Miracles Don't Exist

[mepps1]

The topic was touched upon in another thread, but my thoughts really didn't fit there, so;

Miracles Are a Figment of Your Imagination

I don't think God ever contradicts his own law, be it physical law, spiritual law, or His laws of reason. It's hard for me to explain why this is so important. I suppose, to me, it has everything to do with advocating the "reasonable", nature of God. Though God is by no means obliged to seem reasonable to men in all circumstances, any more than a father should seem "reasonable" in all cases to his children, He is undeniably consistent. In light of our failure to even begin to comprehend or appreciate his reason, we can at least take comfort in his consistency.

In light of this consistency, I think that it is an important to note that God never contravenes or suspends His Divine Law under any circumstance.

This is similar to flying, I think. People are prone to making silly comments about defying, or defeating gravity in the case of human flight. Of course, no such thing is possible. Flight is only an equilibrium of the forces of gravity and lift. It has something of the appearance of the miraculous, unless you understand and appreciate the forces of lift, and thrust.

In keeping with the perfect nature of God's divine logic, I think it is important to note that no miracle represents a suspension of natural law. It might rather be an imposition of "higher" law. No "law of any type is broken in the process. Reason is not defied. Rather a higher reason, a higher law is employed to an end which only seems "miraculous" to simple intellects like yours and mine. Watching an airplane take off is only miraculous to people too stupid to understand all the forces involved.

Thus nothing miraculous is inherently unreasonable- only misunderstood. Walking on water is scarcely less reasonable than walking on the moon. Neither should be attempted by amateurs. The fact that neither has happened (so far as I know) in my lifetime bears no weight against historical testimony.

[Bill McIntyre]

Thus nothing miraculous is inherently unreasonable- only misunderstood. Walking on water is scarcely less reasonable than walking on the moon. Neither should be attempted by amateurs. The fact that neither has happened (so far as I know) in my lifetime bears no weight against historical testimony.

Sorry I can't focus on the rest of the message until I address this. Are you really saying that man has not walked on the moon?

[mepps1]

Sorry I can't focus on the rest of the message until I address this. Are you really saying that man has not walked on the moon?

Well, no, I can't recall having said or thought any such thing.

edit- You had me sweating for a minute there. But I checked. I was born about 3 and a half years after the last moon landing.:D

[Bill McIntyre]

Then what did "neither has happened" mean?

[mepps1]

Then what did "neither has happened" mean? The math, Bill. Do the math.;)

<Age: 34

Cars that were made in the time of Apollo 17 are now collectors items.:D

[Bill McIntyre]

The math, Bill. Do the math.;)

<Age: 34

OK- the operative phrase was "in my lifetime."

I recall driving the baby sitter home in Beeville, TX while looking up at the moon and marveling that men were walking on it.

[mepps1]

I remember recently watching this video and thinking that maybe it isn't all that miraculous. YouTube- Walk on water (Liquid Mountaineering) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3St1GgoHQ)

Ha! I watched the same thing and enjoyed it. But it's entirely too hard to tell these days what's spoof. Has Snopes blessed this video, yet?

[mepps1]

http://www.hi-tec.com/liquid-mountaineering/

[gogators27]

Miracles certainly do exist. Do a google search. You can find articles describing a faith in God that also includes the same miracles that Christ performed today, you can also find articles describing faith in the devil, and that article will include details explaining away these same miracles, claiming there is no God and no Devil. I will not cast my pearls before swine, but I as your brother will tell you that Miracles do and will always exist when faith in Jesus Christ is present.

Shortcut from google to many modern day miracles:try spend a few months reading www.mormon.org or www.lds.org.

Whish I could chat but off to go diving :)

[ocean_314]

God must exist...i have gotten a whople bunch of " oh my god" from women!!! along with a few yes yes yes!!!!:thumps:

[Marcus]

I remember recently watching this video and thinking that maybe it isn't all that miraculous. YouTube- Walk on water (Liquid Mountaineering) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3St1GgoHQ)

That's pretty funny! :D

[POL]

This topic might hold water if we assume that in order for a miracle to happen, laws of physics have to be broken. This does not address coincidental events that are at the extreme of statistical probability. For instance life it self. I find it miraculous that perfect conditions existed to create life. To me a miracle is not some concoction of exotic resources. But extraordinary events using limited resources in nearly impossible combination. You know, the time where everything perfectly fell in place.
Talking about miracles. How about "Big Bang" Here is a time where laws of physics do not exist along with the material world. And everything came together just right to create the laws of physics to create the wondrous variety we see today.
Miracles can be easily separated from existence of God. You chose to look at them together. But before we can talk about God. We have to look at our existence as a Universe. It is very hard for us to comprehend how was the universe before the big bang. Well, simple answer is that it did not exist. Harder to understand is that "empty space" did not exist. All that was created during the big bang. So whats beyond our Universe? as far as we are concerned: Absolutely nothing. Even the empty space we imagine being filled in as the Universe expands, does not exist. So here is a interesting question. Does the Universe really expand? Or is it just an illusion we see because we are part of the puzzle. I personally think that the Universe does not exist as we imagine it, but its simply a singularity. And as a singularity we are unable to discover anything outside of the singularity. However this does not prove that there is nothing outside of our Universe. And for us from our vantage point its impossible to prove or disprove the possibility of outside forces to be responsible for our Laws of physics that we hold so dear. Further more we can not prove or disprove if those outside forces can influence our Universe while it is in existence. We assume that God has to exist within our Universe, our physical laws, and our time. Well, that's impossible. In order for God to exist, and create the Universe, God would have to exist outside our Universe, and in doing so God would not be governed by our physical laws. That would include time.

I'm not trying to prove the existence or absence of God, Just pointing out that the more we understand our Universe the more Questions are raised.

[mepps1]

This topic might hold water if we assume that in order for a miracle to happen, laws of physics have to be broken. This does not address coincidental events that are at the extreme of statistical probability. For instance life it self. I find it miraculous that perfect conditions existed to create life. To me a miracle is not some concoction of exotic resources. But extraordinary events using limited resources in nearly impossible combination. You know, the time where everything perfectly fell in place.
Talking about miracles. How about "Big Bang" Here is a time where laws of physics do not exist along with the material world. And everything came together just right to create the laws of physics to create the wondrous variety we see today.
Miracles can be easily separated from existence of God. You chose to look at them together. But before we can talk about God. We have to look at our existence as a Universe. It is very hard for us to comprehend how was the universe before the big bang. Well, simple answer is that it did not exist. Harder to understand is that "empty space" did not exist. All that was created during the big bang. So whats beyond our Universe? as far as we are concerned: Absolutely nothing. Even the empty space we imagine being filled in as the Universe expands, does not exist. So here is a interesting question. Does the Universe really expand? Or is it just an illusion we see because we are part of the puzzle. I personally think that the Universe does not exist as we imagine it, but its simply a singularity. And as a singularity we are unable to discover anything outside of the singularity. However this does not prove that there is nothing outside of our Universe. And for us from our vantage point its impossible to prove or disprove the possibility of outside forces to be responsible for our Laws of physics that we hold so dear. Further more we can not prove or disprove if those outside forces can influence our Universe while it is in existence. We assume that God has to exist within our Universe, our physical laws, and our time. Well, that's impossible. In order for God to exist, and create the Universe, God would have to exist outside our Universe, and in doing so God would not be governed by our physical laws. That would include time.

I'm not trying to prove the existence or absence of God, Just pointing out that the more we understand our Universe the more Questions are raised.

I think that's a reasonably good description of the universe as we know it.

I think "existence or absence of God", as you put it, is a silly question to even entertain. Whatever is the "Ultimate" is God for all practical purposes. The only question is "Who, or what is God?"

[Aaron Proffitt+]

OK- the operative phrase was "in my lifetime."

I recall driving the baby sitter home in Beeville, TX while looking up at the moon and marveling that men were walking on it.

You had an event where you drove the baby siiter home and can recall the event ? Bill,I've been to some 'dining in ' events.....nobody could recall shit .:beer::D

[Marcus]

I think that's a reasonably good description of the universe as we know it.

I think "existence or absence of God", as you put it, is a silly question to even entertain. Whatever is the "Ultimate" is God for all practical purposes. The only question is "Who, or what is God?"

http://www.oodegr.com/english/atheismos/eikones/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster.jpg ??

Who is God's God?

What if we are an experiment planted by an alien species of 'gods' who believe in a higher being? How small you really are...you insignificant little human. :D

[POL]

??

Who is God's God?

What if we are an experiment planted by an alien species of 'gods' who believe in a higher being? How small you really are...you insignificant little human. :D

Thats a really interesting point. I was thinking about something similar. Drawing from a SiFi show Star Gate. There was a device called ZPM aka Zero Point Module aka Singularity. Of course it was just a show. But in theory, who is to say that a version of ZPM is not possible, and who is to say that a whole universe would not exist in the ZPM. Well, if that would happen than the theoretical Universe would be screwed. I don't think we would make very responsible Gods.

[North Star]

I don't think we would make very responsible Gods.

Well said. That is why we need the real true God to be our God - because we are not wise enough to be our own God, or to rule ourselves or our own lives. Men make lousy Gods, because they lack infinite righteousness, wisdom, goodness, power and love, all of which are necessary to do the job of being God.

The God of the Bible has all these attributes and more. That is why He is my God. I commend Him to you.

[Marcus]

Well said. That is why we need the real true God to be our God - because we are not wise enough to be our own God, or to rule ourselves or our own lives. Men make lousy Gods, because they lack infinite righteousness, wisdom, goodness, power and love, all of which are necessary to do the job of being God.

The God of the Bible has all these attributes and more. That is why He is my God. I commend Him to you.

My pet rock thinks I am God. As well as the fish in my aquarium. I think I've been quite a righteous, wise, good, powerful god to them.

Behold thy power.
http://www.the-atheist.com/wp-content/themes/NewTA/God.png

[Bill McIntyre]

Well said. That is why we need the real true God to be our God - because we are not wise enough to be our own God, or to rule ourselves or our own lives. Men make lousy Gods, because they lack infinite righteousness, wisdom, goodness, power and love, all of which are necessary to do the job of being God.

The God of the Bible has all these attributes and more. That is why He is my God. I commend Him to you.

If your God is really running things, it would seem that he has a deficit in wisdom, goodness, power and love. Otherwise, the world would not be such a mess and misery would not be so common.

[gogators27]

If your God is really running things, it would seem that he has a deficit in wisdom, goodness, power and love. Otherwise, the world would not be such a mess and misery would not be so common.

couple things bill:

1: God does have infinite wisdom, goodness, power and love, he also has given us his children freedom to choose for ourselves right or wrong.

What kind of father would take his childrens freedom to choose away? What kind of children would result? In Gods infinite wisdom he realizes that we must experience pain if we are to know what pleasure is, misery to know happyness, etc...

