrocket]

An important place in the world for the LDS Church? Perhaps, for the .001% of humanity that gives a s*** about it.

I'm curious to know why an educated professional such as yourself finds a need to be vulgar when discussing matters of belief and religion. What value does vulgarity bring to your profession in academic discussions? Many of the others on this board are simply helpless in their inability to avoid being vulgar; they are simply vulgar by definition.

P

[_guy sajer]

An important place in the world for the LDS Church? Perhaps, for the .001% of humanity that gives a s*** about it.

I'm curious to know why an educated professional such as yourself finds a need to be vulgar when discussing matters of belief and religion. What value does vulgarity bring to your profession in academic discussions? Many of the others on this board are simply helpless in their inability to avoid being vulgar; they are simply vulgar by definition.

P

First, I don't necessarily consider the word s*** to be vulgar; it depends on context. In this case, s*** is an appropriate word in that it is suggestive of absurdity. That is, it is absurd that God has invested his one and only saving truth in a wholly obscure, totally insignificant, non-entity of a Church that over the course of its existence has reached, at most, .001% of humanity, not including the billions who lived prior to its creation nigh 200 years ago (and that after tens of thousands of years of human existence).

If this is the best plan God can come up with, it's a pretty lousy one. True believing Mormons place an importance on their pathetically trivial religion that is grossly disproportionate to its relevance to humanity, which can be measured in fractions of micro-give-a-sh**s.

So, in the case, the word s*** is useful to highlight the laughable absurdity of Mormon ego-centricity and self-importance.

[_Runtu]

First, I don't necessarily consider the word s*** to be vulgar; it depends on context.

I had a professor at BYU who said, "They're not swear words. They're just intensifiers."

In this case, s*** is an appropriate word in that it is suggestive of absurdity. That is, it is absurd that God has invested his one and only saving truth in a wholly obscure, totally insignificant, non-entity of a Church that over the course of its existence has reached, at most, .001% of humanity, not including the billions who lived prior to its creation nigh 200 years ago (and that after tens of thousands of years of human existence).

If this is the best plan God can come up with, it's a pretty lousy one. True believing Mormons place an importance on their pathetically trivial religion that is grossly disproportionate to its relevance to humanity, which can be measured in fractions of micro-give-a-sh**s.

So, in the case, the word s*** is useful to highlight the laughable absurdity of Mormon ego-centricity and self-importance.

It is interesting how we went from a stone rolling forth and filling the whole world to "well, we won't see a lot of converts in the future because the world is coming to an end." In the end, Mormonism is a lot like what Hinckley said about the missionaries: "It doesn't look like much, but it's all they've got."

[_mentalgymnast]

I'm trying to understand MGs perspective. I truly don't get it.

I find this perspective close to saying .... my church is the one and only true one. There are no reasons to believe this and it is just like every other church but it it the one God is directing (more than all the other ones). You won't be able to tell because prophets just are men just like every other leader but God comes in now and then to direct the church if it gets to far off base. Of course other churchs get little course corrections at times too but those are just from the leaders while in my church they are from God. And just like every other chuch we can't really know when something is from God or when it is the opinion of the prophet but it doesn't matter because the church is true.

MG: you're right, you're not getting it. I don't know that I can be any more clear in what I've been trying to say throughout this thread. Your statement above referring to all that I've said before being "close to saying" what you then said, is off kilter by more than a smidgen. I really don't want to go back and start over again right now. I have too much going on this week to try and go back and rehash everything.

Regards,
MG

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG...

I'm sorry but know I am truly trying to understand your viewpoint and perspective.

It just seems to me that the claims of the church are that unlike the rest of the religions of the world that are the philosophies of man mingled with scripture, the LDS church is divinely directed. This claim alone ups the expectations.

You seem to be suggesting that there is little, if any, difference between the LDS church and every other, other than the specific claims of the LDS church ... but of course every religion has specific claims.

Rather than rehash everything, how about just responding to my question regarding how the one and only true church directed by God would be noticed or identified?

Wouldn't there be something to identify God's true church? Not claims but something clear and visible?

I just can't seem to fit your way of embracing the church with the actual truth claims of the church. Maybe it is just my limited brain! :-)

~dancer~

[_harmony]

Hi MG...

I'm sorry but know I am truly trying to understand your viewpoint and perspective.

