Matthew0059

Members
  • Posts

    439
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Matthew0059's Achievements

  1. If you want a truly thought-provoking read, may I suggest "Passing the Heavenly Gift". Just finished reading it myself a few weeks ago, and it goes through most of the major changes to doctrine and practice the LDS Church has experienced since its inception. It makes the case for Joseph Smith's authentic call to be a prophet, the LDS church's valid claim to authority, and the divine destiny of the LDS Church. With that in mind, it doesn't shy away from the more serious issues.A good springboard if you're truly ready to look at the history of the Church and are willing to be led by God. If the issues Kevin Kraut brings up interest you, then "Passing the Heavenly Gift" might as well. As for Kevin Kraut, I don't like his youtube videos or his father's writings. His videos depend heavily on unverifiable anecdotal evidence and a misapplication/misunderstanding of scripture. Most importantly, the few videos I watched didn't contain any "light or truth" but instead confusion and uninspired questions.
  2. selek- After reading your response to Upcountry, I can understand why you have reacted so strongly to what you thought was religious bigotry. I empathize with where you're coming from. However, as I will show, had you paid attention to all of Upcountry's posts- especially the OP- you would have realized that his so-called "bigoted" remarks were not representative of his real character, or even his real position. If I felt that you would even try to come to meet with me eye to eye on these subjects, instead of constantly affirming your own correctness, I would be more willing to engage with you on these subjects. If your overall goal was to understand and be unified, rather than dominate and subject, I would happily discuss the areas where we disagree on more in depth with you. I will offer a partial reply- I don't have time for a full one as you have done; I have to get to work- and then might not be able to return to this thread for a while. My issue with how you have acted is not the doctrine you espouse- except for the aforementioned points- but with how you continually called Upcountry bigoted and ignorant- which are against the rules of this board. You can strain at a gnat and say you only called his actions ignorant and bigoted, but the difference matters little, in light of how strongly you worded your reply. I won't say more than that, because you finally realized that he's not, in fact, bigoted. It is frustrating that you realize that only after taking him and me to task for it. His reply, which changed your mind, is little more than a restatement of a paragraph (that he put in red because of its importance) in the OP: Moving on to your reply, which held some good points: On the contrary- a plain reading of the verse in question, and the subsequent events in Joseph's life, show that as far as we know, the primary reason God gave to Joseph for joining no church was because they were all wrong. God may have told Joseph he had a greater work in store for him- I've heard that idea oft-repeated at church, with no substantive backing- but there's no evidence for that. In fact, Joseph never mentioned the Lord delivering such a message, but did affirm in the official account and a later account in 1842 that the Lord told him "all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to ‘go not after them." (Wentworth Letter).It is the primary, stated reason. There may have been others, but they were not the primary, stated reason- despite your assertion that "[n]owhere, however, does he state that this was the sole, or even primary reason, why Joseph was forbidden to join them." This is good reasoning, I think. It reminds me that for many years, Primitive Christianity was seen and understood as little more than an offshoot of Judaism. Because Judaism was still technically the same religion established by Moses, that was acceptable. However, because none of the churches in Joseph's time were technically the same religion as the one begun by Christ and the Apostles, it would be incorrect to have Mormonism be described as an offshoot of one of the other churches. The way it worked out, Mormonism is seen as a legitimate, original religion, not grouped with the Protestant sects.This reasoning, I agree with. And I agree that the fact that Joseph was going to be called to a greater work was part of the reason he was told not to join. My only issue is that, at the time, the only reason given to Joseph was to join no church because they weren't correct. Except, the context of the quote shows Joseph actually agreeing with Upcountry's use of the quote... Did you read the whole quote in context?If you read the quote and simply disagree with me on its meaning in context, you show no indication of doing so; this has happened a few times in this thread now, so forgive me if the following is wrong. I'm beginning to think you only read what you want to, in order to come to the conclusion that you want to, and that much or most of your posting is a result of "spinal reflexes" to what you do read. You want to take me to task for getting pedantic over wording, and then in the next paragraphs get pedantic over semantics? We mean and think the same thing in this regard, brother, yet you want everyone to use the exact same wording as you do and they're just wrong if they don't. Yet if another person doesn't agree with your own wording or ideas, they have either a wrong, inferior, or just "different" interpretation.Do you see why I referred to the beams and motes now? I'll let this and the following paragraph go. The rebuke of a man in the wrong, holds no weight; you have said everything you've said because you didn't have a full