Morningstar wrote:People can believe whatever they want. If someone tells me they believe all paths lead to God, that's fine. But it's not LDS doctrine and I take issue when a member of the church starts preaching it to other members of the church and wants to use testimony meeting for their personal platform. Your Universalist teachings contradict Christ, the scriptures, the prophets, temple work, and church doctrine. It is false doctrine.
In the 1900's, a group of Congregationalist preachers (one of whom was a pantheist) held a conference at Leicester in England. The goal of the conference was to advocate for a particular view of religious communion in which all religionists, whatever their particular views, could be in communion and fellowship with each other. The conservative reaction was immediate and sharp, and led to the Congregationalist Union (which was strongly anti-creedal) passing a declaration that it was commited to Evangelical principles (several of which were named explicitly). The C.U. was as liberalized as any evangelical church today, and had still more room for dissenting views. Yet any suggestion of "religious communion" with non-Christians (or even with very liberal Christians) led to serious backlash.
My feeling is that it will always be so. Part of the problem is that liberal religion has little appeal. People like radical religion, demanding religion, religion of the masses. They like prophets like Joseph Smith, lay preachers like Rick Warren, revivalists like Benny Hinn. They don't like elitist liberal thinkers who have rejected traditional sources of authority on the basis of reason. After all, by the time most people have advanced as far down the slippery slope as Spong, they've given up on religion altogether. I think it's possible that a liberal religion could be successful, but only if it grounds itself in an appeal to some external authority other than reason or conscience, and only if it can find a sufficiently cosmic vision and sufficiently demanding moral principles to impose on its members. Until such a religion arises with enough forcefulness to compete with the conservative religionists, there will be no liberal faith and there will be no "world religion".
1) anyone who launches, or gets in on the ground floor on an effort that successfully unites all the worlds religions in an organization that spans billions of people, is effectively going to be ruling the world. No? (obviously this guy is going to fail...I'm just speaking hypothetically)
2) I don't want to quote cliches, so, I'll just say that when these guys are in the position of running the largest institution in the world, with all the money and fame that will naturally follow, then we'll see if their "objectives" remain unchanged.
I don't see this movement as seeking control of billions of people. It seems more a movement to put some different ideas out there which might hopefully have the effect of changing for the better the way some controlling religions operate, simply moderate the entire religious world as it exists, bring some unity into religion, focus religion on higher spirituality than defending their exclusive beliefs, etc.
Granted, if any person(s) did contain control of all religion into one institution, it's easy enough to imagine how quickly it would become a vehicle for greed and power instead of good.
Moksha wrote:]It is very good. I wish them the best. I hope my Church participates in these type of discussions.
Do you imagine them abandoning the testimony that Joseph Smith restored the most true religion?
I realize they will not abandon their truth claims, but I do not see any difficulty for them to participate with other religious traditions in faith dialogues and humanitarian projects. It does Mormons good to see the world outside themselves.
CaliforniaKid wrote:My feeling is that it will always be so. Part of the problem is that liberal religion has little appeal. People like radical religion, demanding religion, religion of the masses. They like prophets like Joseph Smith, lay preachers like Rick Warren, revivalists like Benny Hinn. They don't like elitist liberal thinkers who have rejected traditional sources of authority on the basis of reason. After all, by the time most people have advanced as far down the slippery slope as Spong, they've given up on religion altogether. I think it's possible that a liberal religion could be successful, but only if it grounds itself in an appeal to some external authority other than reason or conscience, and only if it can find a sufficiently cosmic vision and sufficiently demanding moral principles to impose on its members. Until such a religion arises with enough forcefulness to compete with the conservative religionists, there will be no liberal faith and there will be no "world religion".
-Chris
I think you are absolutely correct. Unity Church started about the same time as Mormonism and it's doing fine but doesn't attract members the way Mormonism does because ... well, because it doesn't offer ego gratification, and that is what most people are looking for in religion.
Wow.....people find ego gratification in religion? At that point I would say it's fairly obvious that they may have found religion but it's unlikely they found God.
I don't think this kind of unity can last at all. To argue that no one can declare that they have truth is to admit that perhaps none of them have any.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Nephi wrote:Honestly, this idea sounds very similar to the ideas I put forth with Universalism. They are not saying that the religion you subscribe to is incorrect, but that there is no "exclusive club" in the course of one's life to find God. I would be very interested in such an organization if there is one. Where can I find more information about such a thing?
Nephi, how do you feel about Mormon beliefs that do not sit well next to Universalism. Why baptize the dead if there is no "exclusive club" with handshakes and dunking fonts? Why would you be one of those 60,000 LDS missionaries who teach about Joseph Smith's "exclusive" priesthood authority, or why would you support that effort?
Moksha wrote:It is very good. I wish them the best. I hope my Church participates in these type of discussions.
Do you imagine them abandoning the testimony that Joseph Smith restored the most true religion?
I honestly believe the work in the temples is more for the help of us doing the work than for those who have passed on, but this could also be something that is used in the afterlife to help souls there. As for missionary work, missionary work (in its core) is there to give direction to those who are lost and those who's supposed path would use LDS theology can be introduced to the idea. Universalism is NOT a religion, please understand this. Its an overlay to your religion, and it and LDS theology work hand and hand. I have yet to find any religion that I believe 100% of all that is taught. Universalism does not remove the idea that LDS theology is the restored most true religion. For those who this is true for, the religion is true, and for those who this is not true, it is not.
The Nehor wrote:Wow.....people find ego gratification in religion? At that point I would say it's fairly obvious that they may have found religion but it's unlikely they found God.
I don't think this kind of unity can last at all. To argue that no one can declare that they have truth is to admit that perhaps none of them have any.
People do find ego gratification in religion, and it's because that is the purpose for which religion was invented. They haven't "found" God, they invented him from the ego in the first place. The God of the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon is an ego god. It is a testimony of the kernel of natural good in people that religion generally does have good in it.
If you read Roger's OP again, I think you won't find it forbidding anyone to "declare that they have truth." I think it is suggesting giving up the ideas of exclusive "truths" for the greater good of humanity. It's getting past the ego part of religion that finds it attractive to declare that it has the truth. It goes past Nephi's idea of "many ways to God" to the idea of a God who didn't condemn in the first place and who doesn't distinguish between truth and untruth because he is only Truth and Truth is that we are all One and the thing that keeps us from seeing that is ego.
If any of you are familiar with Dave Matthews Band, then you know the song "Last Stop" probably. The song is not written to any set religion, but to all people anywhere who believe anything. There are many hidden truths embedded in the song. Here are the lyrics:
Fire
The sun is well asleep
Moon is high above
The Fire's from the east
How is this
Hate so deep
Lead us all so blindly killing killing
Fools we are
If hate's the gate to peace
This is the last stop
For raining tears
War
The only way to Peace
I don't fall for that
Raining tears
You're righteous you're righteous you're righteous
You're always so right
Go ahead and dream
Go ahead believe that you are the chosen one
Raining tears
Oh no
Gracious even God
Bloodied the cross
Your sins are washed enough
And a mother's cry
Is hate so deep
Must my baby's bones
This hungry fire feed
Smoke clouds roll in
Symphony of death
This is the last stop
Scream
Right is wrong now
Shut up you big lie
This black and white lie
You comb your hair to hide
Your lying eyes
And you're righteous, so righteous, so righteous
You're always so right
But why your lie
Go ahead and dream
Go ahead believe that you are the chosen one
This is the last stop
Here there's more than is showing up
Hope that we can break it down
It's not so black and white
You're righteous
You're righteous
You're righteous
You're always so right
One day you are nailing a good tree
Then say fukgive* me, fukgive* me
Here there is more than is showing up
Hope that we can break it down
It's not so black and white
* supposed to sound like he is saying f**k give me (ie, f**k me), but sounds kinda like forgive me.
The Nehor wrote:Wow.....people find ego gratification in religion? At that point I would say it's fairly obvious that they may have found religion but it's unlikely they found God.
I don't think this kind of unity can last at all. To argue that no one can declare that they have truth is to admit that perhaps none of them have any.
People do find ego gratification in religion, and it's because that is the purpose for which religion was invented. They haven't "found" God, they invented him from the ego in the first place. The God of the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon is an ego god. It is a testimony of the kernel of natural good in people that religion generally does have good in it.
If you read Roger's OP again, I think you won't find it forbidding anyone to "declare that they have truth." I think it is suggesting giving up the ideas of exclusive "truths" for the greater good of humanity. It's getting past the ego part of religion that finds it attractive to declare that it has the truth. It goes past Nephi's idea of "many ways to God" to the idea of a God who didn't condemn in the first place and who doesn't distinguish between truth and untruth because he is only Truth and Truth is that we are all One and the thing that keeps us from seeing that is ego.
A God who would never condemn is not a personal God. Furthermore if he didn't condemn some of the things I have done then he damn well should have and I wouldn't respect anyone (man or God) that didn't.
I don't think we are all One. I don't think that's ego. Are Porter and I one? Merc and I? I suppose you could argue that both of us desire to be right and that we need to be right badly but I don't think that is all of it. We live different lives in different worlds and the meeting-places between it are few and far between. If God doesn't distinguish between truth and untruth because he is only truth then can he distinguish that the truth is that we are all One? Worshiping such a God seems like a joke to me. A God that gives no commands, has no real laws, and is content to stand back and let the world turn seems like a God without will or personality. It seems like the dream God of casual mysticism where you can commune with something beyond the world to have some fun and feel spiritual but God will demand nothing of you.
God only gratifies the ego of those who think that they have pleased him. The Bible (and the Book of Mormon) goes to great lengths to show that God is not impressed by ANY of us. There is comfort to be found in Christianity but it is found after learning the terrible truth that there is a God and that we are actively enemies against Him and his Law. I know less of Islam but I do know that God in that religion is seen as the one that forbears, who is patient, and who often holds off deserved judgments. Anyone who is arrogant about their relationship to God has failed. They haven't met the God of the Bible or they have forgotten him. They do it in accordance with human nature but against all doctrine.
I know of only a few religions that restrict their exclusive truths to a certain group. They want all to come and have them. I also don't think humanity's greater good is served by watering all religion down.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo