LDS Christian challenge of historic Biblical Christians

[Clear]

Littlenipper ; It was I who brought up the concept of ancient pre-existent Jewish and Christian belief in creation from eternally existing matter to compare to the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). I hope I did not cause your confusion.

- It is ironic that groups who contend that GOD is visible flesh and blood, also seem to assert that this "visible being" needed pre-existing invisible matter with with to create anything... What becomes more important the creator or the matter? "

Like Watchmen, I cannot tell if you are trying to tease the bigger dogs to try to make them bark or simply asking a question that you really don’t know the answer to. When one misunderstands and misuses so many SIMPLE principles in a single sentence it could either be simple lack of understanding or simple lack of care to get things "right". I think the readers don’t know which category you fall into. You cannot blame them, Look at your post: The order itself is incorrect. One usually first asks questions, gains and understanding and THEN finally comes to a conclusion. You first concluded "irony", but then based you conclusion on multiple incorrect assumptions in a single sentence (e.g. "invisible matter"; "groups contending God is flesh and blood" and you finally ask your question, (the correct answer to which is incredibly obvious to most readers, - even to agnostics). Given the prior context of ancient Christian claims that God used matter to create material things, you ask:

"what becomes more important, the creator or matter"

While it may be an honest question you do not know the answer to, it is difficult to imagine a man of normal intelligence watching bricklayers and asking the foreman : "Hey Buddy, what is more important, the brick or the bricklayer?" It might be a good line from "Of Mice and Men". "Hey George, what’er more important, da bricks or da men? Huh, George, which one? " If’n I don cause trouble, can I pet da bricks later George, huh, can I? " Do you see the credibility gap such a question creates?

You suggest for consideration the consideration that that builders using bricks (rather than nothing) somehow makes the inanimate, unintelligent and inert "bricks" more important than the thinking, sentient, creative and living architects and builders. Like the others, I can’t tell if it is a legitimate question you really DON’T know the answer to, or if it’s a waste of time.

Even your "elaboration" uses a position that no one suggested nor believes in. It is as though you are asking us to "pretend you believe such and such" and then argue from that standpoint". You claimed:

"Because such a belief would be contending that the CREATOR is in subjection to the material, and that that material is either eternal of was created by someone superior to GOD. "

If you actually read the prior posts, you will see that the creator organizes the material and material submits to the creators will, and the innert and unthinking material (which is of lessor importance) NEVER organizes the creator. Inert material HAS no will to subject anything to.

I believe the answer to your question is that ancient pre-existent Christians at the time of Christ who believed that God created all things from matter also believe that God, the creator was more important than inanimate, unintelligent and inert matter from which he organizes material things. If you really didn't know this answer, I hope the answer makes sense to you. The creator is more important than the thing created in this instance.

I hope I didn't offend you by my "Mice and Men" quote, but it's been on my mind lately and it felt like a thing the Good hearted Lenny would ask. Good luck in figuring things out "littlenipper".

Clear
setzei99ep

 

[Katzpur]

Littlenipper ; It was I who brought up the concept of ancient pre-existent Jewish and Christian belief in creation from eternally existing matter to compare to the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS).

Clear, I'm wondering if you know anything about how the doctrine of an ex nihilo creation evolved. You seem to have a pretty good understanding of early Christianity. Do you think it has anything to do with the mistaken notion that a God who "had to use pre-existing materials" is somehow less worthy of worship than a God who created something from nothing?

 

[Clear]

Katzpur; I have very little time the next three days so much of this material cut and pasted from prior posts I've made.

I believe that the “shift” in Christian doctrines from matter as an “orthodoxy” of majority to creation from “nothing” as an orthodoxy of majority is simply a manifestation of the same “shifting boundaries” that Moses laments in dead sea scroll 4Q (geninza)

“ In the time of destruction of the land the boundary-shifters appeared and led Israel astray…

The same pattern of doctrinal degradation was simply happening among the Christians as it had already happened among the Jews. And, importantly, for precisely the same reasons.

I do not think the notion of creation “from nothing” is clearly and consistently taught until well past the period of primitive Christianity (approx 100 a.d.). It simply doesn’t seem to be an issue for the earliest Christians and it doesn’t dominate theological thinking and writing even for some period beyond that. Historians of this period point out that it must be “read into” early Jewish and Christian texts if it is to be found there at all. For examples:

Sorabji claims: "There is no clear statement in the Bible, or in Jewish-Hellenistic literature, of creation out of nothing (in a sense which includes a beginning of the material universe). On the contrary, such a view was invented by Christians in the second century a.d., in controversy with the Gnostics. David Winston agrees and notes that the notion of creation from “nothing” was first expressed by the Christian Neoplatonist Tatian and by Theophilus.

