Does it take more faith to stay, or to go?

[_thews]

Joseph Smith's doctrine is that of Joseph Smith and not from Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ existed while the supposed golden plates and the papyrus were buried in the ground. Back to logic and reason, logically, does it make sense to you that God (whichever God you choose to believe in according to Joseph Smith's doctrine) would allow Joseph Smith to die before the Book of Joseph and the JST were translated? Conversely, what does the Bible state on false prophets:

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 13:1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder,
Deu 13:2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, "Let us follow other gods" (gods you have not known) "and let us worship them,"
Deu 13:3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him.
Deu 13:5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

Thews, as a Latter-day Saint I believe that God wants us to treat the Bible as scripture. But the reason I believe that is because the LDS Church teaches that God wants us to treat the Bible as scripture. Why do you believe that God wants us to treat the Bible as scripture? How have you concluded that God considers the Bible to be His word?

I take what truth I find in the Bible and use that truth in living my life. I reject parts of it, like Satan and the ride in the belly of whale (which is metaphor in my opinion). It doesn't make sense to me that an all powerful God would allow Satan to hide in his lava cave and persecute souls that chose incorrectly for all eternity. in my opinion, life is not a test, but rather an experience to the soul. Assume you were God and you wanted souls to know emotion; love, hate, etc. You have to live life to know these emotions. If you knew God existed and could prove it, you'd do as you were told, which would detract from learning emotion.

I find the paradox of life is to find truth. Matter didn't just happen (something from nothing), and evidence to prove evolution didn't just happen either. The crux of the logical conclusion is that there are two paths to take (God vs. no God), and this is the point. You are not me nor am I you. Our lives are based on our experience, and the life of a serial killer is based on a malfunctioning brain. Why would God allow someone to have a brain like that? More pieces to the puzzle, but in the end it's based on our truth.

When you die you will stand alone. I don't believe you will need to defend what you chose to believe in, but rather what you learned from your life. It's a complete waste of time to subscribe to something you know to be false, so if you find truth in magic rocks, then that's your truth. From a Christian perspective, Joseph Smith's magic rocks are tools used by a false prophet of God. From an LDS perspective, Joseph Smith's magic rocks placed in his stove-pipe hat brought you the doctrine from a prophet of God. This is why Mormons are not Christian, and that's because Christians are not Mormons... the JST version of the Bible makes the two doctrine completely different.

[_KevinSim]

Joseph Smith claimed a dead Indian was thrown into the hole in the ground to guard the treasure during his glass looking trial. Are you claiming the dead Indian was some sort of angel?

Ah, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the seer stones were the treasure guardians and were therefore evil. It seems pretty clear from what you've said here that the spirits guarding the alleged treasure were the beings that were evil, and not the seer stones. Is that what you're saying?

Well thanks Kevin. In past discussions with Mormons, I've found most will attack the person making the point rather than address the issue. I apologize if I assumed you would take this path.

I've seen people take this approach myself. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. I find I get much more enjoyable discussions if I stay level-headed and just address the issues. You have nothing to apologize for; you're doing just fine.

I'm still confused. I understand you believe God gave you an answer that Mormonism is true, but I don't believe you've taken into account that you may have been wrong regarding this "answer" you believe you received.

Whether or not I was "wrong regarding this 'answer,'" God certainly knows that I asked Him a question, ready to base the whole rest of my life on whatever answer God provided me. God knows that in that case I had no way of knowing anything about Him if He didn't provide me with an answer. So the answer I got, whether God directly gave it to me or not, is the answer God wanted me to get. God knows I had no choice but to assume that the answer I got came from Him. What other way is there to come to a certain conclusion about anything about God?

Also, after my experience (it happened back in Autumn 1976, when I was 17 years old), I actually began to doubt that my answer had come from God. I began to think as you have implied, that maybe my answer did come from a different source. But at the same time I realized that if that were the case, then there's no way that I would ever know anything about God. So I told God that I was going to base the rest of my life on the assumption that what I thought God had told me, He did in fact tell me, but that I was also going to stay open to anything God may want to tell me in the future. I was going to live myself on the assumption that God had spoken to me, but I assured Him that if He ever wanted to give me a different answer to my question, I was completely ready to listen to Him. And that's how I've lived my life; I'm completely comfortable as a devout Latter-day Saint, but if at any point God chooses to tell me He wants me to be something completely different, I'm all ears.

