Heaven: A Place of Learning and Growth

Hi, my sites:
fc59eec802f2dc5bc3c86de3d9eb8a81

Great boys
b8fa4a19a46a27af3c3a1da86200d16c

I had a very unorthodox upbringing.
TBM Grandparents. Dad was raised Mormon, but was never active as an adult. (I'd always just assumed he was Atheist. But since we never really had a religious discussion I didn't know anything for sure.) Mom was a nevermo artist/teacher/feminist, but pretty spiritual in a humanist, very secular sort of way.

I basically had very little organized religious upbringing, other than the fact that my TBM grandparents saw to it that I was baptized at 8, along with all their grandkids. No explanation, no consent, just dunk, wham-bam-thank-you-mam. It was really pretty meaningless to me.

I was however very influenced by Alex Haley and Roots and was deeply influenced by the book of rememberance my Grandmother had assembled about the whole history and geneology of my family. I was intrigued by my roots. I grew up fascinated with the complex lives of those people who were my heros, my fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters.

I was an artist like my mother and took a real interest in the Arts, humanities, culture, anthropology, philosphy and psychology. I was a pretty precocious kid in high school. I signed myself up for night classes in art at University of Washington at age 16.
I became good friends with a teacher of mine who was a sculptor and a Jungian analyst and very spiritual.

He became my spiritual guide and mentor.

I grew deeply interested in Carl Jung, and through Jung, myth, dreams and how we are all connected through the collective subconscious.

I turned 18 and was accepted into an elite Art Institute and found myself surrounded by very talented artists who were much older and wiser than me. They were fascinating. Everyone of them had wonderful stories to tell about their world travels and all the great books they had read and experiences they'd had.

By contrast, I had nothing to say. I was just a white kid from suburbia who grew up with a cynical Boeing engineer for a father and a frustrated artist for a mom.

I took a history class from a genius of a history professor who made me realize that I really knew nothing about the world about which there was so much to learn. I was at a major crossroads in my life. Here I was studying to become an artist and I had nothing to say. My life was a giant void. I felt like a fraud. I had no roots. I had no clue what my purpose was or what my place was in society. I didn't know if I wanted to be an artist. I didn't even know what purpose artists served in society.

So I decided I really needed to go find out about the world before I decided what place I would take in it. I dropped out of college and travelled around the entire US, Europe and Africa for 9 months, in search of my roots. I went to the places where my forefathers had come from. Walked the streets they walked. Worshipped in the churches they worshipped in. Marched in the candlelight processions they marched in. Listened to the gregorian chants echo off of the same cathedral rock arched ceilings they had helped build.

Where ever I went in the world, I was drawn to holy places. From Mega christian churches in Texas with 8 cameras and a guy in a polyester yellow suit named "Brother Bob" and his bleach blonde buffont hairdooed wife begging for money to the TV cameras, to Mountain tops. The Rothko Temple in Houston to Cathedrals in Europe. From Stonehenge to Tibetan Budhist temples in the French Alps and Mosques in Africa. It was clear to me that religion was the center of culture and had a major impact on the people and communities that practiced the religion. Whereever I went in the world there was a different religion that suited the people who lived there and connected them in their own way to the cosmos, universe, God, Tao, whatever name you gave it, it was all the same to me. People just had different ways of expressing their respect to the same God.

I'd had some very spiritual experiences in Europe. Since my family had joined the Mormon church in England I decided to go visit the Mormon church there where the Mormon side of my family had come from. The people were lovely. To be honest, that was the first time I'd ever felt the spirit in my life the way I did that day. As I listened to these girls sing in that masonry chappel, I could have sworn there were angels accompanying them they were so beautiful. I was very influenced by a particular Mormon family there who took me in and treated me like a son. I will never be able to repay their graciousness, kindness and hospitality. I was very touched by them and decided that was one thing I wanted in my life was a loving family, united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives.

I eventually wound up in North Africa and became fascinated by the culture and the religion. They were the most devoted people I'd ever met. Even the men digging ditches stopped digging ditches when the Imam called for prayer.

Allaaaah Akbar. Alllaaaah Akbar. Achado ana La. Illah ha Illah. Achado wanna Mohamed. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar.

