Christians: If God Loves Us and Wants Us to Join Him in Heaven, Why Didn't He Put Us There?

[Zadok]

how do you deal with the facts of the LDS such as Joseph smith's claims of tablets, that no one ever saw...with writing that exists no where else....

with the idea that the bible discusses Kolob, yet this is not found anywhere else...

with the LDS 'faith" being tied up with free masonary.... (oh yeah those aprons are just a coincidence..as is every other masonic allusion)

....

given this, and the doctrine of lucifer being Jesus' brother.....

how do you reconcile these totally off the wall, in comparison to other christian dogmas...ideas... with bodily ressurection as discussed in this thread....

given that the LDS have what is really a unique take on things, what makes their take on the bible superior given that it kind of goes against established dogmas already set in place for thousands of years; kolob, masons, people becoming angels, native american jews, gays being evil, black people being cursed..... etc

Families? I made no mention of families...
If the LDS is good with family, all power to them

You are most misinformed about LDS things. I see no point in discussing this in any detail with someone that lacks the interest to be informed at even the most basic level with truth. For example – There are witnesses to the “golden plates” and if you had bothered to ever look at a “Book of Mormon” you would have known better.

My point is – to be an enlightened society there must be an enlightened understanding of families. Parallel to the concept of a Christian G-d is the concept of a Father in Heaven. Without this basic insight nothing else can make sense.

Zadok

 

[Mr Cheese]

there are witnesses to the golden plate? please cite this...
I was informed and have read of the exact opposite....
and that the language therein, is contained no where else....

still my question stands, being as LDS dogma is rather "unique"
what make you assume it is a better understanding of the issues raised in this thread and the bible itself?

essentially why the LDS is bettter, than say catholics that have had several thousand years to flesh thigns out, as opposed to LDS that has only had a few centuries and uses what is often seen as a poor translation, the KJV?

 

[Katzpur]

how do you deal with the facts of the LDS such as Joseph smith's claims of tablets, that no one ever saw...with writing that exists no where else....

with the idea that the bible discusses Kolob, yet this is not found anywhere else...

with the LDS 'faith" being tied up with free masonary.... (oh yeah those aprons are just a coincidence..as is every other masonic allusion)

....

given this, and the doctrine of lucifer being Jesus' brother.....

how do you reconcile these totally off the wall, in comparison to other christian dogmas...ideas... with bodily ressurection as discussed in this thread....

given that the LDS have what is really a unique take on things, what makes their take on the bible superior given that it kind of goes against established dogmas already set in place for thousands of years; kolob, masons, people becoming angels, native american jews, gays being evil, black people being cursed..... etc

Families? I made no mention of families...
If the LDS is good with family, all power to them

First, none of what you have said about the LDS Church has anything at all to do with the question posed in the OP which, if I may remind you, was: "I've never understood how god supposedly loves us and wants us to join him in his family in heaven, yet he put us on earth first with the capacity to fail, for which we could potentially loose the priviledge of joining him. Why didn't he just put us right in heaven from the beginning?"

Second: The only thing that is "off the wall" is your understanding and interpretation of LDS doctrine and history. If you really want to discuss the points you have raised, why not take them one at a time and actually make an effort to learn the truth about what we believe. Ask a Latter-day Saint your questions and pay attention to their answers. You'll more than likely still disagree with what we believe, but at least you'll be getting your facts straight and won't be derailing somebody else's thread with anti-Mormon rhetoric.

 

[cardero]

Heaven ain't what it used to be.

Not since the casinos were built.

 

[emiliano]

Demonic Kitchen,
You have the answer to the question, the reason is you not a Christian yet, it doesn’t mean that you may never be just that is not your time, that is one of the thing that I believe, and is clearly stated in the Bible everything happens in God time not ours and His Sovereignty is such that He has compassion in who he has compassion we can trust in His omniscience to know when that time is, now or never, either way he foreknow it.

“I don't have faith in that God or his religion(s)”.

There it is!
You said that you were a Christian once, how many studies did you have before you change?
Did you ever thought on what John Chapter 1 reveals?

