LDS Beliefs and the Bible (6 Discussions)

[FFH]

I just found this link, I'll read it now.

CRI Journal - CRJ0171A
Betty Eadie is a member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day ... Apostle Boyd K. Packer called the book 'bunk,' a witness said." ...

If you've read the book, a lot of what he, the author of this article, says, about Betty Eadies "doctrines," are false.

She has no doctrine, but what the LDS church teaches, and doesn't go against any LDS teachings in her book, Embraced by the Light, AT ALL.

This article states things that Betty has not declared or taught in her book.

However he does state in this article, "Betty Eadie is a member in good standing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) -- in other words, a Mormon. Few of the millions who have seen and heard Eadie know of her religious affiliation because apparently she, her publishing company, and her publicist are now trying to keep that information quiet."

Also from the article...

"An Ogden Standard-Examiner article of March 6, 1993 quotes Eadie as saying that during her NDE she was told the LDS church was "the truest Church on the earth."

"Yet, when asked by the JOURNAL which church was the truest, she replied: "If I were to tell [people]...the church that I find most rewarding, most fulfilling for me, they might not find that at all....I might be misguiding them from what they need to find for themselves....I have learned that many of the things that I have written about in the book matches with many of these other religions. And I think that there are common threads that run through all churches."


"Customized Comfort. Some of Eadie's life-and-death answers seem tailor-made for giving special comfort to those with special fears. For instance, Eadie discovered: "If our deaths are traumatic, the spirit quickly leaves the body, sometimes even before death occurs. If a person is in an accident or fire, for example, their spirit may be taken from their body before they experience much pain. The body may actually appear still alive for some moments, but the spirit will have already left and be in a state of peace" (p. 83).

She further states: "At the time of death, we are given the choice to remain on earth until our bodies are buried or to move on....Most spirits choose to remain on earth for a short time and comfort their loved ones....Sometimes the spirits will remain longer if the loved ones are in despair" (pp. 83-84).

There is even hope for atheists: "Some who die as atheists....stay on the earth until they learn to accept the greater power....eventually they learn to move on to accept the greater warmth and security of God" (pp. 84-85)."

 

[FFH]

Originally Posted by Katzpur
Look, I don't know what happened to Betty and what didn't happen to her. All I know is that Boyd K. Packer publicly denounced her book.

Quote from this article: CRI Journal - CRJ0171A

"One might suspect a commercial motive (her LDS identity, though a marketing plus in the predominantly Mormon "Intermountain West" region where the book was first released, could be a liability to a broader, unsuspecting public).

Another possible reason is ecclesiastical disapproval of her story. According to an article in the October 23, 1993 Salt Lake Tribune, "in a meeting with male LDS stake leaders in Sandy [Utah] last spring, Apostle Boyd K. Packer called the book 'bunk,' a witness said."

I don't trust anything the Tribune prints. So all we have to go on is a Salt Lake City newspaper (Tribune) said... a witness said.... blah, blah, blah...

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"To live a spiritual life of love is to develop the God-like qualities inherent within us. As spiritual beings of electromagnetic energy, we attract like energy, so the more love we generate and give, the more love we receive.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Betty J. Eadie[/FONT]

 

[Orontes]

An elephant is a mammal.
A mouse is a mammal
So, an elephant is a mouse?

The same applies to the forbidden, evil conflation. Both are non sequiturs. Something forbidden is simply a thing proscribed.

To the tree aside: there is nothing in the text that states the tree (which you have taken as literal) is evil. Further, the tree is identified as a tree of knowledge. Unless you wish to argue that knowledge is evil then this point alone stymies your view.

Note: knowledge of a thing (i.e. knowledge of good and evil) is distinct from the thing known. If I know about elephants it doesn't then mean I am an elephant or participate in elephantness. In other words, you have confused the subject-object distinction.

Now, you focused on the aside which as you can see above doesn't help your stance at all. I have given you two critiques: 1) the rational flaw and 2) the scriptural flaw. You need to deal with both of them.

So it was just a learning experience for them, then so is evil a learning experience for us.

According to an LDS member who has had a near death experience and has conversed with Christ, during this experience, sin is looked upon as a learning experience. By experiencing it for ourselves we can know the good from the evil and their various blessings and cursings, and can then decide for ourselves what we want.