Whenever I hear that call, I am trasported back to an oasis I grew to love in North Africa. Where date palm trees sway in the Saharan breeze, as women wash their clothes in the sweet stream where I first learned the ritual Muslim washing. Great frogs live peacefully in the watery gardens around the mosque. Where sparrows turn into bats as twilight falls. And the Imam calls out for the people to come to the mosque for the final prayer of the day.

The ditch diggers would roll out their mats and face mecca and pray right there next to their ditch, next to the business men who were also prostrate in the same position. They were equals before God. I had never known anyone so devoted to their religion.

I made fast friends in Morocco who taught me daily, everything about Islam. I learned the prayers in Arabic, they taught me their beautiful ritual washing, TaWadat, required before entering a Mosque. When I had learned everything I needed to learn I went to the inner sanctum when the Imam called me to prayer and washed alongside the other worshippers.

At first I could tell that he was skeptical of this Western interloper. He asked me in Arabic if I had performed TaWadat. If I believed in one God, Allah. If I believed Mohamed was his prophet.

I knew all the answers to his questions and as I looked into his eyes, I saw that he accepted me as a brother.

I realized at that moment that deep down, there was no difference between us.

I could just as easily have been born in North Africa as North America. I was not Mormon or Muslim or American or African, I was just human making a deep spiritual connection with another human.
We didn't even speak the same language, but we managed to connect on a deep spiritual level and see beyond our superficial differences. I felt at home in that beautiful oasis. I loved it there. It was really like a paradise on earth.

I had acheived what I had come to achieve. I had totally integrated myself into another culture. I wore their clothes, ate their food, lived in their houses, learned their customs, learned their language, worked beside them, learned their religion, made friends there, was accepted into their inner sanctums, their families, and made deep spiritual connections.

Then as summer approached and my oldest sister's wedding grew near, my heart yearned for my family back home and I decided to return.

When I got back to Spainish teritory in the North of Africa I went into a Catholic church and saw a crucifix behind the altar. I looked at Jesus hanging there on the cross and said, "I no longer believe in you."

That day was the worst day of my life, before or since. I was beaten badly and nearly lost my life.
It was a brutal fight for my life and I was afraid I killed a man. Luckily I didn't kill him and I managed to survive, bloody and beaten, but it was my darkest hour. I connected it to having renounced christianity.

There's this strange place on the Barbary Coast of Africa. It's a no man's land. So many battles have been fought here between Muslims and Christians. Today it is considered Spanish Teritory, but it is Spanish in name only. It is a place mostly ignored by the world. The populace is descended from the pirates who once called this place home. There's a port city called Mellilia on the Mediteranian Barbary coast of North Africa.

I got stuck there for a couple of days waiting for a ferry to take me back to Europe.

While I was waiting I met a man who asked me for some food, which I gave him.

He then asked me, "Comma me Casa?"

I had a vision of a white house on a hill somewhere with a lovely family waiting to host me. I said nothing, but shrugged my shoulders and followed him, since I had nothing better to do in this place.

He took me up inside this fortress on a hill by the sea and we entered into an apartment where he was apparently squating.

There was nothing there except a matress and the remnants of a fire he'd apparently lit in the corner of the room. The whole house had a sickening acrid smell from the fire that had been lit in the corner of the main room. I took pity on this poor young man and started asking about his family. He was obviously a street urchin. Before I knew it he picked up an empty bottle of African Star beer and asked if I wanted one. I said "No. I'm Muslim."

Then he disappeared without a word.

Something told me to get out of that hellhole, but I hesitated a moment too long.

Next thing I knew, he came back into the room with a guy who looked like Satan, dressed in white. Wearing a white turban, with an evil look in his eye. He was pure evil incarnate. I felt a very evil vibe the moment I saw him.

I knew this encounter would not have a happy ending.
I picked up my backpack and said I gotta go.

They insisted that I stay.

The more strongly I insisted I leave the more strongly they insisted I stay. To the point where they physically took my bags off my back and made it clear I was not getting out of there without a fight.

There was some small talk and before I knew it they were asking for money.

I told them I had very little money.

They told me they knew I was a rich American and must be traveling with plenty of money.

In the course of this conversation I noticed that Satan had a gun tucked into the front of his pants. I looked around the room to see what options I had.