Based on logic, I also find the concept of hell illogical, so I don't believe in it. What if I'm wrong? OK... I'm good with that, as it is what I believe.

Thews, I commend you for recognizing that what most Biblical Christians believe about Hell is illogical. I don't understand it at all. I mean, if God really is so omnipotent that He can do literally anything at all, and if as the Bible says God really did create our souls out of nothing, then doesn't it follow that God's omnipotence would allow Him to take us back into nothing, that God could if He wanted to cause us to cease to exist? Why, then, doesn't He cause the unsaved to cease to exist, rather than let them suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity?

But what do you think that Jesus meant then, in all the places in the Bible that Biblical Christians point to where Jesus indicates that the unsaved will suffer "everlasting" punishment? What was Jesus trying to say in those instances?

[_KevinSim]

From a Christian perspective, Joseph Smith's magic rocks are tools used by a false prophet of God. From an LDS perspective, Joseph Smith's magic rocks placed in his stove-pipe hat brought you the doctrine from a prophet of God. This is why Mormons are not Christian, and that's because Christians are not Mormons... the JST version of the Bible makes the two doctrine completely different.

A lot has been said, on both sides of the issue, about the question of whether or not Latter-day Saints actually are Christian. A lot of people argue strongly that they are not, while a lot of Mormons themselves argue just as strongly that Mormons are Christian.

Who gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't? I assume some people have one set of criteria they use to determine whether the term Christian applies to someone, whereas other people possibly have a different set of criteria. Is there a persuasive argument as to why it makes more sense to use one set of criteria than it makes to use the other?

[_Phillip]

Whether or not I was "wrong regarding this 'answer,'" God certainly knows that I asked Him a question, ready to base the whole rest of my life on whatever answer God provided me. God knows that in that case I had no way of knowing anything about Him if He didn't provide me with an answer. So the answer I got, whether God directly gave it to me or not, is the answer God wanted me to get. God knows I had no choice but to assume that the answer I got came from Him. What other way is there to come to a certain conclusion about anything about God?

I've spent a lot of time thinking about these issues at well, although it appears that I have come to a different conclusion than you have. I think reason can play a role as well in the pursuit of knowledge about God. I wouldn't want to tell God that there is only one way he can communicate to us, through spiritual experiences, although I do accept the potential validity of those experiences. And given our fallability in interpreting our spiritual experiences and the large divergence in the answers that such experiences provide religious seekers, I am a little cautious in putting the whole burden of discernment on one's own personal inner experience. God made us rational beings for a reason. To me the risk of being deceived is lessened if we rely on both experience and reason.

I like the way Stephen Barr, a physicist and religious believer put it:

"The believer in religious dogmas accepts that there are two ways a thing may be known to be true: either empirically, through observation, experience, and the ‘natural light of reason', or through divine revelation. Accepting the one does not mean rejecting the other. In fact, in our everyday life we recognize that our knowledge does have a double source: there is what we have learned for ourselves and what we have learned from the information of others, whether teachers, friends, books, or common knowledge. Indeed, a little reflection shows that that what we have actually derived from our own direct observation of the world without relying upon the word of others is but a tiny part of everything we do know. For a person to accept as knowledge only what he had discovered and proved for himself from direct personal experience would put his knowledge at the level of the Stone Age.

Taking something on authority, then, is not in itself irrational. On the contrary, it would be irrational never to do so. The question is when we should take something on authority, and on what kind of authority, and how far we should trust it. In the case of religious dogma, the authority is said to be God, who it is claimed, has revealed certain truths - primarily truths about himself - to human beings. Such a claim is not itself contrary to reason, for it is certainly hypothetically possible that there is a God and that he has revealed himself to man.

On the other hand, reason would require that before accepting religious dogmas we must have some sufficient rational grounds for believing that there is in fact a God and that he has indeed revealed himself to man, and that this revelation is truly is to found where it is claimed to be found. And indeed, these requirements of reason have always been admitted by the monotheistic creeds of Judaism and Christianity.

It is true that some believers, finding it difficult to give a satisfactory account of why they believe, have fallen back on the idea that belief is simply something one chooses to do, that it is its own justification, that it is a blind leap. This is the view called ‘fideism'. However, it is not the view of the traditional faiths.

If we take what is perhaps the most dogmatic faith of all, Catholicism, we find that it utterly rejects fideism, condemning it as a serious religious error. The First Vatican Council, in 1870, made the following declaration:

‘In order that our submission of faith be nevertheless in harmony with reason, God willed that exterior proofs of his revelation ... should be joined to the interior helps of the Holy Spirit ... The assent of faith is by no means a blind impulse of the mind'

The same council formally condemned the proposition that ‘people ought to be moved to faith solely by each one's inner experience or personal inspiration.' Rather, the council emphasized that there are objective facts and arguments in favor of true religious belief. Indeed, the council declared that the existence of God could be known with certainty without faith and without divine revelation by the ‘natural light of human reason.'"

[_thews]

Joseph Smith claimed a dead Indian was thrown into the hole in the ground to guard the treasure during his glass looking trial. Are you claiming the dead Indian was some sort of angel?

Ah, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that the seer stones were the treasure guardians and were therefore evil. It seems pretty clear from what you've said here that the spirits guarding the alleged treasure were the beings that were evil, and not the seer stones. Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is that occult objects like seer stones used to view evil are of the occult, or evil.

I'm still confused. I understand you believe God gave you an answer that Mormonism is true, but I don't believe you've taken into account that you may have been wrong regarding this "answer" you believe you received.

Whether or not I was "wrong regarding this 'answer,'" God certainly knows that I asked Him a question, ready to base the whole rest of my life on whatever answer God provided me. God knows that in that case I had no way of knowing anything about Him if He didn't provide me with an answer. So the answer I got, whether God directly gave it to me or not, is the answer God wanted me to get. God knows I had no choice but to assume that the answer I got came from Him. What other way is there to come to a certain conclusion about anything about God?

Use your brain to logically conclude what you believe. I don't think God wants people to make any choice, but rather God wants the person making the choice to conclude it for themselves. If God only wanted one religion, then there would only be one. What God wants God gets, so the variables must be weighed and tested against truth to place belief in anything. Again to Descartes' argument, the only thing anyone can conclude resides within their own perception, as they are the only ones processing the thoughts.

Also, after my experience (it happened back in Autumn 1976, when I was 17 years old), I actually began to doubt that my answer had come from God. I began to think as you have implied, that maybe my answer did come from a different source. But at the same time I realized that if that were the case, then there's no way that I would ever know anything about God. So I told God that I was going to base the rest of my life on the assumption that what I thought God had told me, He did in fact tell me, but that I was also going to stay open to anything God may want to tell me in the future. I was going to live myself on the assumption that God had spoken to me, but I assured Him that if He ever wanted to give me a different answer to my question, I was completely ready to listen to Him. And that's how I've lived my life; I'm completely comfortable as a devout Latter-day Saint, but if at any point God chooses to tell me He wants me to be something completely different, I'm all ears.

Not to belabor the point, but what God wants from you has not been given to you in the form of concrete evidence. God gave you the ability to use your cognitive ability to choose what you believe in. I find the evidence behind Joseph Smith's doctrine and truth claims to be verifiably false. The use of Joseph Smith's seer stones before the Book of Mormon to see evil treasure guardians for hire is the foundation for his doctrine. By what power did Joseph Smith's seer stones work? If you say they didn't work, or that you don't believe in magic, Joseph Smith did claim to see evil treasure guardians and treasure slipping away underground for hire. If you logically conclude this power was of God, I would counter that the occult magic is in direct opposition to Christian belief.

Based on logic, I also find the concept of hell illogical, so I don't believe in it. What if I'm wrong? OK... I'm good with that, as it is what I believe.

Thews, I commend you for recognizing that what most Biblical Christians believe about Hell is illogical. I don't understand it at all. I mean, if God really is so omnipotent that He can do literally anything at all, and if as the Bible says God really did create our souls out of nothing, then doesn't it follow that God's omnipotence would allow Him to take us back into nothing, that God could if He wanted to cause us to cease to exist? Why, then, doesn't He cause the unsaved to cease to exist, rather than let them suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity?

The use of "unsaved" here is key, as it assume there are souls destined to be punished for all eternity for choosing incorrectly. The concept of hell is necessary in my opinion, as it (Satan) is the metaphor for evil. If evil doesn't exist on the other side, to teach a soul what evil is requires it to exist. Again, I see life as an experience to the soul and what you take from it is based on truth. If it's not true, then it's meaningless. To those that subscribe to Mormonism just to lead the Mormon lifestyle when they don't believe in it, they are presenting a false witness in my opinion.

But what do you think that Jesus meant then, in all the places in the Bible that Biblical Christians point to where Jesus indicates that the unsaved will suffer "everlasting" punishment? What was Jesus trying to say in those instances?

The domain we know is based on our ability to understand the big picture. Since we are finite and can't comprehend infinite perspectives, the meaning of "punishment" is, in my opinion, based on personal knowledge. If I were to really screw someone over, only to meet them on the other side and experience the pain I caused them, it would last for eternity. Since I don't know this, I can only imagine I'm correct.

[_thews]

From a Christian perspective, Joseph Smith's magic rocks are tools used by a false prophet of God. From an LDS perspective, Joseph Smith's magic rocks placed in his stove-pipe hat brought you the doctrine from a prophet of God. This is why Mormons are not Christian, and that's because Christians are not Mormons... the JST version of the Bible makes the two doctrine completely different.

A lot has been said, on both sides of the issue, about the question of whether or not Latter-day Saints actually are Christian. A lot of people argue strongly that they are not, while a lot of Mormons themselves argue just as strongly that Mormons are Christian.

To claim Christianity embraces the Mormon doctrine of Joseph Smith is simply not true. Christians reject Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God, while LDS embrace Joseph Smith and his doctrine as of God.

Who gets to decide who is Christian and who isn't? I assume some people have one set of criteria they use to determine whether the term Christian applies to someone, whereas other people possibly have a different set of criteria. Is there a persuasive argument as to why it makes more sense to use one set of criteria than it makes to use the other?

Analogous to Jews and Christians, Christians embrace both New and Old Testaments, while Jews reject the New Testament. The doctrine is not the same, and for Christians to imply Jews are Christians, it's the same scenario with LDS vs. Christianity. I won't deny Mormonism has ties to Christianity, but the definition of Christian implies rejecting Joseph Smith as a false prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith as false, just as Judaism rejects Jesus Christ as God. The definition of the words are based on the doctrine they accept and reject.

[_KevinSim]

Thews, I'm going to backtrack just a little.

Based on logic, I also find the concept of hell illogical, so I don't believe in it. What if I'm wrong? OK... I'm good with that, as it is what I believe.

You said that you don't believe in hell, but you followed that with, "What if I'm wrong? OK... I'm good with that, as it is what I believe." So you don't believe in hell, but you're willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong in your belief that there is no hell.

Are you just as willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong in your opinion on the divine inspiration of Mormonism?

As I said in the other post, I actually admire your position on hell. I think your opinion on hell makes more sense than what a lot of people have told me about Hell.

But you also seem to be drawing a very definite disctinction between what you consider Christian beliefs and what you consider LDS beliefs. The simple fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe in a literal torment for the unsaved that they will never escape; they believe that a majority of the population of the world will not accept the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, and will therefore spend the rest of eternity in unbearable agony.

Do you consider people who have this belief to be really Christian? Do you really think that people who have this belief are more in touch with divine inspiration than Latter-day Saints are?

[_Buffalo]

they believe that a majority of the population of the world will not accept the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, and will therefore spend the rest of eternity in unbearable agony.

Do you consider people who have this belief to be really Christian?

I know this isn't directed at me, but sure. Early Christians seemed to hold the same unpleasant viewpoint. Christianity seems to have had that doctrine from the beginning (not atonement, but the concept of eternal hell).

[_thews]

Thews, I'm going to backtrack just a little.

Based on logic, I also find the concept of hell illogical, so I don't believe in it. What if I'm wrong? OK... I'm good with that, as it is what I believe.

You said that you don't believe in hell, but you followed that with, "What if I'm wrong? OK... I'm good with that, as it is what I believe." So you don't believe in hell, but you're willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong in your belief that there is no hell.

Yes, I might be wrong. My ability to be certain about anything would require the knowledge of what exists in the afterlife. I acknowledge I may be wrong and I won't exist at all. The point is, hell isn't logical and doesn't make sense. The threat of hell though is necessary in my opinion to learn about evil. If you take the entire population and rank intelligence on a scale from one to ten, those that come in at <5 are just below average. Those that come in at <3 may only be able to comprehend hell as punishment for doing bad things. If you're intelligent enough to weigh all the data given to you and come to some sort of logical conclusion, then how can you be punished for it if it's what you actually believe?

