A discussion with Mr. Scratch

[_Gazelam]

Mr Scratch and I began a discussion a while back that we never finished. I have repeatedly asked him to speak on a subject that had more depth and meaning, and he brought to my attention this thread, so I'm bringing back the posts we made and hope to start again with him.

From the "If I were a Christian" thread from early January:

So, do you believe the entire New Testament miracles story? If not, what are the limits of your belief?
If you believe the entire miracles story, how can you do so with no evidence?

Plutarch


Scratch:
As I already said, I don't really care. I think that the significance of those stories lies in their symbolic value, not in whether they are literally and historically true or not.

Gazelam:So are you hoping for a symbolic salvation or a Literal one?

Are you symbolicly sealed to a companion for time and all eternity?

Symbolicly sealed up to the blessings promised to Abraham?

Symbolicly sealed up to the name of Christ?

Symbolicly carrying the Endless Priesthood after the order of the Son of God?

Symbolicly conferring the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Literally your a coward.

Scratch: Gazelam wrote:
So are you hoping for a symbolic salvation or a Literal one?

Are you symbolicly sealed to a companion for time and all eternity?


I can't see that there is really any appreciable, meaningful difference between the "literal" and the "symbolic" in this instance.


Quote:
Symbolicly sealed up to the blessings promised to Abraham?

Symbolicly sealed up to the name of Christ?

Symbolicly carrying the Endless Priesthood after the order of the Son of God?

Symbolicly conferring the Gift of the Holy Ghost?


Can you explain what the difference is between the "literal" and the "symbolic" is in each of these examples?


Quote:
Literally your[sic] a coward.


Your typo notwithstanding, you are a blowhard. There is nothing cowardly about addressing the nature of faith.

Gazelam: The gospel is not something abstract. Is God abstract or real?

You see no difference between a symbolic salvation and a Literal one? Care to explain that? Is salvation merely a theory to you? Your only theoretically married for time and all eternity?

You theoretically will have endless seed and the blessing of the priesthood enjoyed by those offspring?

You theoretically take upon the name of Christ to remove the name of Adam and the effects of the fall from you?

Is the Melchezidek Priesthood just a theory?

When you seal the Holy Ghost on someone through the priesthood, that's just theoretical too?

Your a coward because you refuse to take a stand. You read your books and claim knowledge of things, but you don't apply that same knowledge.

Whens the last time you applied what you read about Adam? (Moses 5:4) Or Enos (Enos 1:4)

You speak out against the Lords anointed in our time, criticiseing theprophets of your day in how the church operates, while you yourself don't have the fortitude to call down a single scrap of revelation on which to base anything on.

Your a ship lost at sea, with your sails full of hot air blowing all over the place, standing on deck like you know something saying"follow me!", but you havent got a clue in hell as to where your going. You study the charts of critics and philosophers who claimed to know something, but all you wind up in is a sargaso sea of dead ideas, mired in the rubble and wrecks of their failed notions.

Your religion is that of scholasticism, and you replace the principle of faith with suspicion and doubt.

Apply what youve learned from Moroni and the prophets, and set aside the quandries of men for the teachings of the prophets. Apply a litle faith and call down a revelation so that you have a foundation to operate from. Then your books can do some good. Because right now your a walking talking fulfilment of prophecy:

2 Tim 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Gaz

Scratch:Gazelam wrote:
The gospel is not something abstract. Is God abstract or real?


I fail to see the difference between the two. Care to explain?


Quote:
You see no difference between a symbolic salvation and a Literal one? Care to explain that? Is salvation merely a theory to you? Your only theoretically married for time and all eternity?


That's not what I said. I said that, in faith-based terms, there is no difference between the literal and the symbolic. In worldly, secular terms, I would agree that there is, but that's not what we are talking about here, so far as I can tell.


Quote:
You theoretically will have endless seed and the blessing of the priesthood enjoyed by those offspring?

You theoretically take upon the name of Christ to remove the name of Adam and the effects of the fall from you?


LDS believe that man is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.


Quote:
Is the Melchezidek Priesthood just a theory?