There was a 2x4 leaning up against the wall in the corner. I figured that was my best option for getting out of this thing alive. As they grew more and more insistant that I give them my money I stood up and tried to force my way out of the room. They both tackled me but could not take me down. That's when I started throwing punches.

I managed to back up against the wall to where the 2x4 was leaned up against the wall. And I told satan that my money was in my backpack on the floor in front of us. I told him to take it. The struggle stopped and I had one guy holding onto me with my right hand on the end of a 2x4 and Satan in front of me digging through my belongings looking for money. I felt like I was in a movie. Everyting from that point happened in slow motion. I pushed the street urchin away from me with my left hand, raised the 2x4 up over my head and swung for the fences. I actually knocked the guy's turban off his head when I hit him and he collapsed. I thought I'd killed him and had a vision of spending the rest of my life in a prison like the guy on Midnight Express.

Before I knew it the street urchin pulled out a knife and cut me twice before I was able to get a good shot at him. Fortunately I didn't get stabbed or I probably wouldn't be here writing this. The fight went on, but I was so scared I'd killed the guy that I kind of went into shock and just managed to defend myself from being killed. I didn't want to kill two guys in one day, but I didn't want to die either.

In the end I managed to get out of there and go get the cops.

When we came back they were both gone, with some of my stuff. Fortunately they left my passport and some travelers checks so I could make it home.

I was on the next boat, grateful I'd escaped with my life, and one fight wiser.

I learned from that experience to trust my instincts.

I arrived home two weeks later, my own man, having traveled accross 3 continents on my own. Surivived some serious battles and made some great friends. I had stories to tell, but nobody was interested.

My homecoming was overshadowed by my sisters upcoming wedding in the Mormon temple. I had never taken Mormonism seriously but I had a new appreciation for the religion of my forefathers when I got home. It was my heritage, my tribe, the legacy I'd inheirited, my roots.

I got home and found that the Mormon family I had visited in England had written my parents basically asking why they let their son travel around the globe when I should be preparing for a mission. Nobody had ever said that to me before. Nobody had ever expected that of me before.

My parents were pretty offended, since they didn't "let" me do anything, I was an adult and responsible for my own life, and for that matter they didn't really care if I served a mission or not since they were not even Mormon. They would have rather I joined the Peace Corps. They thought the guy was pretty presumtuous to write to them and rip them a new one for not taking the church seriously. (and they were probably pretty right on with that assessment)

But I thought it was interesting that out of all the people I had met on my journey, the only one who'd bothered to keep in contact with me and take an interest in me enough to inquire about my well being was this one Mormon father I'd been impressed with. I decided I should take a serious look at Mormonism for once. As I did, it seemed like it was a good lifestyle. I didn't find a whole lot wrong with the religion, it was just didn't make a heck of alot of sense. But my grandparents were Mormon, my sisters were all mormon, most of my relatives were mormon and I had all this Mormon geneology and roots I could identify with. There were definitely some absolutely gorgeous mormon women I knew, which didn't hurt.

Most of my friends who were mormon were relatively on the ball and mature, out serving missions, in college, married, kids the whole nine yards.

I'd been to nearly every other holy place I could think of but the one place I was not allowed to go was inside a mormon temple. That was sort of a challenge to me, so I decided make it a goal to gain acceptance into a Mormon temple, like I had the Muslim Mosque. The way I saw it, it was just a different way to worship the same God.

I naievely went in and talked to my sister's bishop about what it would take for me to go to the temple and the rest is history.

Now I'm back to where I started before I got sidetracked--my own religion, with a whole lot more stories to tell my grandkids.

Life has come full circle and that's good.

I'm fortunate that I got what I wanted. A loving family united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives, to contribute to the world. Hopefully I can acheive what my father set out to acheive, to leave behind better individuals than ourselves. Only time will tell.

I'm glad that I'm able to add my story to that of my forefathers, in the book of life. Perhaps somebody in a couple of generations will read my story and recognize something of themselves in it and gain the courage to follow their consicence and become their authentic selves as a result.
That is my hope anyways.

Now you know my whole life story.

I served my mission in OZ with quite a few Maoris. I was always amazed by the deeply spiritual ancient oral traditions they’d share with us about their “Lamanite” heritage, which all just happened to confirm the Book of Mormon account.