Alfoldi claims that the fourth century was marked by :

"the victory of abstract ways of thinking-the universal triumph of theory, which knows no half measures. The Gnostic idea of the body as a prison is entirely at home with the doctors of the church. They love it because matter is vile."

Though they thought matter was vile, this is in contrast to the apostle Peters earlier teaching to Clement that “there is NO inherent evil in matter” (recognitions).

I’ve mentioned before that I believe think that Sorabji and Winston were correct; that the evolution toward the adoption of Ex Nihilo was used partly as a premise to avoid the taint of ”cosmism” (which the Gods in surrounding religions were subject to) (i.e. the idea that God worked with matter, processed it, adapted it, and used it as a workman, and artisan). I believe, historically, that the great motive behind ex-nihilo was the neo-platonic philosophy that matter was too vulgar and too common for a “great” and “extraordinary” God to simply USE and MANIPULATE. Ex-nihilo was an attempt to elevate him to a God that NOW, can create something out of nothing, as though such an embellishment somehow made him greater than he was. Just as children brag “My dad can beat up your dad”, the christians wanted a reason to claim “My God is better than your God. Mine doesn’t need matter to create”. (Whereas the other Gods did need matter to create because their traditions had them creating out of matter).

For example : “Runlikethewind” quoted St Theophilus of Antioch in Theophilus’ attempt to discourage the belief in material creation. Theophilus says :

"If God had drawn the world from pre-existent matter, what would be so extraordinary in that? A human artisan makes from a given material whatever he wants, while God shows his power by starting from nothing to make all he wants.”

Notice that Theophilus’ logic and motive to abandon the doctrine of creation from pre-existent matter was because the doctrine wasn’t “extraordinary”.

This eschewing of association of God and matter continues in our days and it leads to a tendency to hold on to old traditions at the expense of deeper thinking. For example; The Wonderful Jesuit H.A. Brongers who was usually quite logical in supporting his theories, said that God “just thinks” and all is there at once. There is no follow-up data as to how such a logic can work as with other theories. He forgets that Genesis relates that “process” of creation took TIME”. If God could simply have “thought” and have creation suddenly "appear" in a moment, then creation would not have been a process that took TIME. It was the process of working with matter that required the passage of time recorded in Genesis. Instead of the usual profound logic which usually supports a theory, Brongers claims that the idea of God working matter, using something already there is horrifying because that deprives God of all his divinity though it is never explained as to HOW such logic could POSSIBLY work...). Brongers' “explanation” is that “It involves him with the physical world”. So what? Whether ex-nihilo, or from matter, God IS involved with the physical world that he made and placed us in.

Part of the point is that the claims and reasonings as to WHY “creation” from nothing is true, simply rests on the thin edge of simple TRADITION, and Nothing else. There is No data, no supporting logic, no supporting reasoning for a material creation from "nothing". Such manifestations of deeply cemented tradition contributes to the type of reluctance we see in individuals like ”littlenipper”. Had they grown up in another tradition, they might have just as well fought against the very ideas they now believe in.


A Christianity under secular influences became increasingly uncomfortable and embarrassed with it’s “material” and “physical” doctrines and doctrinal “shifts” occurred so as to allegorize material creation and material resurrection. This change would allow Christians to “fit in” with secular values, but it created a poor fit with obvious scriptural descriptions.

However, this gnostic and neo-platonic pressures from outside, which caused the shift in Christian views of matter, also forces other doctrines to evolve. If “physical matter is truly vile”, then what does Christianity make of a “physical, material resurrection”?. Such later Christians are forced then to find a way around the physical resurrection also. YET, IF THEY DO, then this tampers with the central claim of Christianity. That is, the claim that Jesus died and resurrected with a physical body, using physical matter. If Jesus did not resurrect physically, what happens to the central claim? The point here is that this eschewing of the original doctrines by later Christianities has a cascade of terrible consequences. They should have left the original doctrines alone. But they did not.