Jhn 1:11
He came to His own, [fn] and His own did not receive Him.
Jhn 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
​

Where do you get that if you don’t believe in Him you are still a son of God and that you should be allow to be in his Kingdom from? Or you mean that you and others non-believers approaches to a God that does not exist?

 

[regulo]

I want to know whether I've missed the point all this time, or whether those who espouse the Belief I'm questionning simply haven't thought it through. It seems to me that either the Believers have missed that detail (which seems to me to be a huge one) or that I've misunderstood something. My intention is to either challenge Believers or correct my misinformed understanding of the idea. Either way I'll be satisfied with the outcome. The only answers I don't want to see are the ones like "we can't know what god has in mind". I find those ones pure cop outs.

I'm not looking to offend anyone, just challenge people to think. 8^)

I think you miss the point that you get to heaven through living, not though getting the biggest toy in the store. I dont know if heaven is a place or a state of mind but i know i wasnt born as smart as i am today and if i get smarter maybe thats going to be heaven. The other point you miss is that god isnt some guy with a score card. God is the universe we are living in and heaven is when the universe is perfect. Getting into heven is more like being part of the whole brain instead of just bein g clever.

 

[Demonic Kitten]

Demonic Kitchen,
You have the answer to the question, the reason is you not a Christian yet, it doesn’t mean that you may never be just that is not your time, that is one of the thing that I believe, and is clearly stated in the Bible everything happens in God time not ours and His Sovereignty is such that He has compassion in who he has compassion we can trust in His omniscience to know when that time is, now or never, either way he foreknow it.

Been there, done that, and don't plan on doing it again. Christianity is not for me. I still believe that Christianity is a good religion, but IMO it is only one of the paths to the divine (still figuring out what that is).

There it is!
You said that you were a Christian once, how many studies did you have before you change?
Did you ever thought on what John Chapter 1 reveals?

Jhn 1:11
He came to His own, [fn] and His own did not receive Him.
Jhn 1:12
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
​

Where do you get that if you don’t believe in Him you are still a son of God and that you should be allow to be in his Kingdom from? Or you mean that you and others non-believers approaches to a God that does not exist?

I've read the bible...over and over and over (and plan on doing it again actually) and I have been to bible study after bible study after bible study, but in the end it was all the same. In the bible studies I always ended up shunned because I dared to question things. How horrible is it for a person seeking God to ask questions about him....I was told to read the bible and figure things out for myself. I did that and this is where I am now... I don't believe in a religion because for me all religions and faiths will lead you back to the divine. Like I said earlier in this post..I'm still trying to figure out what I believe the divine to be. I have no hard feelings for Christian or even the churches that shunned me because they help me be the person I am today.

As for these questions...

Where do you get that if you don’t believe in Him you are still a son of God and that you should be allow to be in his Kingdom from? Or you mean that you and others non-believers approaches to a God that does not exist?

Where are you getting this from? Maybe I should explain myself a little better. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell for that matter...at least not in the same way Christians do. Basically:
Heaven = reunion with the divine (everyone gets there eventually...no one gets left out)
Hell = being away from the divine i.e. the wheel of life (reincarnation)

Now my beliefs are subject to change because I plan on looking into all religions because not only do I want to know what they believe, but I also want to know the why. You might be right...I may end up being a Christian again, but I don't see it happening.

I hope I haven't come across to harshly because that was not my intention.

 

[Tekern]

At Gen.2:26-28 it says that man was to be fruitful to mutiply and subdue the earth.it doesn't say that he was then to die and go to heaven. Jehovah's original purpose was for man to live forever on a paradise earth.

 

[Mr Cheese]

First, none of what you have said about the LDS Church has anything at all to do with the question posed in the OP which, if I may remind you, was: "I've never understood how god supposedly loves us and wants us to join him in his family in heaven, yet he put us on earth first with the capacity to fail, for which we could potentially loose the priviledge of joining him. Why didn't he just put us right in heaven from the beginning?"