If everything was perfect (or if God took away his children's freedom of choice) how would we even know it? Everything must have it's opposite... http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/11-13

2: Scripture time, the following comes to mind from the life of One of the Greatest prophets to ever live.

Prayer and prophecies written by Joseph Smith the Prophet, while he was a prisoner in the jail at Liberty, Missouri, dated March 20, 1839. The Prophet with several companions had been months in prison. Their petitions and appeals directed to the executive officers and the judiciary had failed to bring them relief.

Here is what a prophet said to the Lord and the Lords Response:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/121/1-10

[North Star]

If your God is really running things, it would seem that he has a deficit in wisdom, goodness, power and love. Otherwise, the world would not be such a mess and misery would not be so common.

Bill - The mess and misery you see is caused by men who rebel against the wisdom, goodness, and love of God, and who violate His laws. Mankind has caused this mess and misery by their choices, not God. If everyone would do God's will, there would be no mess and misery, only peace and blessing.

God created men to be free moral agents, not programed robots; and if men with moral freedom choose to defy God's laws and will, they must accept the misery that results from their choices. God will not force them to choose this or that, He only holds them accountable for the choices they make, and insures that they reap what they sow. The misery and mess that humanity experiences is self inflicted, not inflicted by God.

If people become miserable enough from reaping the consequences of their violations of God's law, then maybe they will repent, and begin to obey and reap the blessings that flow from letting God be their God, instead of trying to be their own God, and making the mess and misery that is all around us.

We have met the enemy, and it is us. The enemy is not God.

[Shootafish2]

Bill - The mess and misery you see is caused by men who rebel against the wisdom, goodness, and love of God, and who violate His laws. Mankind has caused this mess and misery by their choices, not God. If everyone would do God's will, there would be no mess and misery, only peace and blessing.

God created men to be free moral agents, not programed robots; and if men with moral freedom choose to defy God's laws and will, they must accept the misery that results from their choices. God will not force them to choose this or that, He only holds them accountable for the choices they make, and insures that they reap what they sow. The misery and mess that humanity experiences is self inflicted, not inflicted by God.

If people become miserable enough from reaping the consequences of their violations of God's law, then maybe they will repent, and begin to obey and reap the blessings that flow from letting God be their God, instead of trying to be their own God, and making the mess and misery that is all around us.

We have met the enemy, and it is us. The enemy is not God.

+1, well said!

[Bill McIntyre]

I should know better than to argue with people who can find a way to rationalize anything through faith, but--

Are you saying that diseases are the result of choices that men make? If God is omnipotent, why does he permit diseases? Men don't create disease- but they often find cures for God's diseases.

Or lets look at people living in poverty and disease in Africa and India. Even if you want to hold their political leaders accountable for the choices they make, are you saying that these poor people should suffer for the decisions of their leaders? Are they really reaping the consequences of their own violations of God's law? If so, your God is pretty nasty, and not very full of love and compassion.

[spearstudtx]

POL and mepps, great posts. POL, don't know if you are familiar with M, string and superstring theories but they mesh with some of what you are saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory


Mepps: If we accept the existence of one God and it is simply a matter of defining him, what if he is simply this higher law? What if God is nothing more than the laws of Nature? Just a rulebook that governs the way stuff works? Even worse, maybe we are Gods as Marcus alluded to.

NorthStar: If your God has such omnipotence, why did he create evil? Why would he allow children to starve to death or be born with AIDS? I don't buy your idea about a God that is so powerful, lets these things happen, but is still considered loving.

Just to be clear, please don't respond with that battered "free moral agent" line. Free will can exist without evil. For instance I could choose Pepsi over Coke today.

You have probably seen the argument before but here is what I am trying to ask:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

-Epicurus

[gogators27]

Bad things most definately happen to good people, to give a popular scriptural example take Job for instance.

Like my previous post said, if everything was perfect all the time then what would we ever learn? Everything has to have it's opposite or you would not know the difference...

For instance if you always had 200 foot vis would you appreciate it? It takes bad vis to know what good vis is. If everytime you went out you had fish lining up inches away from your spear would there be any sport or challenge or even good days? You have to know what it feels like to get scunked to appreciate when you have epic days on the water.

God is all knowing and all powerful, and knows what we need, and it is not a "perfect world". In a perfect world we would not learn or experience much of anything....

[North Star]

I should know better than to argue with people who can find a way to rationalize anything through faith, but--

Are you saying that diseases are the result of choices that men make? If God is omnipotent, why does he permit diseases? Men don't create disease- but they often find cures for God's diseases.

Or lets look at people living in poverty and disease in Africa and India. Even if you want to hold their political leaders accountable for the choices they make, are you saying that these poor people should suffer for the decisions of their leaders? Are they really reaping the consequences of their own violations of God's law? If so, your God is pretty nasty, and not very full of love and compassion.

Bill - I should know better than to argue with people with blinded minds, (2Corinthians 4:3-4 - look it up) but--

I am indeed saying that diseases and all other bad things that happen on this earth are the result of the sinful choice that man made in the garden of Eden, when he chose to rebel against God. Before the fall of Adam and Eve there were no diseases, indeed, there was no death.

God created a perfect world, gave man a free will to choose his own destiny, and mankind screwed it up. He brought misery upon himself. Read Genesis 1-3.

Adam's fall brought terrible consequences upon all of his decendants. All that is wrong in the world is the result of sin entering the human race, and we have all followed in Adam's footsteps and have added our sin to his, and ratified his rebellion by our own. The screwup is continued by us.

Any suffering that people experience in this life is certainly less than they deserve for their own personal sins; what we all deserve (myself included) is a place in Hell for the sins we have committed. If we currently have anything less than a place in Hell, we have reason to be thankful, no matter how bad our present circumstances, because the greatest suffering on this earth is less than the least suffering in Hell.

We have no room to be angry with God; He is exercising patience, giving us time to repent and find salvation from sin and it's consequences through faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Our present sufferings, and the prospect of future sufferings in Hell for our sins, are designed to cause us to seek a remedy for them from God, on God's terms, which He has set forth in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If you want to have a perfect earth where there is no suffering, disease, poverty, war, or any other bad thing, and where there is perfect peace and righteousness, your search is over. God has promised to provide exactly such a world for those who believe in His Son as their Savior from sin. It is called the New Heavens and the New Earth, and you can read all about it in 2Peter 3 and Revelation 21 and 22. It will be made after the Day of Judgment and inhabited by all who believe in Christ as their Savior from their sins.

God has graciously provided a remedy for mankind's folly and ruin of this earth, even though He did not have to do so; He has determined to reverse all the destruction that mankind has caused by his sin, and restore what mankind has ruined. He is restoring it through the work of His Son, Jesus. Eden will exist again, by God providing an atonement through His Son for the sin that origionally ruined it.

You seem to have a problem with God punishing sin both in this life by present suffering, and in the next in eternal suffering in Hell. This strikes you as vindictive and mean spirited on God's part.

This is because you do not understand how evil sin is, and therefore, the punishment that is appropriate for it. A child molester thinks of his behavior as not being all that bad, and that it simply needs to be understood and excused by others, but the rest of us understands it for the enormous evil that it is, and see the need to punish it greatly.

Likewise, we think rather lightly of our sin, and consider it as not being all that bad, and wonder why God would punish it so severely. We think God is way too harsh.

The problem is, we are way too blind to the enormity of the evil of sinning against a good and loving God. God is just, and will never hand out a sentence that is too harsh for the crime comitted, and seeing the severity of the sentence he hands out for sin, tells us something of the degree of the evil comitted when we do sin.

We need to embrace His perspective on the matter, because He is the perfect judge of such matters. We are not competent to judge the degree of offence our sins are to God, nor the punishment they deserve.

Finally, it is a manifestion of God's goodness, when He gives men the wisdom to figure out how to cure diseases that mankind brought on himself by his sin. It is a sign of his love and compassion that He gives men the wisdom to do so. He is helping men cure the diseases men brought on themselves - that is certainly a manifestation of His love and compassion.

When Jesus was here, he healed many people's diseases. God hates sin and it's consequences, he hates diseases, and He will entirely eradicate them in the New Heavens and the New Earth. (read Revelation 21:4). To fight disease is not to fight against God - It is to imitate God in the fight against sin and it's consequences, and to follow in the steps of Jesus.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill - I should know better than to argue with people with blinded minds, (2Corinthians 4:3-4 - look it up) but--

I am indeed saying that diseases and all other bad things that happen on this earth are the result of the sinful choice that man made in the garden of Eden, when he chose to rebel against God. Before the fall of Adam and Eve there were no diseases, indeed, there was no death.



OK, that's enough. Poor people in India and Africa suffer disease and poverty because of sinful choices made by the mythical Adam and Eve. God is indeed one vindictive SOB.

[spearstudtx]

Like my previous post said, if everything was perfect all the time then what would we ever learn? Everything has to have it's opposite or you would not know the difference...



I know that responding to you is a lost cause, but I think you are stuck in the box. I am going to cut a hole for you to look out of, good luck.

Let's suppose for a second that your God exists. Let's suppose that he is the Creator. Let's supposed that he created Evil to show us what is Good (which is your logic). Why would he not make up a system in which when we screw up we only hurt ourselves? Why would he create a system that is so inherently flawed that I can kill you for no other reason than a whim?

Maybe he should have made it so that if I punched you, my face would hurt. That would be a better way to teach people.

Maybe natural disasters should only happen to the Evil. (This one ring a bell?)

More importantly, why would he need to teach us anything? Why didn't he just create beings that were better? Why didn't he just impart the knowledge and make it natural, like our sex drive?



God is all knowing and all powerful, and knows what we need, and it is not a "perfect world". In a perfect world we would not learn or experience much of anything....

I guess you don't see the enormous gap in logic. In a perfect world everything would be perfect and we would experience and learn everything PERFECTLY. The mere fact that this world isn't perfect (your words) prove that the Creator didn't have his shit together or he doesn't exist. And if you are going to give me that line about "God's Plan" and it being above me, you can save it.

[Nerka]

What kind of father would take his childrens freedom to choose away?

So God and bible tell people of your faith that humans should have freedom of choice. If this is true then why did the LDS push so hard to get Prop 8 in California passed?

[LoGiiCz]

NorthStar: If your God has such omnipotence, why did he create evil? Why would he allow children to starve to death or be born with AIDS? I don't buy your idea about a God that is so powerful, lets these things happen, but is still considered loving.

-Epicurus

:stupid:... If a perfect God existed why would he demean himself/herself by creating such a flawed being..



I used this to get some ideas going for a paper I had to do this summer for philosophy class (:sleep:).. I cant remember where I found it but I thought it would be relevant......

Defenders of a good, all powerful, and all knowing God have to explain why two kinds of evil exist, not just one. The two kinds are chosen evil (rape, torture, murder, etc.) and unchosen evil (diseases, natural disasters, etc.).

First they will say chosen evil must exist so that we can have free will. Okay, let's allow them that. Score a point for their God.

