I know the church is true........What does this even mean?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _Fence Sitter »

As a believer I looked upon the story of Abraham as one of faith being tested, like Job. Abraham was so faithful that he would even sacrifice his own son if commanded by God. What a mighty prophet of God.

Now I look upon it in horror as evidence that religion can be used to justify anything. This is the kind of faith that leads to using electric shock treatments on gays to treat them for their "illness". The kind of faith that motivated women, married and single to marry Joseph Smith and other prophets, to leave their homes in foreign countries and undertake dangerous journeys, made much more dangerous by the urging of "God's Prophet" to get to Zion anyway possible. and so on

This is the kind of faith that even today is being used to justify outrageous policies against minorities within the church, to deny women the priesthood, to label GLBT behavior as sinful, and to justify following a increasingly silent leadership focused on revenue and statistics, a leadership who are not held accountable to anyone.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_deacon blues
_Emeritus
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:51 am

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _deacon blues »

deacon blues wrote:Consider how the words "I know the church is true" might mean different things to different people. To a 5 year old it might mean, "if I say it in church it will make my Mom n dad proud. To an eight year old it might mean, "the bishop told me to bear my testimony, and that's how my friends do it." To a 18 year old it might mean, "I read the Book of Mormon and felt really good about it which means the church is true." To another 18 year old it might mean, "I've been saying it since I was 5, and it makes me feel good to say it, so I'll keep saying it." To another 18 year old it might mean, "Elder Oaks says a testimony is found in the bearing of it, so if I say 'I know the church is true God will give me a testimony that it is true."
To me it means, I spent 40 years of my life studying, pondering and praying to know if the church was true, and I never got an answer I could rely on until I studied Church History from a balanced perspective and took into account facts that showed Joseph's translations were fabricated, his assertions were dubious, and his motives were suspicious.


To a thoughtful 18 year old it might mean, "hmmm, I've been saying this since I was 5, what do I mean when I say it.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

Fence Sitter wrote:As a believer I looked upon the story of Abraham as one of faith being tested, like Job. Abraham was so faithful that he would even sacrifice his own son if commanded by God. What a mighty prophet of God.

Now I look upon it in horror as evidence that religion can be used to justify anything. This is the kind of faith that leads to using electric shock treatments on gays to treat them for their "illness". The kind of faith that motivated women, married and single to marry Joseph Smith and other prophets, to leave their homes in foreign countries and undertake dangerous journeys, made much more dangerous by the urging of "God's Prophet" to get to Zion anyway possible. and so on

This is the kind of faith that even today is being used to justify outrageous policies against minorities within the church, to deny women the priesthood, to label GLBT behavior as sinful, and to justify following a increasingly silent leadership focused on revenue and statistics, a leadership who are not held accountable to anyone.


And murder:

http://imgur.com/a4WZBhl

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _mentalgymnast »

canpakes wrote:...why on earth would any deity...carelessly disregard his duty by entrusting a mere mortal to get a message... correct for another individual when the deity himself supposedly owns [MG: and I might say could exclusively use] the hotline to your consciousness and existence?


Hi canpakes, can you think of and share some examples of when deity has successfully brought groups of people together in 'community' using/through your preferred and/or expected method (direct hotline)...and they've all been on the same page?

canpakes wrote:What sort of religious rationale requires such a crippled system?


Community/uniformity? Common worship/ritual? Of course, the same can be accomplished through purely man made means...but wouldn't God also, by necessity, have to work with ONE individual to get the word out? It seems like it would be the most expeditious method.

Granted, you then have the problem of differentiating between communities of worship/religion that ARE purely man made and those that may not be. It seems, to me, that the 'prophet' model of setting up a 'kingdom of God' isn't such a bad way of getting the word out and setting up a community of like minded individuals who are all on the same page. In Mormon parlance...Zion.

Regards,
MG
_Sanctorian
_Emeritus
Posts: 2441
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _Sanctorian »

mentalgymnast wrote:
canpakes wrote:...why on earth would any deity...carelessly disregard his duty by entrusting a mere mortal to get a message... correct for another individual when the deity himself supposedly owns [MG: and I might say could exclusively use] the hotline to your consciousness and existence?


Hi canpakes, can you think of and share some examples of when deity has successfully brought groups of people together in 'community' using/through your preferred and/or expected method (direct hotline)...and they've all been on the same page?

canpakes wrote:What sort of religious rationale requires such a crippled system?