Oddly enough, Lucifer's plan was; to eliminate sin and force everyone into heaven by not allowing men and women to choose their own path. We would all be forced into heaven by only being allowed to choose good. There wouldn't have been the possibility of choosing evil.

That plan of Lucifer's got him kicked out of heaven.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (this life) is a literal learning experience.

You have not addressed the issues. I gave you the 1) Rational fallacy and 2) the Scriptural fallacy. Both undercut your stance completely. These need to be addressed if you wish to hold to your view that God creates evil. Here is the relevant post again.

To the idea that sin is simply a learning experience: such language indicates a moral neutrality which is problematic given the very meaning of the word. Note the following:

-"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;" D&C 1:31

Sin isn't simply a learning experience. It is contra the good. It is contra the Divine will.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't trust anything the Tribune prints. So all we have to go on is a Salt Lake City newspaper (Tribune) said... a witness said.... blah, blah, blah...

FFH, you are unbelievable. You don't trust anything anybody says if it doesn't match up with your own personal opinions -- not on matters of religion, science, or anything else. Had the Tribune misquoted President Packer, I can assure you the Church would have stepped in and insisted on a retraction, which the Tribune would have been required to print. You go right ahead and think that he couldn't possibly have called your precious Betty's book "bunk" if it makes you happy.

 

[FFH]

FFH, you are unbelievable. You don't trust anything anybody says if it doesn't match up with your own personal opinions -- not on matters of religion, science, or anything else. Had the Tribune misquoted President Packer, I can assure you the Church would have stepped in and insisted on a retraction, which the Tribune would have been required to print. You go right ahead and think that he couldn't possibly have called your precious Betty's book "bunk" if it makes you happy.

There is no direct quote from him. To say Betty Eadie's book is "bunk" would be out of character for him. He's a very quiet stern man.

 

[FFH]

To the idea that sin is simply a learning experience: such language indicates a moral neutrality which is problematic given the very meaning of the word. Note the following:

-"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;" D&C 1:31

Sin isn't simply a learning experience. It is contra the good. It is contra the Divine will.

We learn the consequences of sin, when we experience sin.

Adam and Eve learned the consequences of their actions, and their eyes were opened. They had a rude awakening, when they got kicked out of the Garden of Eden and had to toil the rest of their lives for their food, and had the experience of losing Abel due to Cain's sinful murderous disposition. They experienced the extreme aweful affects of sin which directly affected them in a horrible way.

We learn the horrible affects of certain sins that we commit and the horrible affects of more serious sins, through reading the scriptures and seeing what happens to those who commit very serious sins, such as Cain and David and in this way we LEARN to avoid sin as much as humanly possible.

We learn by our own experience, the horrible affects of sin, and by the bad examples of others found in scripture, and in our own lives, by observing the sins of others, and how it reeks havoc on their lives.

Shock and awe, would be an understatement. They learned the aweful affects of sin in their lives and in the lives of their children.

They learned, by their own experience the aweful affects of sin. It makes you want to strive to be a better person or the best person you can be, at least for some of us. Many give into sin and live a life of degradation. Some learn to live with sin, others learn to avoid it.

God has layed before us a choice, how much sin will we allow into our lives ???

How much pain and suffering, because of sin, will we tolerate ???

We learn the aweful affects of sin upon our lives, when we don't repent and that helps us to become more like God, know the aweful affects of sin and the blessing of striving to be a righteous person, so we can eventually live with God.

God will not tolerate sin in his presence, thus none of us will ever live with God if we have ANY sin in our lives.

How many of us still have sin in our lives, all of us, thus none of us are ready to live with God, and none of us will be ready to live with God until we've perfected ourselves, through the atonement of Jesus Christ, by turning from past sins and obeying all the commandments.

I don't look upon sin with the least degree of acceptance, but I still 'fall short" as do we all, "of the glory of God".

Satan will be bound during the Millenium. I look forward to that time.

 

[Orontes]

You have not addressed the issues. I gave you the 1) Rational fallacy and 2) the Scriptural fallacy. Both undercut your stance completely. These need to be addressed if you wish to hold to your view that God creates evil. Here is the relevant post again.

To the idea that sin is simply a learning experience: such language indicates a moral neutrality which is problematic given the very meaning of the word. Note the following:

-"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;" D&C 1:31

Sin isn't simply a learning experience. It is contra the good. It is contra the Divine will.

