á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±
Jesus set me free!
This post does not explain where the LDS atonement as described in the OP is in error.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
LDS Atonement
- Thread starter á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±
- Start date
This post does not explain where the LDS atonement as described in the OP is in error.
Orontes said:
Orontes, thank you. I will be thinking about these quotes and the principles that they represent for some time to come.
Your statement and quotes are such interesting principles as they apply, not only to a physically resurrected Jesus, but also to pre-existing spirits of men in the beginning (i.e. before the creation of the earth). If these spirits were, as the Pistis Sophia described, “self willed (intelligent) matter”, and able to progress, then the twin doctrines of the eternal nature of spirits, and the material nature of those spirits changes the way that God, interacts with such spirits. In the beginning (i.e. before creation of this earth), God could have either intervened in the development of those spirits or not.
IF The Father of Spirits did NOT intervene in their progress (by some form of a plan of “salvation”
, then these spirits develop in evil directions and destroy one another; might have had a terrible and joyless existence. If the Father of Spirits DOES intervene, then he could create a plan of salvation by which those who wanted to, could learn principles of joy and harmony, that is, they could, to some degree, live principles that he lives. It makes perfect sense that the first principles those spirits must learn would be of a moral and social character (rather than “scientific”, or “mathematical”, or “construction”, etc).The early Christian doctrine (and O.T. pseudographa) repeatedly talk of the plan that the Father of Spirits made from the beginning. It makes sense that, he, knowing that the education and progress of such spirits would involve a “fall of Adam”, would have to then have some manner of bring them back into his presence in a morally improved condition.
AN EARLY CHRISTIAN HISTORY OF THE ATONEMENT PLAN AND JESUS' VOLUNTEERING TO ACT AS THE REDEEMER AND LDS PARALLELS
You and I spoke before regarding the Early Christian Abbaton History. This ancient Christian teaching (Archbisop Timothy discovered it in more ancient document while researching the Library in Jerusalem in the 4th century) is yet another parallel to the LDS teaching regarding this plan and how the pre-mortal Jesus volunteered and was chosen to be the Redeemer by God, the Father.
The sourcing comes from the literature concerning things taught to the apostles by the post-resurrected Jesus as he lived with them as a resurrected being. The context is that he is answering their questions and they are asking about the “angel of death” the early Christians believed would come and escort them into the spirit world upon their death. Jesus explained to his apostles :
The angel descends to the earth for soil with which God the Father will form Adams body, and then place Adam’s Spirit into it and then place him upon the earth according to his plan. However, the earth points out to the angel that the fall of Adam will occur and there will be moral contaminations and evil as a result.
The angel is not sure what to do given this stern reminder of the moral cost and consequences of the plan that God the Father is about to initiate. He is not the only one who is reluctant to have moral contamination (sin, evil, etc) come upon the earth.
The Father never hesitates though he allows others to. In this History, he creates Adams body and does not immediately put the spirit (who will become Adam) into the body created for him.
Though it is NOT the Father’s plan that is of concern, it is that the intelligent spirits must be willing to take part in this plan. For example, they know that Adam will sin. If Adam sin’s he will undergo a “fall” and a separation from God that Adam (and the other spirits), cannot by themselves, undo. What is the point of obtaining a body that is in the image of God and being born into a world if one can never return to God? It is, in this early christian account, the pre-creation Jesus, who volunteers to overcome this impasse.
Jesus explains to his Apostles:
Thus Jesus volunteers, and is chosen and Authorized to become the Savior and atone for the sins of men in this version of the account.”
Having provided the way that spirits may enter the world, obtain bodies, and undergo a moral fall from which Jesus will provide an atonement, the plan then proceeds forward. Jesus says
. (Adam rejoices at having a Body and having become a Man (he has not yet fallen asleep and had the "veil of forgetfulness" place on his mind and still remembers his prior existence at this point.)
Such histories from early Christian Literature show what was taught anciently. They are not exact parallels from what I am reading in the LDS accounts, but they vary only slightly in the principles we've discussed and they demonstrate the connections between the early Christian accounts and the LDS accounts are unmistakeable and concrete.
The LDS restoration of such historical context as the ancient Christians had, re-cast the atonement differently than most “Churches of the In Between”. For example: For many of them, Adam’s fall was a big mistake, and the atonement became a necessary FIX for an initial plan for Adam that failed (i.e. Adam was not supposed to have sinned). The modern Atonement is, for many, "A PLAN 'B' ". Whereas in ancient Christianity, and in LDS theology, it was known that Adam would fall and the Atonement WAS, T H E plan from the very beginning, before creation. God is not “DUPED” by a clever lucifer in the LDS atonement, but really does know the end from the beginning in a way that is different that other models of the Atonement.
Orontes, I have to quit again. The restoration back to the earliest teachings is the most fascinating subject. As you intimated, the repercussions reverberate throughout Christianity.
Clear
DRSIFUSIJIH
(I corrected some of this am of 6-18-09)
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hello ἀλήθεια
Seems you have reengaged the thread. If so, then these posts remain unanswered:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1553712-post109.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1553732-post110.html
Further, you also have not explained or justified why none of my questions have been answered. This despite the fact it has been brought up repeatedly. Here is one such post: one. This is another: two.
If you believe what you post above, explain:
Why does an infant deserve the same punishment as a rapist?
Why would a reindeer herdsman growing up in Siberia who lived a life never knowing or hearing of Christ be justified getting the "equally deserve(d) punishment or separation from God"
Why are people born in difference circumstances?
You are confused. The point isn't whether LDS hold the Gospel of Thomas as scripture or not, rather, the point is what were the beliefs held during the early phase of the Jesus Movement. The Gospel of Thomas, as well as a whole host of pseudopigrapha and other similarly dated texts, illustrate what those views were: all of which predate the canonization of the Bible.
This is the dubbed OP that didn't seem overtly rhetorical:
This was my reply:
No. There is no guarantee of exaltation for the morally culpable divorced from their own actions, will and intent. No man can be dragged to heaven against their will. Mormonism rejects the deterministic impulse as both immoral and incoherent insofar as one recognizes a moral universe and/or Deity.
As far as a Mormon conception of the Atonement is concerned, one must recall that there are two distinct elements of the Atonement. One is salvation from physical death. The other is liberation from spiritual death. The former is a free gift made by possible through Christ. All men will be resurrected. The latter requires the subject accepts Christ into their lives. Mormonism thus mirrors in many ways the general stance on the subject found in the Older Greek and Oriental Christian Traditions, the ultimate at-one-ment being exaltation, deification or theosis."
Seems you have reengaged the thread. If so, then these posts remain unanswered:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1553712-post109.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1553732-post110.html
Further, you also have not explained or justified why none of my questions have been answered. This despite the fact it has been brought up repeatedly. Here is one such post: one. This is another: two.
ἀλήθεια;1584069 said:
If you believe what you post above, explain:
Why does an infant deserve the same punishment as a rapist?
Why would a reindeer herdsman growing up in Siberia who lived a life never knowing or hearing of Christ be justified getting the "equally deserve(d) punishment or separation from God"
Why are people born in difference circumstances?
Is your stance that God does change men's hearts i.e. make men good? Given goodness is a moral category and morality to be meaningful depends on choice, how can a thing be designated good if that thing doesn't make the choice? In a moral dynamic: the freely acting agent is credited with the act. If freedom is removed from the equation, then neither culpability or merit can be assigned.
If one believes choice is real and possibility actually exists (as in there is no fate), then yes. If one believes in a determinism then there is no morality, let alone sin, and man cannot be condemned.
"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." Gen. 22:12
You are confused. The point isn't whether LDS hold the Gospel of Thomas as scripture or not, rather, the point is what were the beliefs held during the early phase of the Jesus Movement. The Gospel of Thomas, as well as a whole host of pseudopigrapha and other similarly dated texts, illustrate what those views were: all of which predate the canonization of the Bible.
ἀλήθεια;1584075 said:
This is the dubbed OP that didn't seem overtly rhetorical:
"I would question whether LDS believe that a baptized Presbyterian who has faith in Christ can have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands by an LDS priesthood holder. And can a baptized LDS who has received the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost be assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, without obedience to seeking out his ancestors and submitting their names for vicarious temple work, without paying a full tithe to the LDS church, without attending his meetings on a regular basis, without keeping the Word of Wisdom(dietary law), and without keeping his covenants that he makes in the LDS temple?
Where was I mistaken?"
Where was I mistaken?"
This was my reply:
"I've not read all the thread, but maybe I can respond to your questions. To the perhaps rhetorical question: "I would question whether LDS believe that a baptized Presbyterian who has faith in Christ can have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands by an LDS priesthood holder.": correct such a person cannot have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is dependant on authority. A person may feel the influence of the Holy Ghost however. The key difference between the two is one is an abiding condition, while the other is not.
Question two: "And can a baptized LDS who has received the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost be assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, without obedience to seeking out his ancestors and submitting their names for vicarious temple work, without paying a full tithe to the LDS church, without attending his meetings on a regular basis, without keeping the Word of Wisdom(dietary law), and without keeping his covenants that he makes in the LDS temple?"
Question two: "And can a baptized LDS who has received the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost be assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, without obedience to seeking out his ancestors and submitting their names for vicarious temple work, without paying a full tithe to the LDS church, without attending his meetings on a regular basis, without keeping the Word of Wisdom(dietary law), and without keeping his covenants that he makes in the LDS temple?"
No. There is no guarantee of exaltation for the morally culpable divorced from their own actions, will and intent. No man can be dragged to heaven against their will. Mormonism rejects the deterministic impulse as both immoral and incoherent insofar as one recognizes a moral universe and/or Deity.
As far as a Mormon conception of the Atonement is concerned, one must recall that there are two distinct elements of the Atonement. One is salvation from physical death. The other is liberation from spiritual death. The former is a free gift made by possible through Christ. All men will be resurrected. The latter requires the subject accepts Christ into their lives. Mormonism thus mirrors in many ways the general stance on the subject found in the Older Greek and Oriental Christian Traditions, the ultimate at-one-ment being exaltation, deification or theosis."
Last edited:
Alethia asks : Is the Gospel of Thomas considered scripture by LDS or do LDS just choose to use parts of it to support their beliefs?
Orontes explains : You are confused. The point isn't whether LDS hold the Gospel of Thomas as scripture or not, rather, the point is what were the beliefs held during the early phase of the Jesus Movement. The Gospel of Thomas, as well as a whole host of pseudopigrapha and other similarly dated texts, illustrate what those views were: all of which predate the canonization of the Bible.
1) Orontes, you are a patient person. I admit that I simply did not have the patience to once again explain the value of knowing what the early Christians and early Jews actually taught ABOUT their scriptures; their doctrines; and how the early Christians themselves interpreted and applied the scriptures we all quote, (sometimes with shallow naivety). Thank you. I’ll try to be more patient.
