DiscussMormonism.com

didyoumythme wrote:If the same priesthood is here, just like biblical times, then we would see miracles today.

The criteria for what would be accepted as a miracle has changed. In the past, if someone blew a mouthful of cornstarch at a flame they would say it was a fire-breathing miracle. If someone did it today, we could call it combustion.

One of the best arguments for Mormonism was put forth years ago in the Salt Lake Tribune. The lady in the article said, "It may be a fairy story, but it is our fairy story". The truth in allegory is not found in actual events, the teller of the allegory or even the allegory itself. It is found when it inspires us to be a kinder and more loving people. There are so very many wonderful Mormons. They are what is true.

moksha wrote:There are so very many wonderful Mormons. They are what is true.

+1,000,000

Maksutov wrote:

moksha wrote:There are so very many wonderful Mormons. They are what is true.

+1,000,000

Ah yes! Turn to the humanity aspect and we begin to get on the right track, not the societal aspect. I also like this very much!

moksha wrote:The truth in allegory is not found in actual events, the teller of the allegory or even the allegory itself. It is found when it inspires us to be a kinder and more loving people.

In that case, it's the inspiration in allegory, not "truth."

There are so very many wonderful Mormons. They are what is true.

Nope. Were such the case, then wonderful Catholics, wonderful Scientologists, and wonderful Jehovah's witnesses would also be what is true.

Dr. Shades wrote:

moksha wrote:The truth in allegory is not found in actual events, the teller of the allegory or even the allegory itself. It is found when it inspires us to be a kinder and more loving people.

In that case, it's the inspiration in allegory, not "truth."

Cutting off the last sentence, "There are so very many wonderful Mormons. They are what is true," does seem to affect the meaning of what is intended to be true. Sort of like if you chopped off the last part of that John F. Kennedy quotation, "Ask not what your country can do for you." Taken by itself Kennedy's remark sounds like a summary of Republican ideology rather than the message he intended.

There are so very many wonderful Mormons. They are what is true.

Nope. Were such the case, then wonderful Catholics, wonderful Scientologists, and wonderful Jehovah's witnesses would also be what is true.

Maybe there can be a universal sense of truth when people are nice to one another that extends beyond any religious affiliation.***


***Moksha seems to be using the word truth in a non-binary sense.

If that's an argument for truth, there are a lot of "true" groups out there.

moksha wrote:Maybe there can be a universal sense of truth when people are nice to one another that extends beyond any religious affiliation.***

Could it also include "nice to one another that [still holds even if your family member is no longer associated with your] religious affiliation" ?

That would address some very practical issues related to shunning, telling others they will canot be with their families unless you believe THEIR truth, etc.

moksha wrote:***Moksha seems to be using the word truth in a non-binary sense.

If so, then that's moksha's problem. Moksha should realize that Moksha doesn't get to invent Moksha's own definitions for words.

Doesn't it boil down to treating others and oneself fairly? I think good people everywhere have the golden rule in common. It is results based. However, Religion then layers authority worship on top of that and charges for their trick of getting people to believe the nonsense. In reality, Mormons are good people because they practice certain principles common to good people everywhere and these principles are free to all. So, I think the best argument for LDS truth as results based really is counter-productive from the brethren's perspective as it exposes their magic.

Dr. Shades wrote:

moksha wrote:***Moksha seems to be using the word truth in a non-binary sense.

If so, then that's moksha's problem. Moksha should realize that Moksha doesn't get to invent Moksha's own definitions for words.

I think Moksha was sending up another group's propensity to non-binarily use 'truth' when they don't have it on their side.