We learn the consequences of sin, when we experience sin.

Adam and Eve learned the consequences of their actions, and their eyes were opened. They had a rude awakening, when they got kicked out of the Garden of Eden and had to toil the rest of their lives for their food, and had the experience of losing Abel due to Cain's sinful murderous disposition. They experienced the extreme aweful affects of sin which directly affected them in a horrible way.

We learn the horrible affects of certain sins that we commit and the horrible affects of more serious sins, through reading the scriptures and seeing what happens to those who commit very serious sins, such as Cain and David and in this way we LEARN to avoid sin as much as humanly possible.

We learn by our own experience, the horrible affects of sin, and by the bad examples of others found in scripture, and in our own lives, by observing the sins of others, and how it reeks havoc on their lives.

Shock and awe, would be an understatement. They learned the aweful affects of sin in their lives and in the lives of their children.

They learned, by their own experience the aweful affects of sin. It makes you want to strive to be a better person or the best person you can be, at least for some of us. Many give into sin and live a life of degradation. Some learn to live with sin, others learn to avoid it.

God has layed before us a choice, how much sin will we allow into our lives ???

How much pain and suffering, because of sin, will we tolerate ???

We learn the aweful affects of sin upon our lives, when we don't repent and that helps us to become more like God, know the aweful affects of sin and the blessing of striving to be a righteous person, so we can eventually live with God.

God will not tolerate sin in his presence, thus none of us will ever live with God if we have ANY sin in our lives.

How many of us still have sin in our lives, all of us, thus none of us are ready to live with God, and none of us will be ready to live with God until we've perfected ourselves, through the atonement of Jesus Christ, by turning from past sins and obeying all the commandments.

I don't look upon sin with the least degree of acceptance, but I still 'fall short" as do we all, "of the glory of God".

Satan will be bound during the Millenium. I look forward to that time.

The above does not answer the challenges. I gave you two specific challenges to the idea God creates evil. Please either deal with these or admit your error. 逃げたらでめちゃんと返事しないといけない！I'm pressing you on this, because I think it is such a fundamental error.

Sin as simple experience is not necessarily related to the issue of God creating evil. Even so, if you agree that sin is a morally charged concept and antithetical to the good, then I think we are agreed.

 

[FFH]

The above does not answer the challenges. I gave you two specific challenges to the idea God creates evil. Please either deal with these or admit your error. 逃げたらでめちゃんと返事しないといけない！I'm pressing you on this, because I think it is such a fundamental error.

Sin as simple experience is not necessarily related to the issue of God creating evil. Even so, if you agree that sin is a morally charged concept and antithetical to the good, then I think we are agreed.

I'm still not going to concede.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.

In our LDS edition of the King James, the JST footnotes correct the errors. There are no corrections to the word evil, in this scripture, thus we need to accept it as correct, otherwise we would need to place the LDS edition of the King James, with the JST corrections (footnotes) in question, entirely. Should we change the wording throughout the LDS edition of the King James to fit our set of beliefs ???

In other words, what should we question next, as having been incorrectly translated ???

So basically you're saying that the opposite of peace (shalom), in that scripture is the definition of (rah), which you've provided, which does not include evil.

The antithesis of light is darkness. The antithesis of peace is war, now lets insert that into the scripture.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness ; I make peace, and create evil (war); I the Lord do all these things.

light and darkness
peace and war (which is something that is obviously evil)

Why would God create war (evil) or the antithesis of peace (good) ??????

 

[FFH]

See this link and look it up yourself, the translation from the Hebrew text (character) is evil.

Isaiah 45: 7

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa45.pdf

Look up any other scripture with the word evil in it, in the Hebrew text, and the Hebrew characters are the same.

Online Hebrew Interlinear

Hebrew characters for the Hebrew word ro (evil)

רָע
ro​

evil

Lets look up another scripture to verify this...

Job 2: 3
3 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

וְסָר
u·sr​

and·withdrawing

מֵרָע
m·ro​

from·evil

Of course, as they do in Japan, you need to read the characters from right to left.

Look it up yourself, if you don't believe me: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/job2.pdf

Look up any scripture in the Hebrew text containing the Hebrew characters that make up the word ro (evil) and they are always the same.