Next they will say that unchosen evil must exist so that we can appreciate the good - that good cannot exist except in contrast with evil. There are two things wrong with that answer. First, it admits that God is incapable of creating a world in which good is absolute (non-relative). Second, even if we allow them the claim that good must be relative to evil, the question remains why *so very much* evil is necessary to make us appreciate the good. To say that there needs to be as much unchosen evil in the world as there is so that we can recognize and appreciate the good is like saying that we could not tell the difference between black and white in a picture unless at least half the picture was black.

As a last resort, they will say evil does not exist - that what seems an evil is only an absence of good. This is like saying that there is no black paint on the canvas, there is only an absence of white paint - accepting it as an answer requires one to wilfully insult one's own intelligence.

This is called The Problem of Evil.

Another argument con God:

God has perfect knowledge, which must include knowledge of all that is going to occur in the world He created. Yet we, His creatures, are claimed to have free will, the ability to choose whether or not we will do something. But it cannot be possible that we have free will if our creator made us while having complete foreknowledge of all that we will do. It is not possible because there could not be such knowledge unless all our behaviour is pre-determined, and if all our behaviour is pre-determined we do not have free will. Therefore, such a God does not exist.

This is called The Problem of God's Foreknowledge.

Finally, look at what's involved in theism (that is, belief in God). We assume that because the world contains persons the origin of the world must be some kind of person (whom we call call God) - but that does not follow. Granted that the world developed or evolved from some fundamental set of principles, and that process gave rise to persons, it does not follow that the original principles were laid down by a Person (God). There might be a God, but that God is or was a Person is an unwarranted assumption. And a grossly arrogant one.

Has anyone read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins? What do you think about it, I heard its a good read....

I just found this about The God Delusion, just started listening but I think it might be interesting: http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

[gogators27]

So God and bible tell people of your faith that humans should have freedom of choice. If this is true then why did the LDS push so hard to get Prop 8 in California passed?

People will aways have the choice to sin in what ever way they want. They will have the consequeses of their sins as well. They cannot however force others to put a stamp of approval on thier sins. :thumps:

[Nerka]

People will aways have the choice to sin in what ever way they want. They will have the consequeses of their sins as well. They cannot however force others to put a stamp of approval on thier sins. :thumps:

But LDS is not walking the walk, they made a very overt effort keep "sinners" (in their eyes) from having a choice to "sin", i.e. marry.

[spearstudtx]

Has anyone read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins? What do you think about it, I heard its a good read....

I just found this about The God Delusion, just started listening but I think it might be interesting: http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

Good post, great link to the debate. When I have some time I am going to watch that very carefully. Lennox has a strong position throughout the debate, the only thing I simply couldn't reconcile was his transition from a Grand Architect to the God of the Bible.

I read the God Delusion, great read and the only real failure of Dawkins in it is the attitude he approaches the reader with. Although I am VERY happy he wrote the book and that I read it, in areas he comes across as merely giving atheists a pat on the back instead of making a case.

[gogators27]

But LDS is not walking the walk, they made a very overt effort keep "sinners" (in their eyes) from having a choice to "sin", i.e. marry.

"Overt?", our stance on family values and Marriage has always and will always be anything but "overt". Sex outside of marriage is sin, same sex sex will always be a sin no matter what kind of approval they get from a government...

[mepps1]

I should know better than to argue with people who can find a way to rationalize anything through faith, but--

Are you saying that diseases are the result of choices that men make? If God is omnipotent, why does he permit diseases? Men don't create disease- but they often find cures for God's diseases.



I'm not sure anyone could give you an answer that you would find acceptable. I believe that what you might call "natural evil" (evil which results from natural processes, disease, disaster, etc) is a direct consequence of the Fall of Man. I believe that this is a rational answer for a difficult question. But in all honesty, I don't think that I would come to the same conclusion apart from Scripture. In other words, I think I can present a rational case for this, but I'm not sure it's an answer that you or I would come to intuitively. Thus I'm not sure that this is an answer that you would ever consider.


Or lets look at people living in poverty and disease in Africa and India. Even if you want to hold their political leaders accountable for the choices they make, are you saying that these poor people should suffer for the decisions of their leaders? Are they really reaping the consequences of their own violations of God's law? If so, your God is pretty nasty, and not very full of love and compassion.



The very deffinition of "sin" is the act of making decisions which are contrary to the good of other people. If there was no sin, would there be any meaningful choice? Would any act be morally good, if there were no morally wrong choices? Would goodness even be goodness if it were impossible to do wrong? Would it be possible to do wrong if no act had repercussions outside yourself?

[mepps1]

POL and mepps, great posts. POL, don't know if you are familiar with M, string and superstring theories but they mesh with some of what you are saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory


Mepps: If we accept the existence of one God and it is simply a matter of defining him, what if he is simply this higher law? What if God is nothing more than the laws of Nature? Just a rulebook that governs the way stuff works? Even worse, maybe we are Gods as Marcus alluded to.

I think that in absence of any other higher power, that the Laws of Nature would indeed be God. God is whatever is the Ultimate Reality. To accept that the laws of nature is effectively God, raises other questions that I don't believe can be answered satisfactorily;

As I understand it, most physicists theorize that time, space, matter, and physical law all had their birth in the Big Bang. Physics being the bed rock of science, how can the "laws of nature" be God if they are no older than the time and space they govern? It would seem unlikely that one could exist apart from the other.

Discoveries in the field of Quantum Physics have raised a lot of other significant questions. I don't know how one could study it at all without concluding that Man, or at least "Conciousness" is something of a god, seeing that our awareness of the natural world, in and of itself, profoundly affects the natural world! (If you are reading this and don't know what I'm talking about, go YouTube- Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experimentfor starters. The key point of wonder is the collapse of the wave function of matter) Though our brain is affected by matter, it seems clear that our conciousness measurably affects matter. So I don't know how one reasonably conclude that matter or physical law is God, since our observation of matter so clearly affects both. Observed particles behave as particles while those not observe behave as waves.

The manifest weirdness of quantum physics raises another question in my mind. That is, how would the wave form of matter collapse at any point before concious observation? So what really existed as more than a probability before there was anyone there to see it?

Stating that man is a kind of god is entirely a seperate matter from concluding that mankind is God. If you conclude that the mind man is God, you are left with all the same problems raised by belief in a concious God, with one other as well. That is that unlike a concious, pre-existent God, man is undeniably an agent of deliberate evil in the world.

So who, or what is the real Prime Mover?

[gogators27]

The very deffinition of "sin" is the act of making decisions which are contrary to the good of other people. If there was no sin, would there be any meaningful choice? Would any act be morally good, if there were no morally wrong choices? Would goodness even be goodness if it were impossible to do wrong? Would it be possible to do wrong if no act had repercussions outside yourself?

Mepps this is really making some good sense, thanks for posting sounds just like what a prophet said back in 570 A.D. :
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/11-13

[POL]

POL and mepps, great posts. POL, don't know if you are familiar with M, string and superstring theories but they mesh with some of what you are saying.



Actually I am familiar with the theories. With amusement I studied one than another, and so on. I will admit that the combined theory does have merit. However I still have a hard time accepting the M-theory as a leading theory.
The theory is nothing new, just a bit refined over time.
I am a bit interested in Stephen Hawkins latest work. The little I heard about it, it seems that he is doing a 180 from his previous thinking. In any case, it seems like a fresh idea, so it will be interesting.

Yeah, I know my statements need a bit refining, but you have to understand that i formulated the hypothesis as I was writing the response. Just some stuff that popped in my mind at the time.

But if you don't mind, I will sit this one out. This topic being still on track, took a turn into an area that I do not wish to discuss or argue.

[Nerka]

The very deffinition of "sin" is the act of making decisions which are contrary to the good of other people.

Mepps this is really making some good sense,

So if you accept this definition of sin, then how is homosexuality a sin?

[Nerka]

"Overt?", our stance on family values and Marriage has always and will always be anything but "overt". Sex outside of marriage is sin, same sex sex will always be a sin no matter what kind of approval they get from a government...

You just stated the GOD gives humans the choice to sin or not sin, your fellow parishioners want to deny God's will to allow people to make their own choices.

What would Jesus do? There were homosexuals back in year one, did he preach hate toward them? Did he say they should be treated like second class citizens?

[North Star]

Nerka - Homosexuality is a sin because God defines it as a sin in numerous places in the Bible, both in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

Jesus preached against homosexuality and adultery and all other sexual perversions every time He preached against fornication - a term that encompasses every sexual perversion.

We oppose homosexual marriage for the same reason we oppose homosexuality - it is contrary to God's design for human sexuality. It is wrong, because God says it is wrong. End of story. It is also destructive to those who practice it, as is any sin.

Sins that have social impacts, like stealing and lying, are appropriate objects of social regulation. That is why it is appropriate to regulate marriage - it has impacts not just on those who engage in it, but on the rest of society as well. Society therefore has a right to regulate it. Seven million people in California agreed.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman, any other form of marriage is socially destructive, and therefore, society has the right to restrict it. That is why 30 states have done so.

[Nerka]

Nerka - Homosexuality is a sin because God defines it as a sin in numerous places in the Bible, both in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

Jesus preached against homosexuality and adultery and all other sexual perversions every time He preached against fornication - a term that encompasses every sexual perversion.

We oppose homosexual marriage for the same reason we oppose homosexuality - it is contrary to God's design for human sexuality. It is wrong, because God says it is wrong. End of story. It is also destructive to those who practice it, as is any sin.

Sins that have social impacts, like stealing and lying, are appropriate objects of social regulation. That is why it is appropriate to regulate marriage - it has impacts not just on those who engage in it, but on the rest of society as well. Society therefore has an right to regulate it. Seven million people in California agreed.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman, any other form of marriage is socially destructive, and therefore, society has the right to restrict it. That is why 30 states have done so.



1: God does have infinite wisdom, goodness, power and love, he also has given us his children freedom to choose for ourselves right or wrong.

What kind of father would take his childrens freedom to choose away? What kind of children would result? In Gods infinite wisdom he realizes that we must experience pain if we are to know what pleasure is, misery to know happyness, etc...



OK try and follow me here
1) According to the above God in his infinite wisdom gave his children the right to choose right or wrong
2) Some view homosexuality as wrong
3) Some are trying to remove the right for Gods children to choose this wrong


So why do you feel that should take away Gods gift of choice?
also I'll reask
What would Jesus do?
There were homosexuals back in year one, did he preach hate toward them?
Did he say they should be treated like second class citizens?

[Nerka]

Sins that have social impacts, like stealing and lying, are appropriate objects of social regulation. That is why it is appropriate to regulate marriage - it has impacts not just on those who engage in it, but on the rest of society as well. Society therefore has an right to regulate it. Seven million people in California agreed.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman, any other form of marriage is socially destructive, and therefore, society has the right to restrict it. That is why 30 states have done so.