Are you just as willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong in your opinion on the divine inspiration of Mormonism?

No, because I'm not wrong. What I know about Joseph Smith's doctrine is based on fact that it's false. The facts regarding Joseph Smith's use of seer stones to see evil treasure guardians for hire using occult magic doesn't agree with the part of me that places faith the Jesus Christ was God, as the two are completely opposing. The Bible clearly defines how to tell is a prophet is a false one, and Joseph Smith fails these tests. In other words, I have tangible data (Book of Abraham papyrus translated incorrectly, letter to Sarah Ann Whitney, etc.) to conclude Joseph Smith was not telling the truth and his truth claims are wrong. If I meet the gatekeeper who opens the door on the next flight to Kolob when I'm dead, I won't know the secret handshake... that isn't going to happen.

As I said in the other post, I actually admire your position on hell. I think your opinion on hell makes more sense than what a lot of people have told me about Hell.

The key to what you said in the above references what other people told you. What if they're wrong? Why should you believe anyone's opinion? You can use it, understand it and weigh it against your own, but once you lose the fear of consequence and make up your own mind you only have one direction, because it's what you actually believe.

But you also seem to be drawing a very definite disctinction between what you consider Christian beliefs and what you consider LDS beliefs. The simple fact is that the vast majority of Christians do believe in a literal torment for the unsaved that they will never escape; they believe that a majority of the population of the world will not accept the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, and will therefore spend the rest of eternity in unbearable agony.

I understand your point, which would make me outside the mainstream with what others consider what Christianity encompasses, but I really don't care, because I'm not them. Their opinion of what I believe isn't going to change it, and I really don't believe in consequence for choosing incorrectly.

The supposed consequence for rejecting Mormonism is eternal darkness. Since I was one of the chosen few who were taught about Mormonism (I was baptized a Mormon before I left it at age 11) and also chose to reject it, I'm supposedly extra damned for doing so. In Mormon families, they are supposedly rewarded in heaven for their children being good believing Mormons, so if you were to choose to reject it, you're supposedly doing something wrong to punish them. This is all a fear-based cult mentality used to instill rejecting the falseness of Mormonism.

I've told this story before, but not to you so I'll repeat it. I took 400 volts from hand-to-hand across my chest about 17 years ago. I knew I was going to die before it happened. You know how they tell you if you know you're going to die your life flashes before you... no it doesn't. I had a few seconds to think after I was locked on, and the last thing that went through my brain was, "What a stupid way to die. Why didn't you turn off the mains."

Don't arbitrarily believe me, but put yourself in my place. I wake up and sit up. I look at my dead body. I then stand up and look at it again. I'm looking for the door, a light... something... I didn't see anything. I then start thinking about my life and making a case for who I was in preparation to meet my maker. I then think about my kids... who would take care of them? The next thought was I existed, so no matter what happened to me, they would be here someday too; it was all about me at that point. The feeling was one of being incredibly alone, and while I began to make my case, I knew there was no where to hide. What wasn't based on truth was absolutely meaningless. I was flawed, but I wasn't scared... then I woke up and realized my hands were killing me, but if they hurt, I wasn't dead.

Why did I get extra time? Maybe I wasn't dead and just hit my head when I fell to the ground (I was standing up on the amplifier when it happened, which saved me) and this didn't really happen? It doesn't change the experience, as I expect the same thing when I actually do die. The moral of the story is that anything that isn't true is absolutely meaningless.

Do you consider people who have this belief to be really Christian? Do you really think that people who have this belief are more in touch with divine inspiration than Latter-day Saints are?

What people believe and why they believe them isn't up for me to judge. Joseph Smith was just a man, and if they believe in his doctrine, it's their choice. My argument is based on the supposed consequence for failing to subscribe to the doctrine of Joseph Smith, which is not Christian. The word "Christianity" rejects the doctrine of Joseph Smith. The term "LDS" to define your belief implies you place faith in the truth claims of Joseph Smith and accept his doctrine. They are not the same thing, so to claim Mormons are "Christians" implies Christians accept the doctrine of Joseph Smith... they don't, just as Jews reject the New Testament. The doctrine is not shared, so the religion is defined differently.

[_Hughes]

Thanks thews, I've been enjoying your posts.