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

[_harmony]

MG: OK, now we've set up a hypothetical condition/situation that Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh, Savior of mankind.

Or, as others believe, that Jesus was another manifestation of God.

I'm going to also assume that the biblical record is generally accurate as to what we read in the New Testament.

Now that's a stretch, since you just brought man's hand into your hypothetical.

Jesus called disciples, later called apostles. Jesus set up a grassroots sort of organization/group that later evolved into a church[es]. Jesus had power/authority from on high or within himself to perform miracles and to teach truth.

The only record we have of that this happened this way is one shaped by man's hand. There are other records, also shaped by man's hand, that tell a different story.

Baptism was a gateway ordinance into the congregation of like believers.

But not into heaven.

The Holy Ghost performed an important part in helping early believers come to a sure knowledge.

Anecdotal reports with no evidence to back them up.

Sacrament was practiced among the believers.

And among non-believers, if one's definition of sacrament is broad enough.

God himself appeared to some chosen individuals and communicated knowledge to them apart and away from the general congregation.

Anecdotal reports again. Again with no evidence to back them up.

Sin was eschewed and repentance was part and parcel of following Jesus. And so on.

Man is incapable of eschewing sin. If he could eschew sin, there would be no need for Jesus.

To put it simply, Jesus brought the gospel/good news of salvation to mankind.

You forgot some important parts (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc), but that's to be expected, since the church doesn't emphasize that part of the gospel enough.

Where is that good news/gospel and the power/authority of God most likely to be found in modern times if it is to be found at all?

Sure as heck not in the LDS church. We're too worried about earring holes, teased hair, and wearing the right clothes to be worried about actually living the gospel of Jesus Christ. We spend our money on shopping malls, city parks, and big marble buildings instead of taking care of the poor and afflicted, service to others, and ministering to those in need. We personify the materialism Christ rejected. But that's okay... we've got a prophet.

[_mentalgymnast]

hi Harmony. so what do you think?

Where is that good news/gospel and the power/authority of God most likely to be found in modern times if it is to be found at all?

1. Catholic Church
2. Protestant churches
3. Non-Christian organizations/systems
4. New Age belief systems
5. Restorationist movements
6. Atheistic belief systems
7. Agnoticism
8. Philisophical theories
9. Kiwanis Club
10. Cult figure movements

All of them? None of the above?

Regards,
MG

[_guy sajer]

Ok, for purposes of debate, let's assume we're on the same page.
Now, as for the evidence I've requested . . . ?

MG: OK, now we've set up a hypothetical condition/situation that Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh, Savior of mankind. I'm going to also assume that the biblical record is generally accurate as to what we read in the New Testament. Jesus called disciples, later called apostles. Jesus set up a grassroots sort of organization/group that later evolved into a church[es]. Jesus had power/authority from on high or within himself to perform miracles and to teach truth. Baptism was a gateway ordinance into the congregation of like believers. The Holy Ghost performed an important part in helping early believers come to a sure knowledge. Sacrament was practiced among the believers. God himself appeared to some chosen individuals and communicated knowledge to them apart and away from the general congregation. Sin was eschewed and repentance was part and parcel of following Jesus. And so on.

To put it simply, Jesus brought the gospel/good news of salvation to mankind.

Where is that good news/gospel and the power/authority of God most likely to be found in modern times if it is to be found at all?

1. Catholic Church
2. Protestant churches
3. Non-Christian organizations/systems
4. New Age belief systems
5. Restorationist movements
6. Atheistic belief systems
7. Agnoticism
8. Philisophical theories
9. Kiwanis Club
10. Cult figure movements

What think ye?

Regards,
MG

None of the above. I'd have to say Universalist Churches. If we have to choose from the above list, and if we assume Jesus is the Christ, yada yada, then I'd have to say non-denominational or non-dogmatic Protestant Churches, characterized by no rigid fixed dogma, liberal interpretation of scripture, allowance for divergence of thought, free exercise of moral agency, absence of ultimate authority figures, no personality cults, no one acting as the intermediary between the person and God, absence of rigid institutional structure, and the like.

Since none of the above choices can demonstrate that they alone have the truth, there would need to be substantial leeway for persons to find their own "truth," that is, make Christ work for them, forge their own understanding of Christ and his message, etc.

I'm afraid this leaves Mormonism out of the mix.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi TD. you said:

So, you seem to suggest that in order to even begin a conversation or a discussion to learn about evidence that there is a one and only true church, one must believe in the LDS beliefs.

MG: no. I'm saying that one must be open to the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth was in reality the Son of God and Savior of mankind. This is not a belief unique to the LDS church.

If an alien came to the earth, how could she/he identify which was the one and only true church of God?

