Mormon Teachings

[water]

Jenyar,


The way I understood your previous post (to which I first responded), was that you were valuing "unselfish Christian service" above "personal enlightenment", whereby it seems to me that you implied that "personal enlightenment" has to do with studying books and such things -- and that as such, striving for "personal enlightenment" goes against striving for an "unselfish Christian service".

As I do not think that "personal enlightenment" has much to do with studying books and acquiring all sorts of knowledge, I do not see how it could be an unworthy endeavour, or how it goes against an "unselfish Christian service".

A person full of defilements cannot commit themselves to an unselfish service to others. In order to purify themselves of defilements, they have to set themselves on the path of "personal enlightenment". At first, this may entail reading some books, acquiring knowledge -- but nobody was born wise ...

I think that while your explanation in terms of identity is adequate to certain historical sources and views, it is quite useless to those who do not conceive of themselves and others in terms of identity that way.

 

[Jenyar]

As I do not think that "personal enlightenment" has much to do with studying books and acquiring all sorts of knowledge, I do not see how it could be an unworthy endeavour, or how it goes against an "unselfish Christian service".

If you look closely you'll see that I questioned whether it was "the whole point of existence", because in such a sense might require becoming fluent in all sorts of knowledge, and overriding any other calling - with reference to scripture.

A person full of defilements cannot commit themselves to an unselfish service to others. In order to purify themselves of defilements, they have to set themselves on the path of "personal enlightenment". At first, this may entail reading some books, acquiring knowledge -- but nobody was born wise ...

What if wisdom means to serve others in spite of one's "defilements"? In order to rid oneself of selfishness, for instance, one would have to serve others. To purify oneself before one would serve others would just perpetuate the selfishness, and thus be "unwise".

I think that while your explanation in terms of identity is adequate to certain historical sources and views, it is quite useless to those who do not conceive of themselves and others in terms of identity that way.

You mean those who understand only a balance/value-based approach? Perhaps. But your objection relies on Western thought: logic and argument (which incidentally also applies in the East, it's only the justification that differs). You identify (note the word) two categories (decidedly Platonic): those who employ Aristotelian laws (A is A; nothing can both be A and non-A; everything is either A or non-A) and those who do not (presumably those who don't employ formal logic). For one group my explanation would (logically) be useless; for the other group, useful.

But the catch is that your counter-argument relies on the same principles, and so will also only be useful for those who follow the Aristotelian laws of identification - and useless to "those who do not conceive of themselves and others in terms of identity that way".

 

[water]

What if wisdom means to serve others in spite of one's "defilements"? In order to rid oneself of selfishness, for instance, one would have to serve others.

Not at all. If you serve others in order to rid yourself of selfishness, the results may be disasterous, both for yourself and others.
If I recognize that I am selfish, and then make myself to serve others, a lot of anger and resentmet may build up (I'm speaking from experience here) -- unless, of course, I first develop a healthy attitude towards serving others.

If you want to serve others, if you don't want to be selfish -- then you need to have good reasons for acting on that motivation. Otherwise, you are just acting on self-deprecation, your superiority complex turning into an inferiority complex.

To purify oneself before one would serve others would just perpetuate the selfishness, and thus be "unwise".

Not at all. How can one possibly serve others -- when one does it for entirely selfish, self-absorbed reasons ... It is possible to make perfectly normal moral choices and actions -- but with a completely warped moral compass.

Deeds done because one is acting on one's inferiority complex may be beneficient to others -- but they certainly are not beneficient to oneself.
How wise is it to hurt oneself just so that others may be served, esp. when it is not sure whether they will indeed be served in a wholesome way?

You mean those who grew up with a purely Eastern (balance/value-based) approach? Perhaps. But your objection relies on Western thought: logic and argument. You identify (note the word) two categories (decidedly Platonic): those who employ Aristotelian laws (A is A; nothing can both be A and non-A; everything is either A or non-A) and those who do not (presumably those who would find my explanation "useless"). For one group my explanation would (logically) be useless; for the other group, useful.

