Found the truth, what next?

[_Themis]

So Themis, are you implying that you've got it all figured out? You know what God should do, with His power and with His time?

I do not, but I have shown a butt load of evidence that God is claimed to have communicated regularly and even on some trivial matters as Jason as brought up. Feel free to show evidnece to back up the idea that God has a hard time communicating. This really is a silly argument, and I find it funny that I am the one defending what the church teaches on the matter.

Then let me ask you, how old were you in June 1978? If you were an adult, then in view of God's inaction why didn't you step in for Him, and, impersonating God, tell Spencer Kimball or his predecessor Harold Lee that you, God, wanted the priesthood ban to stop several years prior to 1978? As you said, it "wouldn't be that hard" and "would be important to" do.

I was not an adult, but some were speaking out, but that is not how the church operates to make changes. It claims revelation.

The answer someone would ordinarily give to such a question would be for that someone to say s/he doesn't have God's powers. But that presupposes that God actually does have significantly greater powers than ordinary human beings. Has God ever actually said that He does?

Are you really going to argue even more silly things. If God exists as the LDS define and people like Joseph have claimed, then yes God would be much more powerful then any human. This is really getting stupid now. Do you not even know your own religion?

[_Themis]

Themis, thank you for pointing me to the Monson quote. But I assure you, I would have no problem admitting it if I could remember it ever occuring. I simply don't. I don't doubt that Thomas Monson ever made the statement you attributed to him; my point is simply that it's not something that's emphasized so much that it's caught my attention. So to say that showing "doubts is very discouraged in LDS culture" seems to be an exaggeration. Maybe I'm just not very observant, but I would think if doubts really are very discouraged in my culture, I would have noticed it.

Considering some of your arguments it's not a surprise you don't know much about the church. This was one quote, and their are many even ones that may not use the word doubt.

I would think that in a culture where doubts are "very discouraged," I would not have escaped my encounter with the mission president without some kind of statement that discouraged me from expressing my doubts. If it really is true that doubts are "very discouraged in LDS culture," then how did I escape that encounter without hearing something counseling me to not have doubts from somebody?

LDS culture does discourage it. Again this does not mean doubts are not expressed or that members will always attack those who express them. You expressed them to your MP, which by the way is common, and MP will normally try to get you back to a believing state. Many religions ask people to have faith and put away doubts. This is very true for LDS as well, and yes the culture does discourage it even if not directly, which is why many will not express them openly to many.

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Kevin,

If you will stop painting all Theists with your enormously broad brush........
I will not attribute your posts to all atheists.

Ceeboo, what type of theist are you?

I am the type who believes in a God/Creator (of all things) very strongly.
I am firmly rooted under the Christian umbrella, believe that Jesus Christ walked this earth, was crucified, and rose again. Although I have been to many places of worship, I can most often be found under the roof of a Catholic church.
(Does that answer your question? If not, please just ask and I will try again)

by the way: Your question to me might make for a very interestinmg thread. Yes? ("What type of Theist are you?")

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Some Schmo]

So you're more committed to your imaginary friend than your flesh and blood wife? Here's hoping she finds that out and leaves your undeserving punk ass.

Won't ever happen. She's made it extremely clear that she is as committed to her imaginary friend as I am to mine!

Well then you deserve each other. You're both guilty of screwed up priorities.

Some Schmo, do you realize what you're asking me to do? You say you despise theism in general, and yet to follow your advice I'd have to stay devoutly LDS for the rest of my life! My wife has made it clear to me that the thing she would divorce me for is leaving the LDS Church! You sympathize with my wife, but the thing she wants me to do is stay LDS! So do you think I should do the thing that would keep my marriage (and role as a father for that matter) intact or don't you?

Yeah, that was before I knew she is just as messed up by religion as you are. Neither of you get my sympathy, just a modest amount of pity.

Your kids get my empathy, though. I take solace in the fact that I was able to break away from the nonsense of my parents, so there is hope for your children.