So I guess Joseph Smith is right then ??? Of course he is, he got it right, he completed his work before his death.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Isaiah 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things. - ESV

NASB
The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

NIV
I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

KJV
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Amplified Bible (AMP)
I form the light and create darkness, I make peace [national well-being] and I create [physical] evil (calamity); I am the Lord, Who does all these things.

 

[FFH]

Let's look up another scripture, just to be sure.

Isa. 5: 20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

And again, the characters are the same...

רָע
ro​

evil

Look it up yourself Orontes to verify this: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/isa5.pdf

Online Hebrew Interlinear

私は譲歩しない

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter! - ESV

(NASB)
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

New International Version (NIV)
Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.

King James Version (KJV)
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Amplified Bible (AMP)
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

 

[Sententia]

Can the Bible alone support LDS doctrine?

1) God has used ancient and modern prophets to reveal his plan through all generations of time.

God and Gods doctrines have differed all across the world for generations and even today still differ. Difference of beliefs have led to many wars and domestic atrocities. Repression of sexual tendencies and upholding religious superstitions regarding text has led to rape, child abuse and is the cause of some teen pregnancy. Tracing god and the origination of the idea and meme leads us to consciousness and not to a supreme being. Based on the evidence and pros and cons I choose no god. Anything religion touts as good for society as a whole can be done without religion. Religious rewards such as pre-life, after-life and eternal life are all based on fiction and superstition.

2) Joseph Smith was a modern day prophet of the Lord, who restored the fullness of Jesus Christ's gospel in these last days.

Joseph Smith was a fraud. There is no proof of his story or how he recieved the story.

3) The Book of Mormon is a sacred record of those who lived on the ancient American continent, some of whom Christ personally visited, after his death on the cross.

The book of mormon is proposterous and insult to many. A disgrace of the times.

4) The Holy Ghost reveals God's truths to men on earth.

The holy ghost is fiction. God is fiction. Men and Earth exist.

5) Moroni (who buried the plates, in what is now known as Upstate, New York, where Joseph Smith later discovered them) has promised us, in the Book of Mormon, that if we pray with real intent, we can know the "truth of all things".

Moroni was made up. There were no plates. They would have weighed like 700 pounds and where are they really? Prayer doesn't work... people have been trying that for 1000s of years. Revalation through meditation is more likely... Constant praying is brain washing technique... people say prayers in reflex once their thourghly indoctrinated.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Through the Power of Science and the scientific method you may know the truth of all things. If you put even half the time into studying that as you do into studying mormonism you might have won the M prize by now and humans would be living 200+ years and hundreds if not 1000s of childhood diseases could have been eradicated.

Discussion 1.... There are 5 more?!?!?!

 

[Fish-Hunter]

God and Gods doctrines have differed all across the world for generations and even today still differ. Difference of beliefs have led to many wars and domestic atrocities. Repression of sexual tendencies and upholding religious superstitions regarding text has led to rape, child abuse and is the cause of some teen pregnancy. Tracing god and the origination of the idea and meme leads us to consciousness and not to a supreme being. Based on the evidence and pros and cons I choose no god. Anything religion touts as good for society as a whole can be done without religion. Religious rewards such as pre-life, after-life and eternal life are all based on fiction and superstition.



Joseph Smith was a fraud. There is no proof of his story or how he recieved the story.



The book of mormon is proposterous and insult to many. A disgrace of the times.



The holy ghost is fiction. God is fiction. Men and Earth exist.

Moroni was made up. There were no plates. They would have weighed like 700 pounds and where are they really? Prayer doesn't work... people have been trying that for 1000s of years. Revalation through meditation is more likely... Constant praying is brain washing technique... people say prayers in reflex once their thourghly indoctrinated.


Through the Power of Science and the scientific method you may know the truth of all things. If you put even half the time into studying that as you do into studying mormonism you might have won the M prize by now and humans would be living 200+ years and hundreds if not 1000s of childhood diseases could have been eradicated.

Discussion 1.... There are 5 more?!?!?!