2) Also, I hesitated to post over your last post since I though the points you made and the questions you posed were among the most important and fascinating and profound that religionists will ask. I am wondering what answers the Aletheia might have. I admit, that when I was in an "Aletheian-type" "church of the in-between", our "answers" would have been a retort, rather than any logical, or helpful data. We might have said "Mysterious are the ways of God", or a defensive "Who are you to challenge God’s fairness!". Neither one of these types of retorts helps to answer what are, in the end, very simple principles for the LDS. Do the LDS understand, and appreciate this wondrous gift of having understanding of these things?
3) Idea, who is an LDS RF member, once quoted Joseph Smith as explaining the plan surrounding the atonement in the most simple, yet profound terms :
1) "...God...finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory..." (Joseph Smith)
Joseph Smith’s restoration of this principle harkens back to the earliest testimonies and descriptions of the ancient scriptures and texts that describe the innumerable number of spirits existing in the beginning and what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits. Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". 1 En 14:23; In other parts of Enochs vision he testifies : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1 Enoch 40:1-2)" God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth in the future according to these ancient Old Testament scriptures (Enoch IS in the eastern Old Testament)
2) "...because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself..." (Joseph Smith)
The ancient Jews taught that God had instituted a divine plan. This concept is interwoven into concepts that are stated repeatedly, such as "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264)
The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these ancient descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement in the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).
Ancient pre-creation council histories demonstrates that most of the spirits were joyous at having this opportunity to progress. For example the question God places to Job was not merely a rhetorical instruction, but a reminder of Jobs personal pre-creation theology.
I have to break this post in half here due to character limits - post two of "however many it takes to compare Joseph Smith's statement to these ancient text" follows
Clear
drnenefu3p
Orontes explains : You are confused. The point isn't whether LDS hold the Gospel of Thomas as scripture or not, rather, the point is what were the beliefs held during the early phase of the Jesus Movement. The Gospel of Thomas, as well as a whole host of pseudopigrapha and other similarly dated texts, illustrate what those views were: all of which predate the canonization of the Bible.
1) Orontes, you are a patient person. I admit that I simply did not have the patience to once again explain the value of knowing what the early Christians and early Jews actually taught ABOUT their scriptures; their doctrines; and how the early Christians themselves interpreted and applied the scriptures we all quote, (sometimes with shallow naivety). Thank you. I’ll try to be more patient.
2) Also, I hesitated to post over your last post since I though the points you made and the questions you posed were among the most important and fascinating and profound that religionists will ask. I am wondering what answers the Aletheia might have. I admit, that when I was in an "Aletheian-type" "church of the in-between", our "answers" would have been a retort, rather than any logical, or helpful data. We might have said "Mysterious are the ways of God", or a defensive "Who are you to challenge God’s fairness!". Neither one of these types of retorts helps to answer what are, in the end, very simple principles for the LDS. Do the LDS understand, and appreciate this wondrous gift of having understanding of these things?
3) Idea, who is an LDS RF member, once quoted Joseph Smith as explaining the plan surrounding the atonement in the most simple, yet profound terms :
On the surface, the quote is so expansive that it is "too big a concept to handle". However, as I’ve broken it down and looked at it, it is completely consistent with the most ancient teachings regarding God, the Fathers, overall plan for man, (of which the atonement is the central mechanism for making the plan work.) For example :
1) "...God...finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory..." (Joseph Smith)
Joseph Smith’s restoration of this principle harkens back to the earliest testimonies and descriptions of the ancient scriptures and texts that describe the innumerable number of spirits existing in the beginning and what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits. Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". 1 En 14:23; In other parts of Enochs vision he testifies : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1 Enoch 40:1-2)" God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth in the future according to these ancient Old Testament scriptures (Enoch IS in the eastern Old Testament)
2) "...because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself..." (Joseph Smith)
The ancient Jews taught that God had instituted a divine plan. This concept is interwoven into concepts that are stated repeatedly, such as "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264)
The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these ancient descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement in the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed).
Though ALL spirits existed in the beginning, they were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In this context Ignatius explains that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father.. (Ignatius :6:1). The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, possessed a great similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations). Diogenes reaffirms the LDS restoration of this ancient doctrine in Diogenes teaching us : "And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)
Ancient pre-creation council histories demonstrates that most of the spirits were joyous at having this opportunity to progress. For example the question God places to Job was not merely a rhetorical instruction, but a reminder of Jobs personal pre-creation theology.
Enoch says that he saw : " the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones. ‘ Who would not have wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect? It is of such a pre-creation council of spirits that Enoch testifies :
I have to break this post in half here due to character limits - post two of "however many it takes to compare Joseph Smith's statement to these ancient text" follows
Clear
drnenefu3p
Last edited:
second post of two
Long before Diogenes bore his New Testament Era testimony, Old Testament Era Enoch had bore the SAME visionary testimony: In Enoch’s vision, he see’s pre-creation Jesus with the Father and asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan:
The parallels between the LDS restoration and the ancient teachings regarding the plan of salvation and the atonement continue even in discrete details the ancients taught. For example:
3) The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge (Joseph Smith)
The ancient texts form the foundation for the relationship of these various spirits of men, of angels, and of the Pre-creation Jesus to the “Father of Spirits” (as they called “The Lord God”. For example (though it's simply a gloss over what are deep concepts)
A: The physical creation was accomplished in order to allow men to advance in knowledge:
Though multiple creation accounts exist, the earlier accounts make it clear both that God created the Planets and Stars (often translated “orbs” or “circles” out of “lessor”, or more chaotic material, and, importantly, he commissioned the Pre-creation Jesus (Often called “the word” or his “right hand” to Administrate over this material creation of an earth which he will populate with embodied spirits for their education and testing.
For example : The Jewish Geninza 4Q texts are clear that the plan is the Father’s plan and that he “determined all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of your holy ones… - all your designs for the end of time..” He counsels with those whose involvement he wants, but it is his plan : “Moreover the Holy One, blessed be he, does nothing in his world without first taking counsel with them; then he acts, as it is written” (3Enoch :4 283). The Jewish teaching that the physical creation was accomplished for the purpose of advancing mankind is is the same tradition as the early Christians held. New Testament Hermas taught : “...don’t you understand how great and mighty and marvelous God’s glory is, because he created the world for the sake of man, and subjected all his creation to man..” (Her 47:2-4).
The physical creation of ancient accounts was accomplished by taking “lessor” or more chaotic matter, and organizing it into a “higher” or more organized and purposeful form such as the organized earth had. Old Testament Enoch describes this process: “And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the (in)visible things come out visibly, solid.’..” (2nd Enoch 26:1). From chaotic debris, the earth and other planets were formed :
B. The Administrative organization was accomplished to allow men to advance in knowledge:
It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge. He says
This principle the ancient taught that “before he created them He knew their thoughts…”(geninza) is not just true of the wicked spirits, but it was also true of the good and valiant spirits as well. Jeremiah the prophet was told "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
Thus, God’s planning extended not merely to such great roles as prophets, but in teaching his son’s the nature of the souls agreement to come to earth, Enoch taught his sons regarding the “covenant of God, while they are even in their mother’s womb....that even before any person was in his mother’s womb, individually a place I prepared for each soul, as well as a set of scales and a measurement......” As if to make sure his sons understand the import of this doctrine, Enoch repeats the same doctrine again in just a few lines: “For I am swearing to you, my children, that before any person existed, a place of judgment was prepared for him and the scale and the weight by means of which a person will be tested were prepared there ahead of time. " (2 enoch 49:1-3)
Thus the Jewish Dead Sea Scroll that speaks of this plan to “refine them” (the spirits of men) was not forced upon anyone, but all who are here, agreed beforehand, to come to this life.
Again ,I have to stop here - IF I understand LDS doctrine correctly, then the point remains that this is all ancient and original teaching and such teachings are a close match to what I am learning from a study of the LDS restoration to original doctrine. Again, a restoration to original doctrines is not just DIFFERENT than the more modern doctrines of the "churches of the In Between", but the ancient doctrines are simple and logical and they allow for an entirely different understanding of what God is doing with men.
I'll have to continue later
I again have to break this post due to character limits - post three of "however many it takes to compare Joseph Smith's statement to these ancient text" follows
clear vitzfutzieieiuu
Long before Diogenes bore his New Testament Era testimony, Old Testament Era Enoch had bore the SAME visionary testimony: In Enoch’s vision, he see’s pre-creation Jesus with the Father and asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan:
This is the testimony of Old Testament Enoch, it is the testimony of New testament Diogenes. It is the testimony of Joseph Smith.
The parallels between the LDS restoration and the ancient teachings regarding the plan of salvation and the atonement continue even in discrete details the ancients taught. For example:
3) The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge (Joseph Smith)
The ancient texts form the foundation for the relationship of these various spirits of men, of angels, and of the Pre-creation Jesus to the “Father of Spirits” (as they called “The Lord God”
. For example (though it's simply a gloss over what are deep concepts)A: The physical creation was accomplished in order to allow men to advance in knowledge:
Though multiple creation accounts exist, the earlier accounts make it clear both that God created the Planets and Stars (often translated “orbs” or “circles”
out of “lessor”, or more chaotic material, and, importantly, he commissioned the Pre-creation Jesus (Often called “the word” or his “right hand” to Administrate over this material creation of an earth which he will populate with embodied spirits for their education and testing.For example : The Jewish Geninza 4Q texts are clear that the plan is the Father’s plan and that he “determined all your works before you created them, together with the host of your spirits and the assembly of your holy ones… - all your designs for the end of time..” He counsels with those whose involvement he wants, but it is his plan : “Moreover the Holy One, blessed be he, does nothing in his world without first taking counsel with them; then he acts, as it is written” (3Enoch :4 283). The Jewish teaching that the physical creation was accomplished for the purpose of advancing mankind is is the same tradition as the early Christians held. New Testament Hermas taught : “...don’t you understand how great and mighty and marvelous God’s glory is, because he created the world for the sake of man, and subjected all his creation to man..” (Her 47:2-4).
The physical creation of ancient accounts was accomplished by taking “lessor” or more chaotic matter, and organizing it into a “higher” or more organized and purposeful form such as the organized earth had. Old Testament Enoch describes this process: “And I called out a second time into the very lowest things, and I said, ‘Let one of the (in)visible things come out visibly, solid.’..” (2nd Enoch 26:1). From chaotic debris, the earth and other planets were formed :
And thus, in company with the Pre-Mortal spirit of Jesus (called "the word” or “the right hand” in some accounts), the Father accomplished creation.
I think it is this closely unified and joint administration that contributes to much of the later confusion between Father and Son in later doctrines though the early texts it is taught that they are two individuals that are profoundly unified in PURPOSE.