understanding of the situation and Upcountry's real remarks, opinions, and feelings. I appreciate what good you do on this forum, selek, but you're simply wrong in this situation. This statement is so overly broad as to render it useless.It is not enough merely to reject the oppportunity: you must do so knowingly. And that means having a testimony (or at least the seeds of one)- and is ultimately up to Christ himself to judge. Brushing off the missionaries is not sufficient- the rejection must be an informed decision, not one made in haste or ignorance. I would agree with this- that is what I meant when I said "reject the opportunity" to make covenants. I assumed that you also would understand what I meant. It is frustrating that you seem to want to argue over the basics of every topic of discussion. I don't have the time, talent, or desire to fully explain every little facet of every single post I write. Maybe you do, but I don't. I have considered them.D&C 112 was given to Thomas B. Marsh regarding his calling as an Apostle of the Lord. Remarks about contending and rebuking are to be understood in that context. D&C 121:43 emphasizes that rebuke is only to be given upon being moved by the spirit of the Lord. You bring Upcountry to task multiple times for failing to show enough love and understanding to his non-LDS brethren. Yet you yourself consummately fail to show any love and understanding to either Upcountry or I. You contend sharply- not for the sake of proving Christ's gospel to an unbeliever and thereby showing them the path to salvation, but to try to straighten out and correct a perceived error in the thinking of another when you have no authority nor reason to do so. This action is in direct opposition to the advice and commandments of God, that "ye shall live together in love" and have no contention amongst us- especially regarding doctrine. Discussion and disagreement are fine, but the spirit of contention is of the devil. I leave you with the following scriptures, for your own perusal and thought. 4 Nephi 1:2 D&C 42:45 3 Nephi 11:30 I wish I could say I enjoyed this discussion, but I really haven't. I joined because of how strongly I felt Upcountry was being misunderstood and mistreated. I leave because there's now an understanding between him and the other posters on this thread. I look forward to discussing other things with you, selek- hopefully something we can find a bit more mutual understanding on. God bless.
  3. I can't stomach to see a brother steamrolled as much as Upcountry has. There might be some context and history here I don't see, but from a plain reading of this thread he has been misused and maltreated. There is no love here, and less patience. selek: you need to step out of the realm of cold logic and rationality and into the realm of real human emotions. You're not dealing with an automatic robot here, but a human being. You have to connect instead of steamroll. Right now you're using a sledgehammer when, judging by Upcountry's responses and humility in the face of your ferocious responses, a scalpel would have sufficed. Furthermore, in your zeal to overtake Upcountry, you've made some egregious errors that most 16-year old Priests wouldn't make. That's not like you- you clearly have the gift of a sound mind, judging from this and other posts. What's more, you clearly treasure that sound mind, judging from your signature line. Joseph makes it quite clear from the now-official account of the First Vision that He was commanded to join none of them because they were wrong. JS-H 1:18-19: I've gone over the 1828 version of Webster's, and can't find any definition of the word "for" that allows any wiggle room for the reason that Joseph was commanded not to join any other churches (admittedly, I didn't read all 31 definitions- you're free to do so, if you want). Conversely, I did find multiple definitions that essentially render an acceptable substitute "because". In modern vernacular, the phrase would read "I must join none of them, because they were all wrong". Joseph went into the grove with one question which had two parts-- which church was right, and therefore which was the church he ought to join. He therefore received an answer which had two parts-- he should join none of them, because they were all wrong. The reason for the answer cannot be separated from the answer itself. You've tried to invent wiggle room where there really is none. Furthermore, you need to provide references- preferably scriptural- that concretely state the Lord told Joseph, during the First Vision, that the reason he was supposed to join no church was because of the greater work in store for Joseph. There is no indication of Joseph realizing this "greater work" was in store for him until the appearance of Moroni a few years later. Once you do provide those references, then the issue of Joseph attending Protestant churches with his family can be discussed. Might I suggest you take your own advice here? Given the lack of context in the quote, and the unfortunate placing of the commas, it could be read to mean what you say- that everyone both non-Mormon and Mormon are damned unless they work righteousness. It could also be interpreted to mean that everyone non-Mormon is automatically damned, along with those Mormons who don't "repent and work righteousness". However, given the context of the answer and the rest of his responses, we're not left with any room to believe that he meant the first interpretation (non-Mormons could be saved if they work righteousness). When answering questions about belief on the Bible, Joseph claimed that no other religions believed it, preferring their creeds and interpretations. If a man is saved "no faster than he gains knowledge" (Joseph Smith), and the Bible contains much of the truth and the Book of Mormon the fullness of the Gospel, and someone doesn't believe either, there is no room for then believing that that person will be saved- or even can work righteousness- without believing at least one. Of course, we also have to remember that the entire foundation of the Church, God's work with man, etc. has been and continues to be the Priesthood and its ordinances. Without those ordinances, no man, no matter how righteous, can be saved; all are damned. Even Christ was baptized, to "fulfill all righteousness". Therefore, without accepting the rites and teachings of Mormonism- which is the fulness of the Gospel, which was preached since Adam- no one can be saved. If someone accepts all the rites and teachings of Mormonism, you might as well call them "Mormon"; whether that acceptance comes in this life or the next, it matters little. You're strongly implying by your post and your tone in this thread that Upcountry is the prideful Mormon in danger of the hellfire. If you don't mean to imply that, you need to work on your presentation. If you are implying that, then I refer you to the beams and motes parable.Your question requires so many assumptions to be read into it to make it work the way you want it to, that it is practically useless. Furthermore, the two questions-- who is found worthy, and who will obtain mercy-- are different enough that the answer for each one can change independent of the other, depending on the circumstance. All the merciful shall obtain mercy, but only the righteous who have followed all the commandments of Christ are found "worthy" of eternal life, and that's only after being washed clean in the Blood of the Lamb. Jesus' parable doesn't apply to the true atheist, whom you identify as the "sinner who made no covenants". In the parable, the difference was between two men who received the available ordinances of their time, and the difference pride makes in being justified through the spirit. Shifting the characters of the parable to an unrighteous covenant-maker and someone who made no covenants does so much damage to the parable that it falls apart and is useless. If the atheist is truly penitent and humble, his atheism is shed the moment he has his first contact with divinity- and because of the Light of Christ within that so-called atheist, I cannot imagine many, if any, scenarios in which that first contact would *not* be on this earth. Therefore, describing the man as an "atheist" on Judgment Day does damage to the underlying principles being discussed. I am harping on that term "atheist", but it still holds true for anyone who makes no covenants: if someone has the opportunity to make covenants and rejects that opportunity, they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God. If we ignore all that and assume the atheist is somehow penitent his whole life, and a seeker of truth and righteousness, and accepts baptism after death, than the atheist would be "preferred" (in other words, he would obtain a higher degree of glory than the hypocrite who rejected or treated lightly the light and truth he received). Yet that steps outside the bounds of the parable. The publican couldn't look up because of his shame at breaking the laws of God. An atheist doesn't believe God exists to have any laws to break- therefore his act of "not looking up" would be because of a flippant disregard for the things of God, not out of fear. A penitent man who makes no covenants- even when the opportunity presents itself- isn't truly penitent, except perhaps from the worlds' viewpoint. Your scenario is so confusing that it does more harm than good; it feeds into the "do your own thing, as long as you're a 'good person' you'll be saved!" mentality. While I won't say it is impossible for an atheist to be a true, humble follower of Christ and God- for all things are possible with God- I will say that your presentation of it confuses the basic principle being discussed here (baptism and the saving covenants/ordinances) so much that it is useless. And though you claim that this parable only has reference to the "tack this conversation has sailed", the entire context is still a discussion about authoritative ordinances. You have a lot of useful information that could help Upcountry immensely as he seeks to refine his views and outlook. But if you continue to set yourself up as his enemy rather than his friend, you'll do much harm and little to no good.
  4. Earthly ordinances point the way towards God. They teach, through physical symbolism and action, the spiritual symbolism and actions required to be spiritually reborn and purified, part the veil, and come into the presence of God. They are, however, useless if they aren't "actualized" (good word!) spiritually. This must be the reason that the Lord is always so careful about getting the exact wording and symbolism of the key ordinances (baptism/sacrament, giving the gift of the Holy Ghost, the endowment, etc.) correct- because if you change something in the earthly ordinances, the humble followers of Christ will be led into darkness and not into the light; they will be kept back from realizing their full potential, on this earth, as sons and daughters of God. Changing the ordinances breeds apostasy because it darkens the light of the world and leads the children of men astray. The key teachings that change the world for the better and would allow for Christ to walk among men, if followed, are taken out of the world. When that happens, Satan reigns, for where there is no light and truth, confusion and lies reign supreme. My $.02. I think this is a great topic worthy of much study and pondering, Finrock. I'm still struggling on trying to actualize the covenants and ordinances in my life- it's becoming my all-consuming goal. I hope that we both are successful. God bless!