But the catch is that your counter-argument relies on the same principles, and so will also only be useful for those who follow the Aristotelian laws of identification - and useless to "those who do not conceive of themselves and others in terms of identity that way".

I am trying to speak your language, in case you haven't noticed.

And I was not thinking of those "who grew up with a purely Eastern (balance/value-based) approach", couldn't be further from that. I am thinking of all the abused, mistreated, neglected, spoiled children, and then adults, who have never developed a positive view of personal identity as you and traditional Western psychology have it. People who do not "fit in".

 

[water]

If you look closely you'll see that I questioned whether it was "the whole point of existence", because in such a sense might require becoming fluent in all sorts of knowledge, and overriding any other calling - with reference to scripture.

How can one *know* one's "whole point of existence? One may *choose* it though.
How that choice is made, seems to be based on one's experiences and knowledge so far.

Anyway, I don't think that "personal enlightenment" has much to do with acquiring all sorts of knowledge.

 

[Jenyar]

I am trying to speak your language, in case you haven't noticed.

And I was not thinking of those "who grew up with a purely Eastern (balance/value-based) approach", couldn't be further from that. I am thinking of all the abused, mistreated, neglected, spoiled children, and then adults, who have never developed a positive view of personal identity as you and traditional Western psychology have it. People who do not "fit in".

I think you might be mixing paradigms here. People who have never developed a good self-esteem are no worse off than people who have, unless you suppose a balance/value based approach. Like you might say: your explanation is useless for those who don't adopt such an approach. Identity according to the Aristotelian (and therefore "Western") definition simply states A=A, a thing is only itself, regardless of its perceived value. In this sense, the idea of "trying to fit in" is a confusion of identities, not a problem with identity. Put into your language, a person would literally be nobody until he "fits in" (or before he manages to "fit in" by himself first), which may often subjectively be the case, but makes no logical sense - and it's not my position. A doesn't have to fit in with B to be A.

 

[Jenyar]

How can one *know* one's "whole point of existence? One may *choose* it though.
How that choice is made, seems to be based on one's experiences and knowledge so far.

You might ask the poster who made the claim.

For my part, I think one might easily have a frame of reference within which experience and knowledge might have meaning. In other words, if you intend to base your choice of a purpose on some future knowledge or experience, then you have implicitly made gaining that knowledge and experience your "purpose". Within that frame of reference, you're not aimless "in the meantime". It might be found in the expression, "in all things, be...". A comprehensive frame of reference could be called the whole point of a person's existence or a worthy purpose, without feeling or looking particularly purposeful. A "purpose" does not need to be a goal or an end to be reached, just a means of proceeding.

Anyway, I don't think that "personal enlightenment" has much to do with acquiring all sorts of knowledge.

Neither do I. But that will depend on how one envisions such enlightenment before one has actually attained it (your "faith", so to speak). Some, thinking "You had to gather wood and carry water before you were enlightened, and you will have to gather wood and carry water after being enlightened" might be content with gathering wood and carrying water at the moment, without having to doubt that they have sufficient knowledge to do it properly - without anxiety about the future. They would focus on collecting the resources, which will bring their own reward, rather than expend the resources in the search of the reward they're supposed to bring - and ending up with neither resource nor reward.

 

[water]

Jenyar,

I think you might be mixing paradigms here.

I don't think so. I am slowly attempting to shed some light on how Christianity doesn't account for those people who don't "fit the norm". The abused, the mistreated, the neglected, the spoiled.
Consider, a person with a healthy self-esteem and a person with clinical depression have taken up the study of the Bible. The study of the Bible may be beneficient for the healthy person, while devastating for the depressed person. What so often happens is that the depressed person is branded as "rebellious", "proud" and so on -- and this branding is so much more pervading as it is both psychological as well as spiritual, and so final. And these people, Christianity just spits out, they aren't fit to be Christians. You can see this all the time at this forum.

People who have never developed a good self-esteem are no worse off than people who have, unless you suppose a balance/value based approach.

How are people who have never developed a good self-esteem no worse off than people who have??!

Identity according to the Aristotelian (and therefore "Western") definition simply states A=A, a thing is only itself, regardless of its perceived value.

If it is unclear what this A is, or if this A entails something self-destructive, then what?

In this sense, the idea of "trying to fit in" is a confusion of identities, not a problem with identity. Put into your language, a person would literally be nobody until he "fits in" (or before he manages to "fit in" by himself first), which may often subjectively be the case, but makes no logical sense - and it's not my position.

A doesn't have to fit in with B to be A.

I think so, though. Identity of A exists only in relation to identity of B.

Neither do I. But that will depend on how one envisions such enlightenment before one has actually attained it (your "faith", so to speak). Some, thinking "You had to gather wood and carry water before you were enlightened, and you will have to gather wood and carry water after being enlightened" might be content with gathering wood and carrying water at the moment, without having to doubt that they have sufficient knowledge to do it properly - without anxiety about the future. They would focus on collecting the resources, which will bring their own reward, rather than expend the resources in the search of the reward they're supposed to bring - and ending up with neither resource nor reward.

You have taken that saying out of context. It is meant to mean that certain aspects of everyday life after enlightenment won't be much different than before enlightenment. Namely, many people think that once they get enlightened, life will be this wonderful experience, total enjoyment, no more drudgery, no more mundane tasks, only 24/7 bliss. And they approach their present life and their present striving for enlightenment with that dreamy attitude. That saying is meant to remind one that life on earth is -- well, life on earth. Humans patently tend to forget this.

 

[Jenyar]

I don't think so. I am slowly attempting to shed some light on how Christianity doesn't account for those people who don't "fit the norm". The abused, the mistreated, the neglected, the spoiled.
Consider, a person with a healthy self-esteem and a person with clinical depression have taken up the study of the Bible. The study of the Bible may be beneficient for the healthy person, while devastating for the depressed person. What so often happens is that the depressed person is branded as "rebellious", "proud" and so on -- and this branding is so much more pervading as it is both psychological as well as spiritual, and so final. And these people, Christianity just spits out, they aren't fit to be Christians. You can see this all the time at this forum.

And the forum represents Christianity at its height, does it?

The problem you might be seeing is of the requirements of any study - whether from the Bible or elsewhere - and this might have been addressed in a Christian community (like academic study would be addressed in an academic community). The text itself can't provide the love it teaches. It would be strange if you interpret this that Christ somehow didn't "cater" for the outcast, when he said "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest" (read Matt. 11:25-28 again, or even Matt. 25:35-36).

The emphasis on self-esteem is very modern, and very Western (humanism). It's perhaps inevitable that a Western reader's first glance at "love others as you love yourself" would immediately conjure up visions of perfect self-esteem, but what Jesus meant can't be made dependent on 20th century Western ideas. To do so would corrupt his message, and inevitable cause a communcation gap. The same would happen in any field of enquiry.

How are people who have never developed a good self-esteem no worse off than people who have??!

Why do you ask?

If it is unclear what this A is, or if this A entails something self-destructive, then what?

Then nothing. Identity doesn't predict anything. It's like asking for x=x+1, "what if x has low self-esteem? what if x is destructive?"

I think so, though. Identity of A exists only in relation to identity of B.

Why B? Why not X? Just because it wasn't mentioned, believed in or provided for?

You're obviously worried more about what A is, or is perceived to be, rather than the logical principle of A=A, which is what Aristotle called the law of identity.

 

[water]

And the forum represents Christianity at its height, does it?

You are being cynical. I refuse to continue discussion with you.

Just because this is an online forum, the Christians participating here are not absolved from their Christian vows.

 

[Jenyar]

You are being cynical. I refuse to continue discussion with you.

Just because this is an online forum, the Christians participating here are not absolved from their Christian vows.

Of course not, and they are not absolved anywhere else either. But the law alone does not make people honest. The truth is that not all the Christians here (and elsewhere) have "spit out" the people they have been commissioned to love. To do so would be to spit out Christ himself.

What you are saying is that sin defines a Christian (as if they must "vow" to do such things), instead of pointing out the sin of Christians.