It just seems to me that the claims of the church are that unlike the rest of the religions of the world that are the philosophies of man mingled with scripture, the LDS church is divinely directed. This claim alone ups the expectations.

You seem to be suggesting that there is little, if any, difference between the LDS church and every other, other than the specific claims of the LDS church ... but of course every religion has specific claims.

Rather than rehash everything, how about just responding to my question regarding how the one and only true church directed by God would be noticed or identified?

Wouldn't there be something to identify God's true church? Not claims but something clear and visible?

I just can't seem to fit your way of embracing the church with the actual truth claims of the church. Maybe it is just my limited brain! :-)

~dancer~

I'm going to take a stab at that, TD.

How would a person recognize the one and only True Church of God (hereafter referred to as O&OTCOG)?

1. The O&OTCOG would bend over backwards to make sure all its members knew that all God's children were of equal status. There would be no superiority; superiority would be a sin.

2. Teh O&OTCOG would spend its billions on improving the lives of God's children, not on shopping malls, city parks, and conference centers.

3. The O&OTCOG would use its priesthood powers to lead in terms of righteousness in society, and would fight for equality, fairness, and peace. The priesthood would not be an exclusive club, and leadership would not be rewarded with million dollar condos.

4. The O&OTCOG would want all people to have access to its most high ordinances, regardless of ability to pay, eating habits, dress choices, or lack of prophet worship.

5. Instead of trying to fit all families into the standard "family box", the O&OTCOG would lead society in expanding the definition of 'family', because its only through families that we are safe.

6. In the O&OTCOG, compassionate service would be part of every meeting of the Saints. If there was no service, there would be no meeting.

7. In the O&OTCOG, gossip and hatefulness would be punishable by an increase in love.

8. The O&OTCOG would study God, not prophets.

9. The O&OTCOG would ... well, you get the idea.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Harmony...


Excellent post!

I think you are right!

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

I'm trying to understand MGs perspective. I truly don't get it.

I find this perspective close to saying .... my church is the one and only true one. There are no reasons to believe this and it is just like every other church but it it the one God is directing (more than all the other ones). You won't be able to tell because prophets just are men just like every other leader but God comes in now and then to direct the church if it gets to far off base. Of course other churchs get little course corrections at times too but those are just from the leaders while in my church they are from God. And just like every other chuch we can't really know when something is from God or when it is the opinion of the prophet but it doesn't matter because the church is true.

MG: you're right, you're not getting it. I don't know that I can be any more clear in what I've been trying to say throughout this thread. Your statement above referring to all that I've said before being "close to saying" what you then said, is off kilter by more than a smidgen. I really don't want to go back and start over again right now. I have too much going on this week to try and go back and rehash everything.

Regards,
MG

Despite Mormonism's extraordinary truth claims and corresponding claims that its leaders are in divine communication with God and speak on his behalf, so far, I've understood your arguments to suggest that

1. The Mormon Church is no different from any other organization.
2. The Mormon Church offers to true value-added to human society.
3. Gordon Hinkley adds nothing of unique value to human society.


So, I have some questions for you, or other believers frequenting the BB.

What evidence do you see that the Mormon Church is led by God, not by man?

What is the unique value-added to human society of the Mormon Church?

What is the unique value-added to human society of Gordon Hinkley and other Mormon prophets?

[_mentalgymnast]

hi TD. you said:

Rather than rehash everything, how about just responding to my question regarding how the one and only true church directed by God would be noticed or identified?

MG: I think that first of all one would need to come to an understanding of Chrisitianity as a whole...then the roots of Christendom. Jesus Christ. Was Jesus the only begotten son of God? Was his ministry more than simply going around disseminating the "good news" as the evangelicals would like to focus on to the exclusion of almost all else? Was Jesus, when all is said and done, just an ordinary man? Did he organize his followers in such a way as to help provide a mechanism/organization/template to help them make necessary covenants and participate in necessary ordinances which he (and God) considered integral in obtaining a greater or more perfect knowledge of WHO THEY (meaning themselves and God) WERE/ARE?

Now if your answers to these questions/inquiries are in the negative, then we have no where to go at this point. You can probably see why. If you are able to look at the possibility that Jesus was not just a man, but actually the Son of the Living God...then the door is opened to some further exploration.

So what say ye?

Regards,
MG