Second: The only thing that is "off the wall" is your understanding and interpretation of LDS doctrine and history. If you really want to discuss the points you have raised, why not take them one at a time and actually make an effort to learn the truth about what we believe. Ask a Latter-day Saint your questions and pay attention to their answers. You'll more than likely still disagree with what we believe, but at least you'll be getting your facts straight and won't be derailing somebody else's thread with anti-Mormon rhetoric.

well zadok alluded to the fact that trinitarian christianity doesnt have the capacity to understand the bible fully (which Zadok argues is neccessary in order to understand and answer the OP), so my question was, given the sheer differences in the LDS church (taken into consideration) what makes the LDS church's view more apt to approach the bible, considering it is only a few centuries old versus a few thousand...and that it uses predominantly the KJV, which is often cirted as a poor translation?

The LDS is off the wall compared to other forms of christianity....
no other forms of christianity feature

• masonic aprons, which the LDS state are the robes from eden (representative),
• special underwear,
• secret temple rituals...that outsiders may not learn about
• Kolob..(the concept of)
• special tablets that may have or may not existed, written in a language no one but the founder knew or ever saw before(that use the same textual errors as the then translation of the KJV?? or it is the book of mormon from the Angel Moroni that does that?)
• Proclaimed native americans are actually Jews
• Claimed black people are cursed to bear the mark of cain (although LDS may not be alone in this)

etc.

Given the above, compared to other forms of "christianity" I would think it is fair to state the LDS doctrines are off the wall...in comparison to all other forms of christianity

 

[Katzpur]

well zadok alluded to the fact that trinitarian christianity doesnt have the capacity to understand the bible fully (which Zadok argues is neccessary in order to understand and answer the OP), so my question was, given the sheer differences in the LDS church (taken into consideration) what makes the LDS church's view more apt to approach the bible, considering it is only a few centuries old versus a few thousand...and that it uses predominantly the KJV, which is often cirted as a poor translation?

The LDS is off the wall compared to other forms of christianity....
no other forms of christianity feature

• masonic aprons, which the LDS state are the robes from eden (representative),
• special underwear,
• secret temple rituals...that outsiders may not learn about
• Kolob..(the concept of)
• special tablets that may have or may not existed, written in a language no one but the founder knew or ever saw before(that use the same textual errors as the then translation of the KJV?? or it is the book of mormon from the Angel Moroni that does that?)
• Proclaimed native americans are actually Jews
• Claimed black people are cursed to bear the mark of cain (although LDS may not be alone in this)

etc.

Given the above, compared to other forms of "christianity" I would think it is fair to state the LDS doctrines are off the wall...in comparison to all other forms of christianity

Whatever. Now that you've got your anti-Mormon jab in -- twice -- and have twice demonstrated that you know far less about the LDS Church than you suppose, shall we return to the question posed by the OP?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Whatever. Now that you've got your anti-Mormon jab in -- twice -- and have twice demonstrated that you know far less about the LDS Church than you suppose, shall we return to the question posed by the OP?

um anti mormon?

I simply stated some facets of mormonism

my question still stands,

it was stated that traditional trinitarian christianity, in this case, as expounded by the original poster, msizer, that we are mainly discussing exoteric catholicism...
it was stated that trinitarian christianity is not sufficient, arguably to translate and interpret the bible in light of the idea of ressurection of the dead as mentioned as the underlying theme for this thread found in the OP.

Now I actually agree with this.

Yet I question that,

mormonism with its vast differences between it, and all other forms of christianity, such as:

• masonic aprons, which the LDS state are the robes from eden (representative),
• special underwear,
• secret temple rituals...that outsiders may not learn about
• Kolob..(the concept of)
• special tablets that may have or may not existed, written in a language no one but the founder knew or ever saw before(that use the same textual errors as the then translation of the KJV?? or it is the book of mormon from the Angel Moroni that does that?)
• Proclaimed native americans are actually Jews
• Claimed black people are cursed to bear the mark of cain (although LDS may not be alone in this)

given the above and coupled with the fact that mormonism is only a few centuries old, versus catholicism as a whole which is approx 2000 years old.....

how is Mormonism more able to answer the questions of bodily ressurectiona nd the themes found in the OP......

Before getting all defensive please read what I am saying

I am questioning the validity of mormonism to answer such questions being as it is "new" and has such differences as mentioned above.