These are non-God arguments which are easily countered with obvious examples of things that were once socially normal (e.g slavery, racism, beating your wife) are now not.

[gogators27]

OK try and follow me here
1) According to the above God in his infinite wisdom gave his children the right to choose right or wrong
2) Some view homosexuality as wrong
3) Some are trying to remove the right for Gods children to choose this wrong


So why do you feel that should take away Gods gift of choice?
also I'll reask
What would Jesus do?
There were homosexuals back in year one, did he preach hate toward them?
Did he say they should be treated like second class citizens?

you are skipping a few steps in your logic. Nobody can remove anybodys right to same sex sex, just as nobody can stop you from doing any other form of adultery or fornication. The consequences of such sins have been outlined well in the scriptures.

another gap in your logic, you skip from God's veiw to our governments veiw. God told adam not to partake of the forbidden fruit, never the less he let him choose and gave adam the consequences.

What would Jesus do, the better question would be, what is Jesus doing? :thumps: He has said through his apostles and prophets the following:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=5fd30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[gogators27]

Here it is(what Jesus said through his prophets) in Long form for those of you too lazy to click on a link. This was sent by the church to Government Leaders around the world:


In 1995, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” This proclamation is a declaration and reaffirmation of doctrines and practices that prophets have stated repeatedly throughout the history of the Church. It contains principles that are vital to the happiness and well-being of every family. Family members should study the proclamation and should live by its precepts.

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World”

“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

“In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
“We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

“Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. ‘Children are an heritage of the Lord’ (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

“The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

“We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

“We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society” (Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102).

[inletsurf]

What would Jesus do? There were homosexuals back in year one, did he preach hate toward them? Did he say they should be treated like second class citizens?

A woman was found guilty of adultery, John 8: 3-4. In Jewish law adultery was considered punishable by death. In an effort to conflict Jesus with Jewish law, he was asked whether or not he agreed that she should be executed he replied "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". Frustrated, the mob dispersed. After they had left, Jesus asked the woman if there were anyone left to condemn her. When replied that no one was left, Jesus stated, "and neither do I condemn you - go and sin no more".

Also, remember this: Jesus was also treated as a second class citizen. He wasn't considered royalty, he wasn't a part of the high society. He wandered among the beggars, the lepers and diseased, the sinners and outcasts. He was criticized and condemned for having associated with such.

[Nerka]

Nobody can remove anybodys right to same sex sex


This is were you need to open up a bit. First the homosexual unit is not about sex anymore than a heterosexual unit is. Second, yes the right for these same sex units to exist is being infringed upon.

[Nerka]

Here it is(what Jesus said through his prophets) in Long form for those of you too lazy to click on a link. This was sent by the church to Government Leaders around the world:
.
To be honest I don't care what your church claims is written on gold tablets.
I find it very interesting that religion which was supposedly founded on understanding and humility is so full of hate and hypocrites.

[Nerka]

A woman was found guilty of adultery, John 8: 3-4. In Jewish law adultery was considered punishable by death. In an effort to conflict Jesus with Jewish law, he was asked whether or not he agreed that she should be executed he replied "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone". Frustrated, the mob dispersed. After they had left, Jesus asked the woman if there were anyone left to condemn her. When replied that no one was left, Jesus stated, "and neither do I condemn you - go and sin no more".

Also, remember this: Jesus was also treated as a second class citizen. He wasn't considered royalty, he wasn't a part of the high society. He wandered among the beggars, the lepers and diseased, the sinners and outcasts. He was criticized and condemned for having associated with such.

That is an awesome quote. I'm a flaming atheist but I have to say if Jesus existed he was cool dude, too bad his supposed followers have desecrated his message. I see a lot of stones being thrown by people with a bible in one hand and a rock in the other.

[Bill McIntyre]

To be honest I don't care what your church claims is written on gold tablets.

Nor do other Christian sects care what his modern "prophets" say. Its laughable.

I find it very interesting that religion which was supposedly founded on understanding and humility is so full of hate and hypocrites.

Me too. So many of these people seem to focus on the Old Testament rather than the message of Christ.

[gogators27]

This is were you need to open up a bit. First the homosexual unit is not about sex anymore than a heterosexual unit is. Second, yes the right for these same sex units to exist is being infringed upon.

Again, talk to your government officials and fellow citizens about it, they all have their own vote. If the majority decide they would not like the definition of marriage changed from God's definition then it will not be changed... unless activist judges get their way:eek:... it's called a democracy my brother...:thumps:

As was noted earlier Christ said, "Go and Sin no More";)

[Bill McIntyre]

Again, talk to your government officials and fellow citizens about it, they all have their own vote. If the majority decide they would not like the definition of marriage changed from God's definition then it will not be changed... unless activist judges get their way:eek:... it's called a democracy my brother...:thumps:



If the majority decided to ban guns, judges would over ride the majority. Its called "constitutional democracy."

[Nerka]

Again, talk to your government officials and fellow citizens about it, they all have their own vote. If the majority decide they would not like the definition of marriage changed from God's definition then it will not be changed... unless activist judges get their way:eek:... it's called a democracy my brother...:thumps:

As was noted earlier Christ said, "Go and Sin no More";)

We are talking about the churches involvement in the issue and how they feel the need to push an agenda that is not aligned with the spirit of Christ.

[Mattedhead]

What's next???? Arguing the tooth fairy...the almighty Santa Claus?

Organized religion does not have a monopoly on what is wrong and what is right...I certainly don't need to follow the teachings of an ~2000yo mythological text to be a good person or a benefit to society. It is not necessary for a happy, fulfilling life.........unreal.

The christianity that many of you are preaching needs a heavy dose of reality, science, logic, and common sense...but then, I suppose that might make religion far less relevant in today's society. It certainly wouldn't be as profitable either.

[Nerka]

As was noted earlier Christ said, "Go and Sin no More";)

Correct, so let homosexuals marry and if they wish to stop "sinning" be ready to "fix" them

[gogators27]

To be honest I don't care what your church claims is written on gold tablets.
I find it very interesting that religion which was supposedly founded on understanding and humility is so full of hate and hypocrites.

If you truly hated somone you would excuse this sinful behavior and leave them to their own unhappyness. Love would modivate you to help them understand the error of their ways so that they can repent and be blessed.

Hate the sin, not the sinner! I know you don't care but do the following articles written about Homosexuality sound like hate to you?


http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=0dc97fae6f3eb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=43786e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[gogators27]

We are talking about the churches involvement in the issue and how they feel the need to push an agenda that is not aligned with the spirit of Christ.

Here is what Christ said through his prophets “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society”

Sounds pretty in line to me...

[Nerka]

If you truly hated somone you would excuse this sinful behavior and leave them to their own unhappyness. Love would modivate you to help them understand the error of their ways so that they can repent and be blessed.

Hate the sin, not the sinner! I know you don't care but do the following articles written about Homosexuality sound like hate to you?


http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=0dc97fae6f3eb010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=43786e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

I’m sure your church can talk the talk but again they are not walking the walking. The passage of Proposition 8 was directed hate toward the sinner (e.g. removal of personal rights) not the sin, as even you have pointed out.

I urge you to dig a bit deeper into the history of homosexuality and LDS, lots of suicides, excommunication and abuse but I doubt you find mention of that in the official church readings. I would also encourage you to read up on the true history of your religion, maybe start with books authored by these people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Six

[gogators27]

I suppose that might make religion far less relevant in today's society. It certainly wouldn't be as profitable either.

Follow the Money! I invite you do that very thing, The Church of Jesus Christ is definately not modivated by money by a long shot. Leadership and members all volunteer their time to serve the church. Missionaries (around 60,000 right now) pay thier own way to go preach worldwide for 2 years when they are 19 years old.

[Nerka]

Follow the Money! I invite you do that very thing, The Church of Jesus Christ is definately not modivated by money by a long shot. Leadership and members all volunteer their time to serve the church. Missionaries (around 60,000 right now) pay thier own way to go preach worldwide for 2 years when they are 19 years old.
Are you serious? LDS knows exactly how much every member makes and who has paid their 10%

From a Mormom
"I stopped paying tithing several months ago. My wife asked me yesterday if I still planned to go with her to tithing settlement at the end of the year. It made me shutter.

I can't think of any other religion that shakes down members for contributions the way the Mormons do. Yes, other churche pass around baskets and pressure you into giving money. But the Mormons require (yes, it is required) that members attending a meeting with the bishop at the end of the year to state, on the record, if they have paid a full tithe. If you have not, for any reason, you will be lectured on the need to repent and come back into compliance with the law of tithing.

I spoke with my wife about how odd tithing settlement is when you think about it. She said it is largely to get tax records and so the bishop can socialize with you for a few minutes. That is so obviously silly that it is not worth the effort to refute. The church has way too many personal worthiness interviews. Tithing settlement, temple recommends (which have a big tithing component) and PPIs. I think tithing settlement is the worst.

Someone once told me in the early days they would have people stand up in sacrament meeting and declare if they were a full tithe payer in front of everyone. I don't know if that is true. Does anyone know the history of tithing settlement as we know it today? When did the church start calling everyone in to make them state on the record if they are paying a full tithe?"

http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon373.htm
http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Liahona/2000.htm/liahona%20december%202000.htm/the%20significance%20of%20tithing%20settlement.htm

[gogators27]

Are you serious? LDS knows exactly how much every member makes and who has paid their 10%

WoW, I should call my bishop then and ask him how much money I made last year:D Then he will say with his volunteered time, I have no idea, but you did tell me that you were a full tithe payer so that's all I need to know:p

We most definately pay tithing, that tithing goes to building Gods Kingdom and humanitarian aid, not preachers, organists, missionaries, sunday school teachers, etc...

[Nerka]

WoW, I should call my bishop then and ask him how much money I made last year:D Then he will say with his volunteered time, I have no idea, but you did tell me that you were a full tithe payer so that's all I need to know:p

I bet you dollars to dime they know

We most definately pay tithing, that tithing goes to building Gods Kingdom and humanitarian aid, not preachers, organists, missionaries, sunday school teachers, etc...
You know this how? When was last time the LDS released a full financial statement? Not in the last 40+ years.....



"The Church does not release financial statements to the general public or even to the general membership, and has not since roughly 1963."
http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com/mormon_inquiry/2004/10/wheres_that_tit.html

LDS Revenues and Assets

Here's a follow-up to yesterday's post on where tithing money goes--I feel like, having broached the subject, I should post what numbers are available. Chapter 7 of the Ostlings' Mormon America (HarperSanFrancisco, 1999) provides reasonable estimates of LDS assets and annual tithing revenues, based on publicly available data, prior estimates by other authors and journalists, and their own interviews of LDS leaders and informants.

As of 1999, estimated annual revenues were $5.9 billion, of which approximately $600 million was income from securities and Church-owned businesses, and the balance from tithing (p. 115). When these figures were first published, the official response from the Church was that the authors "greatly exaggerated" LDS income and wealth, but the LDS spokesman "did not provide even the vaguest hints as to what was wrong and what the truth might be . . ." (p. 115).