B. The Administrative organization was accomplished to allow men to advance in knowledge:
It is Baruch that reminds us of the innate ability of the spirit of men to advance in knowledge. He says
Spirits were given a choice : In the ancient accounts, the spirits of men were allowed to choose to take part in this plan, just as they are allowed to choose what they will do in this life. I’ll skip the “war in heaven” and the controversy with Lucifer that was a central part of it and simply mention that there were recalcitrant spirits of which the Jews said : “God had not chosen them from ancient eternity. Before they were created (in the body), he knew what they would do. “ (Geninza A+B 4Q266) “ still, even of the less valiant spirits they said :“he taught them through those anointed by the Holy Spirit…”. There were important principles underlying this fairness. For example, though God knows their nature, they needed to discover their own nature. God said :
Even those who are to remain unrewarded, are to learn why they remained unrewarded. “It is true that man would not have understood my judgment if he had not received the Law and if he were not instructed with understanding. But now, because he trespassed, having understanding, he will be punished because he has understanding." (2 baruch 15:5-6).
This principle the ancient taught that “before he created them He knew their thoughts…”(geninza) is not just true of the wicked spirits, but it was also true of the good and valiant spirits as well. Jeremiah the prophet was told "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jeremiah 1:5)
Thus, God’s planning extended not merely to such great roles as prophets, but in teaching his son’s the nature of the souls agreement to come to earth, Enoch taught his sons regarding the “covenant of God, while they are even in their mother’s womb....that even before any person was in his mother’s womb, individually a place I prepared for each soul, as well as a set of scales and a measurement......” As if to make sure his sons understand the import of this doctrine, Enoch repeats the same doctrine again in just a few lines: “For I am swearing to you, my children, that before any person existed, a place of judgment was prepared for him and the scale and the weight by means of which a person will be tested were prepared there ahead of time. " (2 enoch 49:1-3)
Thus the Jewish Dead Sea Scroll that speaks of this plan to “refine them” (the spirits of men) was not forced upon anyone, but all who are here, agreed beforehand, to come to this life.
Again ,I have to stop here - IF I understand LDS doctrine correctly, then the point remains that this is all ancient and original teaching and such teachings are a close match to what I am learning from a study of the LDS restoration to original doctrine. Again, a restoration to original doctrines is not just DIFFERENT than the more modern doctrines of the "churches of the In Between", but the ancient doctrines are simple and logical and they allow for an entirely different understanding of what God is doing with men.
I'll have to continue later
I again have to break this post due to character limits - post three of "however many it takes to compare Joseph Smith's statement to these ancient text" follows
clear vitzfutzieieiuu
Last edited:
Since studying the LDS restoration of Ancient and precious things and offering my observations and comparisons to the ancient teachings of the Jews and Christians, I feel like we are necessarily skipping over deep and portentous doctrines, like a rock, skipping across the surface of deep doctrinal waters, touching only lightly upon a point here and there. We’re simply getting lightly splashed without experiencing the immersion that makes the doctrines and their value more apparent. I believe that one must “slow down” and “sink into” these things by serious pondering and study and ask for God’s help to understand them before the tremendous value of a restoration back to the ancient doctrines will be apparent. This cannot be done in the format of a forum, but the principles must be considered by the individual reader.
4) “He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.“ - Joseph Smith
There are important principles underlying this statement : For example
1) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING
2) Specific knowledge is requisite to save us in the world of spirits
3) How is it that God teaches knowledge that will save us
4) What is the end result of Learning to live the principles that save us
1) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING
Thus, the ancient doctrine places mankind in the position of Students, who are to learn the principles God is trying to teach them. Thus Clement II teaches that “we are being trained by the present life” (2 clement 20:2) Thus Ignatius is correct to say to the Ephesians, “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience. (Ig-eph 3:1 The Apostle Peter’s protégé Clement taught that “through him [Christ] the Master [the Father] has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”. New Testament Era Diogenes makes clear that without this “immortal knowledge”, there IS no basis for eternal life. He taught :
4) “He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.“ - Joseph Smith
There are important principles underlying this statement : For example
1) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING
2) Specific knowledge is requisite to save us in the world of spirits
3) How is it that God teaches knowledge that will save us
4) What is the end result of Learning to live the principles that save us
1) Mortality is a time of INSTRUCTION and LEARNING
Thus, the ancient doctrine places mankind in the position of Students, who are to learn the principles God is trying to teach them. Thus Clement II teaches that “we are being trained by the present life” (2 clement 20:2) Thus Ignatius is correct to say to the Ephesians, “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience. (Ig-eph 3:1 The Apostle Peter’s protégé Clement taught that “through him [Christ] the Master [the Father] has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge”. New Testament Era Diogenes makes clear that without this “immortal knowledge”, there IS no basis for eternal life. He taught :
It is significant that early accounts call Eden’s tree of “knowledge”, the tree of “wisdom”. In Enoch’s vision of heaven he says :
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hi Clear,
As I think I mentioned in a different exchange you and I had: I agree with Hume's basic assertion that for most people, reason is the handmaid of the passions. Many people adopt a particular view from a certain sentimentality and then try to use reason to simply justify that position. This basically means that reason alone cannot sway them from their rooted stance, since the root isn't based in reason. What the proper use of reason can do however is demonstrate the lack of coherence and expose the irrational for what it is.
Personally, I don't go about trying to argue the demerits of other faiths: let people believe what they believe. I believe, the sincerely pursued devout life, whether it be Muslim, Buddhist, Evangelical Christian or even the non-religious or non-denominational life that yet seeks the good as best they understand it, will lead to a better person and close on the true. Of course, I have my own take on truth and if one is interested in Mormon fair, I'm happy to share my take. Even so, I have no qualms about going straight up against anti-Mormons whose false piety means they must attack beliefs other than their own. Most of the more virulent anti-Mormons come from a certain disposition and it's rare to find one that can even handle the most cursory of scrutiny.
Much like Judaism, the basic thrust of Mormonism is ortho-praxic rather than orthodoxic. There is no Mormon catechism of the faith. The closest one comes to such is the Thirteen Articles of Faith. So, aside from some very basic assertions, Mormons look to what one does over loyalty checks of doxa. Most Mormons know little beyond vague references to the Council of Nicaea, let alone anything on the Council of Chalcedon, Council of Trent, Synod of Dort etc. This also means that for many Mormons, they are indeed unaware of just strong a theoretical position their chosen faith occupies.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I think you're absolutely right. So many Latter-day Saints are entirely confortable saying, "I know the Church is true." That's all fine and good, but what I think so many of them never stop to consider is that a Restoration would have been entirely unnecessary had an Apostasy never taken place. It's when we compare the unique teachings of Mormonism to the teachings of ancient Christianity that we come to understand just how much truth was lost over the ages. To me, recognizing that a "falling away" actually did take place is almost essential to a testimony that a "restitution of all things" has also come to pass.
Clear, you may enjoy Do We Really Know What We Have? The Gertrud Specht Story.
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hi Katzpur,
Certainly the notion of an Apostasy is pivotal to the Mormon position. Given the various and sundry paths Christendom has taken, even independent of any Mormon claims, it's problematic for any to coherently argue that Primitive Christianity and Modern Christianity are the same thing.
What is also interesting is how an LDS general stance (i.e on the Atonement) finds more and more points of contact and parallel the more one compares such with say the Greek and Oriental Christian Traditions as opposed to the later theologically developed Latin Christian Tradition. These points of contact only sharpen as one looks into the ancient past of the Christian faith. Even so, far too many Mormons tend to ape the religious vernacular of faiths that are far far removed from the original Jesus Movement and end up to odd discussions on subjects that no early Christian would have considered. Silly faith vs. works discussions are apropos: such are based on a false dichotomy and a fundamental inability to understand Paul. There are good reasons such notions were never an issue within the Greek speaking quarters of Christendom and why Augustine is not considered Saint Augustine in the East.
Post four of five
"He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." - Joseph Smith
I believe that the LDS return to ancient principles of learning religious principles is important in understanding what God is doing with man, and man’s role and responsibility to the atonement. One may, for example, compare the modern christian theory that "Grace renders repentance obsolete" to the earliest Christian Doctrines regarding repentance. The ancient and authentic principle of repentance acts as a "reality check" to all modern theories.
Repentance, as a true and authentic early Christian principle is often mis-characterized by those who do not understand it, or those wanting to discredit it. Repentance, as a process of "doing better" (and the process of change it entails) is not an "all or nothing" proposition. One of the earliest Christian documents, the Didache counsels : "If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect. But if you are not able, then do what you can." (Didache 6:2) Since we all are imperfect, we all "do what we can". The LDS seem to understand and correctly apply this concept to the ultimate goal of perfection.
The early Christians taught that, however poorly we do it, we are meant to try to be more like God. For example: The very first thing Ignatius teaches the Christians in Ephesus (verse ONE) is "You are the imitators of God" (Ignatius 1:1). This is NOT a complicated principle and it never was. Diogenese teaches the Christians that
Repentance was not a new principle inaugurated by ancient Christians. Rather the Christians taught that "repentance [was] taught in all generations" (1st Clement 7:5-7) . Similarly, the lds restore and re-affirm Repentance back into it's rightful and ancient context and usage in this process of learning to imitate God. It restores Repentance to it’s role in the process of understanding, and advancement and learning to be more like him. In Hermas’ vision, the angel speaking to Hermas says "...I give understanding to all who repent. Or don’t you, think" he said, "that this very act of repentance is itself understanding? To repent, " he continued, "is great understanding. For the man who has sinned understands that he has done evil in the Lord’s presence, and the act which he committed enters his heart, and he repents and no longer does evil, but does good lavishly, and he humbles his own soul..." (Hermas 30:2) Repentance is not simply a punishment of self, but rather a process of acquiring knowledge, acquiring understanding; acquiring new attitudes and new and better habits of interaction. It is a blessing to men.
It is clear to the ancient Christians that a loving and patient God knows we will make mistakes in his process of "creating righteousness". Diogenes explains to the ancient Christians :
The Jews also taught that God allows evil for the same reason, (i.e. because it serves his ultimate purpose). The Jews taught :
The LDS have restored the ancient understanding that temporary evil IS a part of the plan as well as the temporary difficulties that result from it. This restoration does not change evil. But it explains it and it’s relationship to current difficulties. This is important when individuals ask the inevitable questions : "Why me?", or "How long oh Lord?".
　
This life is like "Enoch’s Bridge" that all must pass over. "Just as a bridge is laid across a river and everyone crosses over it, so a bridge is laid from the beginning of the entrance to it’s end, and the ministering angels go over it... (3rd enoch 22:1)" It is the similar answer to Ezra’s ancient question : "If the world had indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance? " The ancient answer God gives Ezra is simply another description of Enoch’s bridge. God explains that
From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies, give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with it’s various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves chose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged with their bodies (and not separately).
Post five of five follows
clear
vieineacvi
"He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits." - Joseph Smith
I believe that the LDS return to ancient principles of learning religious principles is important in understanding what God is doing with man, and man’s role and responsibility to the atonement. One may, for example, compare the modern christian theory that "Grace renders repentance obsolete" to the earliest Christian Doctrines regarding repentance. The ancient and authentic principle of repentance acts as a "reality check" to all modern theories.
Repentance, as a true and authentic early Christian principle is often mis-characterized by those who do not understand it, or those wanting to discredit it. Repentance, as a process of "doing better" (and the process of change it entails) is not an "all or nothing" proposition. One of the earliest Christian documents, the Didache counsels : "If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect. But if you are not able, then do what you can." (Didache 6:2) Since we all are imperfect, we all "do what we can". The LDS seem to understand and correctly apply this concept to the ultimate goal of perfection.
The early Christians taught that, however poorly we do it, we are meant to try to be more like God. For example: The very first thing Ignatius teaches the Christians in Ephesus (verse ONE) is "You are the imitators of God" (Ignatius 1:1). This is NOT a complicated principle and it never was. Diogenese teaches the Christians that
We may "poorly" imitate God, yet still, we are to "imitate God" and be more like him. However, we cannot accomplish imitation without repentance, since, (as Clement taught the earliest Christian Saints), repentance was related to the ability to "...accept correction" and that "it unites us with the will of God" (1Clement 56:2).
Repentance was not a new principle inaugurated by ancient Christians. Rather the Christians taught that "repentance [was] taught in all generations" (1st Clement 7:5-7) . Similarly, the lds restore and re-affirm Repentance back into it's rightful and ancient context and usage in this process of learning to imitate God. It restores Repentance to it’s role in the process of understanding, and advancement and learning to be more like him. In Hermas’ vision, the angel speaking to Hermas says "...I give understanding to all who repent. Or don’t you, think" he said, "that this very act of repentance is itself understanding? To repent, " he continued, "is great understanding. For the man who has sinned understands that he has done evil in the Lord’s presence, and the act which he committed enters his heart, and he repents and no longer does evil, but does good lavishly, and he humbles his own soul..." (Hermas 30:2) Repentance is not simply a punishment of self, but rather a process of acquiring knowledge, acquiring understanding; acquiring new attitudes and new and better habits of interaction. It is a blessing to men.
It is clear to the ancient Christians that a loving and patient God knows we will make mistakes in his process of "creating righteousness". Diogenes explains to the ancient Christians :
It is clear that God allows men to make mistakes, not because he approved of such behaviors, but because he never loses sight of his ultimate Goal of creation. Diogenes continues :
Thus God is creating moral improvement by this process (and at the same time demonstrating our inabilities and the necessity of reliance on him for what we are unable to do).
The Jews also taught that God allows evil for the same reason, (i.e. because it serves his ultimate purpose). The Jews taught :
Though evil exists, it serves it’s purpose in HIS plan and he controls and appoints it’s limits. It is not "chess set theology" where God plays man and then punishes him for "bad moves", but rather, man is allowed his own choice and man appoints his own desires regarding evil.
The LDS have restored the ancient understanding that temporary evil IS a part of the plan as well as the temporary difficulties that result from it. This restoration does not change evil. But it explains it and it’s relationship to current difficulties. This is important when individuals ask the inevitable questions : "Why me?", or "How long oh Lord?".
　
This life is like "Enoch’s Bridge" that all must pass over. "Just as a bridge is laid across a river and everyone crosses over it, so a bridge is laid from the beginning of the entrance to it’s end, and the ministering angels go over it... (3rd enoch 22:1)" It is the similar answer to Ezra’s ancient question : "If the world had indeed been created for us, why do we not possess our world as an inheritance? " The ancient answer God gives Ezra is simply another description of Enoch’s bridge. God explains that
　
From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies, give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with it’s various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves chose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged with their bodies (and not separately).
Post five of five follows
clear
vieineacvi
Last edited:
Post five of five
From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies; to then give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with it’s various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves choose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged with their bodies (and not separately) as it says in the early Christian Adam and Eve text "So, the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirit and placing it into the body, he also judges them as one."
Enoch, compares the judgement as a marketplace, where proper scales ensure justice so that "...on the day of the great judgment every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market. That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measure and in accordance with that measurement each shall receive his own reward. (2 Enoch 44:5) Thus the ancients taught a gradient of judgement according to a scale. Without this doctrine, (which some of later christianity abandoned), the "light switch" condemnation of modern Christianity cannot be made fair. The ancient doctrine however, once re-adopted, restores fairness and justice to god’s Judgement.
The early christians taught regarding Heaven :
The ancients taught that during the process of judgement, men will be resurrected and glorified according to "their own measure" (i.e. in a just and fair manner) and of those who’ve repented and have sincerely accepted the Atonement are made glorious and given a position of holiness and importance : For example, the jews taught that the righteous spirits and their :
The ancient Christian teaching that men are to be "imitators" of God, reaches it’s culmination in the advancement of mankind who have become most like God in the judgement and resurrection. The Dead Sea Scroll "SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, (4Q, 11Q, Masada Fragment 367), describes the ancient Jewish teaching regarding those who are resurrected and glorified and who have fulfilled God’s plan for man’s destiny :
The early Christians and Jews are very descriptive of the destiny of those who actually do become successful "imitators" of God to the point of becoming "Godlike". For example: The jews of 4Q, 11Q, Masada were very descriptive in this regard :
KATZPUR - Thanks for the link to the Gertrud Sprecht story. It was interesting.
I have to wonder why the pattern of repeating apostasy from original religion is so difficult to admit to. Other doctrines have undergone the same process of change and apostasy as the doctrines concerning the Atonement have undergone.
For example, the Old Testament Prophets tell the Jews in no uncertain terms that they have already apostatized and tell them to repent. Yet, in an act of psychological denial, some modern Jews maintain that modern Judaism IS the same as ancient Judaism. That nothing, not doctrines, not even the scriptures have changed "since Moses wrote them" (For example : see post number 64 of this thread - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/78754-islam-judaism-christianity-7.html). I think this is as much a psychological phenomenon as it is a religious phenomenon.
The same process of Apostasy has happened among the Christians and, in an interesting example of Irony, some have reacted exactly the same as the Jews. By a flat denial and a desperate attempt to maintain that "nothing has changed".
I believe that a similar phenomenon has happened among Islam though it is more difficult to prove it in their case logistically (the language and historical barriers to study of comparisons of early and later doctrines are more formidable in their case - at least they are for me...)
Clear
vieineacvi
From the beginning, the Judao-Christian texts describe a plan to place the spirits of men into bodies; to then give them knowledge and allow them to experience mortality with it’s various choices and let them exercise their own choice and preferences and then return them to that level of holiness they themselves choose. Since the resurrection is physical, the spirits are judged with their bodies (and not separately) as it says in the early Christian Adam and Eve text "So, the Holy One, blessed be he, brings the spirit and placing it into the body, he also judges them as one."
Enoch, compares the judgement as a marketplace, where proper scales ensure justice so that "...on the day of the great judgment every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market. That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measure and in accordance with that measurement each shall receive his own reward. (2 Enoch 44:5) Thus the ancients taught a gradient of judgement according to a scale. Without this doctrine, (which some of later christianity abandoned), the "light switch" condemnation of modern Christianity cannot be made fair. The ancient doctrine however, once re-adopted, restores fairness and justice to god’s Judgement.
The early christians taught regarding Heaven :
The ancients taught that during the process of judgement, men will be resurrected and glorified according to "their own measure" (i.e. in a just and fair manner) and of those who’ve repented and have sincerely accepted the Atonement are made glorious and given a position of holiness and importance : For example, the jews taught that the righteous spirits and their :
The ancient Christian teaching that men are to be "imitators" of God, reaches it’s culmination in the advancement of mankind who have become most like God in the judgement and resurrection. The Dead Sea Scroll "SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, (4Q, 11Q, Masada Fragment 367), describes the ancient Jewish teaching regarding those who are resurrected and glorified and who have fulfilled God’s plan for man’s destiny :
The early Christians and Jews are very descriptive of the destiny of those who actually do become successful "imitators" of God to the point of becoming "Godlike". For example: The jews of 4Q, 11Q, Masada were very descriptive in this regard :
KATZPUR - Thanks for the link to the Gertrud Sprecht story. It was interesting.
I have to wonder why the pattern of repeating apostasy from original religion is so difficult to admit to. Other doctrines have undergone the same process of change and apostasy as the doctrines concerning the Atonement have undergone.
For example, the Old Testament Prophets tell the Jews in no uncertain terms that they have already apostatized and tell them to repent. Yet, in an act of psychological denial, some modern Jews maintain that modern Judaism IS the same as ancient Judaism. That nothing, not doctrines, not even the scriptures have changed "since Moses wrote them" (For example : see post number 64 of this thread - http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/78754-islam-judaism-christianity-7.html). I think this is as much a psychological phenomenon as it is a religious phenomenon.
The same process of Apostasy has happened among the Christians and, in an interesting example of Irony, some have reacted exactly the same as the Jews. By a flat denial and a desperate attempt to maintain that "nothing has changed".
I believe that a similar phenomenon has happened among Islam though it is more difficult to prove it in their case logistically (the language and historical barriers to study of comparisons of early and later doctrines are more formidable in their case - at least they are for me...)
Clear
vieineacvi
Last edited:
idea
Question Everything
love reading your posts clear
something from awhile back...
just an old post...
If you like to read - the entire book is online - (part 1, 2, 3, etc. etc. on RHS)
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/011005bonds.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bonds That Make Us Free: Healing Our Relationships, Coming to Ourselves
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by C. Terry Warner[/FONT]
this is where I learned about repentance - he is an LDS author. The first 6 chapt make you look at yourself. The last 6, you no longer hurt.
thanks for all the info clear
something from awhile back...
just an old post...
If you like to read - the entire book is online - (part 1, 2, 3, etc. etc. on RHS)
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]http://www.meridianmagazine.com/books/011005bonds.html[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Bonds That Make Us Free: Healing Our Relationships, Coming to Ourselves
[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]by C. Terry Warner[/FONT]
this is where I learned about repentance - he is an LDS author. The first 6 chapt make you look at yourself. The last 6, you no longer hurt.
thanks for all the info clear
Last edited:
IDEA :
Thank you for your kind comments Idea. I literally do not deserve the kindness you give me.