  5. I can't offer an "official" LDS statement here, and others have done a good job fleshing out this topic. I have received valuable insight into this topic from the Lord and through the scriptures, which I will share briefly (I only have 10 minutes, so it won't be as thoroughly documented as I'd like). I was diagnosed with clinical depression at age 12, and was on antidepressants from ages 13-24. Life was a recurrent hellhole while on them; I could not keep a job or make any significant progress without backsliding. My true healing out of being clinically depressed came from the Lord- He gave me strength to endure until I was ready to go off of them. When that time came, He told me- in a way that I could absolutely not mistake- that I was to go off of them and never take them again. I did so (went off cold turkey, which I do not suggest to anyone!), and 4 months of terrible nausea and depression followed. After the withdrawals ended, the real healing began, which has come entirely from following the precepts of the Gospel, and from the Spirit of the Lord. The following is what I have learned since that time. What the world and professionals call "mental illness" is really spiritual "illness" or sickness. They can result from a disorganization of the spirit-- which is often a result from some type of abuse or neglect suffered as a child-- and can also be caused by having an "evil spirit". Everyone is "sick" to some degree, and all have the need for Christ as the Master Physician. However, some people's spiritual "sickness" is so severe that it inhibits what we describe as a "normal" level of functioning in our society. For some people, they are so spiritually sick that their physical body is affected. Regarding "evil spirits": like a physical agent that brings disease to the physical body- such as a virus or cancer- a spiritual agent brings disease to the spiritual body. The result of that spiritual sickness can manifest itself as depression, dementia, schizophrenia, or a multitude of other ways. The difference- and what makes the study of spiritual sickness so tricky- is that those spiritual "agents" (we'll call them "germs") have intelligence, motives, and desires. They can suggest and affect action, but as far as we know cannot force actions that are against the will of the person affected until after the person has fully submitted to the evil spirit, giving them full control over their physical body. All the different forms of spiritual sickness can be healed through the power of God, using the power and authority of the Priesthood as the directing agent. The reason this type of healing is so rare today is because so few men have the required amount of power in their Priesthood- and the requisite faith to make it work. Those who do have the requisite faith have the power to heal anything wrong or disorganized in the spirit, and also to cast out any spiritual "germs" (evil spirits) that are present. It is possible to be healed through living the correct principles of the Gospel. To be fully and completely healed, however, usually takes a long time and requires a great amount of faith on the part of the person who would like to be healed. This question brings to mind Christ's admonition about calling no man 'good'. This question sets someone up for failure because it assumes that the person who has bad things happening to them are 'good'. They are not 'good'; all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Moreso than others, the repentant person seeking to draw close to Christ knows how much they are not 'good'. That doesn't mean that everyone always "deserves" the bad things that happen to them (think of Job), but the question is based in a false premise.Keeping the above in mind, it also brings to mind Christ's comments about the man born blind: he was born that way so that the glory of God might be made manifest in him, not because he or his parents sinned. He was born blind so that Christ could heal him, and thereby prove Christ's power and authority. I would also assume this is true for some who are born with spiritual sicknesses. When they are healed through the power of God, as I have been, there is no room for doubt: they know who did the healing, and who has the power, and to who the glory belongs.
  6. I am running short on time now, so I don't have time to cite this post as well as I'd like, nor will it be as fleshed out as I'd like it to be. It also may be the last response in this thread, as I have a very full week coming and I try to devote my full energy to a response while writing. I don't speak Hebrew myself, but from what I've read in the past there's a debate about what the Hebrew Genesis (and the rest of the scriptures) really meant by the word "create". Creating the world out of chaos doesn't mean He created it out of "nothing", ex nihilo, but that He organized the existing chaos. If it existed before He organized/created it, then it existed prior to the "creation"- just in a different form. The LDS believe the Apocrypha- which includes Maccabees- contains both truth and error, as do many protestant traditions. From what I've read, this account in 2 Maccabees is one of the most "concrete" "proofs" of ex nihilo in the Bible. Yet it is written in and describes a time of Jewish subjugation to the Greeks- whence the doctrine of ex nihilo comes. Questionable origins and context is enough to rule this out as authoritative. I don't doubt Gamaliel believed it, but judging from the fact that he was a prominent teacher, leader, and philosopher of a religious movement diametrically opposed to Christ and with strong ties to Greek philosophy, we should be wary about assuming anything he said 100% represents the truth about how Moses and the prophets viewed the creation. While he clearly was a benefit to the Apostles at a crucial moment, he could (and did) believe erroneous things. I'm going to say this is one of them. The D&C also plainly state that "Man is spirit" as well (D&C 93:33). God and man are spirit- because all spirit is matter and forms the crucial element of man-- and God's-- existence. Take the body away from a man and he still has his spirit left; take a man's spirit away and the body has no identity, it's just formless "stuff" with no purpose. This is actually an interesting event. There are two things to note here:1) Bear in mind that God always speaks to His children according to their understanding and knowledge. His statement reflects not necessarily the fact that spirits absolutely cannot have flesh and bones, but that his apostles believed either that a) no spirit can have flesh or bones, or b) His spirit could not have flesh and bones, because He was dead. The doctrine of Christ's resurrection was poorly understood at the time He made this statement, and the purpose of His declaration was to show He did indeed have a physical body, and that it was truly Him. 2) There are spirits that don't have bodies- in LDS vernacular, they are called "unembodied" or "disembodied" spirits. The devils that could possess and be cast out of human beings and animals are one type