What has happened to the God of love?

[_gramps]

Thanks to JAK and Nehor and Marg for this interesting discussion.

Nehor, noone is asking you to deny your experiences.

I don't know about JAK. I do know that I have experienced "the power of the Holy Ghost" many times in my life, just as you have. I left the church, but have never denied those experiences. It's scary to deny them, but you don't have to.

You are clearly not ready to do so now, but maybe someday you can find, as I have, that there are a lot more sane and reasonable explanations for those experiences than the ones you have chosen (magic rocks, flying angels, gold plates, etc.). I really believe that if you take God out of the equation, even to experiment, you can see a myriad of other reasons for having those experiences and for how and why you have interpreted them to mean that the church is true.

But to get there you have to have the balls to take off the Peter Priesthood suit, even just to experiment. You aren't there yet.

I must say that I wished I would have had such helpful people on boards like this to point out these things back when I was struggling through this. You are quite lucky. It is sad, however, that you don't realize how much you are being offered.

[_Yoda]

JAK is correct you do wish to keep your God notions from scrutiny. You have responded to him as a person would, who has something to hide. I remember when I read statements from the Book of Mormon witnesses I observed the same thing, lack of detail. When people are not forthcoming on detail of their experiences their claims do not ring true.

I don't think this is the case.

I have had spiritual experiences which, frankly, are too personal for me to feel comfortable sharing on a message board such as this.

In answer to JAK's earlier question, do I feel that my spiritual experiences were simply emotional responses? No, I do not.

Am I going to go into detail here as to why?

No. I may at a later time, but not in the guise of winning some sort of debate.

I don't think that you or JAK have any business insinuating that Nehor is a liar simply because he does not want to share his spiritual experiences in detail.

They are of a deeply personal nature, and frankly, difficult, if not impossible, to explain to someone who is closed-minded to the possibility that the experience could really exist in the first place.

[_The Nehor]

Thanks to JAK and Nehor and Marg for this interesting discussion.

Nehor, noone is asking you to deny your experiences.

I don't know about JAK. I do know that I have experienced "the power of the Holy Ghost" many times in my life, just as you have. I left the church, but have never denied those experiences. It's scary to deny them, but you don't have to.

You are clearly not ready to do so now, but maybe someday you can find, as I have, that there are a lot more sane and reasonable explanations for those experiences than the ones you have chosen (magic rocks, flying angels, gold plates, etc.). I really believe that if you take God out of the equation, even to experiment, you can see a myriad of other reasons for having those experiences and for how and why you have interpreted them to mean that the church is true.

But to get there you have to have the balls to take off the Peter Priesthood suit, even just to experiment. You aren't there yet.

I must say that I wished I would have had such helpful people on boards like this to point out these things back when I was struggling through this. You are quite lucky. It is sad, however, that you don't realize how much you are being offered.

So far the offering consists of me being told I'm mentally challenged. However I also note JAK didn't deny anything when I made a comment that he reminds me of someone with certain mental problems. Strange that.

If I wanted out of the Gospel I don't really need a helping hand. I've left before. If I wanted to badly enough I could leave again. That would be when I left God out of the equation. Or tried to. It didn't work, none of what had happened made sense.

[_gramps]

Thanks to JAK and Nehor and Marg for this interesting discussion.

Nehor, noone is asking you to deny your experiences.

I don't know about JAK. I do know that I have experienced "the power of the Holy Ghost" many times in my life, just as you have. I left the church, but have never denied those experiences. It's scary to deny them, but you don't have to.

You are clearly not ready to do so now, but maybe someday you can find, as I have, that there are a lot more sane and reasonable explanations for those experiences than the ones you have chosen (magic rocks, flying angels, gold plates, etc.). I really believe that if you take God out of the equation, even to experiment, you can see a myriad of other reasons for having those experiences and for how and why you have interpreted them to mean that the church is true.

But to get there you have to have the balls to take off the Peter Priesthood suit, even just to experiment. You aren't there yet.

I must say that I wished I would have had such helpful people on boards like this to point out these things back when I was struggling through this. You are quite lucky. It is sad, however, that you don't realize how much you are being offered.

So far the offering consists of me being told I'm mentally challenged. However I also note JAK didn't deny anything when I made a comment that he reminds me of someone with certain mental problems. Strange that.

If I wanted out of the Gospel I don't really need a helping hand. I've left before. If I wanted to badly enough I could leave again. That would be when I left God out of the equation. Or tried to. It didn't work, none of what had happened made sense.

Well, there is no reason to be calling people liars or mentally challenged. It's a little clunky, at best.

About the rest: It's all cool. I left too, once, and went back and then left, this time for good. If it is making you happy, go for it. I certainly have nothing against that. Peace.

[_marg]

I'm short of time atm, will have to respond later.