Joseph Smith’s quote, (which you, yourself gave me), was literally one of the most inspirational things I’ve ever read. For me, this specific teaching was a summation of a thousand separate ancient Judao-Christian voices, and I think I am as historically minded as anyone. As I read more of what Joseph Smith actually said, I’ve realized that he was "full" of such insights. As I study the LDS doctrines, I am being exposed to so many principles that are so profound that many other considerations have become secondary studies. It all has so very much to do with your principle of "Metanoia" or "repentance", (call it whatever you want, it is religious progress and it is a blessing to all men). For example:
The restoration of the simple declaration that God will talk to men and guide them if they will remain humble and teachable allows men to either have faith in this principle or not. Much of modern Christianity has stopped asking for specific and personal revelation and yet it is faith in this specific and abiding principle that is critical when one is faced with sifting through thousands of theological claims for the few diamonds among the counterfeits. Modern Christianity's confusion is partly a side effect of an ill and weak faith in this principle. One wants to ask them the same question New Testament Era Hermas is asked "...why don’t you ask for understanding from the Lord, and receive it from him?" (Hermas 57:4) For me, my prayerful requests to God to give me principles of truth is coming in unexpected ways. For example:
My wife and I loved our neighbors that recently moved about 10 miles away. A few months ago, the Mom had a baby and the father stayed home from church to help the mom with the new baby. We offered to take her two pre-schoolers to our church but their mom worried that they would be scared to attend a class full of strangers, so I offered to take the two children to their own class at their own church. After driving the pre-schoolers to their church and finding their Sunday School class, I sat in the foyer reading a book. (Since it wasn’t my congregation, I didn’t know where the adults met for their Sunday school)
I happened to overhear a lesson given to a children’s class (I’m guessing they were approximately 9 year-olds from the sounds of their voices). The children’s lesson was one of the most profound lesson’s I’ve ever heard. (I have to paraphrase since I don't have the notes I wrote as the teacher spoke...) The principle they were taught was that "We believe our Church is true, BUT, We must look for truth in any place it is to be found. And, when we find any truth we must accept it and then include it in our own beliefs". He taught the children that "many religions and many churches have some principles of truth as part of their beliefs. Look for truth wherever you can find it. If a different religion exposes you to a new principle that is true, then accept it and claim it as your own; as part of what you believe". He used both the Catholic Church and several Protestant churches as examples of sources of religious truth besides their own church. The point he was making was that the Children were to find any and all truths from any and all sources and gather these truths into their lives; into their beliefs and into their actions. AND THESE YOUNG CHILDREN UNDERSTOOD THIS PRINCIPLE AND DISCUSSED IT INTELLIGENTLY.
I had been sitting in the foyer of an LDS church, listening to an LDS sunday school lesson given to young children. I have wondered many times since then if the children (or the older LDS), understand the incredibly profound nature of what they themselves were teaching. That rare type of faith that is not scared to expose it's members to comparisons of other doctrines is of a different character; it is of an entirely different quality and different order than many types of faith. It is not scared of honest and accurate comparison. It is not stagnant, but rather it is progressive in it’s doctrines and it is willing to give up a lessor degree of understanding for a greater degree of understanding.
If the early claim by Baruch was correct that "the nature of men is always changeable.... as we are now, we shall not remain..." (2 Baruch 21:16), then the universe, places us in the position of unavoidable change. Just as we cannot avoid aging, we cannot avoid change. We all filling our lives with certain types of data. But, the way in which we do this, reflects the nature of our own hearts. For example: Some religionists spend a lot of time looking for errors in others in a desire to argue, while the wiser ones (in my opinion) spend their energies looking for profound truths (regardless of the source) which will bring us enlightenment and satisfaction and change the way we look at the world. This is not easy to do and the LDS doctrines restore the principles that explain why it should not BE easy.
Most of us look for evidence that God exists and, once we confirm that he does exist, we then seek to discover true principles by which we may interact with him in beneficial ways. If I understand correctly, Inside the LDS restoration is the restoration of the concept that men, ALL MEN, may talk to God, and expect real and consistent answers and knowledge to the degree and in the clarity and on specifically essential subjects that they are willing and able to receive. When Ignatius admonished the Church of Jesus Christ of Earlier Day Saints : to "Ask for greater understanding than you have." (Ign to Poly 1:3), he was speaking of revelation which we are to ask for in our prayers. I am experiencing the truth of this principle which the ancient Christians taught, but which I believe is being restored to it’s correct theological position in LDS Christianity.
If this doctrine could become restored to the hearts of men, and they could come to have faith in it, I believe it would help them to come to know God the Father, his nature and his love and to understand his purposes as they relate to us; and to the knowledge and appreciation of their savior Jesus Christ, and what both the Father and the Son have done for them.
I would have liked to continue, but I ran out of time and I have to stop now - Good luck in your spiritual Journey Idea
Clear
vifusiseoi
Thank you for your kind comments Idea. I literally do not deserve the kindness you give me.
Joseph Smith’s quote, (which you, yourself gave me), was literally one of the most inspirational things I’ve ever read. For me, this specific teaching was a summation of a thousand separate ancient Judao-Christian voices, and I think I am as historically minded as anyone. As I read more of what Joseph Smith actually said, I’ve realized that he was "full" of such insights. As I study the LDS doctrines, I am being exposed to so many principles that are so profound that many other considerations have become secondary studies. It all has so very much to do with your principle of "Metanoia" or "repentance", (call it whatever you want, it is religious progress and it is a blessing to all men). For example:
The restoration of the simple declaration that God will talk to men and guide them if they will remain humble and teachable allows men to either have faith in this principle or not. Much of modern Christianity has stopped asking for specific and personal revelation and yet it is faith in this specific and abiding principle that is critical when one is faced with sifting through thousands of theological claims for the few diamonds among the counterfeits. Modern Christianity's confusion is partly a side effect of an ill and weak faith in this principle. One wants to ask them the same question New Testament Era Hermas is asked "...why don’t you ask for understanding from the Lord, and receive it from him?" (Hermas 57:4) For me, my prayerful requests to God to give me principles of truth is coming in unexpected ways. For example:
My wife and I loved our neighbors that recently moved about 10 miles away. A few months ago, the Mom had a baby and the father stayed home from church to help the mom with the new baby. We offered to take her two pre-schoolers to our church but their mom worried that they would be scared to attend a class full of strangers, so I offered to take the two children to their own class at their own church. After driving the pre-schoolers to their church and finding their Sunday School class, I sat in the foyer reading a book. (Since it wasn’t my congregation, I didn’t know where the adults met for their Sunday school)
I happened to overhear a lesson given to a children’s class (I’m guessing they were approximately 9 year-olds from the sounds of their voices). The children’s lesson was one of the most profound lesson’s I’ve ever heard. (I have to paraphrase since I don't have the notes I wrote as the teacher spoke...) The principle they were taught was that "We believe our Church is true, BUT, We must look for truth in any place it is to be found. And, when we find any truth we must accept it and then include it in our own beliefs". He taught the children that "many religions and many churches have some principles of truth as part of their beliefs. Look for truth wherever you can find it. If a different religion exposes you to a new principle that is true, then accept it and claim it as your own; as part of what you believe". He used both the Catholic Church and several Protestant churches as examples of sources of religious truth besides their own church. The point he was making was that the Children were to find any and all truths from any and all sources and gather these truths into their lives; into their beliefs and into their actions. AND THESE YOUNG CHILDREN UNDERSTOOD THIS PRINCIPLE AND DISCUSSED IT INTELLIGENTLY.
I had been sitting in the foyer of an LDS church, listening to an LDS sunday school lesson given to young children. I have wondered many times since then if the children (or the older LDS), understand the incredibly profound nature of what they themselves were teaching. That rare type of faith that is not scared to expose it's members to comparisons of other doctrines is of a different character; it is of an entirely different quality and different order than many types of faith. It is not scared of honest and accurate comparison. It is not stagnant, but rather it is progressive in it’s doctrines and it is willing to give up a lessor degree of understanding for a greater degree of understanding.
If the early claim by Baruch was correct that "the nature of men is always changeable.... as we are now, we shall not remain..." (2 Baruch 21:16), then the universe, places us in the position of unavoidable change. Just as we cannot avoid aging, we cannot avoid change. We all filling our lives with certain types of data. But, the way in which we do this, reflects the nature of our own hearts. For example: Some religionists spend a lot of time looking for errors in others in a desire to argue, while the wiser ones (in my opinion) spend their energies looking for profound truths (regardless of the source) which will bring us enlightenment and satisfaction and change the way we look at the world. This is not easy to do and the LDS doctrines restore the principles that explain why it should not BE easy.
Most of us look for evidence that God exists and, once we confirm that he does exist, we then seek to discover true principles by which we may interact with him in beneficial ways. If I understand correctly, Inside the LDS restoration is the restoration of the concept that men, ALL MEN, may talk to God, and expect real and consistent answers and knowledge to the degree and in the clarity and on specifically essential subjects that they are willing and able to receive. When Ignatius admonished the Church of Jesus Christ of Earlier Day Saints : to "Ask for greater understanding than you have." (Ign to Poly 1:3), he was speaking of revelation which we are to ask for in our prayers. I am experiencing the truth of this principle which the ancient Christians taught, but which I believe is being restored to it’s correct theological position in LDS Christianity.
If this doctrine could become restored to the hearts of men, and they could come to have faith in it, I believe it would help them to come to know God the Father, his nature and his love and to understand his purposes as they relate to us; and to the knowledge and appreciation of their savior Jesus Christ, and what both the Father and the Son have done for them.
I would have liked to continue, but I ran out of time and I have to stop now - Good luck in your spiritual Journey Idea
Clear
vifusiseoi
Last edited:
idea
Question Everything
garsh clear, not my ideas or quotes, I mean I did not come up with any of these concepts. I am just discovering them myself.
You are such a nice person to take their kids to church!!! A true Christian to know your neighbors and help them out.
brought back some memories... I am a convert... 11 years ago now... I happened to overhear a lesson given to a children's class too...
from my personal history
...One Sunday, with nothing better to do, I tagged along to church. He was assigned to teach a class of 12 and 13 year olds, I did not know anyone else at the church, and not mature/brave enough to just go into a meeting on my own so I followed him into his class, and sat down with the other little kids. A little embarrassing for an adult to be sitting in on a primary class, but I would have been embarrassed anywhere I went. The class was on the plan of salvation. He drew on the board circles and lines representing the pre-existence, earth, prison/paradise, and the celestial/telestial/terrestrial glories. As I sat looking at the chalkboard the Holy Ghost bore a powerful witness to me that what I was looking at was true – it was what Budhists would call “enlightenment” my mind was literally opened so that for a few powerful moments I knew what I was looking at was true – and what was more, I became aware of a power in the room that was above and beyond what my eyes were telling me was there. It was the moment that changed everything – where religion went from people trying to be goodie-two-shoes stuck-up self-righteous prideful control freaks trying to manipulate me and force me into guilt trips – sorry – but that had become my viewpoint of Christian churches – though deep down I felt atheism was somehow wrong – Religion became real, so very real...
You read things, and speculate about things - it never crossed my mind that it was real - the kind of real that you could touch, and hear, and see - I don't know why. I had an experience in that room though - crazy routy kids crawling over their chairs, not a "spiritual" environment, but I had an experience, I felt the presence of a being in that room - an actual being, I felt the power of this being wash over me, enter into every pore on my body, into my mind. It's real, it's all real. Everything changed. I felt as if I were in a movie - like the 6th sense, well, not like the 6th sense, but a movie where there is a big twist that changes everything that you have seen into something different - only it was not a movie, it was my life.
I have now had other experiences, too sacred to write. Those who have been in the church their entire life, they are used to it. Imagine - being used to going through life with the Holy Spirit right there next to you - they are used to it, many don't understand the reality that the rest of the world lives in.
In many cases, "they" (little t) are not the ones teaching... "They" - the ones upstairs - They are the ones who are really teaching. Some members know how to listen... they simply repeat the words/thoughts that flow into them.
you are correct.
LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Prayer and Personal Revelation
you will admit that the word spoken to Noah was not sufficient for Abraham, or it was not required of Abraham to leave the land of his nativity and seek an inheritance in a strange country upon the word spoken to Noah, but for himself he obtained promises at the hand of the Lord and walked in that perfection that he was called the friend of God. Isaac, the promised seed, was not required to rest his hope upon the promises made to his father, Abraham, but was privileged with the assurance of his approbation in the sight of heaven by the direct voice of the Lord to him.
“If one man can live upon the revelations given to another, might not I with propriety ask, why the necessity, then, of the Lord speaking to Isaac as he did, as is recorded in the 26th chapter of Genesis? For the Lord there repeats, or rather promises again, to perform the oath which he had previously sworn unto Abraham. And why this repetition to Isaac? Why was not the first promise as sure for Isaac as it was for Abraham? Was not Isaac Abraham’s son? And could he not place implicit confidence in the word of his father as being a man of God? Perhaps you may say that he was a very peculiar man and different from men in these last days; consequently, the Lord favored him with blessings peculiar and different, as he was different from men in this age. I admit that he was a peculiar man and was not only peculiarly blessed, but greatly blessed. But all the peculiarity that I can discover in the man, or all the difference between him and men in this age, is that he was more holy and more perfect before God and came to him with a purer heart and more faith than men in this day.
“The same might be said on the subject of Jacob’s history. Why was it that the Lord spake to him concerning the same promise after he had made it once to Abraham and renewed it to Isaac? Why could not Jacob rest contented upon the word spoken to his fathers?
“When the time of the promise drew nigh for the deliverance of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, why was it necessary that the Lord should begin to speak to them? The promise or word to Abraham was that his seed should serve in bondage and be afflicted four hundred years, and after that they should come out with great substance. Why did they not rely upon this promise and, when they had remained in Egypt in bondage four hundred years, come out without waiting for further revelation, but act entirely upon the promise given to Abraham that they should come out? …
“… I may believe that Enoch walked with God. I may believe that Abraham communed with God and conversed with angels. I may believe that Isaac obtained a renewal of the covenant made to Abraham by the direct voice of the Lord. I may believe that Jacob conversed with holy angels and heard the word of his Maker, that he wrestled with the angel until he prevailed and obtained a blessing. I may believe that Elijah was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire with fiery horses. I may believe that the saints saw the Lord and conversed with him face to face after his resurrection. I may believe that the Hebrew church came to Mount Zion and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. I may believe that they looked into eternity and saw the Judge of all, and Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant.
“But will all this purchase an assurance for me, or waft me to the regions of eternal day with my garments spotless, pure, and white? Or, must I not rather obtain for myself, by my own faith and diligence in keeping the commandments of the Lord, an assurance of salvation for myself? And have I not an equal privilege with the ancient saints? And will not the Lord hear my prayers and listen to my cries as soon as he ever did to theirs if I come to him in the manner they did?”5
God has no grandchildren - only sons and daughters. 1st hand info - not just info passed down in books.
It is real.
It's all real.
Clear...
it is always awkward to invite someone to church, you don't want to seem like you are pushing anyone into anything, and it seems odd to just invite yourself anywhere without being formally invited... the free masons - do you know how you join? They will never invite you, they do not want members who are there because they were talked into it. They want members who go of their own "free" will and choice. "To B1 ask 1". Of your own free will, you walk up, and ask one. I am not a mason, but I love that sentiment - to belong to an organization of your own free will and choice....I think you should show your neighbors this thread, tell them you are "clear", tell them you would like to go to church with them? A few years from now, I would love to sit in a gospel doctrines class taught by you.
just an idea.
You are such a nice person to take their kids to church!!! A true Christian to know your neighbors and help them out.
brought back some memories... I am a convert... 11 years ago now... I happened to overhear a lesson given to a children's class too...
from my personal history
...One Sunday, with nothing better to do, I tagged along to church. He was assigned to teach a class of 12 and 13 year olds, I did not know anyone else at the church, and not mature/brave enough to just go into a meeting on my own so I followed him into his class, and sat down with the other little kids. A little embarrassing for an adult to be sitting in on a primary class, but I would have been embarrassed anywhere I went. The class was on the plan of salvation. He drew on the board circles and lines representing the pre-existence, earth, prison/paradise, and the celestial/telestial/terrestrial glories. As I sat looking at the chalkboard the Holy Ghost bore a powerful witness to me that what I was looking at was true – it was what Budhists would call “enlightenment” my mind was literally opened so that for a few powerful moments I knew what I was looking at was true – and what was more, I became aware of a power in the room that was above and beyond what my eyes were telling me was there. It was the moment that changed everything – where religion went from people trying to be goodie-two-shoes stuck-up self-righteous prideful control freaks trying to manipulate me and force me into guilt trips – sorry – but that had become my viewpoint of Christian churches – though deep down I felt atheism was somehow wrong – Religion became real, so very real...
You read things, and speculate about things - it never crossed my mind that it was real - the kind of real that you could touch, and hear, and see - I don't know why. I had an experience in that room though - crazy routy kids crawling over their chairs, not a "spiritual" environment, but I had an experience, I felt the presence of a being in that room - an actual being, I felt the power of this being wash over me, enter into every pore on my body, into my mind. It's real, it's all real. Everything changed. I felt as if I were in a movie - like the 6th sense, well, not like the 6th sense, but a movie where there is a big twist that changes everything that you have seen into something different - only it was not a movie, it was my life.
I have now had other experiences, too sacred to write. Those who have been in the church their entire life, they are used to it. Imagine - being used to going through life with the Holy Spirit right there next to you - they are used to it, many don't understand the reality that the rest of the world lives in.
In many cases, "they" (little t) are not the ones teaching... "They" - the ones upstairs - They are the ones who are really teaching. Some members know how to listen... they simply repeat the words/thoughts that flow into them.
you are correct.
LDS.org - Support Materials Chapter - Prayer and Personal Revelation
you will admit that the word spoken to Noah was not sufficient for Abraham, or it was not required of Abraham to leave the land of his nativity and seek an inheritance in a strange country upon the word spoken to Noah, but for himself he obtained promises at the hand of the Lord and walked in that perfection that he was called the friend of God. Isaac, the promised seed, was not required to rest his hope upon the promises made to his father, Abraham, but was privileged with the assurance of his approbation in the sight of heaven by the direct voice of the Lord to him.
“If one man can live upon the revelations given to another, might not I with propriety ask, why the necessity, then, of the Lord speaking to Isaac as he did, as is recorded in the 26th chapter of Genesis? For the Lord there repeats, or rather promises again, to perform the oath which he had previously sworn unto Abraham. And why this repetition to Isaac? Why was not the first promise as sure for Isaac as it was for Abraham? Was not Isaac Abraham’s son? And could he not place implicit confidence in the word of his father as being a man of God? Perhaps you may say that he was a very peculiar man and different from men in these last days; consequently, the Lord favored him with blessings peculiar and different, as he was different from men in this age. I admit that he was a peculiar man and was not only peculiarly blessed, but greatly blessed. But all the peculiarity that I can discover in the man, or all the difference between him and men in this age, is that he was more holy and more perfect before God and came to him with a purer heart and more faith than men in this day.
“The same might be said on the subject of Jacob’s history. Why was it that the Lord spake to him concerning the same promise after he had made it once to Abraham and renewed it to Isaac? Why could not Jacob rest contented upon the word spoken to his fathers?
“When the time of the promise drew nigh for the deliverance of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt, why was it necessary that the Lord should begin to speak to them? The promise or word to Abraham was that his seed should serve in bondage and be afflicted four hundred years, and after that they should come out with great substance. Why did they not rely upon this promise and, when they had remained in Egypt in bondage four hundred years, come out without waiting for further revelation, but act entirely upon the promise given to Abraham that they should come out? …
“… I may believe that Enoch walked with God. I may believe that Abraham communed with God and conversed with angels. I may believe that Isaac obtained a renewal of the covenant made to Abraham by the direct voice of the Lord. I may believe that Jacob conversed with holy angels and heard the word of his Maker, that he wrestled with the angel until he prevailed and obtained a blessing. I may believe that Elijah was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire with fiery horses. I may believe that the saints saw the Lord and conversed with him face to face after his resurrection. I may believe that the Hebrew church came to Mount Zion and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. I may believe that they looked into eternity and saw the Judge of all, and Jesus, the Mediator of the new covenant.
“But will all this purchase an assurance for me, or waft me to the regions of eternal day with my garments spotless, pure, and white? Or, must I not rather obtain for myself, by my own faith and diligence in keeping the commandments of the Lord, an assurance of salvation for myself? And have I not an equal privilege with the ancient saints? And will not the Lord hear my prayers and listen to my cries as soon as he ever did to theirs if I come to him in the manner they did?”5
God has no grandchildren - only sons and daughters. 1st hand info - not just info passed down in books.
It is real.
It's all real.
Clear...
it is always awkward to invite someone to church, you don't want to seem like you are pushing anyone into anything, and it seems odd to just invite yourself anywhere without being formally invited... the free masons - do you know how you join? They will never invite you, they do not want members who are there because they were talked into it. They want members who go of their own "free" will and choice. "To B1 ask 1". Of your own free will, you walk up, and ask one. I am not a mason, but I love that sentiment - to belong to an organization of your own free will and choice....I think you should show your neighbors this thread, tell them you are "clear", tell them you would like to go to church with them? A few years from now, I would love to sit in a gospel doctrines class taught by you
. just an idea.
Last edited:
We believe it does...ἀλήθεια;1513684 said:
1 Cor 15: 39-41
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the bcelestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
Hello Idea,
I’ve wondered if the thread didn’t stop so suddenly due to the profound nature of Joseph Smith’s summation of the Purpose of God and the relationship of men to God and God’s purposes. To go from the milieu of his profound revelatory summation of God’s plan for mankind to a mundane argument would have seemed incredibly petty and small minded. I have been reading the Book of Mormon and it’s testimony of Jesus as the Savior of Mankind and considering the implications.
1) Example implications if the Book of Mormon's testimony regarding Jesus Christ is true:
If the Book of Mormon’s testimony regarding Jesus Christ is true, then the ancient pattern of communication established by God, where he speaks to mankind through personal revelation and through prophets, continues to be his unchanging pattern. just as it always has.
If the Book of Mormon’s testimony of Jesus is true, then it represents, (along with other sacred libraries), profound evidence that Christianity, in it’s more ancient and purest form, is the most correction version of what God is like and his purposes and the ultimate destiny of mankind. I have been reading about the Book of Mormon’s testimony regarding who Jesus was and I cannot stop thinking about the vast implications.
2) There is a difficulty in recognizing profound truth among the mundane (which is only made worse if we concentrate our lives on the mundane and trivial)
For example, Your description made perfect sense when you said that we “read things, and speculate about things” but don't expect to find the truth, at least not among the mundane.