of disembodied spirit. I'm really not qualified to discuss this issue without reading into it more, which unfortunately I don't have time to do at the moment. I do know, however, that many of the theorems and proofs are based on complex mathematics that don't always jive with reality, or each other. The underlying problem is that there are factors and truths unknown at the present time that affect the real explanation of the situation. While I agree with some of Bailey's ideas (particularly about the definition of the word "eternal", and the idea of God residing in the observable universe), but I don't agree with the usage of the Big Bang as the starting point of the universe. While it is possible some kind of creative event happened roughly 15 billion years ago, that doesn't require that matter came into existence ex nihilo 15 billion years ago. Furthermore, the alternate definition of "eternal", found in D&C 19:6-12, has nothing to do with time or man's comprehension of it. It doesn't even have to do with any quantitative measurement; instead it is qualitative: 10 ...Endless is [God's] name. Wherefore— 11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment. 12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment. "Eternal" and "endless" become qualitative descriptors of God's attributes and actions, instead of a quantitative descriptor of how long the universe has existed. Man cannot count or understand the sheer quantity of God's works- that I agree with Bailey on. Yet to God, all His works (and the time those events took place in) are numbered; God knows how long this organizational process has been going on. And Jesus was a carpenter, Moses was a nobleman, Abraham was a shepherd; Socrates was a soldier, Aristotle was a schoolteacher... If we use your example, then unless you're a recognized priest you have no right to speak on religion or the metaphysical at all either. And then we have to hash out which religion's priest you are, and why your religion is greater than all the others, etc.In other words, you can't divide people into their professions and then say they have no right or ability to speak on something outside of that profession. Hawking claims to, through his chosen field (physics), be able to prove that God isn't necessary to the existence of the universe, the earth, or us. He is also an eminent authority in the public's eye, and a man with great influence. Many people will believe him. So long as you will stand with me in that knowledge and seek after the things of God, I will stand with you.I may not have another chance to write, so let me tell you why I believe in the LDS faith. It is not because of this discussion's topics, or any related reason. It isn't because I see a theoretical or intellectual beauty in the doctrine (although I do). It isn't because my parents were LDS (although they are). I believe because when I was 17, the Lord touched my life in a very personal way. I experienced firsthand that God cares for His children because He spoke to me via vision and revelation, and that day was the turning point for my life. Since then I have received innumerable witnesses that God is love, and cares for all His children. Among those witnesses is that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, and that the Book of Mormon is a factually correct historical record and also contains the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God has organized my life out of the chaos of a terrible childhood, and led me by the hand through difficult trials to emerge victorious every time, despite numerous smaller defeats. This process continues today. I have learned to listen to the Spirit of the Holy Ghost, and it has taught me great things about the world and how people interact; it whispers about things both in heaven and things in earth. It teaches me to be patient and continually seek His face, to knock and ask so that doors may be opened to me, that I may receive. It teaches me how to be a better son and brother, a better friend, a wise counselor and effective servant. I hope the Lord blesses your life as He has blessed mine, and that we meet within the walls of Zion and see eye to eye on these and other subjects.
  7. Seminarysnoozer, because you've taken the time to quote prophets, I will take the time to respond to each quote in turn, but the answer is the same in all cases: what they mean by "supernatural" and I meant by "supernatural" aren't the same. Referring to the definition I used earlier, they use "supernatural" as "[a]ttributed to some force beyond scientific understanding", not "[a]ttributed to some force... beyond the laws of nature. To further clarify, when I use the phrase "laws of nature", I don't mean the same thing as the "natural" man. Using how they are defined in the scriptures, these "laws of nature" I talk about would be more accurately called the "laws of God", "eternal law", etc. If we spoke the pure language of Adam, this wouldn't be an issue and we'd more readily understand each other. If the "grace of God" was the help President Snow acknowledged would be needed, that help would come according to the laws of God (or the "laws of nature"). God could not give help in some way that is contrary to the established way that He operates and indeed *must* operate; if He tried that He would "cease to be God". Therefore what was meant by President Snow was that God's help would come in ways that modern science could not anticipate nor explain; "beyond scientific understanding". Here President Oaks reflects the great dilemma we're facing right now: the scientists of the world are rejecting "supernatural" explanations and only believing the things that they can see with their carnal eyes. They reject the things of the Spirit, which are fine and discerned by the spiritual man, and therefore reject the idea of a God they cannot presently see, hear, or touch. Humanity is on the cusp of possibly re-entering another Dark Ages- this time not of religious tyranny fueled by irrational dogma, but anti-religious tyranny fueled by blind materialism (or more precisely, "temporalism").What is going on here is that two separate ideas- that the Christian God exists, and that He exists outside of time and space- have been connected together when they ought not to have been. Christ's commandment not to separate what God has joined together has both a corollary- do not join together what God has separated- and a spiritual implication; to not marry ideas together that don't belong together. Joining two ideas together that don't belong leads to a rejection of both ideas once one is proven false. The only way to avoid that is to have the sharp Word of God separate the two. Rejecting that Word of God leads to spiritual damnation because you don't believe the saving truth that you've connected to a damning lie. It is for this reason that men believe lies and disbelieve the truth; they believe a half-truth and when the lie within the truth is exposed, they reject the truth as well. Putting the philosophy aside; again Elder Oaks' usage of "supernatural" can again be said to