DiscussMormonism.com

I'm trying to figure out what the forest is. When you've looked at all the trees individually and determined they are all either fake trees or dead from beatles trying to preserve your view of the forest seems rather pointless. Kinda like throwing out the bathwater only to realize there was no baby, just sludge.

mentalgymnast wrote:Huh? I've been around for a few days on a few threads. Once they start to go flat I'll usually move on. Or if there is a dead end in which I'm not able to come up with any other ideas, etc. I'm not running away though. That's a mischaracterization.

Funny you should use the word mischaracterization, when this is what you asked me to back up about yours. You left for a few days after I did.

just me wrote:I'm trying to figure out what the forest is. When you've looked at all the trees individually and determined they are all either fake trees or dead from beatles trying to preserve your view of the forest seems rather pointless. Kinda like throwing out the bathwater only to realize there was no baby, just sludge.

I see the forest as being the big picture. Is there a creator/God? Yes or no. Two choices. Choose.

Choose.

Based upon that choice, what flows from that? Now if we are eternally waffling between the two options or at least not giving the greater benefit of a doubt to one over the other, then we are blown here and there without ever taking at least a tentative position on God. Once God is in the picture, or at least not out of the picture then questions can be asked and thrown around with an underlying foundation of asking, "How does this issue/problem/conundrum come to some sort of resolution knowing that a creator/God is behind the scenes directing the course of the program/plan?

At that point, I look at Mormonism and its LARGE message rather than looking at each and every detail (tree) to inspect it with hopes of coming to a full understanding of problems/issues. The LARGE message of Mormonism has a lot going for it in the marketplace of religious ideas/systems. It's kind of like the conversation between Christ and his apostle Peter:

John 6:68
Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

As I look at the global four fold mission of the church I see an institution that I'm not willing to "throw out". It has too much going for it. Doctrinally, community, service, authority, and the rest. And Christ is at its core. Heavenly Father is at its core. In the marketplace of world religions I see the LDS Church as plausibly/possibly having an important part to play. That is, of course, on the assumption that there is a creator/God...and that a Savior was important/necessary.

Regards,
MG

Themis wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:Huh? I've been around for a few days on a few threads. Once they start to go flat I'll usually move on. Or if there is a dead end in which I'm not able to come up with any other ideas, etc. I'm not running away though. That's a mischaracterization.

Funny you should use the word mischaracterization, when this is what you asked me to back up about yours. You left for a few days after I did.

Not sure, sitting here, what you're referring to...but no matter. There are days, weeks, when I'm either out and about or doing other things that demand my time. As it is, right now I'm at work with down time again. I participate when I have the time and inclination. Usually if I'm at work or if family is doing something else, etc. Typically, however, I don't run away.

But I may run out of ideas or resolutions to problems brought up by others. There's only so far you can go when you're trying to make sense out of history and/or the metaphysical. If that's 'giving up', then, well, OK. But I don't see that as something to be feel bad about or any sense of shame/embarrassment, etc.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:Point taken and given. by the way, I'm not out to score points.

Everything you write says otherwise.

mentalgymnast wrote: If I'm misconstruing/misinterpreting something, I'd like to know.

You are, constantly.

mentalgymnast wrote:Thing is, I'm not willing to submit anyone else as being the end all/final word...including you.

I never said I was the “final word”. I’m claiming that you don’t know what you are talking about concerning Mormon History and doctrine.

mentalgymnast wrote:But...I do value your opinion. And I love your sources. I'm still curious as to "the basics" that from your vantage point you see me lacking.

It’s not my opinion. And it is obvious you don’t value anything I say, which is fine by me. I quote Mormon Authorities and let others have their opinion. I have my conclusions based on the relevant evidence. I don’t think you get this. I’m not trying to get Mormons to leave the Church, only educate them and others as to the facts based on the sources.

mentalgymnast wrote:I'm willing to give you the benefit of a doubt that you DO understand "the basics". For that reason I'm able to at least look at and listen to what you have to say as possibly having some merit.

All right.

mentalgymnast wrote:Although, I do question whether or not once a person reaches a certain point on a journey of faith that has resulted in a dogmatic/entrenched doubt in the restoration story, whether they would be able to see the forest for the trees.

You see, there you go again. You are paying attention to me and not the sources. It’s not about me, it’s about what happened and what they taught/teach.

mentalgymnast wrote:At that point I picture it as a horse with blinders on. Very little peripheral vision at that point. Is that you?

Again with the cheap, snide rhetoric. This tells me that I’m absolutely right about you, that you don’t understand and don’t want to. I let a lot of it go, because I’m not the only one who knows this. But sometimes… I feel like calling you out on it.
So all of the above is really what you constantly spread around here: BS.

mentalgymnast wrote:Not sure, sitting here, what you're referring to...but no matter.

Of course not.

mentalgymnast wrote:As I look at the global four fold mission of the church I see an institution that I'm not willing to "throw out". It has too much going for it. Doctrinally, community, service, authority, and the rest. And Christ is at its core. Heavenly Father is at its core. In the marketplace of world religions I see the LDS Church as plausibly/possibly having an important part to play. That is, of course, on the assumption that there is a creator/God...and that a Savior was important/necessary.

...and the assumption that there are required ordinances to get into the highest degree of heaven, and the assumption that priesthood authority is required to perform those ordinances, and the assumption that said authority was actually lost from the earth and needed to be restored, and the assumption that this authority was also restored to Joseph Smith, and the assumption that the authority has not been subsequently lost as the church nowadays appears to have corrupted Joseph Smith's early teachings at least as much as the earliest Christian churches had corrupted Christ's teaching is a similar amount of time, and the assumption that Jesus Christ even started a formal church in the first instance that needed to be restored, and the assumption that when Christ said he 'fulfilled the law' he also meant to nonetheless retain doctrinal vestiges from Israel's early days of wandering in the desert (which he also then needed to restore in the assumed latter days that we are in), and the assumption that the CoJCoLDS as it is currently constituted is the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith's original Church (and not just an apostate offshoot of the Strangites), and the assumption that you just happened to have miraculously been born into the correct church in the first place which has absolved you of the very same burden of 'seeking the true church' that you wish to place on everyone that is not a member of your church, and the assumption that...

And on and on and on and on.

To say that you somehow got to Mormonism as practiced by the current form of the CoJCoLDS when your only assumptions are a creator God and a Savior suggests you've never really thought about what the doctrine and authority of the CoJCoLDS actually entail.

[Bonus points if you can substantively respond to this point without resorting to your "well I'm just a simple guy who can't really be bothered to think" cliché, or your "here's an apologetic paper that I haven't read and don't even understand the implications of, but does it answer your question" cliché.]

mentalgymnast wrote:I see the forest as being the big picture. Is there a creator/God? Yes or no. Two choices. Choose.

Choose.

BS. There are a multitude of choices and you choose the one you were brought up to believe. Surprise surprise. One also need not choose any. Making a choice like this is not a good attribute.

Flaming Meaux wrote:

mentalgymnast wrote:As I look at the global four fold mission of the church I see an institution that I'm not willing to "throw out". It has too much going for it. Doctrinally, community, service, authority, and the rest. And Christ is at its core. Heavenly Father is at its core. In the marketplace of world religions I see the LDS Church as plausibly/possibly having an important part to play. That is, of course, on the assumption that there is a creator/God...and that a Savior was important/necessary.

...and the assumption that there are required ordinances to get into the highest degree of heaven, and the assumption that priesthood authority is required to perform those ordinances, and the assumption that said authority was actually lost from the earth and needed to be restored, and the assumption that this authority was also restored to Joseph Smith, and the assumption that the authority has not been subsequently lost as the church nowadays appears to have corrupted Joseph Smith's early teachings at least as much as the earliest Christian churches had corrupted Christ's teaching is a similar amount of time, and the assumption that Jesus Christ even started a formal church in the first instance that needed to be restored, and the assumption that when Christ said he 'fulfilled the law' he also meant to nonetheless retain doctrinal vestiges from Israel's early days of wandering in the desert (which he also then needed to restore in the assumed latter days that we are in), and the assumption that the CoJCoLDS as it is currently constituted is the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith's original Church (and not just an apostate offshoot of the Strangites), and the assumption that you just happened to have miraculously been born into the correct church in the first place which has absolved you of the very same burden of 'seeking the true church' that you wish to place on everyone that is not a member of your church, and the assumption that...

Yep. Those too. And believe it or not, I've considered these and others over the years. Thing is, and as I've mentioned a number of times on this board, these assumptions become rather moot IF the Book of Mormon is true, historicity and all. Except for the assumption dealing with the Brighamite church being the 'correct' offshoot of the original church started by Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ.

I realize I'm being rather reductionistic in making the argument that if the Book of Mormon is true that these other assumptions become secondary to the overall and overarching 'fact' that God has His hand in the restoration...the Book of Mormon being the 'artifact' or 'proof' of teh same. If I was in your shoes I would look at what I'm saying as being a rather 'cheap' way of avoiding discussing each of these other assumptions you've brought up and the primary ones I brought up. So be it.

IF the Book of Mormon wasn't in play in the middle of all of these other assumptions that have to be made in order to confidently say, "I'm a Mormon and I've got a true message for you", then I, along with you, would say that there are too many assumptions to make without firm evidence.

But as long as the Book of Mormon is 'in play', the Late War, Spaulding, VofHebrews, and other theories in regards to its remarkable appearance on the stage of history not withstanding, I'm open to the plausibility/possibility of the CoJCoLDS being what it purports to be.

And I'm well aware that in a forum like this I'm going to be a fall guy for expressing something other than dogmatic/entrenced doubt and/or disbelief.

Regards,
MG

mentalgymnast wrote:Yep. Those too. And believe it or not, I've considered these and others over the years. Thing is, and as I've mentioned a number of times on this board, these assumptions become rather moot IF the Book of Mormon is true, historicity and all. Except for the assumption dealing with the Brighamite church being the 'correct' offshoot of the original church started by Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ.

I realize I'm being rather reductionistic in making the argument that if the Book of Mormon is true that these other assumptions become secondary to the overall and overarching 'fact' that God has His hand in the restoration...the Book of Mormon being the 'artifact' or 'proof' of the same. If I was in your shoes I would look at what I'm saying as being a rather 'cheap' way of avoiding discussing each of these other assumptions you've brought up and the primary ones I brought up. So be it.

IF the Book of Mormon wasn't in play in the middle of all of these other assumptions that have to be made in order to confidently say, "I'm a Mormon and I've got a true message for you", then I, along with you, would say that there are too many assumptions to make without firm evidence.

But as long as the Book of Mormon is 'in play', the Late War, Spaulding, VofHebrews, and other theories in regards to its remarkable appearance on the stage of history not withstanding, I'm open to the plausibility/possibility of the CoJCoLDS being what it purports to be.

And I'm well aware that in a forum like this I'm going to be a fall guy for expressing something other than dogmatic/entrenced doubt and/or disbelief.

Regards,
MG

Interesting perspective. As someone who has personally read the Book of Mormon between 25 and 30 times cover to cover, and probably an additional 10-12 attempts that only made it to the war chapters in Alma, I find it remarkable that someone can read the Book of Mormon, assume that it is both 'true' and historically accurate, and yet NOT see within its pages a scathing indictment of exactly what the CoJCoLDS church has become (and truly, even what it became even before Joseph Smith was killed).

Assuming the Book of Mormon is true (and historically true, at that) gets you no closer to Mormonism being the 'correct' answer as it is currently practiced by the CoJCoLDS than your assumptions of a creator God (about whom you are obviously making a whole bunch of other assumptions other than just being a creative force) and the need for a Savior (which, if viewed from the doctrinal perspective of the CoJCoLDS, could itself be a package of hundreds of assumptions). This really isn't an exercise in avoiding 'too many' unwarranted assumptions when all that one is doing is packaging hundreds of those assumptions into a single umbrella assumption that one then says is justifiable because one is making only 'one' assumption not warranted by the evidence instead of one thousand.

I will nonetheless grant you deserved points for an attempt at a substantive reply, albeit one that was ultimately unsatisfactory and that actually may have even detracted from the argument you thought you were making.