A "theory" is something that proposes to explain something about the world. So, I would say, "No, the Melchezidek Priesthood is not 'just a theory'".


Quote:
When you seal the Holy Ghost on someone through the priesthood, that's just theoretical too?


It is primarily symbolic, in my opinion.


Quote:
Your a coward because you refuse to take a stand. You read your books and claim knowledge of things, but you don't apply that same knowledge.


How so? What books?


Quote:
Whens the last time you applied what you read about Adam? (Moses 5:4) Or Enos (Enos 1:4)

You speak out against the Lords anointed in our time, criticiseing theprophets of your day in how the church operates, while you yourself don't have the fortitude to call down a single scrap of revelation on which to base anything on.

Your a ship lost at sea, with your sails full of hot air blowing all over the place, standing on deck like you know something saying"follow me!", but you havent got a clue in hell as to where your going.


Can you demonstrate, infallibly, that the Brethren have a greater "power of discernment" than anyone else?


Quote:
You study the charts of critics and philosophers who claimed to know something, but all you wind up in is a sargaso sea of dead ideas, mired in the rubble and wrecks of their failed notions.


You keep talking about "critics" and "philosophers". Who are they? Or are you like Wade, in that you only deal in generalities?


Quote:
Your religion is that of scholasticism, and you replace the principle of faith with suspicion and doubt.


That is a non sequitur. Faith is hope in the presence of "suspicion and doubt."


Quote:
Apply what youve learned from Moroni and the prophets, and set aside the quandries of men for the teachings of the prophets. Apply a litle faith and call down a revelation so that you have a foundation to operate from. Then your books can do some good.


What books?


Quote:
Because right now your a walking talking fulfilment of prophecy:
2 Tim 3:7
Ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
Gaz


With all due respect, I disagree.

[_Gazelam]

We left off with no responce from me, so I'll take up the discussion again.

Gaz: The gospel is not something abstract. Is God abstract or real?


Scracth: I fail to see the difference between the two. Care to explain?

Abstract: def: 1. Thought of apart from material objects, 2. not representing things realistically

Real: def: 1. existing as or in fact; actual; true, 2. authentic, genuine, 3. of or realateing to immovable things.


Which of these would you state is how you perceive God? I don't fully understand your statement concerning your views of Literal and symbolic. please explain this further.


Scratch: "LDS believe that man is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. "

This is true in the sence that we are not damned for Adams sin, but we are under the effects of sin as brought about by Adams transgression, and we separate ourselves from this when we take upon ourselves the name of Christ and choose to live our lives not by way of carnal desires brought about by the passion of blood and corruption, but by way of the direction of the Light of Christ and the influence of the Holy Ghost. I discuss this at length in my thread here: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=273


Gaz: When you seal the Holy Ghost on someone through the priesthood, that's just theoretical too?


Scratch: It is primarily symbolic, in my opinion.

You previously stated that you did not feel that the Melchizedek priesthood was theoretical but is in fact real, how do you state this, and then state that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is symbolic only?


Scratch: Can you demonstrate, infallibly, that the Brethren have a greater "power of discernment" than anyone else?

The Brethren only have a greater power of discernment in that they apply the teachings of the church, and therefore enjoy the company of the spirit more, than the average member of the church. The gift of the Holy Ghost is applied more in their lives because of their actions and habits. Does this make them all knowing and infalible? No, of coarce not, but it does help, and by way of the nature of their calling they are responsible to live their lives in such a way as to receive revelation for the members of the church placed undere their care, just as a Father is responsible for receiveing revelation for and in behalf of his children, and a Bishop should receive revelation for his ward.



Gaz: Your religion is that of scholasticism, and you replace the principle of faith with suspicion and doubt.


Scratch: That is a non sequitur. Faith is hope in the presence of "suspicion and doubt."

What my questions to you all really get at, is what do you excercise your faith in to overcome your suspicion in doubt. Where is your faith? All I ever really hear from you is suspicion and doubt, and I never hear from you an expression of faith on your part.

Gaz

[_Yoda]

Is this discussion only open to Scratch, or can I add my two cents as well?

