How hard is it to believe when you know "the stuff"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

mentalgymnast wrote:hi TD. you said:
Rather than rehash everything, how about just responding to my question regarding how the one and only true church directed by God would be noticed or identified?


MG: I think that first of all one would need to come to an understanding of Chrisitianity as a whole...then the roots of Christendom. Jesus Christ. Was Jesus the only begotten son of God? Was his ministry more than simply going around disseminating the "good news" as the evangelicals would like to focus on to the exclusion of almost all else? Was Jesus, when all is said and done, just an ordinary man? Did he organize his followers in such a way as to help provide a mechanism/organization/template to help them make necessary covenants and participate in necessary ordinances which he (and God) considered integral in obtaining a greater or more perfect knowledge of WHO THEY (meaning themselves and God) WERE/ARE?

Now if your answers to these questions/inquiries are in the negative, then we have no where to go at this point. You can probably see why. If you are able to look at the possibility that Jesus was not just a man, but actually the Son of the Living God...then the door is opened to some further exploration.

So what say ye?

Regards,
MG


Why put the ball in her court? Could she not just as well ask to consider that Jesus was not the Son of God, that he was and is not a divine being, that his church (whether he created it or his followers did--the evidence seems to suggest the latter) is simply another man-made religion, and so forth?

Why ask her to assume away all her convictions so that you can protect yours as a basis for further discussion? Given that it is you who is making the rather extra-ordinary claims, ought not the burden of compromise lie on you rather than TD, or anyone else?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi MG...

Well, MG, first, back to my question... is there any way for someone to tell a church was the one and only true one? Would one have to believe a list a stuff BEFORE they would be able to figure it out? As Guys said, the idea that I would have to assume so many things (that to me seem remote) before I could come to a place to know the church is the one and only true one, is sort of tough to embrace.

MG: I think that first of all one would need to come to an understanding of Chrisitianity as a whole...then the roots of Christendom. Jesus Christ. Was Jesus the only begotten son of God? Was his ministry more than simply going around disseminating the "good news" as the evangelicals would like to focus on to the exclusion of almost all else? Was Jesus, when all is said and done, just an ordinary man? Did he organize his followers in such a way as to help provide a mechanism/organization/template to help them make necessary covenants and participate in necessary ordinances which he (and God) considered integral in obtaining a greater or more perfect knowledge of WHO THEY (meaning themselves and God) WERE/ARE?


There is a world filled with various interpretations/ideas/beliefs concerning Christianity. You seem to suggest one must assume the LDS version is the true one, in order to know it is the one and only true one. Or something like that (smile).

Now if your answers to these questions/inquiries are in the negative, then we have no where to go at this point.


So, if one doesn't assume the LDS truth claims are true there is nothing to discuss?

You can probably see why. If you are able to look at the possibility that Jesus was not just a man, but actually the Son of the Living God...then the door is opened to some further exploration.


So what say ye?


I'm open to more light and knowledge. I do not like to assume that which doesn't make sense, nor do I think one should have to in order to discover truth, but I certainly don't think I have any certain knowledge about God or ultimate truth.

I would ask you again to give me something, anything at all, that would be an indicator that the LDS church is indeed the one God directs or the one and only fully true one, or the one with the most knowledge or whatever.. :-)

~dancer~
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

hi guy. you said:

Why put the ball in her court?


and hi TD. you said:
is there any way for someone to tell a church was the one and only true one? Would one have to believe a list a stuff BEFORE they would be able to figure it out?


MG: the foundation has to be laid before the building can be finished. If there was no Jesus of Nazareth who was literally the Son of God and Savior of mankind, etc., then there is no way the LDS church could be true. However, if the foundation is in place and on solid ground then we can look at the rest of the structure.

What I'm saying, just in case you still didn't get it after two posts...Jesus is it. If he isn't, then the church isn't...true that is...or possibly so anyway.

We really can't move forward with your requested evidences until we get past this. Can you see why?

So what think ye?

Regards,
MG
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

mentalgymnast wrote:hi guy. you said:

Why put the ball in her court?


and hi TD. you said:
is there any way for someone to tell a church was the one and only true one? Would one have to believe a list a stuff BEFORE they would be able to figure it out?


MG: the foundation has to be laid before the building can be finished. If there was no Jesus of Nazareth who was literally the Son of God and Savior of mankind, etc., then there is no way the LDS could be true. However, if the foundation is in place and on solid ground then we can look at the rest of the structure.

What I'm saying, just in case you still didn't get it after two posts...Jesus is it. If he isn't, then the church isn't...true that is...or possibly so anyway.

We really can't move forward with your requested evidences until we get past this. Can you see why?

So what think ye?

Regards,
MG


Even if we concede Jesus was it, the burden to demonstrate that Mormonism represents his legacy on earth is a difficult hurdle. And, if as you have pointed out, Mormon leaders are no more inspired than the average Joe, this burden of proof becomes heavier yet.