reflect the first part of the definition I used in my last post, and not the second one. I don't have the full context for this quote, so I might be wrong- but from what you've posted, this seems to be the context: here Marion G. Romney connects the word "supernatural" with manifestations of forces which work contrary to the power of the Holy Ghost; the power of the devil and counterfeits to God's power. That's not really evidence for believing that God works according to laws contrary to the earth we live on. I cited that verse only as evidence that there are two basic types of things, that which acts and that which is acted upon. It is the D&C that we find the names for those things (spirit and element), that both things are ultimately the same type of "thing" (matter) with some kind of key difference, and the rest.I find a few of your assertions in this last paragraph mostly to be opinions not backed up by scripture, but by assumption and cultural opinions. I would like you to produce scriptural evidence for the following, if you can: How do you know the virus isn't responsible for its actions? Are you 100% certain viruses don't have any degree of intelligence or will? Can you prove that with the scriptures? If matter acts according to natural laws ("God's law") is there absolutely no degree of intelligence involved- or can the "acting" of animals, viruses, etc. be chalked up to a certain type or degree of intelligence? If it can, then, can those animals, viruses, etc. act contrary to what God's law is?If it is true that all matter is coupled with spirit (and it is- read the creation accounts, and you find that God created all things in heaven before they were created on the earth), then all matter- even the so-called inanimate rocks, dust, etc.- has a capacity for intelligence and a capacity for action and, therefore, a capacity for inaction. When a virus attacks someone, that is because the virus acted according to the laws that govern its existence. Yet God can use even His power- which is also governed by law- to cause a virus *not* to kill someone; to heal that person.
  8. You are correct that you are not bound to any articles of faith- only the truth should be your guide. Yet your views of an immaterial God reflect perfectly the God of Aristotle and Plato, and Greek philosophy. The "movers and shakers" of Greek philosophy greatly influenced the Hellenistic culture which ultimately came to dominate Rome and the Christians who created the creeds.It might be argued that "well, the Greeks and Romans were right!". Yet it would be wise to bear in mind that Greece and Rome were a part of the image seen by Nebuchednezzar and Daniel in vision (corresponding to the kingdom of iron; see Daniel 2:40); they were the spiritual successors of Babylon. The effects of Greco-Roman philosophy and government are felt even today in the powerful nations of the world (the toes made of clay and iron mixed). The stone cut out of the mountain with hands- the kingdom of God- will destroy these kingdoms in the last day. The wickedness found in those nations comes in great part from the false belief found in the underlying philosophy of Greece and Rome (including the disembodied, passionless God of the creeds). Except Moses saw and spoke with God "face to face" on more than one occasion; he also is forbidden from speaking to God face to face once and is covered by God's "hand" and sees only His "back parts". Moreover, God is repeatedly being given human characteristics, both passions and parts.There is another reason that men are commanded not to make images of God: worship for the image often replaces worship for God. This happens repeatedly in Israelite history. One notable example would be the worship of Gideon's golden ephod (Judges 8:27). There was no justification for going "whoring" after it, but the Israelites did it anyway. Even the tokens that God *did* give to Israel- particularly the Ark of the Covenant- developed a mystic sensation about them; the sons of Eli thought that the mere presence of the Ark would net the Israelites victory in battle despite their wickedness and neglect of God's laws. Yes you do. You judge a tree by its fruits. That was plainly taught by Christ. While the people who believe correct things may make mistakes and therefore need forgiveness, so too will a good tree occasionally produce a rotten apple- yet the overall quality of the tree's fruit will be good.When an institution promotes and enforces tyranny at the edge of the sword for centuries, doesn't give up power except when utterly defeated, and preaches one thing and does another- then you know that the tree is rotten for one reason or another. The first Puritans and Protestants would agree with this, although they probably wouldn't agree with me that the creeds and Greek philosophy shouldered a large part of the blame for that rottenness. None taken. I should note that although I speak somewhat obscurely about the "institution" that resulted from the "creeds", it should be pretty clear to anyone with a basic understanding of Christian history to understand what that institution was. It was not any Puritanical or Protestant institution. I try to step delicately so as to avoid giving undue offense.The doctrine of blood atonement did indeed play a part in Mountain Meadows. It was a terrible tragedy- one of those "rotten fruits" I mentioned earlier. Yet blood atonement was one ancillary branch of LDS theology, and revenge killings were outlying incidents, not the normal behavior among early Latter-day Saints (revenge killings are still frowned upon. ). In no way was the LDS Church as a formal institution a part of the massacre. I'll cede both points. The science and popularity of plasma cosmology simply isn't yet developed enough to compete with the Big Bang as a strong contender. It doesn't hurt that the scientific establishment, at this point, is so rooted in theories derived from the Big Bang that accepting its fundamental assumptions as flawed would ruin the careers and work of many prominent scientists.But that's not here nor there at the moment. Good ol' Stephen Hawking. The man who has boldly proclaimed that "science makes God unnecessary". He even wrote a book about it.One of the earliest formulations of the Big Bang was from a Catholic priest named Georges Lamaitre. It was the scientific, "provable" version of creation ex nihilo. Now the scientists of the world can "prove" via mathematical calculation and a whole lot of assuming and extrapolating that God is not really even needed. The next step is to "prove" that the traditional Christian God who exists outside of space and time and exists without passion and parts is also impossible, and therefore "prove" that God doesn't in fact exist. Although a lot of the things I'm saying sound (and are) harsh to someone who agrees with the Nicene and other creeds about the nature of God, I should note that there are a lot of truths to be found in historical Christianity, and a lot of doctrine that ought to be believed and accepted. Using LDS terms, there is some "light and truth" there.