Community/uniformity? Common worship/ritual? Of course, the same can be accomplished through purely man made means...but wouldn't God also, by necessity, have to work with ONE individual to get the word out? It seems like it would be the most expeditious method.

Granted, you then have the problem of differentiating between communities of worship/religion that ARE purely man made and those that may not be. It seems, to me, that the 'prophet' model of setting up a 'kingdom of God' isn't such a bad way of getting the word out and setting up a community of like minded individuals who are all on the same page. In Mormon parlance...Zion.

Regards,
MG


MG, wouldn't you agree that even with one 'spokesperson' it's still does not create uniformity?
I'm a Ziontologist. I self identify as such.
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Sanctorian wrote:MG, wouldn't you agree that even with one 'spokesperson' it's still does not create uniformity?


That is always a possibility.

Regards,
MG
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _canpakes »

zerinus wrote:
canpakes wrote:I suspect that this method of pretending to ascertain truth is still pretty faulty. I suspect that you haven't yet ever run into a situation where this action was asked of you by some sort of angelic or thunderous voice. I also suspect that when used by the fellow a few yards away to decide to strap on a vest filled with explosives and detonate it next to you and your loved ones that you would yourself suddenly take issue with such a spiritual prompting. Can you imagine why?
The implication of that is that because some people act irrationally or criminally, because they think delusionally that is what God wants them to do; it is therefore impossible for God to want someone to do something legitimately, and instruct them to do it. Do you see a logical problem with that reasoning?

Hello, Z -

There's no more of a logical problem with this reasoning than believing that God would have you stone one person, and not another, regardless of cause. At issue is the concept that God wishes you to administer justice to another, or take the life of another, as if the Ultimate Judge of the Universe would be incapable of administering that justice by him/herself. But you introduce an interesting tangent that I'll visit again in a moment.


zerinus wrote:
canpakes wrote:But to speak to a different point, why on earth would any deity of any magnitude need to have you stone anyone else?
To provide context to that, stoning in the Old Testament was prescribed by law as a capital punishment for certain crimes; just as hanging, beheading, facing a firing squad, or lethal injection is today in certain countries, including the US. You couldn't just go and stone somebody just because you didn't like them.

But perhaps one could simply because their God does not like or prefer them, correct?


zerinus wrote:If somebody had committed a crime, he would be brought before a judge, the judge would determine if a crime had been committed according to the law, and assuming it was proved that a crime had been committed with appropriate witnesses, then the judge would apply the punishment prescribed by the law. Today we may use lethal injection, hanging, or a firing squad; but there isn't a whole lot of difference between the two.

The main difference is that this latter example illustrates the process that evolved out of necessity from social development and communal living, regardless of deity, with a fairly consistent set of what are considered to be acceptable behaviors, notwithstanding the level and type of punishments administered for violating them. It bears mention that in the modern world, more severe levels of violent punishment seem attached to more fundamental attitudes about religion.


zerinus wrote:
canpakes wrote:Similarly, why would any deity carelessly disregard his duty by entrusting a mere mortal to get a message - any message - correct for another individual when the deity himself supposedly owns the hotline to your consciousness and existence?
That is not the purpose of a religion or a prophet. If you have a personal problem or issue for which you need divine assistance or advice, it is your responsibility to obtain it by revelation from God for yourself---provided you have the faith to do it, that is.

My apologies for not separating two related ideas clearly enough... my comment here has moved away from the concept of divine inspiration for the open punishment of others and on to the issue of a prophet's supposed purpose of defining what it is that any God would want you to do, for any purpose or in any way.


zerinus wrote:
canpakes wrote:In other words, what justifies Joseph Smith's version of religion . . .
What "version of religion" is "justified" in your opinion? If you think that Joseph Smith's is not, then presumably you have some other kind of religion in mind which you think is justified. Would you like to share with us what that is?

I don't believe that any version of religion can be satisfactorily justified on the mere basis of an authority figure telling me to believe it. The content is what matters, inasmuch as it is applied to the community in a sensible manner, and (if required by some) how it corresponds to a particular religion's concept of its own version of deity.


zerinus wrote:
canpakes wrote:. . . and why did you need to have it presented to you at some point by Smith or one of his mortal associates?
Who else do you think would have qualified and why, if not Joseph Smith?

