Native American use of Sacred Metal Tablets

[_EdGoble]

Ed, I appreciate your thoughts. I will say I am not going to address all of what you wrote, purely because I believe we will just go around and around without really getting anywhere. Thank you for taking the time to share though, I always enjoy seeing lots of different perspectives. I do want to address a few things though:

I can't agree with you that people that leave Mormonism having once been converted, and having a certain amount of light, are in the same state as people that never had that light, who weren't supposed to ever get that level of light in mortality. The people from whom the light is withheld are in that state for a deliberate reason that the Lord knows about their mortal mission that would necessitate it. The people that leave Mormonism have broken covenants, and are responsible for that, and can never be in the same position as those who never made them, and never knew that level of light.

The main point of my arguing that you don't know about the fate or experience of those that left is precisely that, you don't know, you just have an idea. You claim to believe in a Christ that has full knowledge of our intents and hearts and that are judgement will be according to how he sees us taking upon his mantle ("That means that he has viewed your behavior and your intent and judged it..." your words). All I am suggesting is that you as an outsider between this relationship between the person and Christ CANNOT know their heart.

This is why I think it a bit insensitive (and premature) to cast the judgement you have. As someone so sure of your relationship with Christ, it seems odd that you would try to denounce someone else's just because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I also don't really see anyone here "making excuses" for their "state" (state of what?, I don't know what you mean here). All of the stories I have read on this site, and the former Mormons I have known in real life have gone through long, arduous journeys that often cost them considerable time, money, relationships and a fair bit of suffering. They all have ended up in drastically different positions; atheist to Evangelical to Buddhist. I feel perhaps one of the reasons you may receive some hostility on this board is because you are so flippant in your regard to their thoughts and ideas, i.e. your comparison between them and alcoholics (yes I know some of the members of the board are just asses, but most are not).

I will be happy to let you have the last word in this, I believe I have said my peace.

No person on this board has walked the last steps of their journey. They can come back. There are certain observations that can be made of general things that are entirely sort of broad brush-strokies, based on the best information one has. It is not a false statement from the LDS point of view to say that the general case where someone has gone inactive or left the Church will end up in a not-so-good state after the resurrection if they do not repent at some point in their existence. Sorry. None of this is judgement on peoples hearts, but observations of general cases where a general outcome for a general case is known. None of it is a judgement of someone's heart. I don't have to know a person's heart to make general observations about humanity.

I am not going to give someone a pass for having made a decision that they made. If someone made a decision where the general observable result is a loss of exaltation if they don't come back, that is not a judgement of that person. It is a statement of a general fact, and if there are mitigating circumstances, then the Lord will fix things.

And so, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and God can send me to hell I guess for observations if he wants. But again, I could be soft on people and tell them they are ok for choices that are not in line with commandments and covenants if I want, but that would not be representative of facts, and would be a false statement not to hurt feelings. Or, I can speak the truth, and actually say that there are consequences for choices when someone has been instructed that there is a certain outcome if and only if they follow a certain set of choices.

Do you prefer that I coddle people to make them feel good about their situation when their spiritual situation is not good, or do you prefer that I speak truth as I see it? Do you guys not speak truth as you see it?

Therefore, if it is observable that someone will only have a good spiritual outcome if they turn around and make better choices, should I keep quiet?

[_SteelHead]

Pascal rears his head once again.

[_EdGoble]

Who was resurrected per LDS beliefs prior to JC?
Anyways you say that the fall applies to beings that lived prior to Adam, so then all of life prior to Adam gets a resurrection. But according to LDS beliefs even the earth itself gets a resurrection. Conservation of mass tells me someone or something is going to be shorted in the resurrection.

Who was resurrected before JC? Nobody. Who was forgiven of sin before Jesus came? Plenty. The other effects of the atonement except for the resurrection thing were retro-active.
The fall is retro-active in that all things that die from the beginning are subject to effects of an occurrence something that happened in 4000 BC. Yes, indeed, both are retro-active.

[_Xenophon]

Ed, obviously I am not telling you to be quiet. If I wanted you to shut up I could just put you on ignore

Rail away at what you perceive to be your calling. Call the masses unto repentance if you wish. I really don't think anyone on this board will try to stop you (Nightlion is still around, isn't he). Just don't be surprised when you message is not received and posters disagree with your blind assessment of them and their situation. Also, from my time in the church, I would argue that the LDS perspective on those that do not believe is much better than almost any other Christian denomination.

I do find it interesting that you use "fact" to describe an idea or concept that literally is not a "fact" in the classic definition of the word. The world does not generally accept the Church's "truth claims" about exaltation. So in this neutral forum it is difficult to define your belief as fact.

[Guest]

God didn't tell you this. You have never meet him. Some human like Joseph Smith did. Is this claim not also the main trait of the conman who wants people to believe what he tells them? So many religious leaders tell their adherents things like this. How is having faith in the wrong one bad and having faith in the right one, which you have no idea is the right one, good?

You can challenge my assertions, but you don't know what God has told me and what he has not, and to be frank, even if someone did meet God you would never know it. That is not your position to know, which shows the flaw in your own position, that you can't prove that something wasn't told to me, because you don't have evidence that it did not. What you only can know is what you perceive, and your perceptions are only based on your own subjective assumptions and foolish fault finding with the Lord's anointed where you cast aspersions like "conman" and so forth. I can challenge you just as much to say that you did not live the life of Joseph Smith so you are not in a position to judge on these points on the shaky ground on which you base your casting of aspersions, and you most certainly did not meet God yourself to know that he is a conman. All you have is the historical evidence before you that you can subjectively interpret yourself to come to your subjective judgement of "conman." You can go off of the words of traitors like William Law that accused him of such things, or you can go off the words of people like Brigham Young that sang all the time, "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah." You can interpret the thing about marriage to 14 year old girls as badly or as good as you wish to. The fact of the matter is that they were real marriages in the eyes of Jehovah, not adulterous arrangements.

So, let me say I thank God for the man Joseph Smith that pointed me to the way that I could know how to seek to commune with God myself in his own time to know what Joseph knew, and to experience what he experienced myself. Praise to the man who led the way for me to be able to eventually meet God. I am not limited by his failings, and I'm not fazed by the accusations against him. I am enabled to progress by his accomplishments.

I got from your posts that God has never appeared to you. My conclusions that Joseph is at best a pious fraud is just based on, in my opinion, more then sufficient evidence. But that is not what I was asking in regards to the conman. My question is, that asking for faith from the conman is a common trait of the conman. Telling us we cannot have proof and are being tested to see if we will be faithful. Remember your assertion it was the one exception to the demand of proof. They say the same thing you just did. This is a huge problem when what you defend is the same thing the conman does to defend his/her assertions.

[_Themis]

Really? I keep believing when I knew I didn't know. I stopped when I had enough evidence available to be considered proof Joseph was making it up. I don't know why you think it a good trait to endure with a set of beliefs given you by your tribe, when there are so many other ones out there. They all like to give different answers then yours. Is it a trait that God will reward a celestial life for everyone who endures in their particular religion's claims no matter how illogical? Or is it just the one you think is the right one?

Yes. You actually did stop, with all due respect, because you allowed this type of thing to overcome you instead of waiting it out and sticking with it.

Sure I eventually stopped believing, but it was well after I realized I didn't know the church was true. I was realizing how poor the spiritual experience is for learning anything objective about the world. After that all I needed was good evidence Joseph was making it up. I don't consider it a good trait to endure to the end for something you found to not be true. Should a Scientologist endure to the end in Scientology when they find out it is not true?

[_Themis]

And so, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong and God can send me to hell I guess for observations if he wants.

That depends. If the JW's are right then you cease to exist at death. If the evangelicals are right you go to hell. If LDS are right I go to the telestial kingdom where supposedly if we knew how good it was we would kill ourselves now to get there. Then if you go with some other teachings having righteous parents can get you into the celestial kingdom. Also most members may not realize the church has no official position on movement from kingdom to kingdom.

[_Themis]

Pascal rears his head once again.

Pascals wager is based on an either or, but reality is far more complicated. In reality we have multitudes of different outcomes so the logic of pascals wager would be to go with the religion that has the worst outcome for the non-believer of that religion. That is certainly not the LDS church.

[_Lemmie]

Do you prefer that I coddle people to make them feel good about their situation when their spiritual situation is not good, or do you prefer that I speak truth as I see it? Do you guys not speak truth as you see it?

I think it's a two way street. People are expressing their opinions about their beliefs, and they are expressing opinions about other people's beliefs. It makes for an interesting discussion, and it works if it is founded in basic respect. Your beliefs and opinions may feel factual to you, but your belief is absolutely not factual to me. Neither of us needs to take offense that the other is most vigorously disagreeing with us!

Someone said upthread something along the lines that respecting another person's beliefs does not require one to necessarily suppress their opinion that those beliefs are delusional or irrational. It's not an insult to express an opinion about a particular belief; however, putting those who believe differently into a single category and judging them as a group based on your beliefs and not theirs is not expressing an opinion about a belief, it's just stereotyping.

But ex- and Anti- Mormons in general do seem to share one trait. They are unwilling to endure or have patience for answers and proof.... Well, I don't have respect for that type of thing in the sense that it is no excuse.

Really? I feel like you have missed the extreme richness of diversity that can be found in people's stories here by making this stereotypical assumption.

I also agree with the poster upthread that there is a universal definition for 'factual,' and as much as your beliefs feel like facts to you, that isn't sufficient to define them as facts in a discussion like this. In my opinion, it is axiomatic that when something is defined and accepted as a fact in a discussion, it is indeed seen as a fact by all parties in that discussion.

For example:

If someone made a decision where the general observable result is a loss of exaltation if they don't come back, that is not a judgement of that person. It is a statement of a general fact,

Ed, that is not a fact. That is your opinion and your belief.

[_spotlight]

Who was resurrected before JC? Nobody. Who was forgiven of sin before Jesus came? Plenty. The other effects of the atonement except for the resurrection thing were retro-active.
The fall is retro-active in that all things that die from the beginning are subject to effects of an occurrence something that happened in 4000 BC. Yes, indeed, both are retro-active.

You are not addressing the part that interests me. The fact that according to LDS belief the elements are eternal and the fact that the same elements are recycled to provide multiple mortal physical tabernacles for living things means that as those organisms become resurrected the supply of matter gets used up to provide for the resurrected bodies. Elements that were used to provide multiple bodies for various mortal organisms cannot serve like multiple duty in providing the matter for the resurrected bodies. The earth itself needs its resurrection. It doesn't add up.

Loaves and fishes? Either the matter for the increase had to come from the surrounding elements if the LDS "the elements are eternal" is correct, or that Biblical passage is a red flag that the LDS position on matter is incorrect and a fraud, if one is to accept the Bible as factual, which I don't.