Christianity had to increasingly rely on a claim to “allegorization” of scriptures. Descriptions of Jesus’ physical resurrection no longer meant what they seemed to mean, but meant “something else”. Difficulties in making a physical resurrection allegory (since the scriptures are so very clear it WAS physical), created a need for another doctrine which insists on the “temporal nature” of the resurrection. (i.e. "Yes, he did resurrect physically, but he “lost” this body and got another body"). The tendency was to make the physical resurrection a “temporary” resurrection, have Jesus “lose” his material body (an uncomfortable doctrine because it meant a material heaven), somehow become “separated” from it and finally have a “non-material” body. It is like doctrinal falling dominoes. One shift away from simplicity and clarity caused another shift and another shift.... The motives to abandon the earlier doctrine seem to be, as I said, mainly due to “secular” influences.

The poster "Edward", in another thread asked “what roll do the scriptures play? Should they be disregarded?”. The answer is obviously “NO”. However, I believe that this desire to separate God from his physical world IS one of the motivations certain scriptures have been “disregarded” as Christianity evolved. Some of them, such as Enoch, simply involved God and his son with matter in ways could not be turned into allegory. Thus, I believe that this increasing discomfort with "matter" among the later christianities, contributed to a disregarding and thus a narrowing of the western canon of scriptures.

I’ve got to stop here.

Clear
sedrvi40ui

 

[Katzpur]

I believe, historically, that the great motive behind ex-nihilo was the neo-platonic philosophy that matter was too vulgar and too common for a “great” and “extraordinary” God to simply USE and MANIPULATE. Ex-nihilo was an attempt to elevate him to a God that NOW, can create something out of nothing, as though such an embellishment somehow made him greater than he was. Just as children brag “My dad can beat up your dad”, the christians wanted a reason to claim “My God is better than your God. Mine doesn’t need matter to create”. (Whereas the other Gods did need matter to create because their traditions had them creating out of matter).

I see what you're saying. That's very much along the lines I was thinking. It sounds to me as if the God that the earliest Christians worshipped wasn't quite good enough for the neo-platonists, so they invented a new one, one that could do the impossible.

 

[idea]

has anyone posted this yet?

CHURCH, SIGNS OF THE TRUE. See also Church of Jesus Christ; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The; Sign
Doctrines and works of a Church that show it is approved by God and is the means the Lord has established for his children to gain the fulness of his blessings. Some of the signs of the true Church are as follows:

Correct understanding of the Godhead: God created man in his own image, Gen. 1:26–27. The Lord spoke unto Moses face to face, Ex. 33:11. Eternal life is to know God the Father and Jesus Christ, John 17:3. The Father and Son have bodies of flesh and bones, D&C 130:22–23. The Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith, JS-H 1:15–20. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, A of F 1:1.

First principles and ordinances: Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, John 3:3–5. Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, Acts 2:38. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost, Acts 8:14–17. Become children of God by faith in Jesus Christ, Gal. 3:26–27. Repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son, 2 Ne. 31:11–21. They who believed were baptized and received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, D&C 76:50–53. Proper priesthood is needed to baptize and to give the gift of the Holy Ghost, JS-H 1:70–72. The first principles and ordinances of the gospel are described, A of F 1:4.

Revelation: Where there is no vision, the people perish, Prov. 29:18. The Lord reveals his secrets to his prophets, Amos 3:7. The Church is built upon the rock of revelation, Matt. 16:17–18 (D&C 33:13). Woe unto him who shall say the Lord no longer worketh by revelation, 3 Ne. 29:6. Revelations and commandments come only through the one appointed, D&C 43:2–7. We believe all that God has revealed, A of F 1:9.

Prophets: The Church is built upon the foundation of Apostles and prophets, Eph. 2:19–20. Apostles and prophets are essential to the Church, Eph. 4:11–16. Joseph Smith was called to be a seer, prophet, and Apostle, D&C 21:1–3. We believe in prophets, A of F 1:6.

Authority: Jesus gave his disciples power and authority, Luke 9:1–2 (John 15:16). Nephi, the son of Helaman, had great authority from God, Hel. 11:18 (3 Ne. 7:17). The prophet is to receive commandments for the Church, D&C 21:4–5. No one may preach the gospel or build up the Church unless he is ordained by someone who has authority, D&C 42:11. The elders are to preach the gospel, acting in authority, D&C 68:8. Any who preach or administer for God must be called of God by those in authority, A of F 1:5.

Additional scriptures to come forth: The stick of Judah will be joined with the stick of Joseph, Ezek. 37:15–20. The coming forth of latter-day scripture was foretold, 1 Ne. 13:38–41. We believe that God will yet reveal many great and important things, A of F 1:9.