[_KevinSim]

I do not, but I have shown a butt load of evidence that God is claimed to have communicated regularly and even on some trivial matters as Jason as brought up. Feel free to show evidnece to back up the idea that God has a hard time communicating. This really is a silly argument, and I find it funny that I am the one defending what the church teaches on the matter.

You find my argument silly because you haven't seriously considered it. Are you saying that it's impossible for one person to be more receptive to what God tells that person than another? Are you saying that because God found it easy to give Joseph Smith an enormous amount of details, that therefore it had to be just as easy to communicate with Brigham Young?

And, to be perfectly honest, nothing ties me with any degree of certainty to the opinion that God did have problems communicating with Brigham Young. My point is not that God must have been unable to communicate, but rather that there might be reasons why God did not communicate, even if we go on the assumption that God is not personally racist.

Difficulty in communicating with Brigham is just one possible explanation. It's totally possible that God picked and chose the things He wanted to communicate with Brigham and John Taylor and the rest, and that for some reasons that we aren't privy to right now, correcting Brigham's racist opinions about who should get the priesthood didn't make the cut.

You asked for "evidnece to back up the idea that God has a hard time communicating"; I have none. I never intended to convince anyone that God has a hard time communicating; all I ever intended to do was to show that the fact that God didn't correct any of His LDS leaders until 1978 does not in itself mean that a good God was not directing the LDS Church; there is the potential for other explanations.

Are you really going to argue even more silly things. If God exists as the LDS define and people like Joseph have claimed, then yes God would be much more powerful then any human.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly has Joseph Smith said that convinces you that he thought God is "much more powerful then any human"?

This is really getting stupid now. Do you not even know your own religion?

I'm sure there are many aspects of my religion, my faith, that I don't fully understand. I'm not LDS because I fully understand everything the LDS faith entails and agree with it completely; I'm a Latter-day Saint because I believe God told me He wants me to be a Latter-day Saint.

I know some Mormons who are involved in what they think is a thorough study of everything LDS. I find it much more interesting and fulfilling to concentrate on the few areas of faith that appeal to me most, and I make conclusions based on what makes sense to me, not on any desire to conform to any official LDS position.

Kevin Sim

[_Rambo]

I know some Mormons who are involved in what they think is a thorough study of everything LDS. I find it much more interesting and fulfilling to concentrate on the few areas of faith that appeal to me most, and I make conclusions based on what makes sense to me, not on any desire to conform to any official LDS position.

My bishop basically told me the same thing when I was questioning the church. He said don't bother looking into those things until you have a grasp of the basic things first like faith, charity, and stuff like that. He was like you can't understand the deeper stuff if you don't understand the basic. Really I saw this as a technique to hide me from the truth. It's just a way to divert a tbm from looking closer at the issues. Really faith, baptism, holy ghost, atonement, does not matter at all when there are certain facts that easily prove the Mormon church wrong.

I asked my Dad if he ever looked into evolution and he said that he never has really looked at it because it is not important to his salvation. But if he just looked at it then he would realize that this whole being saved thing doesn't really matter at all.

[_Buffalo]

Just out of curiosity, what exactly has Joseph Smith said that convinces you that he thought God is "much more powerful then any human"?

Is this a joke?

Does the phrase "Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power" ring a bell?

[_KevinSim]

Considering some of your arguments it's not a surprise you don't know much about the church. This was one quote, and their are many even ones that may not use the word doubt.

So the LDS Church discourages doubt, but they don't always call it doubt? What other words do LDS leaders use, instead of doubt?

LDS culture does discourage it. Again this does not mean doubts are not expressed or that members will always attack those who express them. You expressed them to your MP, which by the way is common, and MP will normally try to get you back to a believing state. Many religions ask people to have faith and put away doubts. This is very true for LDS as well, and yes the culture does discourage it even if not directly, which is why many will not express them openly to many.

It would appear that we are quibbling over what it means to say that an organization discourages something. If saying an organization discourages something means that at times some of that organization's leaders tell the people that leader is responsible for that they should not be involved in that activity, then yes, it may very possibly be true that the LDS Church does discourage doubt. Or if saying that even means that leaders commonly tell the faithful that they shouldn't be involved in it, then it's also possible that it could be true that the LDS Church discourages doubt.

I just think it's strange that someone like me, who has over the last 52 years only missed my regular meetings a few times because of illness, can't remember hearing a word discouraging doubt over all those years, in a faith that you say discourages doubt. If the LDS Church really does discourage doubt, then it's done it in such a way that has never caught my attention.

Kevin Sim

[_Themis]

Are you saying that it's impossible for one person to be more receptive to what God tells that person than another?

You made the claim that maybe God would have a hard time communicating, which is not a reasonable argument for someone the church claims created the earth, and that his prophet are who is supposed to communicate hie will to. I said nothing of Joseph or By ability compared to each other.

Are you saying that because God found it easy to give Joseph Smith an enormous amount of details, that therefore it had to be just as easy to communicate with Brigham Young?

keep up the silliness for all to enjoy. You really think God couldn't communicate his will to BY, even if he had less ability then Joseph.

And, to be perfectly honest, nothing ties me with any degree of certainty to the opinion that God did have problems communicating with Brigham Young.

I know, you are just making things up as you go to protect your claimed belief that the priesthood ban was a mistake by men like BY, even though this conflicts with what the church teaches and even the latest revelation in regards to it(hint 1978).

My point is not that God must have been unable to communicate, but rather that there might be reasons why God did not communicate, even if we go on the assumption that God is not personally racist.

This is an old excuse, and a very bad one you can use for ANY belief you want.

Difficulty in communicating with Brigham is just one possible explanation.

Not according to the church. If you believe in the LDS church, then you believe that BY was God's choice to replace Joseph, and difficulty is just not realistic for someone like God is claimed by the church. He sent a dream to peter. Again you should take Jason's advice.

It's totally possible that God picked and chose the things He wanted to communicate with Brigham and John Taylor and the rest, and that for some reasons that we aren't privy to right now, correcting Brigham's racist opinions about who should get the priesthood didn't make the cut.

Another very poor excuse that can be use on ANY belief. If it was a mistake, you can't provide any realistic reasons why God would stay silent on such an important issue in which the God of the universe could easily communicate about.

You asked for "evidnece to back up the idea that God has a hard time communicating"; I have none. I never intended to convince anyone that God has a hard time communicating; all I ever intended to do was to show that the fact that God didn't correct any of His LDS leaders until 1978 does not in itself mean that a good God was not directing the LDS Church; there is the potential for other explanations.

You haven't shown any reasonable possibilities, especially considering you have avoided the evidence that it was God who instituted the ban.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly has Joseph Smith said that convinces you that he thought God is "much more powerful then any human"?

I think Buffalo addressed this, but you are bordering on the stupid here. I think you are being dishonest, or do not know much about the LDS religion.

I'm sure there are many aspects of my religion, my faith, that I don't fully understand. I'm not LDS because I fully understand everything the LDS faith entails and agree with it completely; I'm a Latter-day Saint because I believe God told me He wants me to be a Latter-day Saint.

I am well aware of why many believe. I did as well. I just realize that I like other members were just deluding ourselves by incorrectly interpreting certain experiences the way the church and many religions want us to. We usually want to as well.

I know some Mormons who are involved in what they think is a thorough study of everything LDS. I find it much more interesting and fulfilling to concentrate on the few areas of faith that appeal to me most, and I make conclusions based on what makes sense to me, not on any desire to conform to any official LDS position.

I recommend Rambo's post on this one.

[_just me]

Kevin, do you not think that the 2009 talk "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ" which refers to "The Six Destructive D's" has at least some part in discouraging doubt?

That talk specifies "doubt" as a negative thing. This talk has also been used in my ward, at least, in several more talks and during a few lessons as well.

From the talk:

First is doubt. Doubt is not a principle of the gospel. It does not come from the Light of Christ or the influence of the Holy Ghost. Doubt is a negative emotion related to fear. It comes from a lack of confidence in one’s self or abilities. It is inconsistent with our divine identity as children of God.

http://LDS.org/general-conference/2009/ ... t?lang=eng