The asset estimates were presented in an appendix, which put total LDS assets as of 1999 "in the range of $25-30 billion" (p. 400). This was composed of investments (a portfolio of $1 billion plus direct investments like Beneficial Life and Bonneville totalling about $5 billion), real estate (ranches and farms, $5 billion), LDS schools and universities (about $1 billion, mostly BYU), and chapels and temples ($18 billion, which includes both the land and the structures) (p. 398-400). They quote an estimated price tag of $18 million per temple (p. 399), but that may derive from the traditional mega-temple architecture (San Diego, Washington DC) rather than the newer suburban (Newport Beach) and mini-temple designs. Excluding chapels and temples, and figuring about 6 million active Mormons, that works out to assets of about $2000 per active Mormon. Maybe I've been living in California too long, but $2000 per person doesn't seem like that large a figure to me.

Another interesting figure offered by the Ostlings is expenditures on humanitarian aid. They say the Church reported humanitarian aid expenditures of $30.7 million in total from 1984 to 1997 (p. 128). Compare this with the similarly-sized Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which provided humanitarian cash to the tune of $15.44 million in 1997 alone, not to mention various "assistance programs" providing "medical and educational" help (p. 129). This lends some credence to the idea that most LDS have an exaggerated idea of the extent to which tithing donations are directed to humanitarian purposes. It also offers a possible rationale for the recent emphasis on service projects by local wards and stakes, a non-cash vehicle for filling a perceived humanitarian services PR gap. Finally, I should note that the Ostlings do note that "in their commodity production and welfare systems, the Latter-day Saints have created and maintained a remarkably massive and efficient mechanism for meeting human needs of their own members" (p. 129).


http://www.mormoninquiry.com/2004/10/lds_revenues_an.html

[jadairiii]

Nerka - Homosexuality is a sin because God defines it as a sin in numerous places in the Bible, both in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament.

Jesus preached against homosexuality and adultery and all other sexual perversions every time He preached against fornication - a term that encompasses every sexual perversion.

We oppose homosexual marriage for the same reason we oppose homosexuality - it is contrary to God's design for human sexuality. It is wrong, because God says it is wrong. End of story. It is also destructive to those who practice it, as is any sin.

Sins that have social impacts, like stealing and lying, are appropriate objects of social regulation. That is why it is appropriate to regulate marriage - it has impacts not just on those who engage in it, but on the rest of society as well. Society therefore has an right to regulate it. Seven million people in California agreed.

Marriage is to be between one man and one woman, any other form of marriage is socially destructive, and therefore, society has the right to restrict it. That is why 30 states have done so.

Oh why do I continually get pulled into this, but here is goes:

North Star, there is a flaw in your reasoning, Jesus not only preached against sin (all sins) he also preached that we should not judge others, that we should love our enemies and that we should be the "light" unto the world. And here is the kicker, we are saved by Grace, since we are all sinners and fall short of the "Glory of God".

Also, Jesus did not rank sins. So logically, your "sin" is no “worse or better” then the "sin" of homosexually. Remember what Jesus said "he without sin cast the first stone". If I remember right no one threw any stones. I do not claim to be without sin.

We should all “preach” against hunger, child abuse, ignorance and waste. And IMHO, spending tax payer money on issues like steroids in sports and gay marriage is a HUGE waste.

But aren’t we off topic here, wasn’t this about there not being any Miracles? Find someone that cannot swim and who’s only knowledge of the ocean comes from watching JAWS and Shark Week and try to explain to them the beauty and the thrill of witnessing a GW in open water (or any shark for that matter); the same response I get if I tried to tell a “non-believer” of the miracles I have witnessed.

The blind man does not know what darkness is.

[gogators27]

I bet you dollars to dime they know

You know this how? When was last time the LDS released a full financial statement? Not in the last 40+ years.....



"The Church does not release financial statements to the general public or even to the general membership, and has not since roughly 1963."
http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com/mormon_inquiry/2004/10/wheres_that_tit.html

LDS Revenues and Assets

Here's a follow-up to yesterday's post on where tithing money goes--I feel like, having broached the subject, I should post what numbers are available. Chapter 7 of the Ostlings' Mormon America (HarperSanFrancisco, 1999) provides reasonable estimates of LDS assets and annual tithing revenues, based on publicly available data, prior estimates by other authors and journalists, and their own interviews of LDS leaders and informants.

As of 1999, estimated annual revenues were $5.9 billion, of which approximately $600 million was income from securities and Church-owned businesses, and the balance from tithing (p. 115). When these figures were first published, the official response from the Church was that the authors "greatly exaggerated" LDS income and wealth, but the LDS spokesman "did not provide even the vaguest hints as to what was wrong and what the truth might be . . ." (p. 115).

The asset estimates were presented in an appendix, which put total LDS assets as of 1999 "in the range of $25-30 billion" (p. 400). This was composed of investments (a portfolio of $1 billion plus direct investments like Beneficial Life and Bonneville totalling about $5 billion), real estate (ranches and farms, $5 billion), LDS schools and universities (about $1 billion, mostly BYU), and chapels and temples ($18 billion, which includes both the land and the structures) (p. 398-400). They quote an estimated price tag of $18 million per temple (p. 399), but that may derive from the traditional mega-temple architecture (San Diego, Washington DC) rather than the newer suburban (Newport Beach) and mini-temple designs. Excluding chapels and temples, and figuring about 6 million active Mormons, that works out to assets of about $2000 per active Mormon. Maybe I've been living in California too long, but $2000 per person doesn't seem like that large a figure to me.

Another interesting figure offered by the Ostlings is expenditures on humanitarian aid. They say the Church reported humanitarian aid expenditures of $30.7 million in total from 1984 to 1997 (p. 128). Compare this with the similarly-sized Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, which provided humanitarian cash to the tune of $15.44 million in 1997 alone, not to mention various "assistance programs" providing "medical and educational" help (p. 129). This lends some credence to the idea that most LDS have an exaggerated idea of the extent to which tithing donations are directed to humanitarian purposes. It also offers a possible rationale for the recent emphasis on service projects by local wards and stakes, a non-cash vehicle for filling a perceived humanitarian services PR gap. Finally, I should note that the Ostlings do note that "in their commodity production and welfare systems, the Latter-day Saints have created and maintained a remarkably massive and efficient mechanism for meeting human needs of their own members" (p. 129).


http://www.mormoninquiry.com/2004/10/lds_revenues_an.html

Wow, so are you saying that some Mormon Sunday school teachers do get paid? If so they I am really getting the shaft:D Jk

I know this because I have met these people my entire life and their modivations to serve have nothing to do with money. I have met some of the Apostles and Prophets and they literally waste and wear out thier lives on a schedule that you would not believe serving in the kingdom of God at great sacrifice to themselves and thier families.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation”

Don't have time to go through all your financials that you posted but I will tell you are getting information from sources that hate the church, and generally these people will mix some good and false information together in an attepmt to try to make the church look bad, I am willing to bet (if I were a betting man)

[Nerka]

Here is good article
San Francisco -- My husband and I, Tyler, the featured couple in the recent documentary 8: The Mormon Proposition, were present at the courthouse this past week when Judge Vaughn Walker issued his 136-page decision in the case challenging California's Proposition 8. His words, issued as they were as part of a thorough, compelling edict bearing the imprimatur of a Federal Court of the United States of America, were powerful: "Moral disapproval alone, is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and women. . . The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage."

Thank you, Judge Walker. Your words, for us, are long overdue.
2010-08-08-Still268TheMormonProposition2.jpg
I met Tyler while home in Utah on winter break from college in December of 2001. He was twenty, I was twenty-three. The connection was immediate, the elation and emotion I felt new and exciting. But trouble lay ahead. Tyler and I were both from religiously devout Mormon families. We'd been taught from a young age that marriage was the ultimate goal for this life -- to grow up and find a life partner with whom one could share all of life's joys and trials, to start one's own family, and to instill in one's own children good values. We were also taught that to be gay was an abomination second only to murder.

And as a former Mormon missionary who worked very hard for two years in Japan to share what I thought at the time was the ultimate and complete message of truth, hope, and happiness, I struggled a long time to reconcile being gay with being Mormon. Sadly, many Mormon gays and lesbians don't prevail in that struggle. But thankfully, in large part because I'd found Tyler and was feeling for the first time the joy and wholeness that comes with allowing oneself to love and be loved, my personal convictions and relationship with God evolved. No omnipotent God, I became convinced, would deny any of us the opportunity to lead a life that is fully lived, fully shared, or fully loved.

Fast forward six years. The California Supreme Court, in May of 2008, found that the state's denial of the recognition of civil marriage and its attendant rights and protections to gay and lesbian couples violated equal protection. Our deeply engrained Mormon ethos kicked in, and we knew it was time to take our relationship to the next step -- to take on the ultimate, solid, and commonly understood status of a committed relationship. It was time to get married, time to start our own family. So we did, on June 17, the first day it was legal to do so, among a frenzy of media and happy couples at San Francisco's City Hall. It was a beautiful, historic day, full of love, commitment, and community.

The ink wasn't dry on our marriage certificate, however, before opponents of marriage equality kicked their efforts into high gear to permanently ban same-sex marriage in California with a constitutional amendment -- to pass Proposition 8. The next five months were a surreal time, as we saw our relationship demonized and attacked from all sides in misleading television ads, by confused and fearful emails from friends and families, by political grand-standing by politicians we'd previously trusted. The amount of misinformation being spewed was appalling. How did the basic issues of tolerance, equal rights, the separation of church and state so quickly become twisted and warped? By the time Prop 8 passed, by a slim 4-point margin, on November 5, 2008, a principal reason for its success was already clear: the involvement and financing by Mormon Church members.

Mormons make up only 2-percent of California's population, yet Mormon members contributed as much as 71% of the money, 90% of the volunteers, and much of the behind-the-scenes organization and messaging. It was frightening to see a single church--working in concert with other faith groups -- plainly and unabashedly leapfrog the religion/state divide to spearhead a political campaign that essentially wrote its own religious views into the Constitution of our state. And it was equally heartbreaking to see this church, an organization that purports to champion family values, inevitably tear families apart because of its efforts. My own family was quick to flatly refuse support for our marriage, and a painful rift emerged between us that only deepened as the Prop 8 fight heated up. When my hometown newspaper in Utah rejected our wedding announcement, causing a media brouhaha in the state, several siblings wrote letters to the editor in support of his discriminatory decision. Prop 8 turned our family upside down. And its passing brought a stinging slap of indignity that I'd not felt before. A majority of the people of the state of California spoke loud and clear: Tyler and I don't deserve the same legal rights and protections afforded everyone else.

Thankfully, the level of Mormon involvement in the Prop 8 fight has not gone unnoticed. Soon after its passage, Tyler and I were asked to share our story with Reed Cowan, a documentary filmmaker. Reed assembled an astounding array of stories from other Mormons, as well as a mountain of documents, financial disclosures, lobbying videos, and other evidence into a new film titled 8: The Mormon Proposition. The documentary, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and released to theaters in June and to DVD last month, serves as an emotional outcry against the Mormon Church's extensive involvement with Prop 8 and its historical mistreatment of its gay and lesbian members. It is instrumental in bringing needed transparency to and accountability for the real harm that has resulted from the Church's efforts.

Tyler and I have already seen the impact of sharing our story in 8: The Mormon Proposition. At screening after screening, audience members conveyed their outrage, their regret, and their new resolve to continue the fight for equal rights for gays and lesbians. We may have lost the battle, but we will not lose the war. Our central foe in this fight is not the Mormon Church, of course. It's the more fundamental misinformation and fear that breeds intolerance and discrimination. Through my experience with the documentary, I've become convinced that there's really only one way we can ultimately prevail against the false stereotypes and bogeyman myths: we must all commit to telling our stories and to showing our neighbors, co-workers, and faith groups who we are and why marriage and equal rights is important to us.

It was Harvey Milk who famously said "If they know us, they don't vote against us." We've got Judge Walker's vote, but we've still got a long way to go to the Supreme Court and in the broader court of public opinion. I hope you'll join us in telling your story and in helping to put a human face on this issue. As Tyler says at the conclusion of 8: The Mormon Proposition: "It's simple, it's just love."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/spencer-jones/from-a-mormon-gay-couple_b_674933.html

[Nerka]

Wow, so are you saying that some Mormon Sunday school teachers do get paid? If so they I am really getting the shaft:D Jk

I know this because I have met these people my entire life and their modivations to serve have nothing to do with money. I have met some of the Apostles and Prophets and they literally waste and wear out thier lives on a schedule that you would not believe serving in the kingdom of God at great sacrifice to themselves and thier families.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation”

Don't have time to go through all your financials that you posted but I will tell you are getting information from sources that hate the church, and generally these people will mix some good and false information together in an attepmt to try to make the church look bad, I am willing to bet (if I were a betting man)
If everything is above the board then why don't they release a financial statement?

[Bill McIntyre]

Here is good article


It sure is, but it won't change the hate that Mormons insist on characterizing as love.

Doublespeak is their native language.

[Nerka]

It sure is, but it won't change the hate that Mormons insist on characterizing as love.

Doublespeak is their native language.

Bill, you are right
OK I'm signing off, maybe the taxman that has been hanging out in La Jolla wants to talk about Jesus.

[gogators27]

Also, Jesus did not rank sins. So logically, your "sin" is no “worse or better” then the "sin" of homosexually.

This is true in the fact that we all sin and all come short of the glory of God and therefore without Christ's Atonement would be lost, no matter how serious the sin it will still keep you from returning to live with God if you do not repent.

As far as the worse or better sins, some are definately worse and harder to repent for than others. Denying the holy Ghost is actually the only unpardenable sin. Murder and Sexual sin are the most serious sins because they play with Gods plan for his other children in the largest way.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill - I should know better than to argue with people with blinded minds, (2Corinthians 4:3-4 - look it up) but--

I am indeed saying that diseases and all other bad things that happen on this earth are the result of the sinful choice that man made in the garden of Eden, when he chose to rebel against God. Before the fall of Adam and Eve there were no diseases, indeed, there was no death.

God created a perfect world, gave man a free will to choose his own destiny, and mankind screwed it up. He brought misery upon himself. Read Genesis 1-3.



I couldn't help recalling what you said while I watched the news last night and saw the horror being endured by the people of Pakistan.

1600 dead

2-5 million homeless

895,000 homes damaged or destroyed

7.9 million acres of crops destroyed

3.5 million kids at risk of waterborne diseases

And according to you, all that is because Adam and Eve rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden.

First, do you really believe in a literal Garden of Eden with a literal Adam and Eve. Do you ignore all the evidence of evolution? Are Lucy and other early hominids hoaxes? Even my wife's Catholic Church accepts evolution.

But assuming that simplistic concept of creation that ignores all scientific evidence is true, is God still getting even over Adam and Eve? When your God gets offended, he really holds a grudge doesn't he. He is one insecure vindictive bastard.

Or is God punishing the people of Pakistan because they are almost all Muslim?

After watching the piece on TV, my wife jumped onto the computer and donated $100 for relief. Sure, its a drop in the bucket compared to the need, but if enough others contribute, it can help.

But from your point of view, did my wife try to thwart the will of God? Will she be immersed in that lake of fire by your loving compassionate God?

[gogators27]

Elder Dallin H. Oaks chose a devotional at BYU-I last fall as the venue to deliver an address on this very subject.[ii] That address promises to become a classic—a benchmark. Here are some excerpts from that talk:

“Speaking of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the ‘free exercise’ of religion—our sometimes-stated ‘first freedom,’ [one author] said, ‘[U]nless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom?’

“A writer for The Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be ‘very secular and religiously antagonistic,’ with intolerance of Christianity ‘ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.’ Other wise observers have noted the ever-growing, relentless attack on the Christian religion by forces who reject the existence or authority of God. The extent and nature of religious devotion in this nation is changing. The tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding, and this probably portends public pressures for laws that will impinge on religious freedom.”

Elder Oaks continued:

“There is a growing anti-religious bigotry in the United States. . . . For three decades people of faith have watched a systematic and very effective effort waged in the courts and the media to drive them from the public square and to delegitimize their participation in politics as somehow threatening. For example, a prominent gay-rights spokesman gave this explanation for his objection to our Church’s position on California’s Proposition 8: ‘I’m not intending it to harm the religion. I think they do wonderful things. Nicest people. . . . My single goal is to get them out of the same-sex marriage business and back to helping hurricane victims.’ ”

And then he said:

“A [significant] threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged ‘civil right’ of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage. We have endured a wave of media-reported charges that the Mormons are trying to ‘deny’ people or ‘strip’ people of their ‘rights.’ After a significant majority of California voters (seven million — over 52 percent) approved Proposition 8’s limiting marriage to a man and a woman, some opponents characterized the vote as denying people their civil rights. In fact, the Proposition 8 battle was not about civil rights, but about what equal rights demand and what religious rights protect. At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.”

[jadairiii]

....some are definately worse and harder to repent for than others.....

Says who? Jesus Christ? Did we forget the story of the Prodigal Son? The last shall be first...........

Maybe I missed it but I don’t remember Jesus giving a "how to" list of repenting based on category of sin.

[North Star]

Jadairiii - Thanks for your response.

You said: Oh why do I continually get pulled into this, but here is goes:

The reason why is because truth matters, doesn't it?

North Star, there is a flaw in your reasoning, Jesus not only preached against sin (all sins) he also preached that we should not judge others,

He did preach against sin, all sin. He did not preach that we should not judge others - only that we should not do so hypocritically. Read not just Matthew 7:1, but Matthew 7:5 as well. It is impossible not to judge. Your response to me was a judgment of what I had said, and in many respects a rejection of it. That was a judgment on your part. Just saying "don't judge" is itself a judgment; the statement itself is self-contradictory. Instead, the standard set forth by Jesus is in John 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment."

that we should love our enemies and that we should be the "light" unto the world. And here is the kicker, we are saved by Grace, since we are all sinners and fall short of the "Glory of God".

I totally agree with this statement.


Also, Jesus did not rank sins. So logically, your "sin" is no “worse or better” then the "sin" of homosexually. Remember what Jesus said "he without sin cast the first stone". If I remember right no one threw any stones. I do not claim to be without sin.

I did not say I was better than a homosexual. I am not. I am a wretched sinner in need of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as much as any person.

The story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8:3-11 is badly abused by many. It is a prohibition against condemming another for the same sin you are guilty of, without condemming your self with the same condemnation you express towards them.

Jesus did not condem her because he was not witness to the crime and therefore would not execute sentence against a crime he did not witness personally.

Jesus upheld the validity of the law of Moses. He said: let the stone be cast. But he disqualified the accusers - if they were going to stone the woman, they would have to stone themselves, because they were guilty of adultery as well. Perhaps He wrote the names of their partners in adultery in the sand before their eyes, exposing their hypocrisy before their eyes. Why else would they be convicted in their own conscience and walk away?

The charge was apparently true. The woman did not deny it. Jesus condemmed the adultery when he said: Go and sin no more. It was a sin clear and simple, and she needed to stop it.


We should all “preach” against hunger, child abuse, ignorance and waste. And IMHO, spending tax payer money on issues like steroids in sports and gay marriage is a HUGE waste.

Well, we cannot be selective in what we preach about. We must uphold all the Bible upholds, and condemn all that the Bible condemns. The Bible condemns all the things you listed, including drug use and gay marriage.


But aren’t we off topic here, wasn’t this about there not being any Miracles? Find someone that cannot swim and who’s only knowledge of the ocean comes from watching JAWS and Shark Week and try to explain to them the beauty and the thrill of witnessing a GW in open water (or any shark for that matter); the same response I get if I tried to tell a “non-believer” of the miracles I have witnessed.

The blind man does not know what darkness is.

Yes, this conversation has wandered. They always do. I believe in miracles, because there is a God who can do them. He did one in my life when He took away my blindness and darkness and gave me eyes to see the light of His truth and the glory of His Son. Praise His Name.

[North Star]

Bill,

I couldn't help recalling what you said while I watched the news last night and saw the horror being endured by the people of Pakistan.

1600 dead

2-5 million homeless

895,000 homes damaged or destroyed

7.9 million acres of crops destroyed

3.5 million kids at risk of waterborne diseases

And according to you, all that is because Adam and Eve rebelled against God in the Garden of Eden.

That is correct. The wages of sin is death. God promised that result to Adam and Eve in the garden if they rebelled, and He kept His promise. The cost of sin is very high, because sin is very evil. That is why we should hate sin, flee from it, and seek salvation from it through faith in Jesus Christ.

But make no mistake. Each of those who died were sinners as well, and they, just like me, are all worthy of death for their sins. Adam and Eve introduced sin and death into the human race, but we have added our own sin to theirs, and are as guilty as they.



First, do you really believe in a literal Garden of Eden with a literal Adam and Eve.

Yes. Jesus did as well. Read Matt 19: 3-6. I side with Jesus in the matter.


Do you ignore all the evidence of evolution? Are Lucy and other early hominids hoaxes? Even my wife's Catholic Church accepts evolution.

Yeah, well, evolution is science fiction, and your wife's church is wrong. See the above quote from Jesus. He did not believe in evolution. He believed in direct creation.

However, there are enormous scientific problems with the theory (and that's all it is, a theory) of evolution. It has two insurmountable problems: 1. How does life arise from non life? The complexity of the cell proves the impossibility of this happening. Read Darwins Black Box by Michael Behe, and 2. What is the mechanism for transformation from one life form to another? Genetic mutation is ALL they have to offer, and it is a scientific FACT that it is an entirely inadequate mechanism to achieve such change. The "theory" is fatally flawed.


But assuming that simplistic concept of creation that ignores all scientific evidence is true, is God still getting even over Adam and Eve? When your God gets offended, he really holds a grudge doesn't he. He is one insecure vindictive bastard.

First of all, Bill, it does not advance your cause and argument to blaspheme and call God foul names. It only makes you look childish and angry. Grow up.

Secondly, God has not and will not "get over" Adam and Eve ever. Sin has eternal consequences that never go away. That is why it must be taken so seriously. That is why hell is eternal. That's why God in love sent a Savior to deliver us from eternal hell, because He knew how bad it really is.

You are offended at God's wrath against sin, instead, you should be overjoyed at God's deliverance from it. He made a way for you to escape the "vindictivness" of God, so why aren't you happy about that, and accept the terms of deliverance He has provided, so you will never experience that "vindictiveness"? And by the way, it is not vindictiveness, it is justice. There is a big difference. People may be vindictive, but God's vengeance is simply the execution of justice.


Or is God punishing the people of Pakistan because they are almost all Muslim?

While Islam is an evil and wicked religon, God does not single out Muslims for some kind of special punishment. God deals with every man according to his sin, whatever that sin may be, irrespective of the religon he is in.


After watching the piece on TV, my wife jumped onto the computer and donated $100 for relief. Sure, its a drop in the bucket compared to the need, but if enough others contribute, it can help.

But from your point of view, did my wife try to thwart the will of God? Will she be immersed in that lake of fire by your loving compassionate God?

Your wife did a good thing. God is pleased when we show mercy to others. He Himself is merciful. She is not fighting God, when she gives to mitigate human suffering caused by sin. The manifestation of Gods compassion and love for those whose sin He punishes, is that He raises up people to bind up the wounds that they have caused to themselves by their own sins.

God shows mercy in judgment, much like we do with our children when after we correct them, we dry their tears and hug them and give new displays of our love to them.

[Bill McIntyre]

First of all, Bill, it does not advance your cause and argument to blaspheme and call God foul names. It only makes you look childish and angry. Grow up.

It only makes God look childish and angry to be punishing people so severely for the sins of Adam and Eve. Its time for him to grow up and get into the love thing.

Secondly, God has not and will not "get over" Adam and Eve ever. Sin has eternal consequences that never go away. That is why it must be taken so seriously. That is why hell is eternal. That's why God in love sent a Savior to deliver us from eternal hell, because He knew how bad it really is.

But it doesn't seem to have worked. God still punished all those Pakistanis.


While Islam is an evil and wicked religon, God does not single out Muslims for some kind of special punishment. God deals with every man according to his sin, whatever that sin may be, irrespective of the religon he is in.

Are you saying that millions of Pakistanis all sinned so that they deserved to be punished by this flood? Isn't it likely that quite a few lived very moral and pious lives? Why did God have to take this shot gun approach and kill the good with the bad?


Your wife did a good thing. God is pleased when we show mercy to others.

She'll be delighted to hear that you approve. It came from a joint account- will God give me credit too?

He Himself is merciful. She is not fighting God, when she gives to mitigate human suffering caused by sin. The manifestation of Gods compassion and love for those whose sin He punishes, is that He raises up people to bind up the wounds that they have caused to themselves by their own sins.

God shows mercy in judgment, much like we do with our children when after we correct them, we dry their tears and hug them and give new displays of our love to them.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. God punished the Pakistanis, so its good that we mitigate the suffering. If he punished them, he wanted them to suffer. If he hadn't created the suffering, then we would not have been required to mitigate it. Is he going to dry the tears of the Pakistanis and give them new displays of love now that he got their attention by killing a bunch of them?

Conversations like this make me want to beat my head against the wall, but they do serve a purpose. They give me some insight into all the evil bullshit perpetrated in the name of God.

[mepps1]

Yes, this conversation has wandered. They always do. I believe in miracles, because there is a God who can do them. He did one in my life when He took away my blindness and darkness and gave me eyes to see the light of His truth and the glory of His Son. Praise His Name.

I think I confused people as to the position I was advocating. But it made a pretty good hook.;)

What I thought I made clear in the text of my statement is that I don't think there are miracles in the sense that people often think of miracles. That is, God doesn't reach down and bend the laws of physics, which laws He authored.

However, the Laws of Nature, as we know them, may not be the highest operative law in a given situation. It seems to me that physics, espescially quantum physics has been hinting at this for some time.

The apathy and hostility of the Christian church toward physics in general and toward the so-called Big Bang especially, puzzles me more than a little.

For some time physicists have been postulating that time, space, matter, and physics itself came into existence at a specific point in time. That sounds remarkably like "In the Beginning" to me. This same line of reasoning indicates that the universe will effectively end at some point as well, either with a new firey "contraction" of space, time, and matter or in something of a cold grave with the continued expansion of the universe as the clock winds down and entropy has its way. It only took physicists a few thousand years longer than the Bible to conclude that our world certainly will end at some point in time. Previously, only foolish preachers said anything so stupid and outlandish.

Sorry to interupt the debate on Proposition 8.

[spearstudtx]

I did a really good job staying out of the insanity that is posted on the last couple pages. After reading it though, it occurred to me how much bullshit a good portion of our populace can believe.

Surely, until we outgrow these kinds of beliefs, our society can never advance. I am not very hopeful after reading this thread.

gogators and NorthStar: I just denied the Holy Ghost for the 539th time (and my other sins are incalculable and I won't ever ask for forgiveness from your God). Lets see if he will send a tsunami my way. If not I would be satisfied with a meteor shower, starvation, or genocide. I will let you know how it goes.

Pray for me ;)

[spearstudtx]

It only took physicists a few thousand years longer than the Bible to conclude that our world certainly will end at some point in time. Previously, only foolish preachers said anything so stupid and outlandish.


I for one am not impressed. Our world will end and so will our civilization and so will everything. Nothing withstands time. You are going to have to come up with better ideas than The Beginning and The End to convince me.

Maybe if he would turn this water I am drinking into a Stella I would take your view on miracles as well.

[POL]

Nothing withstands time.

Well, that's a paradox in it self ;)

[North Star]

Bill said:


Conversations like this make me want to beat my head against the wall, but they do serve a purpose.

Yes, they do serve a purpose. They create a record that reveals each man's heart, and for which they will have to give account on the day of judgment.

Jesus said in Matthew 12:37 "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

[POL]

gogators and NorthStar: I just denied the Holy Ghost for the 539th time (and my other sins are incalculable and I won't ever ask for forgiveness from your God). Lets see if he will send a tsunami my way. If not I would be satisfied with a meteor shower, starvation, or genocide. I will let you know how it goes.

Pray for me ;)

I wouldn't worry to much. God is just, wise and merciful. If he punishes you during your lifetime and you pay for your sins than you already have been judged, there is no reason to send you to hell on the judgment day when the Savior returns. That would be double jeopardy.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill said:




Yes, they do serve a purpose. They create a record that reveals each man's heart, and for which they will have to give account on the day of judgment.

Jesus said in Matthew 12:37 "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

Oh shit!

And I use my real name in my posts, while you hide behind a user name. I guess you'll be safe if you happen to get it wrong.

[North Star]

Bill - My real name is Max Doner. I do not hide behind anything. Not to mention that God knows who I am even if I used a pseudonym. Can't hide anything from Him.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill - My real name is Max Doner. I do not hide behind anything. Not to mention that God knows who I am even if I used a pseudonym. Can't hide anything from Him.

That's great Max, but you still evaded all those inconsistencies that I addressed-


punishing all those Pakistanis for the sins of Adam and Eve

punishing all those Pakistanis with a shotgun approach when surely there were moral and pious Pakistanis

the fact that God needed to punish all those Pakistanis for the sins of Adam and Eve so that my wife and I could donate money to erase their suffering

Jesus came to save sinners from eternal hell, but God keeps giving them hell on earth because he still can't get over whatever his creations, Adam and Eve, did in the way of typical teen backtalk

In spite of your trying to scare me with the wrath of God for my blasphemy, I fear not because I don't believe in your God. When I die, I'll go back where I came from- nothingness. I'd love to have eternal life (although maybe not with a vindictive cruel bastard like your God) but I'm not going to make up a story and convince myself that its true. I think the world would be a better place if you could buck up and face reality yourself. Then you might be more focused on helping people live this life rather than wishing the wrath of God on them, and thinking that whatever evil befalls them is their own fault.

[POL]

punishing all those Pakistanis for the sins of Adam and Eve
punishing all those Pakistanis with a shotgun approach when surely there were moral and pious Pakistanis

I will give this one a shot :rolleyes:
According to the Bible after God destroyed men in the Great Flood, He made a covenant with Noah that he never will do it again and the rainbow is there to remind God of the covenant. So the simple answer (according to the bible) is that God did not punish the Pakistanis.
That should cover all the points above.
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Genesis; chapter 9



the fact that God needed to punish all those Pakistanis for the sins of Adam and Eve so that my wife and I could donate money to erase their suffering


Well, God didn't punish anyone. But the primal sin of Adam and Eve is a bit complicated. According to the teachings, Christ died on the cross for our sins. That includes mainly the primal sin. According to teachings of Christianity no one could go to haven before Christs death. But once you are Baptized you are free of the primal sin.

The complicated part comes in the Primal Sin it self. Eve took the fruit from the tree of wisdom and they both ate. Well, that was the sin. But by eating the Fruit, they also gained wisdom. They became aware that they are naked, and became ashamed. they also became aware of their own mortality. God promised them immortality before they committed the sin, and he did not back away from his promise. He simply cast them away from him (paradise)
Interesting concept. Without the wisdom we would not be able to sin because we would not know what sin is. Does an animal sin? Or does it act on its natural instinct. Assuming it doesn't have the wisdom to know what sin is.


Jesus came to save sinners from eternal hell, but God keeps giving them hell on earth because he still can't get over whatever his creations, Adam and Eve, did in the way of typical teen backtalk

Hell as we imagine it in the Bible is not the Hell that Bible spoke off. Bible simply stated that sinners will be cast into the eternal darkness where there is pain and suffering. the Fiery Hell is an artistic painting, painted sometime in the middle ages. And the Fire depiction was added to the Bible at about the same time.
The darkness is opposite of light of God. All it means is while in "Hell" you are away from God and his goodness. Pain and suffering exist. But without God to ease it, it becomes eternal.

All of that is pulled out of the Bible.
but the Bible also points to the Age of Earth to be around 6500-8000 years so I wouldn't take anything out of the Bible literally.

[surf_dude]

I believe in God, love and trust God.... how ever.... I will be the last to say that I understand how God works... I'm weary or anyone who has a very nice and elaborate theology which can answer every question (i.e. why do the poor suffer and die while the rich prosper) there are things that I dont understand & that frankly get me upset... but instead of having a nice theology that can explain away every lil imperfection (then help myself to seconds at the dinner table) maybe we (believers) should get off our fat asses and actually put our theology in to action... instead of telling everyone that their plight is a result of their sin...

just dont think it was mean to go down like that... then again...maybe i'm wrong?