If you would care to describe why and how mormonism is more apt to answer the OP than exoteric catholicism.....I would be greatful.

Thank you

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you would care to describe why and how mormonism is more apt to answer the OP than exoteric catholicism.....I would be greatful.

Maybe if you weren't so busy ranting about aprons, you would have noticed that Katzpur already answered the OP from a Mormon perspective.

Edit: and you do realize that gnosticism is considered heretical by the Catholic Church, don't you?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Maybe if you weren't so busy ranting about aprons, you would have noticed that Katzpur already answered the OP from a Mormon perspective.

Edit: and you do realize that gnosticism is considered heretical by the Catholic Church, don't you?

katzpur however did not state how the LDS is more capable than the catholic church...my question to zadok...

yes, I know about gnosticism, but I am not making claims...

but I could...if you like..and state why I feel that way..which is what I aksed zadok!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

katzpur however did not state how the LDS is more capable than the catholic church...my question to zadok...

So... she didn't answer a question that was off-topic to the thread. How is this a problem?

yes, I know about gnosticism, but I am not making claims...

but I could...if you like..and state why I feel that way..which is what I aksed zadok!

No, never mind. It just seems odd to me that you're arguing for the truth of a religion that contradicts your own apparent position.

It also seems odd to me that you'd cite the age of the Catholic Church as support for its concept of Tradition. If Tradition is valid at all, then age is irrelevant: if they got it right the first time, then any element of Tradition is no more true today than the day it was proclaimed... and because it was supposedly perfect from the beginning, no attempt has ever been made (supposedly) to use the benefit of experience to change it for the better.

But now I'm going off-topic.

 

[Mr Cheese]

So... she didn't answer a question that was off-topic to the thread. How is this a problem?


.

It wasnt off topic, zadok stated that X (exotertic catholicism)wasnt really able to answer the OP
I simply asked for justification of how Mormonism is able to do so...what justification for this could one possibly have.... (still discussing the OP, albeit interpretation of the answers and questions of the OP

No, never mind. It just seems odd to me that you're arguing for the truth of a religion that contradicts your own apparent position..

Well actually, Catholicism contains much Gnosticism
are you aware for a small example, that one classical Gnostic figure was nearly the pope?

Catholicism and Orthodox churches are full of Gnosticism....doctrine, dogma and practises....

It also seems odd to me that you'd cite the age of the Catholic Church as support for its concept of Tradition. If Tradition is valid at all, then age is irrelevant: if they got it right the first time, then any element of Tradition is no more true today than the day it was proclaimed... and because it was supposedly perfect from the beginning, no attempt has ever been made (supposedly) to use the benefit of experience to change it for the better.

But now I'm going off-topic.

granted, but mormonism is only a few centuries old
catholicism has had arguably 9 or 10 times longer to evaluate and come up with ansers for the ideas in the OP

I would argue that catholicism, as huge body of work, peoples, doctrines, dogmas and practises actually can answer these questions in a far more satisfacry answer...if we dig for gold...than simply stating "believe, dont question" which are the ideas being railed about....

I would argue the sheer body of catholcism as a whole is far more apt to answer questions than mormonism simply bedcause it has had millenia as opposed to centuries in order to come up with answers for the questions in the OP...

which was my question
given the differences of mormonism (as stated, aprons et al)
and the sheer short length of mormonism
how is mormonism able to answer these question?
By expounding upon this, any answer would require citation of the ideas expressed in the OP, and to answer the op at the same time
which is why i did not feel this was off topic

 

[Katzpur]

Basically, Mr. Cheese, you have stated that the Mormon perspective on any topic is not worth considering. Your reasoning is that Mormonism is a young faith and you don't agree with its doctrines (or what you perceive its doctrine to be). You have shown no interest in getting your facts straight either. Why anyone would pay any attention to your rants is beyond me.

 

[LittleNipper]

I've never understood how god supposedly loves us and wants us to join him in his family in heaven, yet he put us on earth first with the capacity to fail, for which we could potentially loose the priviledge of joining him.

I doesn't make sense. Why didn't he just put us right in heaven from the beginning?

HE intended Adam & Eve to life forever on earth with children and commune with HIM. They fell to sin and so we are all tainted. We need to live life here as did they and be redeemed by grace through faith GOD bestows.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It wasnt off topic, zadok stated that X (exotertic catholicism)wasnt really able to answer the OP
I simply asked for justification of how Mormonism is able to do so...what justification for this could one possibly have.... (still discussing the OP, albeit interpretation of the answers and questions of the OP

In that case, it's simple. We can tell that Mormonism is able to answer the OP because it has answered it: look back through the thread and you can see responses to the OP from a Mormon perspective. Regardless of your feelings about the LDS Church, Joseph Smith's club affiliation or "Mormon aprons", there is a Mormon response to the OP.

Now... is it a better response than the "exotertic Catholic" response? I have no idea, because so far, you haven't given the "exotertic Catholic" response. Once you actually answer the OP, maybe then we can have a discussion of whether your answer was better than Katzpur's or Zadok's. Until then, though, ranting against things you don't like about the Mormons doesn't score your answer (whatever it is) any points whatsoever.

Well actually, Catholicism contains much Gnosticism
are you aware for a small example, that one classical Gnostic figure was nearly the pope?

Catholicism and Orthodox churches are full of Gnosticism....doctrine, dogma and practises....

I doubt you'd find a Catholic anywhere that would claim that there are no heretical Catholics. This doesn't change the Church's view that gnosticism is a heresy, though.

granted, but mormonism is only a few centuries old
catholicism has had arguably 9 or 10 times longer to evaluate and come up with ansers for the ideas in the OP

And Judaism had a few millenia on top of that. Why not ditch the Catholicism and go straight to the original source?

Also, I disagree with your implicit claim. Either way you look at it, the ideas of Mormonism are more than "a few centuries old". Either the Book of Mormon is correct and it really is ancient, or it was a 19th-Century creation... but even then, it would have been a creation informed by the context it was created in, which included cultures and religions with centuries upon centuries of thought and scholarship and, IMO, built on the religious reformations that sprung out of American Protestantism during the period from the late 18th Century to the early 20th. Even if you argue that Joseph Smith made the whole Book of Mormon up, you can't argue that he wrote in a vacuum.

I would argue that catholicism, as huge body of work, peoples, doctrines, dogmas and practises actually can answer these questions in a far more satisfacry answer...if we dig for gold...than simply stating "believe, dont question" which are the ideas being railed about....

I would argue the sheer body of catholcism as a whole is far more apt to answer questions than mormonism simply bedcause it has had millenia as opposed to centuries in order to come up with answers for the questions in the OP...

It's had centuries to ensure that its doctrines and practices are internally consistent, but that's no guarantee of accuracy.

Anyhow, if Catholicism has had such an ability to conclusively answer the questions in the OP, then I'm sure you can easily give them. What are they?

which was my question
given the differences of mormonism (as stated, aprons et al)
and the sheer short length of mormonism
how is mormonism able to answer these question?

Well, it's somewhat of an irrelevant question, since Mormonism has answered the question. Look back through the thread if you don't believe me.

By expounding upon this, any answer would require citation of the ideas expressed in the OP, and to answer the op at the same time
which is why i did not feel this was off topic

IOW, you think the LDS Church is too young to have the "street cred" that you think a religion needs to have before it starts answering the tough questions?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

see Msizer...

sandy understands God better than you and his/her motives

so stop worrying...
and learn to love the bomb

Is this supposed to make sense?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not to put words in MSizer's mouth, but my own personal take on it is that responses like "have you ever stopped to think that God doesn't care whether it makes sense to you or not?" assume facts not in evidence.

The argument in Job only works once we conclude that the religion in question does come from God. But if that religion is a human invention, then its logic is human logic and therefore quite within our ability to comprehend... if it's valid.

Many people, myself included, don't see a rational way to make the leap and conclude that some religion is divine to the exclusion of all others. Maybe a better way of looking at the question of the OP would be to ask why God would apparently leave so many people without this necessary ability.

Perhaps, then, it makes sense that it is divine because it doesn't make sense.