 

[RickyH]

im puzzled by one thing the whole entire point to different religons from god the only wa this can happen is if your messiah is a decendent from King David THE ONLY WAY if not then the whole entire basis of your messiah is wrong and im pretty sure the mormon messiah was not a decendant from King David... its actually ridiculous to think other wise mormanism, muslims, all of that complete non sense

 

[Marlin]

im puzzled by one thing the whole entire point to different religons from god the only wa this can happen is if your messiah is a decendent from King David THE ONLY WAY if not then the whole entire basis of your messiah is wrong and im pretty sure the mormon messiah was not a decendant from King David... its actually ridiculous to think other wise mormanism, muslims, all of that complete non sense

The "mormon messiah" is Jesus Christ, same as other Christian denominations.

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 both give Joseph (Mary's husband) as descended from David. If the Jews had had their rightful king in place when Jesus was born, Joseph would have been that king, and Jesus was the legal heir to the throne. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Mary was descended from David as well, and she was the literal mother of Jesus.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

The "mormon messiah" is Jesus Christ, same as other Christian denominations.

wrong again, dear friend, the 'mormon messiah' was Joe Smith, he died (as a martyr if your mormon or as a victim of frontier justice if non-LDS) leading a rag-tag army of followers into "ethnichood", creating a peculiar people, that had diff ideas, beliefs & had a connectedness brought on by their "peculiarness", the trek to Utah, polygamy, hierarchal leadership, "persecution complex" (that they brought upon themselves) & the reactions of their neighbors (both good & bad)

Jesus is only an afterthought under LDS beliefs, don’t let the name fool you

 

[Marlin]

wrong again, dear friend, the 'mormon messiah' was Joe Smith, he died (as a martyr if your mormon or as a victim of frontier justice if non-LDS) leading a rag-tag army of followers into "ethnichood", creating a peculiar people, that had diff ideas, beliefs & had a connectedness brought on by their "peculiarness", the trek to Utah, polygamy, hierarchal leadership, "persecution complex" (that they brought upon themselves) & the reactions of their neighbors (both good & bad)

Jesus is only an afterthought under LDS beliefs, don’t let the name fool you

I've been a Mormon all my life, and I can say with perfect honesty that the LDS Messiah is Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith was a great prophet, but we worship Christ, not JS. Christ is the very center of our religion, to which all other doctrines are appendages.

 

[WildBlueYonder]

I've been a Mormon all my life,

which is probably why you need to defend it against all odds, tell us, do you really believe that the BoM, BoA & D&C are inspired by God? could you show us why you believe that? Especially, since the first 2 have obvious factual errors & the 3rd has false prophecies?

and I can say with perfect honesty that the LDS Messiah is Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith.

maybe in name only, tell us, how many mormon doctrines hinge on Jesus' words only? which on JS or BY?

Joseph Smith was a great prophet,

an LDS prophet does not qualify under God's law, JS made many false prophecies, I'll post a link

but we worship Christ, not JS.

really? then why do you want to be "gods", if Jesus is your savior? tell us, when did Jesus say that we would be 'gods' just like Him? I thought His message was about the Kingdom of Heaven, salvation, about preparing many mansions for us, etc... When did He say, "ye shall be gods like me"?, or "the progession of man is to become gods, like me"? I never see the Bible say any clear LDS teaching, Jesus never mentions Kobal, Adam=God, polygamy

Christ is the very center of our religion, to which all other doctrines are appendages.

So was Jesus a good mormon, He never married, so I guess He will never get His own planet to populate, so under mormon doctrine, will He always be second banana here on earth? Isn't that a sign of failure in mormon doctrine? Would you want that for yourself? Are you on the path to mormon godhood or christian salvation?

 

[Marlin]

Okay, I'm probably going to regret this, but I will answer you, as I have insomnia and have nothing else to do.

which is probably why you need to defend it against all odds, tell us, do you really believe that the BoM, BoA & D&C are inspired by God? could you show us why you believe that? Especially, since the first 2 have obvious factual errors & the 3rd has false prophecies?