Now I know the Maoris were probably just trying to curry favor with the Mission President by telling tall tales that validated the BOM.

Pretty funny in hindsight actually, since the Maoris were about the least concerned with obeying the white handbook. It seemed their main mission was finding the next hungi to throw down, hauka to perform, or rugby game to play. They had a real thing for pork bones and pooha and ice cream.

I was Zone leader for a bunch of Maoris and I had one group of them down in the furthest district away from mine who were going out to movies every weekend with the members and every day was basically a big party.

One funny story about a Maori I served with named Dalton Winera. He was a rugby player and I think he took a few too many shots to the head without a helmet. We knock on the door of this feminist exmormon. She tells us she used to be MOrmon but resigned from the church because she was disgusted by the patriarchal heirarchy.

I hear Winera say, “Hi Rockey!?!?!? Hi Rockey?!?!?!? What’s a Hi Rockey?!?!?!?”

I had to explain to him that she wasn’t saying “Hi Rockey, but heirarchy, which was a pyramidal social order.” At which point the woman slams the door.

And Winera says, “Well if that’s what she meant then why didn’t she just say so? Why does she have to use all those fancy words?”

I just shook my head and carried on.

The one nice thing about him was that I never had to worry about my safety with him.

If anybody taunted us he’d just go beat the crap out of them. One time a whole gang of kids was giving us a hard time when we stopped at a light at a corner on our bikes. I said, “The hell with this, I’m outa here” and took off. One of the kids took off after me and tried to knock me off my bike. I stuck my leg out and knocked him down and kept going. I get down the hill and no Winera. I look up the street and see a siloette of this huge Maori beating the crap out of the kid who tried to knock me off my bike. By the time I get back up the hill the whole gang has Winera surrounded with knives pulled. I talked them down from stabbing Winera. They stabbed his bike tires instead. Fortunately we got out of that with a couple of popped tires.

Later on he got to feeling guilty about beating up one of the natives and went and confessed to the MP.

The MP asked him, “Who won?”

He told everybody in the mission that I got scared and abandoned him and he had to defend himself.

If it wasn’t for me he would’ve been dead.

HJ,

Your a great man.

I should just stop there, but I have a few things to tidy up.

"Wrathful: I respect your belief in the bible, but for me, the God of the old testament was a dysfunctional parent. Out of control, subject to wild emotional mood swings, erratic in his punishments, the Abraham-Isaac thing was atrocious.

I suspect you and I will just have to disagree on this. I must admit I like Jesus a lot better."

The God of the Old Testament IS Jesus. Therefore you don't like God in general. Does that mean you shouldn't believe in God because you don't like the things He does? Or do you not believe because of proof? Just curious. You don't have to answer if you don't want to.

Otherwise, I think we are both right on about sharing love with one another and both Buddhism and Christianity teach this. I find it even greater in that one who believes in either can follow those "Golden Rules" and be a peaceful addition to society. I think all in all, that's the most we could ask for. And for that I appreciate our differences and am honored by our similiarities.

"The most important thing is we agree on the need for a spiritual basis for the practice of the Golden Rule. The rest is commentary. If one does good to his fellow man, and when he dies there is no Jesus and no hell, it has still been the “right” thing to do to follow the Golden rule."

Regardless of the "if" a God or not, your right. The right thing to do is to be good to his fellow man. But like I said, it's not the good works that save us, but our faith. So if there is a Jesus (which I know....:) then.....well....you know.

So I can agree to disagree on certain things and feel comforted in knowing that you can possibly see this one Christian (myself) being a good person because of my faith. And I too can see the same from your Buddhistic philosophies. Of course this is where we end the conversation on this matter. To agree to disagree, but to know our similiarities and accept our differences. I wish all debates, arguments, conversations and oppositions could end this way. Thanks for the conversation HJ. I've learned a great deal about Buddhism from you. Thanks for that. And of course I am forever grateful for your courtesy and respectfullness.

On a brighter note, I'm looking forward to another LDS post eventually. They get so rattled. It must be hard not having a strong foundation to back up your claims. So, I'm sure eventually I'll run into you on another one. Take care HJ.

Much love to you

God bless

Faith in the love of Christ makes you Want to do good. That is a lovely relationship. It is motivated by faith in love.