  9. I think I get where you're coming from. I'll further elucidate and then see if you still disagree with me.The Restoration Scriptures- Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price- hold some of the most valuable doctrine for understanding how the universe works. The Doctrine and Covenants, specifically, is replete with talk about the laws that God operates by. For example, all God's commandments are "spiritual", not "temporal or natural, neither carnal nor sensual" (D&C 29:35). There is a law in heaven which all blessings in this earthly life are based upon (D&C 130:20). All spirit is matter (D&C 131:7), and the physical bodies of all mortal creatures were created in the "likeness" of their spiritual bodies (D&C 77:2); those spiritual bodies were created "in heaven" before the creation of their physical bodies (Moses 3:5, 7). Moreover, when Jesus taught, He was constantly comparing the things of the Spirit and the Kingdom of heaven to earthly objects and circumstances (literally every parable He used depended on a person's understanding of earthly things to grasp the spiritual meaning of said parable). Now, could all this be possible if the laws and governance of spiritual matter was different than the laws and governance of physical matter? The difference between spirit is that it is the "stuff" that acts, and element is the "stuff" that is acted upon (2 Nephi 2:13-14); two different kinds of matter that follows the same basic rules of operation. Note that footnote A for D&C 131:7- regarding the fact that spirit is matter- links the word "spirit" to "Spirit Body" and "Spirit Creation". So our spiritual bodies and temporal bodies are in the same "likeness" of each other (they have the same form, functionality, etc., and may literally look exactly the same). If God's body is made up of spirit and element like our bodies- the difference would be the elements in His body are "inseparably connected" (D&C 93:3)- then it stands to reason that the laws that govern the realm where he lives (heaven) are the same as the laws that govern where we live (earth). The laws decreed in heaven (see D&C 130:20) dictate the "correct" actions of both spiritual and physical matter. There is a distinct difference between heaven and earth, and people and things can behave differently on earth than in heaven. But we can safely ascribe that to the fact we live in a fallen, Telestial sphere filled with disobedient creatures. When viewed with the proper frame of reference, any *perceived* difference between how heaven and earth works can be boiled down to either an act of rebellion against the light of God, or a misunderstanding/ignorance of all the factors at play in a given situation. To use a basic physical example: a spiritual law is that like spiritual attributes are attracted to one another ("intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light", etc.- see D&C 88:40). Physical objects are also attracted to one another, and in various ways: large physical bodies attract each other via gravity, and electromagnetic forces will also force magnets and certain metals to be attracted. Both of those truths- spiritual and physical "things" are attracted to each other- are manifestations of the same basic law. In the same vein, *all* physical and spiritual matter is based on the same set of laws which manifest themselves in similar ways. That is how Jesus was able to use examples from the physical and natural world to teach about the kingdom of heaven. I think this metaphor is good, but bear in mind that the same basic physical laws that governed how the water and the air- and the submarine, surrounding wildlife, and you yourself- are the same everywhere. The water outside the submarine would be made of individual water molecules comprising one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. The air inside would be made of various gases including oxygen. The oxygen atoms inside the submarine and the oxygen outside of the submarine would be the same stuff, just in different physical arrangements. I think your analogy is a good example of how the earth works, but it doesn't affirm the idea of a supernatural. Point in fact, the air inside the submarine is the exact same kind of "stuff" as the air above the ocean, with the same basic physical structure. I think your word usage of "supernatural" is problematic, and I think it reflects our basic disagreement here. The issue isn't so much "are the laws of heaven incompatible with our nature", but "are they the same or not".Using a definition pulled off the internet, "supernatural" is defined as "[a]ttributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." The first part of that definition (beyond scientific understanding) is well and good, but IMO sloppy. The second part (being "beyond... the laws of nature") is where things get problematic. Defining the things and ways of God and the spirit as "supernatural" implies that they are outside the laws of nature (which are really the laws of God or the laws of heaven, and dictate the actions of both spirit and element). There is, in fact, *nothing* that exists which is truly supernatural, because everything- to be real- must be comprised of the basic building blocks of everything. Those building blocks are called "spirit" and "element". It is only in the vain imaginations of men and women, disconnected from the truth and the spirit of Truth (D&C 93:26), that "supernatural" things exist.