[North Star]

That's great Max, but you still evaded all those inconsistencies that I addressed-


punishing all those Pakistanis for the sins of Adam and Eve

punishing all those Pakistanis with a shotgun approach when surely there were moral and pious Pakistanis

the fact that God needed to punish all those Pakistanis for the sins of Adam and Eve so that my wife and I could donate money to erase their suffering

Jesus came to save sinners from eternal hell, but God keeps giving them hell on earth because he still can't get over whatever his creations, Adam and Eve, did in the way of typical teen backtalk

In spite of your trying to scare me with the wrath of God for my blasphemy, I fear not because I don't believe in your God. When I die, I'll go back where I came from- nothingness. I'd love to have eternal life (although maybe not with a vindictive cruel bastard like your God) but I'm not going to make up a story and convince myself that its true. I think the world would be a better place if you could buck up and face reality yourself. Then you might be more focused on helping people live this life rather than wishing the wrath of God on them, and thinking that whatever evil befalls them is their own fault.

I guess with the attitude you have it is a waste of time to discuss this matter further. The answers to these "inconsistencies" you allege are all in my previous posts to you anyway, if you would bother to read them with any degree of thoughtfulness.

I am confident of one thing however, and that is that I help people live this life ten times more than you ever thought of doing, and I have not only not wished the wrath of God on anybody, I have done everything I can do to help them escape it, by preaching deliverance from it through repentance of sin and faith in Jesus Christ. Adios.

[CraigC]

I did not say I was better than a homosexual. I am not. I am a wretched sinner in need of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ as much as any person.

No, you are a brain-washed idiot with no self esteem. Take the blinders off, find your nuts and question the crap you've been spoon fed from childhood! I don't need anything from religious mombo jumbo and the Fairy Tale you put blind failth in. All religion is a sick joke and it's on you!

Craig

[gogators27]

I believe in God, love and trust God.... how ever.... I will be the last to say that I understand how God works... I'm weary or anyone who has a very nice and elaborate theology which can answer every question (i.e. why do the poor suffer and die while the rich prosper) there are things that I dont understand & that frankly get me upset... but instead of having a nice theology that can explain away every lil imperfection (then help myself to seconds at the dinner table) maybe we (believers) should get off our fat asses and actually put our theology in to action... instead of telling everyone that their plight is a result of their sin...

just dont think it was mean to go down like that... then again...maybe i'm wrong?

:thumps: Great Post!

[gogators27]

God allows the righteous to suffer along with the wicked for a wise purpose, this article basically says that if we had God's vision instead of our own limited vision, we would understand, we need to have faith that God knows best. I would also add that if you more fully understand Gods Plan for his Children and how this life fits into his plan then it makes more sense.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=afe866ce3a47b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

As far as Adam's Transgression or the theory of Original Sin, much is misunderstood about this. First off one of our Articles of Faith says:

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression. http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1/2#2

Also, We by no means believe that babies are born with sin or that they are capable of commiting sin. We believe that babies are born perfect and it is not until they are much older that they can understand enough to be able to sin.

An ancient american prophet named Mormon said the following about the subject, warning, he uses very strong language on the subject:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8/8-24

[ReefGuy]

After reading gogators posts, it strikes me how many similarities mormans have with scientologists.

[Nerka]

After reading gogators posts, it strikes me how many similarities mormans have with scientologists.

I was thinking they are more similar to Islamists

[ReefGuy]

I was thinking they are more similar to Islamists

When I read that stuff, I can just picture L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith sitting on a dock fishing and swapping lies.

[gogators27]

When I read that stuff, I can just picture L Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith sitting on a dock fishing and swapping lies.

ReefGuy,
Since you seem to be so convinced of what is false, can you point us to what is true?
Do you believe that God lives?
Do you believe that Jesus performed Miracles?
Please enlighten us:thumps:

[ReefGuy]

ReefGuy,
Since you seem to be so convinced of what is false, can you point us to what is true?
Do you believe that God lives?
Do you believe that Jesus performed Miracles?
Please enlighten us:thumps:

Gotta consult my magic golden plates from Zenu. I'll let you know.

[Nerka]

OK, that's enough. Poor people in India and Africa suffer disease and poverty because of sinful choices made by the mythical Adam and Eve. God is indeed one vindictive SOB.

I think the Mormons have an answer for you

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 believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
10 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.
11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Joseph Smith

[spearstudtx]

Gotta consult my magic golden plates from Zenu. I'll let you know.

I heard they disappeared shortly after Smith translated the ancient (unknown) native's language with the seer stone. Strangely they never were examined by any reputable human on the planet, but are the basis for the "most correct of any book on earth". Notably this "most correct" book has had over 8400 word changes and it still sounds like someone in a loony bin wrote it.

Don't fret though gogators, it is only slightly more ridiculous than other religious texts I have read. Even some of the stuff I read in Buddhist theology is pretty astounding, but at least it is philosophical.

POL: Time itself is a paradox. Not time necessarily, but Time. Also glad to hear your God is wise, just and merciful but more so that he is against double jeopardy.

[Nerka]

I heard they disappeared shortly after Smith translated the ancient (unknown) native's language with the seer stone. Strangely they never were examined by any reputable human on the planet, but are the basis for the "most correct of any book on earth". Notably this "most correct" book has had over 8400 word changes and it still sounds like someone in a loony bin wrote it.

Don't fret though gogators, it is only slightly more ridiculous than other religious texts I have read. Even some of the stuff I read in Buddhist theology is pretty astounding, but at least it is philosophical.

POL: Time itself is a paradox. Not time necessarily, but Time. Also glad to hear your God is wise, just and merciful but more so that he is against double jeopardy.

It was Reformed Egyptian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Egyptian

[ReefGuy]

I heard they disappeared shortly after Smith translated the ancient (unknown) native's language with the seer stone. Strangely they never were examined by any reputable human on the planet, but are the basis for the "most correct of any book on earth". Notably this "most correct" book has had over 8400 word changes and it still sounds like someone in a loony bin wrote it.

Don't fret though gogators, it is only slightly more ridiculous than other religious texts I have read. Even some of the stuff I read in Buddhist theology is pretty astounding, but at least it is philosophical.

POL: Time itself is a paradox. Not time necessarily, but Time. Also glad to hear your God is wise, just and merciful but more so that he is against double jeopardy.

Actually, I'm fortunate in this respect. My cousin can verify that the plates do exist and were from Xenu.

[spearstudtx]

It was Reformed Egyptian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Egyptian

From the article:

"No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered." ;)

[spearstudtx]

Actually, I'm fortunate in this respect. My cousin can verify that the plates do exist and were from Xenu.

:D Fortunate indeed.

[Bill McIntyre]

From the article:

"No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered." ;)

Details, details.

[Nerka]

Actually, I'm fortunate in this respect. My cousin can verify that the plates do exist and were from Xenu.

He must have the magic rock that lets you see where the plates are buried as well

Main article: Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.

During the Second Great Awakening, Joseph Smith, Jr. lived on his parents' farm near Palmyra, New York. At the time churches in the region contended so vigorously for souls that western New York became known as the "burned-over district" because the fires of religious revivals had burned over it so often.[17] Western New York was also noted for its participation in a "craze for treasure hunting."[18] Beginning as a youth in the early 1820s, Smith was periodically hired, for about $14 per month, as a scryer, using what were termed "seer stones" in attempts to locate lost items and buried treasure.[19] Smith's contemporaries described his method for seeking treasure as putting the stone in a white stovepipe hat, putting his face over the hat to block the light, and then "seeing" the information in the reflections of the stone.[20]

Smith did not consider himself to be a "peeper" or "glass-looker," a practice he called "nonsense."[21] Rather, Smith and his family viewed their folk magical practices as spiritual gifts.[22] Although Smith later rejected his youthful treasure-hunting activities as frivolous and immaterial, he never repudiated the stones themselves nor denied their presumed power to find treasure; nor did he ever relinquish the magic culture in which he was raised.[23] He came to view seeing with a stone in religious terms as the work of a "seer",[24] and indeed, in his view a seer was even greater than a prophet.[25] Joseph Smith's first stone, apparently the same one he used at least part of the time to translate the golden plates, was chocolate-colored and about the size of an egg,[26] found in a deep well he helped dig for one of his neighbors.[27] This stone may still be in the possession of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates

[Nerka]

From the article:

"No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered." ;)

That just proves that science is the tool of the devil.

[gogators27]

I heard they disappeared shortly after Smith translated the ancient (unknown) native's language with the seer stone. Strangely they never were examined by any reputable human on the planet, but are the basis for the "most correct of any book on earth". Notably this "most correct" book has had over 8400 word changes and it still sounds like someone in a loony bin wrote it.



Wow, you heard somthing negative about mormons and it must be true!!:rolleyes:

11 people saw the plates, here is there testimony: (PS-although some of these men ended up leaving the church, none, zero, zilch ever refuted the testimony they gave concerning seeing the plates)

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

[gogators27]

Notably this "most correct" book has had over 8400 word changes and it still sounds like someone in a loony bin wrote it.



Spears, check into this, you will see that these changes were punctuation and grammar.

[ReefGuy]

Wow, you heard somthing negative about mormons and it must be true!!:rolleyes:

11 people saw the plates, here is there testimony: (PS-although some of these men ended up leaving the church, none, zero, zilch ever refuted the testimony they gave concerning seeing the plates)

THE TESTIMONY OF THREE WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

THE TESTIMONY OF EIGHT WITNESSES
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

My cousin can verify my plates. Guess I could round up some uncles to verify my plates too, if that will lend it more validity. I'm sure they would sign statements for me too! At least I'll use my mom's side of the family so they'll at least have different names.

Sorry, but outside of your church, this will not be seen as proof, evidence, or anything other than gullibility.

[spearstudtx]

Spears, check into this, you will see that these changes were punctuation and grammar.

http://www.challengemin.org/8400.html

http://www.irr.org/mit/changing-scripture.html

And if/when you get over this LDS thing, you may find some support here:
http://www.exmormon.org/

"The purpose of this site is to let people who are or were in Mormonism, know they are not alone in their feelings and experiences in their quests to regain their lives after years in this religion."

[surf_dude]

The Elders of the Mormon Church are realizing that they need to completely overhaul their theology and are beginning to do so... in like 15-20 years.... Mormon theology shouldnt be to different than mainstream christian theology.... to bad mainstream chrisitan theology should look more like Jewish theology.... Jesus didnt come to start a new religion... he was Jewish & operated within the jewish parameters & encouraged his disciples to do so as well.... in all honestly... we dont know what we're doing... finite minds cannot comprehend the infinite in a finite amount of time