Thanks for sharing. It appears you are a staunch atheist. It seems the more honest position would be the agnostic position. If you believe that God does not exist as scientific fact, doesn't that make you God in a way? The universe is quite large in comparison to the size of our very tiny earth. We could say our earth is but a grain of sand in comparison of the known size of the universe. Heck, the universe could be much larger than we know. It almost appears you worship your own god known as Science? Does real science even enter the realm of theology, or the study of God? I believe all humans worship a god. The Bible calls other gods as idols of the heart. We have over 6 billion people on this planet. What makes your opinion more valid that others?

 

[Sententia]

Thanks for sharing. It appears you are a staunch atheist. It seems the more honest position would be the agnostic position. If you believe that God does not exist as scientific fact, doesn't that make you God in a way?

Well lets start with your position here on God. What is god? Are you referring to the concept or the personal god referred to in the Bible? I believe a personal god as described does not exist as a scientific fact. The concept of a being greater than us though is another subject. There could be aliens more advanced than us and could be considered superior would you consider this type of biological form of evolution to be a god?

Now it is possible that something exists outside of our universe, that is our "3/4 dimensial" plane of existance. Something completely beyond us that we could not understand. I do not discount this and ultimately its a futile effort to explore it.

The universe is quite large in comparison to the size of our very tiny earth. We could say our earth is but a grain of sand in comparison of the known size of the universe. Heck, the universe could be much larger than we know. It almost appears you worship your own god known as Science? Does real science even enter the realm of theology, or the study of God? I believe all humans worship a god. The Bible calls other gods as idols of the heart. We have over 6 billion people on this planet. What makes your opinion more valid that others?

Science is used to explore the world and universe we live in as is the scientific method. Its not a god to worship or a set of unquestioning beliefs. Look at science... Newton had postulated all kinds of beliefs and laws many of which were abandoned or changed when einstein came about and said well actually its probably more like this....

And anything einstein laid our or any scientist can always be challenged, proven and changed.

Religion does not allow for such changes. The theory of god can not be proven or demonstrated and has done more harm than good. Those who do not know their history or discount it are doomed to repeat it.

Seriously I don't even understand the concept. People will spend hours debating this scripture or that scripture and 1000s of dollars to get converts to join their cause and their religious beliefs. Meanwhile people are starving to death, dying in trenches looking for diamonds, fighting overland... The mysteries of disease are still problems that need solving...

To rephrase more simply... the secrets of life are there... DNA, Quantum Physics and humanitarian issues. And even if those don't seem important to you there are many other important things which may be important to you. Starvation, religious wars etc etc...

To dedicate your time here to explore an unproven theory based on the fact that there is an almighty god who is personally concerned with your every action and who wants you to ignore the plight of human kind and instead focus on knowing god and the bible or to discover some truth is not only egotistical but wasteful. To believe if you do this and god will reward you with eternal life because you lived your life according to the bible is also based on ego but speaks of selfishness.

To condescend to me and ask me if my beliefs make me a god is also ego but also conceit and pride.

My opinion is no more valid then the next persons but I'm not the one travelling the world and claiming the truth and ministering. I am typically the one unheard who does nothing except explain to those who try to convert me why I feel what their doing is wrong.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Well lets start with your position here on God. What is god? Are you referring to the concept or the personal god referred to in the Bible? I believe a personal god as described does not exist as a scientific fact. The concept of a being greater than us though is another subject. There could be aliens more advanced than us and could be considered superior would you consider this type of biological form of evolution to be a god?

Now it is possible that something exists outside of our universe, that is our "3/4 dimensial" plane of existance. Something completely beyond us that we could not understand. I do not discount this and ultimately its a futile effort to explore it.



Science is used to explore the world and universe we live in as is the scientific method. Its not a god to worship or a set of unquestioning beliefs. Look at science... Newton had postulated all kinds of beliefs and laws many of which were abandoned or changed when einstein came about and said well actually its probably more like this....

And anything einstein laid our or any scientist can always be challenged, proven and changed.

Religion does not allow for such changes. The theory of god can not be proven or demonstrated and has done more harm than good. Those who do not know their history or discount it are doomed to repeat it.

Seriously I don't even understand the concept. People will spend hours debating this scripture or that scripture and 1000s of dollars to get converts to join their cause and their religious beliefs. Meanwhile people are starving to death, dying in trenches looking for diamonds, fighting overland... The mysteries of disease are still problems that need solving...

To rephrase more simply... the secrets of life are there... DNA, Quantum Physics and humanitarian issues. And even if those don't seem important to you there are many other important things which may be important to you. Starvation, religious wars etc etc...

To dedicate your time here to explore an unproven theory based on the fact that there is an almighty god who is personally concerned with your every action and who wants you to ignore the plight of human kind and instead focus on knowing god and the bible or to discover some truth is not only egotistical but wasteful. To believe if you do this and god will reward you with eternal life because you lived your life according to the bible is also based on ego but speaks of selfishness.

To condescend to me and ask me if my beliefs make me a god is also ego but also conceit and pride.

My opinion is no more valid then the next persons but I'm not the one travelling the world and claiming the truth and ministering. I am typically the one unheard who does nothing except explain to those who try to convert me why I feel what their doing is wrong.

Fair enough, but we all share what we believe to be true. Did you know that there are scientist that are Christian? I'm not talking about Christian Scientist religion. Here a link to consider Christianity from scientist. Please read some of the articles and let us know what you think about them.

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

.

 

[Sententia]

Fair enough, but we all share what we believe to be true. Did you know that there are scientist that are Christian? I'm not talking about Christian Scientist religion. Here a link to consider Christianity from scientist. Please read some of the articles and let us know what you think about them.

Institute for Creation Research - A Christ-Focused Creation Ministry

.

Yes there are many scientists that are religious. Hence why I don't see your original argument that science is my god. My point is that there are real things that we can prove and need fixing and assistance. If your going to dedicate as much time and effort as your are to something, why is it to religion? Why is it not to some other cause?

Sharing a belief does not make it true. Lots of people have shared many beliefs that were false. You can think of hundreds of examples. Germs don't exist, the earth is flat, bleeding people is the best way to cure them, witches are satan's minions, the whiter your skin the more pure... All BS. All fiction. All have caused many needless deaths.

No I know there are scientists who argue the earth is 6000 years old. This is obviously false. But their assertation and evidence is misleading millions to believe this falsehood. Is this a good thing? Do we need people walking around thinking the earth is 6000 years old and any evidence that contradicts this is false? Is that a step forward?

Jehovah's witnesses teach that you cant have blood transfusions, the christian scientist religion you clarified you were not referring too has other ludicrous doctrines. Job survived without modern medicine so can you! Is this helping anyone? We need to get out of the dark ages as a whole.

Just imagine if instead of attributing everything in the world to god or god working in mysterious ways everyone instead looked around and said Humans did this and Humans caused this. Humans can fix it. And EVERYONE all 6 billion people stopped stepping on each other and looked at each other in their world with the same reverance they save for god. Would the world be better or worse?

When I was kid people would say when I died if I was baptized I would goto heaven. Why don't I just join the military and head to front lines right after baptism... isnt heaven really where I want to be? Or they said... the end of the world is coming soon and if you want to get saved you better do this or some angel is gonna behead me or I will burn forever in hell or blah blah... You cant see this as obvious BS? A means to control not what you do but instead to make sure you don't do CERTAIN things?

Einstein said we should live as if everyone has free will and hold everyone accountable because we don't have free will but there is no way to be civilized without treating everyone as if they did.

Religion is a system designed around the same concept. I often see both sides of that coin and say on one had look at the good religion is doing... on the other I say but look at all this bad stuff... The clincher is the people I have met and history. History will teach us things about the future and should never be ignored.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Thanks for your conversation. True religion reconciles you to God who is the source of all good. With a restored relationship with God, He progressively enables you to love your neighbors and yourself. Now, if everyone grew in this ideal by the grace of God, the world we be a much better place for all to live.

I think secular humanism also wants to love their neighbor as themselves. The problem has to do with our inability to live with that ideal due to our fallen nature. Mankind is universally self-centered, prideful, and rebellious. History proves this to be true throughout the know history of this word. Who will rescue us from ourselves? I have found the enemy and he is us. What is your solution to the suffering, cruelty and inhumane acts of the world?

 

[Orontes]

I'm still not going to concede.

OK, here is the rational flaw again:

1) The rational flaw:

If you take the view God is good, then we can reduce that idea to the posit "A"
Good and evil are mutually exclusive. therefore evil would be "-A"
The problem: how does A create -A?

You have not dealt with this yet. I think this is an insurmountable problem.


Here is the scriptural flaw:

2) The scriptural flaw:

Isaiah 45: 7 has been discussed:

" (T)he Hebrew for evil translated here is 'rah' which can mean hurt, discomfort, displeasure, adversity, calamity etc. It can also mean...opposed to the good. The Isaiah reference with its juxtaposition of light and dark and shalom (which means quiet, tranquility, contentment, peace) and 'rah' would seem to indicate the opposite of shalom (which would be) discord, adversity, calamity etc." ​

There is no reason to assume the adjective rah needs to mean moral opposition to goodness given the context of the verse and the other larger meanings of the word.

Other scriptures:

"For I say unto you that whatsoever is good cometh from God, and whatsoever is evil cometh from the devil." -Alma 5:40​

"Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually". -Moroni 7:12​

"Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil." -Moroni 7: 14 ​

"Comes from" is a source claim. Further, the source claim is juxtaposed against any other and contrary sourcing to Deity. Moroni 7:14 then warns against assuming evil is "of God" i.e. Deity is not the source.


With the above and what has been discussed we have the following relating to the scriptural fallacy:

1)-The JST issue has been dealt with. It does not apply.

a) Joseph Smith never claimed he had completed his work on the Bible. Further, we know he was working on it off and on up to his death.
b) The Church has never claimed the JST was complete.
c) Regarding Isaiah 45: there are no comments from Joseph Smith on the chapter. One cannot conclude a position based on an absence of commentary.​

2)-The three BoM verses I provided are directly contrary to any notion evil is tracable to God. Therefore you must either accept them or your understanding of Isaiah 45:7. You cannot hold to both.
3) - There is no reason to assume rah must mean evil (as in sin: the moral opposite of the good) given the context and larger meaning of the word.

Now to add to the above: I think you have confused the translation issue some. Let me see if I can explain it using Japanese since you have familiarity with it. Take the following: 神様の心　now how does one translate this? There are two obvious choices: "the mind of God" or the "heart of God". Now heart and mind are quite distinct in English, but not so in Japanese. Which would be the correct translation? The only way to resolve the difficulty is to look at context, but even there something is amiss. Why? Because in this instance 心 isn't simply mind or heart as per English, but its own concept. Any translation of either heart or mind is going to lack something of the original. 心 contains both a cognitive and an emotional component. How does this relate to rah? The word rah is not a technical (precise) term. Rather, it is a concept that includes in English a whole host of notions: sorrow, wretchedness, adversity, afflictions, calamities, etc. None of these ideas indicate moral failure. To assume a connotation of the word entails a moral failing where no other sense does, is on its face quite odd. Note something else, each sense of the word is affect oriented, not causal. Affliction, calamity sorrow etc. all indicate a prior something that is cause: one is never afflicted, or sorrowful or suffering calamity without something acting as a cause. Why is this important? Because, evil qua sin, necessitates intention: the willful act against the good. It is therefore the informing element of action, not simply a consequence. What this means is the word rah doesn't indicate evil (as sin), but a negative consequence. This is why it fits nicely with the concept it is juxtaposed against: shalom (which I have explained means: quiet, tranquility, contentment, peace etc.) This also explains why the concept can be tied to Deity as He can definitely bring sorrow, adversity, affliction, calamity etc. In short, the problem isn't with the word rah, but in thinking the word means something not a part of the meaning.

 

[madhatter85]

I'm still not going to concede.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things.

In our LDS edition of the King James, the JST footnotes correct the errors. There are no corrections to the word evil, in this scripture, thus we need to accept it as correct, otherwise we would need to place the LDS edition of the King James, with the JST corrections (footnotes) in question, entirely. Should we change the wording throughout the LDS edition of the King James to fit our set of beliefs ???

In other words, what should we question next, as having been incorrectly translated ???

So basically you're saying that the opposite of peace (shalom), in that scripture is the definition of (rah), which you've provided, which does not include evil.

The antithesis of light is darkness. The antithesis of peace is war, now lets insert that into the scripture.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness ; I make peace, and create evil (war); I the Lord do all these things.

light and darkness
peace and war (which is something that is obviously evil)

Why would God create war (evil) or the antithesis of peace (good) ??????

FFH, have you read my post here in response to your previous Post about God creating Satan.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1174464-post60.html