  10. But you are, friend. A timeless, spaceless, immaterial God is the God of the creeds, which were influenced as much by Greek (pagan) philosophy as by biblical texts. While a person may interpret the Bible in good faith through the lense of the creeds, the plain Biblical text does not require a person to believe in a God that is outside of the material (natural) world we live in. An alternative approach- that of the Latter-day Saints- also works.The logical conclusion of the premise that God is "timeless, spaceless, and immaterial" is to believe that the heavens and the earth operate according to different sets of laws and rules. If that were the case, Christ could not have come to Earth, doing the things He saw His father do (John 5:19) and yet succeed in being perfect. Both heaven and earth have to operate according to the same basic principles- in fact, Christ's promise of the heavenly order one day returning to the Earth requires it. The true answer has been laid out in part on this thread, and is laid out more fully in the LDS scriptures: God's laws and the laws of the natural universe are one and the same. You can judge a tree by its fruits. A belief that God works by a kind of Natural Law helped foment the American Revolution, which led to the most free and prosperous country in history. A belief in the formless God outside of the natural world gave rise and justification to a tyrannical regime that ruled the world with an iron fist, murdering thousands and fostering lies and deceit. Seperate the natural world and God, and you get tyranny and death. Join the two together-- in the right way-- and you get freedom and joy. You reference the Big Bang a lot, and use it as evidence of the separation between heaven and earth. You're right that if something has a beginning, it will have an end. There are a few scientific alternatives to the Big Bang theory that hold the physical universe is eternal- it always was and always will be. One is generally called plasma cosmology or the "electric universe". You might be interested.
  11. All I know is what about open theism is what I've read in the past 5 minutes on Google and Wikipedia, and from this article. Things I like about it: -It seeks to remove part of the Greek/Roman (Babylonian) philosophy found in historical Christianity theology. -Some parts of the teachings are more in line with LDS teachings than historical Christianity. What I don't like about it: -The theology still is a mixture of truth and error. IMO, you will get far more out of studying the scriptures and words of the prophets in-depth than the words of philosophers, no matter how well-intentioned. The D&C and Book of Abraham contain some incredible scientific and spiritual truths most people don't even realize is there.
  12. Surely you didn't just agree with one of the basic tenets of right-wing captialism!! I'm a fan of Netflix- my sister has a subscription my whole family uses.
  13. I read the OT straight through about a year and a half ago. I was blown away by how rich and powerful the stories were and how much I learned about how God worked among His people. The key to understanding the OT is to use the Book of Mormon to unlock it. The Old Testament is a story of a covenant people who did *not* generally live up to their covenants; the Book of Mormon is a story of a covenant people who *did* often live up to their covenants. They form two crucial sides of the same coin, and you cannot truly understand the mind and manner and mode of God without understanding both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. The paradox you're describing is part of learning to understand the Word of God and His attributes. I personally believe some parts of the Old Testament are more inspired than others, and some parts of the stories may have been somewhat distorted over the years, but if you get the Spirit when you read you'll reap great rewards.
  14. Besides what Rameumpton wrote (which was fantastic), another factor in their turn was their leaders. John 19:6 and Luke 23:13 and 23 all record that the primary instigators in the crowd that called for Christ's death were the chief priests and "rulers of the people" (Luke 23:13). Many of the Jews seemed to "go with the flow"- if Christ were exhibiting His wisdom and power in cleansing and preaching and healing in the temple they would follow Him, but when He became silent and allowed them to choose for themselves, they forgot what He had done for them and for God and joined in with the newest loud, powerful voice.In this vignette from Christ's life- the mob calling for His crucifixion- we have one of the most perfect microcosmic representations of what had gone so wrong with the Jewish people that they rejected their own Messiah. The leaders, because of pride and love for power and blindness of their own minds, led the people to believe in and commit error so great that they would condemn an innocent man to death although he had literally done nothing wrong. The mob mentality involved can't be ignored- the mob essentially gave their own opinions and actions over to their leaders, who they blindly trusted to lead them the right way. I didn't know about Barrabas being a Zealot instigator. How terribly tragic the whole event was!