Yes, I really do believe the LDS scriptures are true and inspired of God. I believe this because I was born and raised LDS, and because I have received a spiritual witness that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true. There are no factual errors that I am aware of in the BofM or the BofA, unless you are counting the "mistakes of men" which are alluded to, and which are to be expected in any text (including the Bible). Joseph Smith never gave one false prophecy.

maybe in name only, tell us, how many mormon doctrines hinge on Jesus' words only? which on JS or BY?

So can I say that you are Christian "in name only" because many of your doctrines hinge on the words of Peter and Paul, and John and others, rather than just on Jesus's? The Lord speaks through prophets, and as the LDS believe, "whether it is by [his] own voice or by [his] servants, it is the same."

an LDS prophet does not qualify under God's law, JS made many false prophecies, I'll post a link

Joseph Smith didn't utter one false prophecy.

really? then why do you want to be "gods", if Jesus is your savior? tell us, when did Jesus say that we would be 'gods' just like Him? I thought His message was about the Kingdom of Heaven, salvation, about preparing many mansions for us, etc... When did He say, "ye shall be gods like me"?, or "the progession of man is to become gods, like me"? I never see the Bible say any clear LDS teaching, Jesus never mentions Kobal, Adam=God, polygamy

Cobol is a computer programming language. You're thinking of Kolob. Adam=God is not an LDS doctrine. Polygamy was discontinued in 1890.

John 10:34-36
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Gen. 3:22 Man is become as one of us
Ps. 82:6 Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High
Acts 17:29 We are the offspring of God
Rom. 8:17 Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ
Rev. 3:21 Him that overcometh will sit with me in my throne

The Bible is full of references to the fact that man can become like God, since he is the Father's child.

So was Jesus a good mormon, He never married, so I guess He will never get His own planet to populate, so under mormon doctrine, will He always be second banana here on earth? Isn't that a sign of failure in mormon doctrine? Would you want that for yourself?

Who says Jesus never got married?

Are you on the path to mormon godhood or christian salvation?

Yes, and yes.

 

[Nisus]

*yawn*

 

[RickyH]

The "mormon messiah" is Jesus Christ, same as other Christian denominations.

Matthew 1 and Luke 3 both give Joseph (Mary's husband) as descended from David. If the Jews had had their rightful king in place when Jesus was born, Joseph would have been that king, and Jesus was the legal heir to the throne. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Mary was descended from David as well, and she was the literal mother of Jesus.

Well, i knew that. But anything about mormanism i do not know

Last line of the new testaments

"I am the alpha and the omega, He who add's to this will be thrown into the bottomless pit"

I think that clearly point's out god didn't forget to tell us anything

 

[Marlin]

Well, i knew that. But anything about mormanism i do not know

Last line of the new testaments

"I am the alpha and the omega, He who add's to this will be thrown into the bottomless pit"

I think that clearly point's out god didn't forget to tell us anything

I think you are referring to this scripture:

Revelation 22:18, 19
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.​

At the time the book of Revelation was written, there was no compilation of scriptural texts called the Bible, or the New Testament. John was speaking strictly of the Book of Revelation, not of the entire Bible.

Otherwise, take a gander at the following scripture:

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.​

Obviously if the Deuteronomy scripture is referring to the whole Bible, then every book beyond the book of Deuteronomy was added wrongfully. But that isn't true--the Lord was giving the Israelites the instruction not to add or diminish from the book of Deuteronomy. The book of Revelation similarly warns people not to add or subtract from the book of Revelation, not to forbid further revelations from God. Is God unable to speak more, then? Has he gone deaf and dumb, that He can't speak more than He did to the ancients?

 

[RickyH]

very good point you brought up on these two things, however you could have mis interpreted deu. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you"

Doesn't mean the lord can't add unto it



Second rev. uses many many difference's then other prophecy's in the bible how can you be sure that rev. 22:18,19 could only be speaking of rev. and not of all of the prophecy's. Besides this commandment also came from the tree of life..... It goes for all the phrophets word.

Now im not to up-to-date on the christian church or muslim church... im jewish although I still study all of the books as best I can. Don't get me wrong I just find it interesting...