I have wondered if erroneous religious pre-conceptions we all have aren’t part of what is so difficult for religious people coming to terms with religious truths. The lazy caricatures we all form about truths are a problem for us when real truths don’t match our caricatures. We form ingrained ideas of what authentic religion will be like and what it's source will look like (i.e. regarding the “entirely perfect people” who will both possess and teach authentic religion). Erroneous pre-conceptions may blind us to some extent to the real thing, especially if the real thing differs from our prior bias. NO real, but imperfect prophet seems to have matched the ancient pre-conceptions people held, just as Moses did not meet the expectations of many who, expecting perfection in a Prophet, saw his frailties, heard his poor speech, were offended at his perceived “lack of better planning” or at his perceived “hypocrisy” of having married an Ethiopian wife, etc., etc., etc. Modern individuals seem just as biased in the same ways as the ancients.
Other "pre-packaged" and traditional pre-conceptions are just as likely to throw us off. For example: Enoch saw not only “...all the prophets of Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts”, but he also saw “all the prophets of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts...” (3 enoch 45:4). If Joseph Smith is one of the gentile prophets which enoch said would come to the gentiles, it may be just as difficult for him as one of the gentile prophets to overcome modern erroneous Caricatures and erroneous expectations just as it was for authentic and ancient prophets to overcome ancient erroneous expectations as to what they were to be like. For example: What happens if one holds the pre-conception that prophets will exist only among ancient Israelites? How many individuals have the ability to give up a comfortable religious pre-conception for a religious truth? ESPECIALLY if they do not know where that new truth will ultimately lead them. This is my point regarding the type of faith in the LDS Sunday school lesson I heard. The children were being taught to give up ANY level of understanding and truth in order to gain better understanding and more truth. It is the most profound lesson we can learn. Accept truth. Accept it from anywhere.
Even presumed brilliance doesn’t protect us from the error of pre-conceptions. For example: Leonardo Da Vinci purposefully draws human anatomy incorrectly so that the drawings agree, not with what he sees with his own eyes, but rather he makes them agree with religious pre-conceptions of his age.
3) The important differences between the authentic and the counterfeit is rarely apparent by simple or superficial consideration.
Another difficulty in making religious progress is that what is really important about people themselves is often invisible to the eyes. The important difference is not something you can see on the surface. New Testament era Hermas describes this life as the “wintertime” of the righteous. He compares people to leafless trees in winter time when all trees look dead and leafless and one cannot tell the living trees from the dead and explains that in this life, one cannot tell the righteous from the unrighteous merely by their appearance. It is only after this life, “when the summer comes” that one can see which trees produce possess leaves and which bear fruit (the righteous) and which remain dead and leafless trees (the unrighteous)
In the same way, how can one, by superficial study (which is the only type of study most individuals are willing to engage in...) tell by a mere “glance” as it were, which group is living the authentic Christianity?
If authentic Christianity differs from the counterfeits in principles such as having “authentic authority”, then who would know which Christianity HAS authentic authority given them from God merely by appearance?
If authentic Christianity differs from the counterfeits by the type of covenants authentic Christians make with God what can we learn from superficial consideration of Authentic religion?
If Authentic Christianity differs from counterfeit religion in the type and degree of on-going communication with God what can be gleaned by biased and superficial glances at the truth?.
For example: Authentic religion embraces and possesses ongoing communication with an active and living God while some non-authentic religions deny revelation, (not because God does not communicate today, but rather as a means of explaining why God does not talk to them), how can one tell by mere superficial appearance? For example, in the LDS thread “What would you do?”, the authentic Priesthood may simply ask God for guidance in the moment of their need, receive revelation through the Holy Ghost, and then follow what the inspiration they are given (even if the guidance is to do “nothing”. An authentic relationship with God represents a different level of relationship with God that represents a different quality of communication and different mode of prayer than for a normative “passive or dead” faith.
Idea, I simply don’t have time to continue. I am sorry to ramble, but I promised myself that I would post and let you know that I have not taken these principles lightly nor abused them by placing them at the mercy of prior tradition or prior bias (any more than I can avoid).
I had once observed that the testimony of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon was one of the Most Profound and moving testimonies of him I have ever read. I have not changed my mind in my current reading.
clear
viauvisiviou
I'll have to edit the mistakes tomorrow - I've run out of time
I’ve wondered if the thread didn’t stop so suddenly due to the profound nature of Joseph Smith’s summation of the Purpose of God and the relationship of men to God and God’s purposes. To go from the milieu of his profound revelatory summation of God’s plan for mankind to a mundane argument would have seemed incredibly petty and small minded. I have been reading the Book of Mormon and it’s testimony of Jesus as the Savior of Mankind and considering the implications.
1) Example implications if the Book of Mormon's testimony regarding Jesus Christ is true:
If the Book of Mormon’s testimony regarding Jesus Christ is true, then the ancient pattern of communication established by God, where he speaks to mankind through personal revelation and through prophets, continues to be his unchanging pattern. just as it always has.
If the Book of Mormon’s testimony of Jesus is true, then it represents, (along with other sacred libraries), profound evidence that Christianity, in it’s more ancient and purest form, is the most correction version of what God is like and his purposes and the ultimate destiny of mankind. I have been reading about the Book of Mormon’s testimony regarding who Jesus was and I cannot stop thinking about the vast implications.
2) There is a difficulty in recognizing profound truth among the mundane (which is only made worse if we concentrate our lives on the mundane and trivial)
However profound the Book of Mormon’s testimony regarding Jesus as the Son of God might be, there is a difficulty that all great testimonies of God and of his son Jesus must overcome. . Profound testimony of a real truth is mixed with the ordinary and mundane (and often with the vain things) so that in our desire to avoid one, we miss the other. Men would “judge after the sights of [their] eyes” and they “reprove after the hearing of [their] ears” rather than making righteous judgments. Because of this tendency, the apostolic fathers lamented that the world would consistently misjudge authentic Christianity; the world would reject perfectly profound and true religious data because it would come from imperfect sources and under unusual circumstances.idea said:
For example, Your description made perfect sense when you said that we “read things, and speculate about things” but don't expect to find the truth, at least not among the mundane.
You were able to recognize a spiritual experience while inside a mundane situation with “crazy rowdy kids crawling over their chairs”. It was, as you said “not a "spiritual" environment”, but you “had an experience, “. How many individuals would have concentrated on the "rowdy kids" so much that they would have missed the Holy Ghost and the accompanying "spiritual experience"?idea said:
I have wondered if erroneous religious pre-conceptions we all have aren’t part of what is so difficult for religious people coming to terms with religious truths. The lazy caricatures we all form about truths are a problem for us when real truths don’t match our caricatures. We form ingrained ideas of what authentic religion will be like and what it's source will look like (i.e. regarding the “entirely perfect people” who will both possess and teach authentic religion). Erroneous pre-conceptions may blind us to some extent to the real thing, especially if the real thing differs from our prior bias. NO real, but imperfect prophet seems to have matched the ancient pre-conceptions people held, just as Moses did not meet the expectations of many who, expecting perfection in a Prophet, saw his frailties, heard his poor speech, were offended at his perceived “lack of better planning” or at his perceived “hypocrisy” of having married an Ethiopian wife, etc., etc., etc. Modern individuals seem just as biased in the same ways as the ancients.
Other "pre-packaged" and traditional pre-conceptions are just as likely to throw us off. For example: Enoch saw not only “...all the prophets of Israel and their generations, their deeds and their acts”, but he also saw “all the prophets of the gentiles and their generations, their deeds and their acts...” (3 enoch 45:4). If Joseph Smith is one of the gentile prophets which enoch said would come to the gentiles, it may be just as difficult for him as one of the gentile prophets to overcome modern erroneous Caricatures and erroneous expectations just as it was for authentic and ancient prophets to overcome ancient erroneous expectations as to what they were to be like. For example: What happens if one holds the pre-conception that prophets will exist only among ancient Israelites? How many individuals have the ability to give up a comfortable religious pre-conception for a religious truth? ESPECIALLY if they do not know where that new truth will ultimately lead them. This is my point regarding the type of faith in the LDS Sunday school lesson I heard. The children were being taught to give up ANY level of understanding and truth in order to gain better understanding and more truth. It is the most profound lesson we can learn. Accept truth. Accept it from anywhere.
Even presumed brilliance doesn’t protect us from the error of pre-conceptions. For example: Leonardo Da Vinci purposefully draws human anatomy incorrectly so that the drawings agree, not with what he sees with his own eyes, but rather he makes them agree with religious pre-conceptions of his age.
3) The important differences between the authentic and the counterfeit is rarely apparent by simple or superficial consideration.
Another difficulty in making religious progress is that what is really important about people themselves is often invisible to the eyes. The important difference is not something you can see on the surface. New Testament era Hermas describes this life as the “wintertime” of the righteous. He compares people to leafless trees in winter time when all trees look dead and leafless and one cannot tell the living trees from the dead and explains that in this life, one cannot tell the righteous from the unrighteous merely by their appearance. It is only after this life, “when the summer comes” that one can see which trees produce possess leaves and which bear fruit (the righteous) and which remain dead and leafless trees (the unrighteous)
In the same way, how can one, by superficial study (which is the only type of study most individuals are willing to engage in...) tell by a mere “glance” as it were, which group is living the authentic Christianity?
If authentic Christianity differs from the counterfeits in principles such as having “authentic authority”, then who would know which Christianity HAS authentic authority given them from God merely by appearance?
If authentic Christianity differs from the counterfeits by the type of covenants authentic Christians make with God what can we learn from superficial consideration of Authentic religion?
If Authentic Christianity differs from counterfeit religion in the type and degree of on-going communication with God what can be gleaned by biased and superficial glances at the truth?.
For example: Authentic religion embraces and possesses ongoing communication with an active and living God while some non-authentic religions deny revelation, (not because God does not communicate today, but rather as a means of explaining why God does not talk to them), how can one tell by mere superficial appearance? For example, in the LDS thread “What would you do?”, the authentic Priesthood may simply ask God for guidance in the moment of their need, receive revelation through the Holy Ghost, and then follow what the inspiration they are given (even if the guidance is to do “nothing”
. An authentic relationship with God represents a different level of relationship with God that represents a different quality of communication and different mode of prayer than for a normative “passive or dead” faith.Idea, I simply don’t have time to continue. I am sorry to ramble, but I promised myself that I would post and let you know that I have not taken these principles lightly nor abused them by placing them at the mercy of prior tradition or prior bias (any more than I can avoid).
I had once observed that the testimony of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon was one of the Most Profound and moving testimonies of him I have ever read. I have not changed my mind in my current reading.
clear
viauvisiviou
I'll have to edit the mistakes tomorrow - I've run out of time
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
1) Example implications if the Book of Mormon's testimony regarding Jesus Christ is true:
2) There is a difficulty in recognizing profound truth among the mundane (which is only made worse if we concentrate our lives on the mundane and trivial)
If Authentic Christianity differs from counterfeit religion in the type and degree of on-going communication with God what can be gleaned by biased and superficial glances at the truth?.