OK, let's say I accept that JC is the one. Assume I have no history in Mormonism, but that I am an empirical sort who relies on evidence and reason, rather than emotions. What evidence can you offer me that Mormon leaders carry the mantel of JC as they claim they do?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

hi guy. you said:

Even if we concede Jesus was it, the burden to demonstrate that Mormonism represents his legacy on earth is a difficult hurdle. And, if as you have pointed out, Mormon leaders are no more inspired than the average Joe, this burden of proof becomes heavier yet.

OK, let's say I accept that JC is the one. Assume I have no history in Mormonism, but that I am an empirical sort who relies on evidence and reason, rather than emotions. What evidence can you offer me that Mormon leaders carry the mantel of JC as they claim they do?


MG: OK, now we're getting somewhere. First, however, would you mind pointing out where I said that Mormon leaders are as a matter of fact "no more inspired than the average Joe"? I'm starting feel the progress of time and my memory isn't quite what it was, but I'm not sure that I can remember putting it quite like that. Earlier in the thread I did say,

...that God typically steps aside and lets his creations act for themselves and learn for themselves...in almost ALL situations, times, and circumstances.

Now, let's go to church. Why would one think that God would NOT operate pretty much the same way within the confines of a small subsection of humanity called his church? Why do we assume that every jot and tittle has been spelled out?


Is this what you're referring to? If so, I'm not seeing where this fact (if indeed it is a fact) would negate the possibility that the CofJCofLDS is true. I don't see where the burden of proof becomes any greater.

We need to build a foundation or at least a blueprint where we can find Jesus Christ (the literal and only begotten Son of God) ,the chief cornerstone, working with a fallible/imperfect group of men...his apostles and prophets...to bring about his purposes.

After all, he did it once before, remember Peter and Thomas for example? And how about Paul?

Are you willing to go that far? If not, we still find ourselves in a quandry for reasons that you can well surmise.

Would a God somehow be able to accomplish his purposes and establish a true church through less than perfect men?

If we can get to this point, then I think we can start to look at some evidences that would help us look for a "true church."

Otherwise, I still think we don't have anywhere to purposefully/reasonably go. I know, however, this may be asking you to stretch a wee bit too far...

Regards,
MG
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

mentalgymnast wrote:hi guy. you said:

Even if we concede Jesus was it, the burden to demonstrate that Mormonism represents his legacy on earth is a difficult hurdle. And, if as you have pointed out, Mormon leaders are no more inspired than the average Joe, this burden of proof becomes heavier yet.

OK, let's say I accept that JC is the one. Assume I have no history in Mormonism, but that I am an empirical sort who relies on evidence and reason, rather than emotions. What evidence can you offer me that Mormon leaders carry the mantel of JC as they claim they do?


MG: OK, now we're getting somewhere. First, however, would you mind pointing out where I said that Mormon leaders are as a matter of fact "no more inspired than the average Joe"? I'm starting feel the progress of time and my memory isn't quite what it was, but I'm not sure that I can remember putting it quite like that. Earlier in the thread I did say,

...that God typically steps aside and lets his creations act for themselves and learn for themselves...in almost ALL situations, times, and circumstances.

Now, let's go to church. Why would one think that God would NOT operate pretty much the same way within the confines of a small subsection of humanity called his church? Why do we assume that every jot and tittle has been spelled out?


Is this what you're referring to? If so, I'm not seeing where this fact (if indeed it is a fact) would negate the possibility that the CofJCofLDS is true. I don't see where the burden of proof becomes any greater.

We need to build a foundation or at least a blueprint where we can find Jesus Christ (the literal and only begotten Son of God) ,the chief cornerstone, working with a fallible/imperfect group of men...his apostles and prophets...to bring about his purposes.

After all, he did it once before, remember Peter and Thomas for example? And how about Paul?

Are you willing to go that far? If not, we still find ourselves in a quandry for reasons that you can well surmise.

Would a God somehow be able to accomplish his purposes and establish a true church through less than perfect men?

If we can get to this point, then I think we can start to look at some evidences that would help us look for a "true church."

Otherwise, I still think we don't have anywhere to purposefully/reasonably go. I know, however, this may be asking you to stretch a wee bit too far...

Regards,
MG


Throughout your posts on this topic, you have persisted in portraying LDS leaders as “humans,” or normal men who are no more inclined to receive divine guidance than, say, George Washington. Your question posed in this post does it yet one more time.

I am more than willing to concede that God only can work through the tool he has, and this consists of imperfect men and women. (The fact that the Mormon God works only through men is one piece of evidence I use to assess Mormonism’s truth and authority claims.)

But, at the same time, I hold presumed men of God to higher standards than to which I hold other men--higher standards of rectitude, wisdom, morality, etc. I expect these men to offer a true value added to humanity, by which I mean wisdom, learning, insight into the human condition and the great moral and other questions of the ages not generally available through other sources, and I expect them to be moral exemplars—imperfect to be sure, but of higher moral fiber than the typical person.

You, and other believers, offer me nothing to demonstrate that Mormon leaders satisfy these criteria. By your own repeated admission (largely implied at times), these men are no different, are as imperfect, possess no added insight than others.

In addition, I note a common tendency among apologists to actually hold Mormon leaders to lower standards than others, a trait that I find absolutely fascinating. Mormon apologists have turned the old chestnut complete on its head. Instead of “to whom much is given, much is required,” we get by implication “to whom much is given, little is required.”

So I would consider any evidence you might offer me that Mormon leaders in fact satisfy these criteria. That they are materially different and more advanced than the common man in terms of morality, insight, wisdom, etc., and that they offer a true value added to humanity.

What evidence can you offer me along these lines?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

hi guy. you said:
But, at the same time, I hold presumed men of God to higher standards than to which I hold other men--higher standards of rectitude, wisdom, morality, etc. I expect these men to offer a true value added to humanity, by which I mean wisdom, learning, insight into the human condition and the great moral and other questions of the ages not generally available through other sources, and I expect them to be moral exemplars—imperfect to be sure, but of higher moral fiber than the typical person.


MG: OK. I'm with you there. And as you say, "imperfect to be sure". And generally speaking they would be the first to recognize this. And in some cases and at various times have done so.

Now, are we able to agree that we can start at a baseline of hypothetically looking at Jesus Christ being the only begotten Son of God, Savior of mankind? Can we also hypothetically assume that Jesus could perform a great work and a marvelous work and a wonder through imperfect men who are trying to live according to "higher standards of rectitude, wisdom, morality" than is the norm?

Are we on the same page here?

Regards,
MG
_guy sajer
_Emeritus
Posts: 1372
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:16 am

Post by _guy sajer »

mentalgymnast wrote:hi guy. you said:
But, at the same time, I hold presumed men of God to higher standards than to which I hold other men--higher standards of rectitude, wisdom, morality, etc. I expect these men to offer a true value added to humanity, by which I mean wisdom, learning, insight into the human condition and the great moral and other questions of the ages not generally available through other sources, and I expect them to be moral exemplars—imperfect to be sure, but of higher moral fiber than the typical person.


MG: OK. I'm with you there. And as you say, "imperfect to be sure". And generally speaking they would be the first to recognize this. And in some cases and at various times have done so.

Now, are we able to agree that we can start at a baseline of hypothetically looking at Jesus Christ being the only begotten Son of God, Savior of mankind? Can we also hypothetically assume that Jesus could perform a great work and a marvelous work and a wonder through imperfect men who are trying to live according to "higher standards of rectitude, wisdom, morality" than is the norm?

Are we on the same page here?

Regards,
MG


Sure, I would expect that imperfect but honorable men would possess the humility to recognize their own humanity and moral limitations.

Ok, for purposes of debate, let's assume we're on the same page.

Now, as for the evidence I've requested . . . ?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

Hi MG...

Well, first, it is as if you are saying that one has to believe the church is true in order to believe it is true. (smile).

I mean most of world doens't even remotely believe in Jesus Christ.

And most of those who do believe in Christ, certainly do not believe as do the LDSs.

So, you seem to suggest that in order to even begin a conversation or a discussion to learn about evidence that there is a one and only true church, one must believe in the LDS beliefs.

This of course speaks to my point, and my question.

If an alien came to the earth, how could she/he identify which was the one and only true church of God?

In other words, is there any evidence that such a thing (as a one and only true church directed by God Himself) exists?

You seems to be saying that no evidence exists but if one believes the story line then there are some things that will show up.

Am I explaining this well?

I would like you to clarify if I am misunderstanding.. (I really am trying here)!

Having said this... I am also willing to listen to your thoughts if we all assume the story line is the one and only true one..... (This being that there is a one and only true church, etc. etc. etc.).

~dancer~
_mentalgymnast

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Ok, for purposes of debate, let's assume we're on the same page.
Now, as for the evidence I've requested . . . ?


MG: OK, now we've set up a hypothetical condition/situation that Jesus is the Son of God in the flesh, Savior of mankind. I'm going to also assume that the biblical record is generally accurate as to what we read in the New Testament. Jesus called disciples, later called apostles. Jesus set up a grassroots sort of organization/group that later evolved into a church[es]. Jesus had power/authority from on high or within himself to perform miracles and to teach truth. Baptism was a gateway ordinance into the congregation of like believers. The Holy Ghost performed an important part in helping early believers come to a sure knowledge. Sacrament was practiced among the believers. God himself appeared to some chosen individuals and communicated knowledge to them apart and away from the general congregation. Sin was eschewed and repentance was part and parcel of following Jesus. And so on.

To put it simply, Jesus brought the gospel/good news of salvation to mankind.

Where is that good news/gospel and the power/authority of God most likely to be found in modern times if it is to be found at all?

1. Catholic Church
2. Protestant churches
3. Non-Christian organizations/systems
4. New Age belief systems
5. Restorationist movements
6. Atheistic belief systems
7. Agnoticism
8. Philisophical theories
9. Kiwanis Club
10. Cult figure movements

What think ye?

Regards,
MG
Post Reply