Church organization: The Church is built upon the foundation of Apostles and prophets, Eph. 2:19–20. Apostles and prophets are essential to the Church, Eph. 4:11–16. Christ is the head of the Church, Eph. 5:23. Christ's Church must be called in his name, 3 Ne. 27:8. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, A of F 1:6.

Missionary work: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, Matt. 28:19–20. Seventy were called to preach the gospel, Luke 10:1. They were desirous that salvation should be declared to every creature, Mosiah 28:3. Elders are to go forth, preaching my gospel, two by two, D&C 42:6. The gospel must be preached unto every creature, D&C 58:64.

Spiritual gifts: They began to speak with other tongues, Acts 2:4. The elders are to heal the sick, James 5:14. Deny not the gifts of God, Moro. 10:8. Spiritual gifts are listed, D&C 46:13–26 (1 Cor. 12:1–11; Moro. 10:9–18).

Temples: I will make a covenant and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore, Ezek. 37:26–27. The Lord shall suddenly come to his temple, Mal. 3:1. Nephi built a temple, 2 Ne. 5:16. The Saints were chastened for failing to build the house of the Lord, D&C 95 (D&C 88:119). The Lord's people always build temples for the performance of holy ordinances, D&C 124:37–44. Building temples and performing ordinances are parts of the great latter-day work, D&C 138:53–54.
(Guide to the Scriptures | CChurch, Signs of the True.:Entry - Temples)

temples, apostles, prophets, non-trinity, additional scripts, etc. etc...

 

[idea]

I believe the answer to your question is that ancient pre-existent Christians at the time of Christ who believed that God created all things from matter also believe that God, the creator was more important than inanimate, unintelligent and inert matter from which he organizes material things. If you really didn't know this answer, I hope the answer makes sense to you. The creator is more important than the thing created in this instance.

I hope I didn't offend you by my "Mice and Men" quote, but it's been on my mind lately and it felt like a thing the Good hearted Lenny would ask. Good luck in figuring things out "littlenipper".

Clear
setzei99ep

from:
LDS.org - Ensign Article - The King Follett Sermon

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. 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.

yes, we are the mice.

 

[idea]

show me why I am apostate.

or if people want to talk apostacy:

Apostasy of the Early Christian Church
Isa. 24:5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant
Isa. 29:13 this people draw near me with their mouth
Isa. 60:2 darkness shall cover the earth
Amos 8:11 a famine ... of hearing the words of the Lord
Matt. 13:25 his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat
Matt. 24:5 saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many
Matt. 24:24 shall arise false Christs, and false prophets
John 6:66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him
Acts 20:29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you
1 Cor. 11:18 there be divisions among you
Gal. 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him
Gal. 3:1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey
2 Thes. 2:3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first
1 Tim. 1:6 some having swerved have turned aside
1 Tim. 4:1 giving heed to seducing spirits
2 Tim. 1:15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me
2 Tim. 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred
2 Tim. 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power
2 Tim. 4:4 turn away their ears from the truth ... unto fables
Titus 1:16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him
James 4:1 From whence came wars and fightings among you
2 Pet. 2:1 false prophets also among the people
2 Pet. 3:17 being led away with the error of the wicked
1 Jn. 2:18 now are there many antichrists
1 Jn. 4:1 many false prophets are gone out into the world
Jude 1:4 certain men crept in ... denying the only Lord God
Rev. 2:2 which say they are apostles, and are not
Rev. 3:16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot
Rev. 13:7 to make war with the saints
1 Ne. 13:26 foundation of a great and abominable church
2 Ne. 26:20 the Gentiles ... have stumbled
2 Ne. 27:1 Gentiles ... will be drunken with iniquity
Morm. 8:33 transfigured the holy word of God
D&C 1:15 strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant
D&C 86:3 Satan ... soweth the tares
D&C 112:23 darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people
JS-H 1:19 they were all wrong, ... their hearts are far from me
See also Matt. 24:11; Rom. 11:21; 1 Cor. 1:11; 3:3; Col. 2:22; 1 Tim. 1:19; Titus 1:10; 2 Pet. 2:22; 3 Jn. 1:9; Rev. 2:5; 1 Ne. 11:34.
(Topical Guide | AApostasy of the Early Christian Church:Entry)

11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a afamine of bread, nor a bthirst for water, but of hearing the cwords of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall arun to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
(Old Testament | Amos8:11 - 13)


If you believe in the Bible, then you know there was an apostasy...

 

[idea]

the simplest summary of LDS beliefs are:

THE ARTICLES OF FAITH​

OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS​

​

History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535–541​

​

1 WE abelieve in bGod, the Eternal Father, and in His cSon, Jesus Christ, and in the dHoly Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be apunished for their bown sins, and not for Adam's ctransgression.
3 We believe that through the aAtonement of Christ, all bmankind may be csaved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and aordinances of the Gospel are: first, bFaith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, cRepentance; third, dBaptism by eimmersion for the fremission of sins; fourth, Laying on of ghands for the hgift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be acalled of God, by bprophecy, and by the laying on of chands by those who are in dauthority, to epreach the Gospel and administer in the fordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same aorganization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, bprophets, cpastors, dteachers, eevangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the agift of btongues, cprophecy, drevelation, evisions, fhealing, ginterpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet breveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10 We believe in the literal agathering of Israel and in the restoration of the bTen Tribes; that cZion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will dreign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be erenewed and receive its fparadisiacal gglory.
11 We claim the aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the bdictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them dworship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being asubject to bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw.
13 aWe believe in being bhonest, true, cchaste, dbenevolent, virtuous, and in doing egood to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we fhope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to gendure all things. If there is anything hvirtuous, ilovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

JOSEPH SMITH.​

(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith Preface:Heading - 1:13)

most people have issues with trinity, and additional scripts.


YouTube - Are Mormons Christians?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TpA_wt-ul0

 

[LittleNipper]

the simplest summary of LDS beliefs are:

[/font]

most people have issues with trinity, and additional scripts.


YouTube - Are Mormons Christians?

The one glaring mistake I see is that LDS believe in the reestablishment of Israel, but not in the "Promised Land," as GOD promised Abraham ----- So one would assume that there are other mistakes with mormonism.

 

[Orontes]

Clear, I'm wondering if you know anything about how the doctrine of an ex nihilo creation evolved. You seem to have a pretty good understanding of early Christianity. Do you think it has anything to do with the mistaken notion that a God who "had to use pre-existing materials" is somehow less worthy of worship than a God who created something from nothing?[/size]

Hello,

Clear has given a good reply. Even so, and to present in different terms: creatio ex nihilo can be tied to the rise of the metaphysical rubric of the Chain of Being which informed Neo-Platonic Thought and the larger logic of perfection. Neo-Platonism would date from the 3rd Century CE and became the metaphysic of a Hellenized Christendom. The Chain of Being notes a hierarchy of being. Beginning with a materiality that is composed of parts at the bottom, it progressively moves up toward that which is void of materiality and no parts. One simple explanation for why ( again referring to the Logic of Perfection): what is material is subject to change. This can entail both ideas of generation, corruption and division (impacting identity statements), but also logical causal issues i.e. where a subject is itself subject to effect as opposed to being the cause or source. Logically, a cause is necessarily prior to an effect. If any dubbed Absolute is subject to effect, then it is in a logically secondary positioning. This impacts and undercuts any dubbed Divinity on a metaphysical level. As any Late Classical Era thinker would know via Aristotle's book Ten of his "Metaphysics": an Absolute, to be labeled as such, must be the Unmoved Mover, the Absolute must be both unmoved or movable, as it were. It must be logically first and prior to any other relation. Thus, under Late Classical Era metaphysics, to claim in logical terms there is a perfect thing X, is to move in the direction of creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Orontes]

The one glaring mistake I see is that LDS believe in the reestablishment of Israel, but not in the "Promised Land," as GOD promised Abraham ----- So one would assume that there are other mistakes with mormonism.

You are confused and your post reads little better than a base hostility looking to justify itself.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are confused and your post reads little better than a base hostility looking to justify itself.

How so? The Bible clearly states that Israel will be re-established and It has been since 1948. GOD promised Abraham that through him a nation would be established
Read Genesis 17:8 ------- doesn't appear to be moved to America... The confusion is clearly not in my vision.

 

[Orontes]

How so? The Bible clearly states that Israel will be re-established and It has been since 1948. GOD promised Abraham that through him a nation would be established
Read Genesis 17:8 ------- doesn't appear to be moved to America... The confusion is clearly not in my vision.