For example: Authentic religion embraces and possesses ongoing communication with an active and living God while some non-authentic religions deny revelation, (not because God does not communicate today, but rather as a means of explaining why God does not talk to them), how can one tell by mere superficial appearance? For example, in the LDS thread “What would you do?”, the authentic Priesthood may simply ask God for guidance in the moment of their need, receive revelation through the Holy Ghost, and then follow what the inspiration they are given (even if the guidance is to do “nothing”
Hello Clear,
Over and above the divide one may recognize between the sacred and profane, or the sacred in the mundane (and all that may entail) there is another element that is critical to any conclusion one makes on religious claims: that is the role of the subject proper. This relates to Idea's reference to metanoia. Whatever the value assigned to an object (i.e. through a moral claim), there is always already a subject making a valuation. Insofar as one recognizes man is a moral agent, man necessarily has the ability to assign value or moral worth. Kant picks up on this in his work "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone" where he carries the argument to the point that if man knows a given X is wrong, then man can even challenge God on any contrary demand. Kant uses the would be command to Abraham to murder his son Isaac as an example, and that Abraham could have legitimately challenged the morality of the demand. Moses arguing with Deity post-Exodus on whether Deity should destroy the sinful Israelites may be another example of the same principle. The rub is Man, as a moral being and thereby free agent, is necessarily empowered. This empowerment undercuts such notions as irresistible grace or unconditional election. In short, no man can be dragged to Heaven against their will, neither can belief be coerced. The notion of coming to ally one's will to the Divine then becomes a central religious concern and it cannot simply be a slave morality (which itself is oxymoronic). This understanding very much bleeds into the Hebrew etymology of word "Israel": to struggle with God, all of which require an actual relationship.
In regards to Idea's reference and Warner's book "The Bonds the Make us Free" I worked with Warner for a little while and am quite familiar with his project. The book itself finds part of its impetus in an old Greek conundrum: how is it a person can do bad things? A bad thing is by definition a negative. Therefore, if a person knows X is bad, why would they do it? Assuming a rational agent, the explanation can be a bugger. Plato, Aristotle etc. all had their own answers to this. The book is Warner's take. The book avoids academic speech and tries to convey both the issue and his answer through a series of examples/stories of people. Many of these stories are actual case studies. I think you would like the book. I think it bleeds into Atonement studies as well.
Orontes,
I am always impressed by your logic and ability to see clearly the nature of man and express it philosophically. I am grateful for the thoughts you are giving me. I don’t think I’ve ever read a single book on philosophy so I hope you’ll overlook my lack of philosophical expertise in my comments.
I very much agree with your post. I believe that the intelligent spirits within men have the ability to make independent moral judgements. God’s plan for man’s moral education has always been to help men learn to make “accurate” moral judgments and in gaining “self-discipline” to do what is morally correct if men are to ultimately live in a social heaven in unity and joy forever.
The fact that LDS theology takes these principles into accurate account was an amazing discovery since any authentic model of the atonement of Christ must take these truths into account. The ancient literature have several accounts of various prophets (and angels) who offer some disagreement with God when they see what appears superficially to be unfair (and, a “superficial understanding” is all anyone gets when compared to God’s knowledge).
However, when Abraham, or angels, or Ezra question the morality of gods plan, instead of reproach, God, “ever the teacher”, points out that it is knowledge that they lack which would alleviate their complaint. For example, when Israel is scattered, the Prophet Ezra is devastated and, in a mood of frustration turns to God and complains :
The angel beside Ezra asks questions that restore important context. He asks Ezra “Are you greatly disturbed in mind over Israel” (if so, God is only more so). “Or do you love him [Israel] more than his Maker does?” (Vs 33) God himself reminds Ezra at one point : “For you come far short of being able to love my creation more than I love it.” (4 ez 8:47) The angel reminds him that God himself is saddened that Israel brought these things upon themselves and the situation has nothing to do with a lack of love on God’s part. After confirming that god has even more love for his creation than men could ever have, God repeatedly points out that is it Ezra’s lack of knowledge that makes things seem so unfair. God asks him a series of questions by saying “answer if you can...”, and they are all questions that men do not have the answer to.
Man was never intrinsically unable to make moral judgments, but rather men are intrinsically unaware; unknowledgable; and untutored. Man has the intrinsic ability to progress, but lacked intrinsic judgment as to which directions to go; what first to learn; what talents to gain, and how best they are to acquire them, and, importantly, WHY it all must be done in the way God prescribes.
Man not only lacks knowledge of present circumstance, but more importantly, of future circumstance. Often present circumstance and conditions are unfair and difficult in the short term that become blessings in the long term. For example: it is, in the short term, simply cruel for a child to undergo the pain of immunization if it does not bestow a corresponding benefit that could be gained in no other way. In the same way, if the present moral difficulties of 70 years, will immunize against future eons of moral illness, then it is certainly worth it. The problem is that men are judging the short term, since they either cannot, or will not judge in the long term. Until we gain greater knowledge, we are left with faith which allows us to continue progressing morally and in knowledge until we finally get to see the results of our efforts and experiences and the reasons why they were important. For example:
Again, I’ve run out of time - thank you again orontes.
Clear
vinedrvidrou
I am always impressed by your logic and ability to see clearly the nature of man and express it philosophically. I am grateful for the thoughts you are giving me. I don’t think I’ve ever read a single book on philosophy so I hope you’ll overlook my lack of philosophical expertise in my comments.
orontes in post 337 said:
orontes in post 337 said:
I very much agree with your post. I believe that the intelligent spirits within men have the ability to make independent moral judgements. God’s plan for man’s moral education has always been to help men learn to make “accurate” moral judgments and in gaining “self-discipline” to do what is morally correct if men are to ultimately live in a social heaven in unity and joy forever.
The fact that LDS theology takes these principles into accurate account was an amazing discovery since any authentic model of the atonement of Christ must take these truths into account. The ancient literature have several accounts of various prophets (and angels) who offer some disagreement with God when they see what appears superficially to be unfair (and, a “superficial understanding” is all anyone gets when compared to God’s knowledge).
However, when Abraham, or angels, or Ezra question the morality of gods plan, instead of reproach, God, “ever the teacher”, points out that it is knowledge that they lack which would alleviate their complaint. For example, when Israel is scattered, the Prophet Ezra is devastated and, in a mood of frustration turns to God and complains :
The last sentence Ezra offers seems especially angry. Ezra says : “If you really hate your people, they should be punished at your own hands.”
The angel beside Ezra asks questions that restore important context. He asks Ezra “Are you greatly disturbed in mind over Israel” (if so, God is only more so). “Or do you love him [Israel] more than his Maker does?” (Vs 33) God himself reminds Ezra at one point : “For you come far short of being able to love my creation more than I love it.” (4 ez 8:47) The angel reminds him that God himself is saddened that Israel brought these things upon themselves and the situation has nothing to do with a lack of love on God’s part. After confirming that god has even more love for his creation than men could ever have, God repeatedly points out that is it Ezra’s lack of knowledge that makes things seem so unfair. God asks him a series of questions by saying “answer if you can...”, and they are all questions that men do not have the answer to.
Man was never intrinsically unable to make moral judgments, but rather men are intrinsically unaware; unknowledgable; and untutored. Man has the intrinsic ability to progress, but lacked intrinsic judgment as to which directions to go; what first to learn; what talents to gain, and how best they are to acquire them, and, importantly, WHY it all must be done in the way God prescribes.
Man not only lacks knowledge of present circumstance, but more importantly, of future circumstance. Often present circumstance and conditions are unfair and difficult in the short term that become blessings in the long term. For example: it is, in the short term, simply cruel for a child to undergo the pain of immunization if it does not bestow a corresponding benefit that could be gained in no other way. In the same way, if the present moral difficulties of 70 years, will immunize against future eons of moral illness, then it is certainly worth it. The problem is that men are judging the short term, since they either cannot, or will not judge in the long term. Until we gain greater knowledge, we are left with faith which allows us to continue progressing morally and in knowledge until we finally get to see the results of our efforts and experiences and the reasons why they were important. For example:
My point is simply that though men are moral agents, they often lack knowledge and vision to make correct and accurate moral judgments; God knows this and it is part of his plan in view of the Atonement and man’s ultimate destiny, to educate us in these critical principles if we will only be willing to learn. In studying the LDS atonement, I am discovering the restoration of many of the finest and most profound principles of ancient christianity that allow mortality to make sense; allow God's plan to make sense; and allow my place inside the Atonement of Jesus Christ to make sense. I am becoming increasingly grateful for this as MY knowledge is increasing.
Again, I’ve run out of time - thank you again orontes.
Clear
vinedrvidrou
Last edited:
etherjaromomni
Member
Clear, judging by the way your posts have caused my soul to be touched by the Spirit of Truth, I can say with a voice of gladness that you are understanding these truths correctly. It fills my soul with indescribable joy to see the light of truth dawning in the eyes of another human being. I stand as a personal witness that I, as a Latter Day Saint, seek for all truths, wherever they can be found. And, when the teachings of inspired men don't answer all of my questions to my satisfaction, I delight in knowing that I can appeal to the pure Source of Truth. Yes, God is the same today as he was in ancient times. He does still speak to his children. Prophets and apostles are on the earth today, as they were in ancient times. You can appeal to your Father in Heaven, and expect to be enlightened with pure knowledge from on high. I urge all mankind to search out eternal truths, wherever they can be found... be it in the teachings of the Hindu, the Muslim, the Buddhist, or the Mormon.
Then, take those truths, one by one, to God, and ask Him for confirmation.
And finally, be willing to do whatever it takes to live your life by those principles.
Thank you, Clear, for explaining what we believe so... um, clearly.
Last edited:
á¼Î»Î®Î¸ÎµÎ¹Î±
Jesus set me free!
The Source of Truth is the Holy Ghost. If a non-LDS gets a different answer than the LDS gets, according to LDS teachings, it is because only worthy(obedient) baptized LDS can have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Therefore if a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, or Protestant is not given an assurance that the LDS teachings are true, it is believed that something is amiss in his or her life.
Book of Mormon, Moroni 10
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
For Protestants, we are to compare a person's written or oral message with the Bible.
Bible, Acts 17 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Bible, Psalm 119 105Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
The Book of Mormon is critical of the Bible:
Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi, Chapter 13
24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.
26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.
Even Catholics and Protestants can say that there are some truths(the Golden Rule, for example) that are sometimes accepted outside of Christianity. Nevertheless, the way to keep a man's way pure is to give heed to God's word, and not all people will agree that the Bible is God's word today as it was when the original manuscripts were written.
The Golden Rule as expressed in different religions is shown below.
Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
Judaism:
"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
Taoism:
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions
Book of Mormon, Moroni 10
3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
For Protestants, we are to compare a person's written or oral message with the Bible.
Bible, Acts 17 11These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Bible, Psalm 119 105Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
The Book of Mormon is critical of the Bible:
Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi, Chapter 13
24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God.
25 Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God.
26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.
27 And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.
28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.
29 And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.
Even Catholics and Protestants can say that there are some truths(the Golden Rule, for example) that are sometimes accepted outside of Christianity. Nevertheless, the way to keep a man's way pure is to give heed to God's word, and not all people will agree that the Bible is God's word today as it was when the original manuscripts were written.
The Golden Rule as expressed in different religions is shown below.
Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
Judaism:
"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
Taoism:
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world religions
Last edited: