atomliner
114
22
atomliner has not written any posts yet.
I masquerade as a liberal Mormon on Facebook since I'm still in the closet with my unbelief. In my discussions with friends and family the most common position taken is that the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles cannot teach false doctrine or else they will be forcibly removed by God. I even had a former missionary companion tell me that President Gordon B. Hinckley died in 2008 not from old age (he was 98) but because he had made false statements on Larry King Live concerning the doctrine of exaltation in which worthy Latter-day Saints can become gods.
Those are good examples. Though I guess whether this is possible depends on your definition of "forget". Speaking of the Spanish Inquisition, I am of the opinion that the Inquisitors did not forget their core tenets but that further knowledge (however flawed) gave them new means to interpret the original tenets. You could suggest that this re-interpretation was exactly what Jesus wanted to keep people from doing, of course. The question I ask Christians, then, is "What knowledge is acceptable and how should it be attained when God doesn't encourage the utilization of all knowledge?" This would certainly be an important question for theists to answer, and may be relatively simple. I can already guess a few possible answers.
Oh, okay, I understand how this could be seen as contradictory.
In the first case I was arguing from my own, real-time atheist self that believes Jesus was illogical in his comments on people forgetting the basic principles of Christianity in their pursuit for more knowledge. How could someone forget such simple principles like "love one another" in their pursuit for more knowledge? Note that I never said this reason was insufficient for a Mormon to hold this belief, I was only saying it was insufficient to atheist me and I wanted JohnH to provide a better defense of his point, which he didn't.
In the second case I used past-tense "... you think that it WAS unreasonable for me...", and we were already talking about my former beliefs. So, I was arguing from my former Mormon self that did believe that Jesus saying something was enough to validate a belief.
The discussion became rather confusing because JohnH wanted to discredit my past beliefs rather than my current beliefs.
Those are strong arguments for discontinuing this discussion. Thank you for helping me grok this situation better. :)
So, this whole debate is about whether your-previous-self, or JohnH, is better deserving of the title of 'true Mormon'?
That's funny. No. I don't care what JohnH wants to be seen as or what title he deserves. I just want my previous-self identified as a "plausible Mormon". In my opinion, JohnH wants me to be seen as a "fringe Mormon" whose departure from the LDS Church is unimportant in the debate over whether the LDS Church is true, because I didn't really understand Latter-day Saint beliefs. Which I did as much as any other average Latter-day Saint I know.
They appear to contradict each other. Can you explain?
I don't see the contradiction. These statements appear to be unrelated. Can you explain what contradiction you see?
Please show what I said (excluding the reference to Confucius) is not clearly based in scripture, Numbers 11:29 may be helpful.
I apologize. I had thought that you were using the three scriptures I quoted earlier to support the point that the scriptures confirms that atheists can be as happy, healthy, and moral as theists. In actuality, you were using them to describe how blessings come from following the commandments and not just from belief in the first two cases and in the third case you were supporting the idea that God understands it is difficult for people to distinguish truth from error.
The point I made about our conversation still stands, however.... (read 466 more words →)
Paul saying those that didn't know God and that didn't have the law but that acted justly being justified because of their actions doesn't imply to you that it is possible to be moral, healthy, and happy without faith in God?
I don't know where you draw that implication from the word "justified". So, no.
... (read 491 more words →)How about this, where in "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated." does it mention anything about having faith in God being a prerequisite for receiving
I already pointed you to Romans 2, specifically in this case Romans 2:13-15, did you want more?
Yes. I don't see anything in Romans 2 that shows me that you can be moral, healthy, and happy without faith in God.
A prophet is only a prophet when they are acting as a prophet.
But you have to admit it's hard sometimes to distinguish whether or not a prophet is acting as one.
More specifically there are multiple First Presidency statements saying Adam-God is wrong.
I never believed that Adam WAS Elohim, but I did believe that what Brigham Young and others intended to say was that Adam was the God of this Earth.
... (read 410 more words →)Statements by Apostles saying
I say probably because it might not require an authoritarian government to enact such a policy. I can imagine realistic scenarios.
Whatever the prophet says that doesn't match up with their own interpretation of Mormonism is false? I honestly do not know, I never thought this way when I was LDS.