Your claim: " LDS believe in the reestablishment of Israel, but not in the "Promised Land" is simply incorrect. The notion of a promised land, a land of inheritance, the sacredness of space and how it applies across time: all such entails is deeply rooted in Mormon Thought. Mormons believe in both the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Promised Land. Your dubbed mistake is a failure to know Mormonism.

 

[Clear]

“We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.”

“The one glaring mistake I see is that LDS believe in the reestablishment of Israel, but not in the "Promised Land," as GOD promised Abraham”

“You are confused and your post reads little better than a base hostility looking to justify itself.”

I agree with Orontes regarding Littlenipper’s obvious confusing of terms and concepts. Littlenipper seems to want to argue against a relocation of ancient geography of Israel (which the LDS do NOT teach) yet vehemently denies what is obvious to all others (i.e. that littlenipper IS confused.) by claiming "The confusion is clearly not in my vision."



1) The principle of willful self-deception
As with Littlenippers last post, it’s difficult to believe such obvious misunderstanding is accidental. I do admit that as a clinician, I find self-deception to be a FASCINATING principle.

Self-deception is NOT the same as a lessor mental capacity, it is a “choice” that one makes. Though people tend to simply shake their heads or roll their eyes at the confusion of those mentally incapable of understanding simple principles or those who do not “get” a simple joke, the “choice” to misunderstand simple principles is an avoidable moral defect based on choice and therefore has moral implications.



2) The effects of self-deceptions
The symptoms of the underlying psychological desire to FIND fault contributes to the inability of individuals to understand one another and contributes to a great deal of the animosity and inter-religion strife throughout the world. The same refusal to understand that is manifested by Littlenipper creates world-scale problems when viewed as a world-scale phenomenon. For example, such a choice NOT to understand and to find fault based on misunderstood principles, and to base arguments and treatment of others based on those misunderstandings and disputes contributes to a large portion of religious persecution and evil in the world. Origen defined evil as "the refusal to progress". It is the willful refusal to understand; the "digging in" and refusal to consider good data; the willful misuse of good data to support another position, etc. Origen did not say evil was "inability" to progress, but "refusal" to progress. However subtle the choice seems, it is still a choice.

For example: it is not that Christianity CANNOT understand Islam, but rather than Christianity DOES not WANT to understand Islam. We create caricatures of Islam and persecute real people based on inaccurate caricatures of the real thing. Because the vast majority of Christianity is satisfied with their caricatures, they rarely get to understand and examine the “real thing”. To be fair, Muslims do exactly the same thing to Christianity, and for precisely the same reasons. (the same is true of most inter-religious disputing for disputing's sake)

The same principle involved in creating inaccurate caricatures of Islam by Christians, is involved in anti-christian christianity. There is a built-in motive to hone in on, and find error to complain about since there are few other motives to persecute others which ARE psychologically “honorable” and most motives for persecution are obviously “evil”. However, what if one cannot find an “honest to goodness” authentic error in a specific doctrine? In this case, Orontes is accurate that littlenipper MUST somehow justify his error. To Psychologically, justify (or make "just" that which is not) our desire to persecute, we MUST find SOMETHING that we can perceive as an error. It does not matter if it IS an error, just that one is able to perceive it as such.

I believe this is one underlying explanation for individuals like littlenipper who seem to have reasonable intelligence, yet display such poor comprehension of and are consistently able to misunderstand such very, very simple principles they do NOT believe in, (yet seem to have at least a minimal comprehension of principles they do believe in). I also believe this is one of the mechanisms that is involved in the principle of reticence where to some it is “given to know”, and to others it is simply “not given” to know and understand certain religious principles. The dishonesty associated with the choice to misunderstand, simply closes some doors to comprehension. It is as though we punish ourselves by a relative ignorance for not having sincere and real intent.

I hope the obvious moral implication is warning enough for all of us to attempt to avoid filling our minds and hearts and lives with bad and inaccurate conclusions based on poor and inaccurates assumptions regarding a million things we do not understand. If we do this willingly, whether consciously or unconsciously, we will find ourselves in the same position as little nipper. Spending our precious (PRECIOUS) time here, arguing about petty and inaccurate claims that have little relation to reality and to truth. It's not just a waste of time, it is harmful to us. We will all end up filling our lives with inaccurate and poor substitutes for education and understanding. Do we really want to do this?

I don’t have time at the moment, but would like sometime to discuss the role of reticence as it applies to the “protection” of sacred principles from those who do not want them and/or those who would abuse them and it’s relationship to the atonement.

Clear
aceitw89to