(OK, I'm going to go ahead and give my take on this issue, and you guys can ignore it if you want to. LOL)

I think that Mormonism, like other Christian sects, is a combination of symbolism and literal demonstrations of the spirit.

The sacrament is a perfect example of symbolism. You are not literally eating Christ's body and drinking Christ's blood during the taking of the sacrament. The bread is a symbol of his body, and the water is a symbol of his blood. In some Christian sects, it is believed that the water and the wine(or water/grape juice) literally turns to the body and blood or Christ once ingested.

The covenants made in the temple are symbolic of a fulfillment of covenants in the next life.

There are times when I have unmistakenly felt the spirit in my life. Some, both here and at RfM, have dismissed these feelings as psycho-sematic, etc. I disagree. Of course, everyone has to discover their own truth, and I respect that.

I don't have any scripture specifically to back up my claim that these spiritual experiences are real. I just know.

One example---My daughter and I sang a duet in Church today. It was "Look on Him and Live" by Sally DeFord. It is a beautiful piece dealing with the sacrifices of Christ. I felt the spirit very strongly while we were singing, and many people in the congregation commented on feeling that same witness after Sacrament Meeting.

Now, you can say that it was all just "good feelings", but I know there was something more.

Gaz, I can tell that you have felt that same witness at different points in your life. I think this is why you are so passionate about your view, and have a hard time understanding others who deny that witness.

The difference between you and me is that I have had encounters with people from other religions who have also felt this witness of Christ, and this witness is just as real to them as my witness is to me. I am grateful for the witness I receive, and I respect others who receive the witness of Christ in the way that it is meaningful to them. In the next life, we will all have a greater understanding of why this happens. Until then, I respect and love people for who they are, because that is what is required of me as a true servant of Christ.

As far as Scratch is concerned....I would venture to guess that he has, indeed, experienced the spirit, and experiences his own personal witness of Christ. But, keep in mind, Gaz, that this witness is a very personal thing, and is not always openly talked about. I know that there are spiritual experiences that I will never share on a board such as this one because they are just too personal.

[_moksha]

I can tell right away that calling anybody a coward is counterproductive to a meaningful discussion.

[_Mister Scratch]

Gaz---my apologies in advance for failing to address any of your questions, but I'm having a fair amount of difficulty parsing through your post... Could you please use the "quote" function in the future?

We left off with no responce from me, so I'll take up the discussion again.

Gaz: The gospel is not something abstract. Is God abstract or real?


Scracth: I fail to see the difference between the two. Care to explain?

Abstract: def: 1. Thought of apart from material objects, 2. not representing things realistically

Real: def: 1. existing as or in fact; actual; true, 2. authentic, genuine, 3. of or realateing to immovable things.

Which of these would you state is how you perceive God? I don't fully understand your statement concerning your views of Literal and symbolic. please explain this further.

I think the evidence is right there in your sentence, Gaz---i.e., "perceive." I don't think that God exists in a simply plane of existence that corresponds to all-too-human notions of "the real." God is thus both "symbolic" and "literal"; both "abstract" and "real." I see no reason why I should have to view God as "real" in the materialist's sense.

Scratch: "LDS believe that man is responsible for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. "

This is true in the sence that we are not damned for Adams sin, but we are under the effects of sin as brought about by Adams transgression, and we separate ourselves from this when we take upon ourselves the name of Christ and choose to live our lives not by way of carnal desires brought about by the passion of blood and corruption, but by way of the direction of the Light of Christ and the influence of the Holy Ghost. I discuss this at length in my thread here: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=273

I don't know, Gaz. That's really not the way I have ever understood that particular AofF.

Gaz: When you seal the Holy Ghost on someone through the priesthood, that's just theoretical too?

Scratch: It is primarily symbolic, in my opinion.

You previously stated that you did not feel that the Melchizedek priesthood was theoretical but is in fact real, how do you state this, and then state that the Gift of the Holy Ghost is symbolic only?

I ask again, what's the difference?

Scratch: Can you demonstrate, infallibly, that the Brethren have a greater "power of discernment" than anyone else?