And as you say, Christ is IN you, you become one, as happens in wonderful love relationships (between a wife and husband, for instance).

And yes, we do always have the inclination to lie or lust after another woman. The Buddhists, and the Christians, acknowledge that. And we will all be imperfect.

The phrase “And his name shall be called, “Emanuel, “God with us.” Or as I think it, God IN us.

The List:
I actually think Original Sin is a pretty good metaphor for human imperfection. But I like the Jewish idea that “sin” is making mistakes, literally, missing the target. Not guilt.

No question that humans are capable of awful things, as well as everyday lousy things like lying and cheating on tests. We need to account for that. That’s the reason societies put you in jail if you steal the old lady’s money.

Guilt again comes into Jesus’s judgment. If one has a good parent whom one loves and (legitimately) trusts, then one does not fear the judgment of that parent. That seems how you feel towards Jesus. Fine with me.

Guilt I could write a book about. Accepting our imperfections (sins?) and trying to correct them but still accepting that we’ll have them is the short answer.

Wrathful: I respect your belief in the bible, but for me, the God of the old testament was a dysfunctional parent. Out of control, subject to wild emotional mood swings, erratic in his punishments, the Abraham-Isaac thing was atrocious.

I suspect you and I will just have to disagree on this. I must admit I like Jesus a lot better.

Short answer is that I do not believe that belief in a wrathful God is a healthy thing for people and for religions.

I knew you didn’t believe in multiple Gods or personality cult Jesus worship, as I said in my initial post on the subject of this list. I just believe in one fewer God than you do.

Hell: there are plenty of religious traditions that don’t believe in Hell. It is an option. I see how within your belief system it is a logical necessity. Again, I would never belong to a religious tradition that had a supernatural hell as part of its theology.

I believe Dante’s Hell is a pretty good description of “hell on earth,” which I know exists. And since I don’t believe in the afterlife, I by definition don’t believe in Hell. But I do think that, on balance, belief in hell has a negative moral effect on humans. I could write a book about it. But the short answer is: Humans have innate moral reasoning and sense. Making the incentive for moral action be Fear of Hell is detrimental to moral sensibility. Many people follow the Golden Rule and behave morally because they innately realize it is their duty as a human being to do so, and that that virtue is its own, intrinsic reward. This is TRUE moral behavior. “moral behavior” to avoid the punishment of hell is infantile moral behavior. We need to grow up, morally as well as intellectually.
Same deal with Satan.

We can deal with the realities of Cancer and other bad things that happen without having to create the myth of a hell or of Satan. And we don’t need the myth of Satan to know that we shouldn’t hit our brother or steal money from that old lady down the street.

Sexism: discriminating against a person on the basis of their sex. Denying equal powers to one sex. A man can vote but a woman can’t. A man can be CEO, but a woman can’t. A man can be a priest, but a woman can’t. That is sexism.

Tithing: if people are in an open organization that everyone agrees to support, I DO think that is just fine.

So…many agreements, a few differences of opinion.

The most important thing is we agree on the need for a spiritual basis for the practice of the Golden Rule. The rest is commentary. If one does good to his fellow man, and when he dies there is no Jesus and no hell, it has still been the “right” thing to do to follow the Golden rule.

Peace
HJ

I have to agree with you about catholics. Of course in a sense they are cultish as well. Using damnation as a tool for control. And of course not recognizing the sufficiency of Christ's death in that they have different levels of sin and this imaginary purgatory thing. Also, with the popes new talk of anyone not being catholic cannot be saved. What a bunch of horse shhhh....poop. Yeah i agree that no one should shove going to hell down a kids throat. Catholics fall into that trap as well. Use fear to make them believe. Terrible. Otherwise, I agree with everything else you said. Looking forward to the "to be continued".

Hi David
“Good Christians” like you don’t believe in guilt and punishment, but Catholics have 8,000 venial and mortal sins that one needs to feel guilty for, and fundamentalist Christians put the Fear of God into children with threats of Hellfire and Damnation from the time they are 2. Child abuse.

My Prague Christians are on the same wavelength as you regarding Jesus’s message. It is pretty much the way I always interpreted it also.