[_ozemc]

You and I clearly define love differently. I would include "not killing" as part of the love. From passages in the the Old Testament, the god of the Old Testament evidently includes killing nonbelievers as part of love.

I'm not persuaded by the tortured mental gymnastics of believers who somehow have to accommodate the long list of commanded atrocities in the Old Testament. I seriously doubt a real god would have commanded these atrocities. Period. Consequently, I reject the diety claims of the Old Testament god.

I do not believe God commanded all the things the Israelites claimed he told them to do in the Old Testament. Too much sounds like an after the face justification, particularly in the Conquest of the Holy Land and the Time of the Judges.

Pay your money, take your pick.

That is, Nehor, you can believe anything you want. It does not need to be rational. It does not need to fit the facts. It requires no basis. Just believe what you wish.

You can make it up. If you’re less imaginative, you can rely on some doctrine or dogma. You can kill people. You can favor genocide (as God does as invented in the Old Testament). You can favor treating people with genuine respect and love -- just claim a God invented in another time favors it. ...Just anything you like, Nehor. Make it up as you go. Nevermind any thoughtful contradictions. Nevermind intellectual integrity.

It’s religion. Anything goes!

JAK

And I still say that Jesus was an alien!

[_Yoda]

And I still say that Jesus was an alien!

I keep looking around for lightning to strike. Maybe it's because we're in the Celestial Forum. LOL

[_ozemc]

And I still say that Jesus was an alien!

I keep looking around for lightning to strike. Maybe it's because we're in the Celestial Forum. LOL

Maybe ....

Or maybe we're just waiting for that 500 billion year old race to make it back here!

<Please see my post on http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t82397.html> (I'm The Wanderer)

[_JAK]

JAK,

I often ask myself when reading what others say, what are the rewards motivating someone. I've noticed on this board there are about 4 outspoken Mormon men with similar attitudes. They claim direct personal connection to god, they claim to have knowledge over and above what science gives and thus they have a truth greater than other people without that connection, they claim to have special medical healing powers given to them by God or Jesus. There are other claims but these are the main ones which come to mind.

All these men seem to exude low self esteem. To any man with low self worth, these Mormon beliefs would be highly attractive. They would help to compensate for a huge inferiority complex. I do believe the men on this BB that I'm thinking of, appreciate their beliefs are pretty nutty, but without them, they would just be average guys with not much to offer intellectually or even in their personality.

Now for the women I'm not sure. There are many aspects of Mormonism which I find demeaning to women, but I think women like how the men are encouraged to be very family devoted. So I think the perceived benefits outweigh the costs. I rarely read Mormon women talking as arrogantly as the men. The men try to elevate themselves to mini Gods.

That's my belief, and I'm sticking to it :)

Hi marg,

I find your comments here insightful. I hadn’t attempted to take the long philosophic perspective you have take. But it seems to me that you are correct in the observations. I can see how some Mormon women might be willing to put up with things they dislike in men just for the “perceived benefits” which you mention.

Perhaps in any religious connection, men regard themselves elevated by the very claims you mention. By claiming those special connections do some/any form of deity, they think more highly of themselves and don’t have to show anything beyond the verbal pomposity: I talk to God and God talks to me. Everyone else, and perhaps especially women are expected to bow down (figuratively if not literally) to a man. Since he needs not prove anything and can get away with secret experience (especially with God), such men regard themselves as superior.

That could account (at least in part) for the analysis which you offer. It would be interesting to be able to have a well-constructed Q & A by a psychiatrist that would shed light on the mentality of men who use religion and religious claims. I’m sure it could be done with a sequence of Q & A that would be revealing.

As an aside to this, psychologists/psychiatrists have constructed various tests which reveal much about individuals. The best ones today are those which pop up on a computer screen so that people cannot read ahead to alter answers which were their first choice. I am not talking about trick questions. Trick questions are disingenuous in themselves. But rather, I refer to questions well phrased to produce the most honest response. They have been used extensively with people in prison to get to the root of why people behave or think as they do.

Good points, marg!

JAK

[_JAK]

(In reference to a post by marg)

Nehor state:
I laughed when I read this. I'm accused by most people I know of having issues with being overly self-content and humorously arrogant. I'm curious how I exude low self-esteem here.

I would not presume to speak for marg. But failure to respond with straight-forward answers to questions and analysis strongly suggest “low self-esteem.”

I have set for you, Nehor, a variety of questions and analysis of your posts. You don’t quote me exactly in sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph context and respond.

Why? The options are few:
You cannot do it (lack the skill, lack the information or both)
You prefer to hide from view your thinking.
You cannot bring yourself to recognize that you are a product of indoctrination.

There may be others. But the fact is that you do not offer responses which have honest, clear expression. Instead, you evade. You make additional claims or repeat previously made claims for which you offer no support except that:you can’t know my experiences.

Well, TALK Articulate the “experience” and let’s look at it with an objective, clear eye.

JAK