The Brethren only have a greater power of discernment in that they apply the teachings of the church, and therefore enjoy the company of the spirit more, than the average member of the church.

I've never seen any evidence that would support this claim. In fact, the bulk of the evidence I've seen relating to this would indicate that they have even less time to "apply the teachings of the Church" since their schedules are so busy.

The gift of the Holy Ghost is applied more in their lives because of their actions and habits. Does this make them all knowing and infalible? No, of coarce not, but it does help, and by way of the nature of their calling they are responsible to live their lives in such a way as to receive revelation for the members of the church placed undere their care, just as a Father is responsible for receiveing revelation for and in behalf of his children, and a Bishop should receive revelation for his ward.

When was the last time this happened?

Gaz: Your religion is that of scholasticism, and you replace the principle of faith with suspicion and doubt.

Scratch: That is a non sequitur. Faith is hope in the presence of "suspicion and doubt."

What my questions to you all really get at, is what do you excercise your faith in to overcome your suspicion in doubt. Where is your faith? All I ever really hear from you is suspicion and doubt, and I never hear from you an expression of faith on your part.
Gaz

The reason it seems that way to you, as best I can tell, is because you are troubled by "suspicion and doubt." I am not. I have no problem with these things, and think that they are a fact of life. I would even go so far as to say that I genuinely enjoy a little "suspicion and doubt" in my life because of the way such things can remind a person how much he doesn't know, how much more there is to learn.

[_ajax18]

Do you espouse a particular religion Scratch?

Could you tell us your beliefs on why we are here on earth, where are we going when we die, what are the consequences of different actions. Perhaps these questions cannot be answered scientifically but I definitely feel drawn to searching for an answer to them. I guess I don't cope as well not knowing these things as you seem to. I'm not sure I could function that well changing these basic beliefs every year or two, hence I don't until I get overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While I'm not sure of what I believe in a scientific sense, I kind of have to be sure in some sense to maintain sanity. How do you get past this?

[_harmony]

Scratch: Can you demonstrate, infallibly, that the Brethren have a greater "power of discernment" than anyone else?

The Brethren only have a greater power of discernment in that they apply the teachings of the church, and therefore enjoy the company of the spirit more, than the average member of the church.

I've never seen any evidence that would support this claim. In fact, the bulk of the evidence I've seen relating to this would indicate that they have even less time to "apply the teachings of the Church" since their schedules are so busy.

Ya know, that's just so sad, to think that our leaders are too busy to actually do their church calling. Maybe they should get the church out of the for-profit businesses, stop spending so much money on business ventures, and start doing their church callings? Maybe then we'd see some revelation? Or at least something helpful, instead of the steady diet of trash we're subject to now? Or maybe not. *sigh*

[_Gazelam]

I have no doubt that the Spirit can testify of truths in other religions. A Christian preacher declareing that Christ is the Son of God and that we should follow his example should expect that the Spirit would testify of those words. But I would also ask, would you expect their baptism to also draw the sealing power of the Holy Ghost? I say No.

The Authority to act in Gods name exists solely in this church and in no other. The Melchizedek priesthood and its sealing power are not found in any other place. Other churchs do great work, and lay a foundation in true belief, but the fulness of the gospel is found only in one place, and that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

[_Gazelam]

Yes, calling him a coward was a tad out of line, but I think I explained why I said it, and I don't think in that context it was all that bad.

[_richardMdBorn]

I have no doubt that the Spirit can testify of truths in other religions. A Christian preacher declareing that Christ is the Son of God and that we should follow his example should expect that the Spirit would testify of those words. But I would also ask, would you expect their baptism to also draw the sealing power of the Holy Ghost? I say No.

The Authority to act in Gods name exists solely in this church and in no other. The Melchizedek priesthood and its sealing power are not found in any other place. Other churchs do great work, and lay a foundation in true belief, but the fulness of the gospel is found only in one place, and that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I've been to one LDS service, and it was a real snoozer. There don't appear to be any preachers like Martyn Lloyd-Jones in the LDS church.
http://www.mlj.org.uk/index.html
Click on audio to get the weekly broadcast of part of one of his sermons.