Although your own question could just as easily be restated as why you believe that Smith is The One, as opposed to any other person who would approach you in the street making exactly the same claims that he did, my question actually concerns why Smith - or anyone - would need to be the conduit at all. Which brings us to the next point -

zerinus wrote:
canpakes wrote:What sort of religious rationale requires such a crippled system?
It is no good telling us it is "crippled," if you are not prepared to tell us why.

It is crippled because the need for a mortal prophet having to tell you what God wants is apparently in conflict with your opening sentiment:

"The implication of that is that ... it is therefore impossible for God to want someone to do something legitimately, and instruct them to do it. Do you see a logical problem with that reasoning?"

If there's no issue with what you are maintaining as possible and expected, then why would you need any mortal to instruct you on any aspect of Christianity in general, or the more peculiar aspects or requirements of the LDS Church? You should have been infused with this knowledge directly without input from anyone aside from your own contact from God.
_canpakes
_Emeritus
Posts: 8541
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:54 am

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _canpakes »

mentalgymnast wrote:
canpakes wrote:...why on earth would any deity...carelessly disregard his duty by entrusting a mere mortal to get a message... correct for another individual when the deity himself supposedly owns [MG: and I might say could exclusively use] the hotline to your consciousness and existence?


Hi canpakes, can you think of and share some examples of when deity has successfully brought groups of people together in 'community' using/through your preferred and/or expected method (direct hotline)...and they've all been on the same page?

I cannot, and that's pretty much the point. Why do you suppose that no example exists? After all, if we are told that one mortal can hold the full truth of God and distribute it to the masses, why could not two, or five, or thirty, be given and distribute the same truth independently?


mentalgymnast wrote:
canpakes wrote:What sort of religious rationale requires such a crippled system?


Community/uniformity? Common worship/ritual? Of course, the same can be accomplished through purely man made means...but wouldn't God also, by necessity, have to work with ONE individual to get the word out? It seems like it would be the most expeditious method.

On the contrary, it would seem to be the second least effective method possible, with the only worse option being not working with anyone at all.


mentalgymnast wrote:
canpakes wrote:Granted, you then have the problem of differentiating between communities of worship/religion that ARE purely man made and those that may not be. It seems, to me, that the 'prophet' model of setting up a 'kingdom of God' isn't such a bad way of getting the word out and setting up a community of like minded individuals who are all on the same page. In Mormon parlance...Zion.

It would seem that the problem you state is immediately remedied by the solution that I'm proposing above... simultaneous and direct disbursement of the knowledge of Truth to individuals by God, or at the least through multiple independent prophets regardless of geographical separation. Such a thing would be much more efficient, would serve to bring more individuals to (Christ or whomever), and would still allow for the full exercise of free will in choosing to accept and live the message, or not.

I really cannot give reasons for, see the advantage of, or defend the 'single, favored prophet' model of Universal Truth Disbursement currently claimed by the Church or any of its competitors. I am certainly willing to consider any that you know of, though.
_sock puppet
_Emeritus
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:52 pm

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _sock puppet »

mentalgymnast wrote:
canpakes wrote:...why on earth would any deity...carelessly disregard his duty by entrusting a mere mortal to get a message... correct for another individual when the deity himself supposedly owns [MG: and I might say could exclusively use] the hotline to your consciousness and existence?


Hi canpakes, can you think of and share some examples of when deity has successfully brought groups of people together in 'community' using/through your preferred and/or expected method (direct hotline)...and they've all been on the same page?

That chapter 11 of 3 Nephi does not occur to MG, one must wonder if he actually believes the Book of Mormon.
_deacon blues
_Emeritus
Posts: 952
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:51 am

Re: I know the church is true........What does this even mea

Post by _deacon blues »

sock puppet wrote:
canpakes wrote:...why on earth would any deity...carelessly disregard his duty by entrusting a mere mortal to get a message... correct for another individual when the deity himself supposedly owns [MG: and I might say could exclusively use] the hotline to your consciousness and existence?


Hi canpakes, can you think of and share some examples of when deity has successfully brought groups of people together in 'community' using/through your preferred and/or expected method (direct hotline)...and they've all been on the same page?

That chapter 11 of 3 Nephi does not occur to MG, one must wonder if he actually believes the Book of Mormon.[/quote]



I remember I was attending BYU and the thought occurred to me- " Nephi and Moroni and the rest of the Book of Mormon guys probably aren't historical." I wonder if MG has ever had that thought? and did he feel the need to sing a hymn to get that naughty thought out of his mind? :rolleyes:
Post Reply