Runtu wrote:To be perfectly blunt, here's how I see it:
A man who does bad things can found a true religion.
A man who does good things can found a false religion.
But if a man who does bad things founds a false religion, there's not much left to defend.
Joseph's "reprehensible" behavior is not what leads me to believe that the religion he founded is false. That said, it was realizing that I was defending the reprehensible that was the last straw for me.
I can jump on board with that type of thinking. Now we just need to understand what makes any particular religion/faith truth verses false if not whehter the founder did only good or only bad in his life.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Runtu wrote:"You and your wife sure have interesting conversations. That topic would never come up in my house. Who cares? What does it matter?"
You think people would be more curious about the man who has done more for the salvation of men than any other man, save Jesus only. But I have to keep reminding myself about what's important in life: what color shirt I wear on Sundays, how many earrings my wife and daughter have, and not playing penny poker. I'm glad these people exist to point out the obvious to me. I mean here I am trying to understand God, life, death, the universe, meaning, redemption, good, evil, etc. I mean who cares about that stuff? I'm such a dumbass.
stemelbow wrote:I can jump on board with that type of thinking. Now we just need to understand what makes any particular religion/faith truth verses false
We will probably not agree on what I believe makes Mormonism false.
if not whehter the founder did only good or only bad in his life.
No one is saying Joseph, the founder, did "only good or only bad in his life." Surely you don't mean that.
Runtu wrote:A man who does bad things can found a true religion.
Pretend that you had no religion and were trying to decide on one to follow, why would you choose one that was created by a man that was a proven liar?
It seems to me that it would disqualify that one immediately.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Quasimodo wrote:Pretend that you had no religion and were trying to decide on one to follow, why would you choose one that was created by a man that was a proven liar?
It seems to me that it would disqualify that one immediately.
I'm just saying that all humans have flaws. We all do wrong. I don't think doing bad things necessarily disqualifies one as a prophet, but yes, it's definitely something that ought to be considered in deciding whom to accept as a prophet.
Runtu wrote: I suspect that, for most church members, the origins and history of the church are not important. It is the here and now and how the church affects how people live that is more important to most church members. Although Wade and I have had our differences, one thing I appreciate about him is that he seems to be focused mostly on how people live their lives and how they can improve. His approach may well be the right one.
I don't think it is the best approach, but does work for many. I am not sure where from the Church I got the idea that truth matters, but I did. ;) I think understanding how things are is the best approach to figure out what works best, and what things we can discard. For many like Wade the truth is irrelevant and to be avoided in favor of what works even if it is really just a placebo.
Runtu wrote: I'm just saying that all humans have flaws. We all do wrong. I don't think doing bad things necessarily disqualifies one as a prophet, but yes, it's definitely something that ought to be considered in deciding whom to accept as a prophet.
I never expected Joseph to be perfect contrary to many apologists, but I, and most members, think that God would choose one who is better then the average person. Joseph was looking for treasure for money as a kid. I think even from the beginning we can see that Joseph would probably not be a good choice for God. I have a hard time thinking that there has not been some very good faithful people who God could have worked with much better then what we get with Joseph Smith.
Themis wrote:I don't think it is the best approach, but does work for many. I am not sure where from the Church I got the idea that truth matters, but I did. ;) I think understanding how things are is the best approach to figure out what works best, and what things we can discard. For many like Wade the truth is irrelevant and to be avoided in favor of what works even if it is really just a placebo.
As I said, for many of us, it is important. I'm just saying that for others the history and origins of the church aren't important, and it's impossible and counterproductive to try and "make" them understand how things are.
"Why are you so bent on finding dirt on the church? I mean, who cares? All that really matters is that we center our life on Christ's example."
That is a comment I received recently that goes well with the topic of this thread.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
zeezrom wrote:"Why are you so bent on finding dirt on the church? I mean, who cares? All that really matters is that we center our life on Christ's example."
That is a comment I received recently that goes well with the topic of this thread.
I've heard that, too. The answer is that the history and origins of the church are important to you. It's not a character flaw, and people can't simply will you to stop caring, just as you can't will them to care about the things you care about.