MG: contacting the LDS missionaries, taking the discussions in alienese, reading the Book of Mormon, and praying to know whether the message is true.

Actually, silliness aside, I don't know if this would be possible because the aliens would not be able to see things in historical context. They would be culturally disconnected from earth time and events. They would be unable to make connections between present and past here on the earth. They would be unfamiliar with the history of Christianity and other world religions and would be operating under a severe deficit of judgement and perspective. Also, who's to say that they don't already know the truth in that they worship the only one and true god Vactor, ultimate creator and god of the universe as they know it. They would look upon any organization claiming to be the only one and true church as being a insurmountable contradiction to the truth as they understand/know it.

Having said this... I am also willing to listen to your thoughts if we all assume the story line is the one and only true one..... (This being that there is a one and only true church, etc. etc. etc.).

MG: see my response to guy. Which one on the list would you pick? None of them? All of them? If none of them...then what and where would you look to in order to find the truth found in Jesus Christ (again operating under the assumptions the the "story line" is true).

Regards,
MG

[_guy sajer]

Hi TD. you said:

So, you seem to suggest that in order to even begin a conversation or a discussion to learn about evidence that there is a one and only true church, one must believe in the LDS beliefs.

MG: no. I'm saying that one must be open to the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth was in reality the Son of God and Savior of mankind. This is not a belief unique to the LDS church.

If an alien came to the earth, how could she/he identify which was the one and only true church of God?

MG: contacting the LDS missionaries, taking the discussions in alienese, reading the Book of Mormon, and praying to know whether the message is true.

Actually, silliness aside, I don't know if this would be possible because the aliens would not be able to see things in historical context. They would be culturally disconnected from earth time and events. They would be unable to make connections between present and past here on the earth. They would be unfamiliar with the history of Christianity and other world religions and would be operating under a severe deficit of judgement and perspective. Also, who's to say that they don't already know the truth in that they worship the only one and true god Vactor, ultimate creator and god of the universe as they know it. They would look upon any organization claiming to be the only one and true church as being a insurmountable contradiction to the truth as they understand/know it.

Having said this... I am also willing to listen to your thoughts if we all assume the story line is the one and only true one..... (This being that there is a one and only true church, etc. etc. etc.).

MG: see my response to guy. Which one on the list would you pick? None of them? All of them? If none of them...then what and where would you look to in order to find the truth found in Jesus Christ (again operating under the assumptions the the "story line" is true).

Regards,
MG

I'd look inside myself, not to others. I believe that we are all moral agents, capable of discovering "truth" (I put it in quotes, because I am not refering to absolute religious truth, which I believe is unknowable) and we do not need authority figure to guide us or to act as intermediaries between us and God.

I would also look for a religion that advocated a belief system that appealed to my sense of reason and what espoused high moral standards (without a focus on sexual morality, which I believe is way down the list in terms of moral gravitas). I cannot accept that God requires us to sacrifice our intelligence, common sense, and capacity for reason as a precondition for salvation. Yet, Mormonism (IMHO) requires all of this.

[_mentalgymnast]

hi guy. you said:

I'd have to say Universalist Churches.

MG: on the list, why would you not look seriously at any of the restorationist movements of the early 19th century? Afterall, they were claiming to restore the ancient church and its teachings.

Going Universalist isn't a half bad choice though. Relatively safe and secure.

Hey, and Joseph Smith's dad was universalist. Runs in the family of the prophet. Gotta be good. <g>

I am serious though, why would you refuse to look at the restorationist movements? Wouldn't you be concerned about wanting to find a church/religion as close to biblical roots/teachings as possible?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

hi guy. you said:

I cannot accept that God requires us to sacrifice our intelligence, common sense, and capacity for reason as a precondition for salvation.

MG: on that I think we can agree.

Regards,
MG

[_truth dancer]

Hi MG...

I'm going to give you an example why I don't follow your idea. I'm not mocking or being rude, I'm just trying to show why I don't think it is best to make a bunch of claims, accept a bunch of assumptions that support those claims, then show something is true because they embrace the claims. OK... here is my example.

I started a new philosophical organization. It is called the Universal Institute of the Ruby Slippers. We have three members.

It is the only and only true organzation directed by the "Source" of our universe.

I claim that it is divinely directed.
I claim it demonstrates the one and only road to knowledge, truth, and love.
I claim it has the true rituals for astral traveling.
I claim it has the magic words that are required for the secrets of life.
I calim it has a magic power available only to those who understand it.
I claim it has the ultimate power to destroy evil.
I claim it has the understanding of societies in other realms.
I claim it has the potential to bring you all your dreams.
I claim it is the only way to obtain residence in the glorious realm of joy.

If you want to know if it is true you must first assume...

Frank Baum was inspired by divine Source to write the Wizard of Oz.
Scarecrows, Tin Men, and Talking Lions exist.
The Yellow Brick Road is real.
Witches, both good and bad exist.
Clicking your heals while wearning ruby slippers can bring you into other realms.
Waving a magic wand makes evil disappear.
The Emerald City is the ultimate residence where we all want to live.
One can gain truth, love, and knowledge through gifts from the man behind the curtain.
You aren't judged by how much you love, but by how much others love you. :-(

Which organizations are most likely to be the one and only true one, WITH the above assumptions?

The boy scouts of America
The YMCA
The high school marching band
The Rebulican Party
The neighborhood book club
The NASA astronauts
The Raliens

This process just seems like a REALLY bad way to discover truth.

Wouldn't it be better to say, embrace one's reality, look for truth in the world, listen to your heart, learn everything you can rather than assume things that may or may not be true so you can believe something is true?

Does this make sense? I'm having a difficult time explaining why I do not think your method of discovering truth is a very good one.

:-)

My other point though is.... what I am looking for, in my alien example, is really about evidence in the real world. More like the suggestions Harmony made. In other words, I'm not looking to base truth on the debate of texts and claims..... I'm wondering if there is any evidence that we could see, experience, or measure.

For example... is there one group that is more kind and caring? One group that clearly can heal and raise the dead unlike any other organization? Is there a group that is changing the world for the better in ways unlike any other? Or bringing much needed healing to the world unlike any other? Maybe there is a group that clearly is ahead in the sciences helping save the lives of millions of people? Or a group taking care of the starving children of the world? Is there any evidence of the Power of God impacting the world? Or that God's authority (?) is doing something in the world that is making a difference?

Does this help clarify?

Be back later on...

:-)

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

hi guy. you said:

I'd have to say Universalist Churches.

MG: on the list, why would you not look seriously at any of the restorationist movements of the early 19th century? Afterall, they were claiming to restore the ancient church and its teachings.

Going Universalist isn't a half bad choice though. Relatively safe and secure.

Hey, and Joseph Smith's dad was universalist. Runs in the family of the prophet. Gotta be good. <g>

I am serious though, why would you refuse to look at the restorationist movements? Wouldn't you be concerned about wanting to find a church/religion as close to biblical roots/teachings as possible?

Regards,
MG

In your example, you asked me to assume that Jesus is "the Christ." You did not ask me to ignore 40+ years of learning, experiences, inights, etc. In this 40+ years, what I've learned is that their is no "truth," per se as comes to religion. There are only competing claims of truth. More, I've not seen anything by way of evidence to convince me that one truth claim is the most valid, or that anyone possesses a unique ability to discern truth, or that anyone really communes with the divine, or that the Bible provides anything remotely like an unambiguous road map to find truth.

I wouldn't want a church close to Biblical roots, as I believe that a good portion of the Bible is a horrendous book, and that the God portrayed therein is a psychopathic bastard (mostly Old Testament). The New Testament doesn't point to any church, per se, but to a collection of generalized good teachings, none of which suggest clearly any particular kind of dogma or institutional arrangement.

I would be inherently suspicious of any church that claimed it and it alone had truth, or that it alone understood the Bible, and I would steer clear of them. I would be attracted only by Churches whose doctrines and institutional structure conformed with my life experience, and that would be one that allows me to find my own truth, my own path within a framework of general teachings reflecting the philosophies of Jesus Christ. (One of which was decidely anti-establishmentarian, which again rules out Mormonism, which is wholly establishmentarian.)

So, for me to arrive at the conclusion you'd like to steer me to, I'd have to pretend I'm someone other than who I am and ignore a lifetime's experience. That's asking something of me entirely different.

[_Runtu]

For me, I can't figure out how I would ever get back to a belief in the LDS religion. I don't know, if I tried really hard, I could rebuild the shelf on which I placed all the problematic things, but who's to say it wouldn't come crashing down again? Frankly, it's much more comfortable when you don't have to have a shelf at all.

The other thing that has come into greater focus since leaving is that, in the end, Mormonism really doesn't make your life much better. Sure, it kept me off drugs and alcohol, etc., and kept me from having premarital sex. But there's a heavy price to pay for that, and really, it didn't do all that much for making me a happy, well-adjusted person (psychotherapy and antidepressants did that for me. LOL). I feel so much better about myself and my place in the universe after leaving. I never would have imagined that. In fact, when I realized I had to leave, I was terrified of what would happen to me. I thought I would lose everything good in my life. But really, what I lost was a lot of baggage and a useless shelf.