We agree that Buddhist morals and Christian morals are essentially the same. As I said in my earlier post, the morals of virtually all societies and religions are the same. The Golden Rule etc.

The reason Buddhists pay attention to them is They are Right in Themselves. Loving kindness is its own reward, and by practicing the discipline we reach Enlightenment, the Buddhist version of salvation.

The “consequences” are Good when Love is the object, whether with Christ or with our fellows. We don’t need guilt to be motivated. Love is a much greater motivator to do good and be good. Guilt is a motivator to sin, as the Prague Christians pointed out.

With kids, they certainly need discipline and limits. With my daughter, we did that, and we made sure she knew we loved her and were taking care of her. We never had to “punish” her, either with spanking or grounding. But we were able to teach her that there were consequences to her actions. She essentially learned the Golden Rule. She wouldn’t steal the money of others, in a bank or otherwise, because she wouldn’t want that done to her. She has an innate moral sense – we hardly had to teach her those basic things, we just brought out of her that natural moral sense.

(to be continued)

I love the conversation HJ, especially with someone who I respect and admire. Thanks for all your information.

"Christians depend on guilt and "consequences" I assume you mean hell or punishment.

Buddhists depend on discipline (esp in the practice of the principles) and fostering the innate desire to do good (and control the bad)."

No, Christians do not depend on guilt or consequences. If we are Christians we have accepted Christ and have acknowledged that His death has atoned for ours sins. The guilt cannot be there otherwise we deny the reason why Christ died for us. I will admit sometimes that I may do things that I know are wrong and the Holy Spirit convicts me of this and I feel the need to ask God for forgiveness. Do I feel the guilt after that or do I say with faith that God has forgiven me before I even asked Him? Before being a Christian I felt the guilt. Jesus has removed that guilt and replaced it with love by faith alone.

One comment before going into your above post about religious doctrines, sin doctrine, wrath of God, money, etc.. I read part of the eightfold path of Buddhism. I see no moral differences than what Christianity believes. The same peace that we are to given to our fellow man is the same peace that Christ taught. I see no difference. I merely pointed out earlier the differences in meditational practice and most importantly the differences in philosophy. Otherwise I see Buddhism as a philosophy as equivolent on the moral scale as Christianity, with the only difference being that it doesn't explain where those morals came from or why should anyone pay attention to them if there are no consequences?

I look at it this way. You can have a set of laws or rules in place (such as the Bible has or what Buddhists have as well) but if there are no consequences then why would anyone want to follow them? I am a father with two kids. I lay down some laws in my house. If my kids break those rules, they are punished. Grounded, spanked, whatever. If I did not punish them, then why would they obey them? Naturally, as humans if we do not recieve a punishment for breaking the laws then why stop breaking them? If bank robbers were not put in jail for robbing banks, then why stop? They would be rich! It is not that Christians depend on consequences, it's merely the fact that we acknowledge the consequeces.

(Doing good and bad)

Of course this is a hot topic that seperates many "Christian" sects. But without a doubt it is by faith alone that we recieve salvation. What the cults do not understand is that by saying that we could do anything to EARN our salvation is to say that Christ did not do enough on the cross for us. (This is relevant to the conversation, so bear with me HJ :) )

Here's what you said concerning good works.

"Buddhists depend on discipline (esp in the practice of the principles) and fostering the innate desire to do good (and control the bad)."

This is right on with Christianity. The biggest misconception in Christianity is that we strive for salvation. No. If you are a Christian, you are already saved. So as mentioned in your post from a Christian site, it mentioned, "then why do good works?" We have to examine faith to know what faith does for us. Faith not just saves us from eternal seperation from God. It changes us. This change is brought on by the Holy Spirit that indwells in each and every person that accepts the free gift of life provided by Jesus Christ. Faith PRODUCES good works. Faith PRODUCES the desire to not sin. Faith PRODUCES the ability to please God with our works because now that Christ indwells within us it is He that is working through me, not works produced by myself. Therefore this CHANGE is automatic, but yet gradual. No matter how much faith or "discipline" one has, we still have the natural instinct to tell a little white lie here and there, to look at a woman lustfully here and there (even though we are married), to want more for ouselves than for others. This is all natural. This is something we continue to do whether it be Buddhist or Christian and something we both have to admit. We can gradually get better at not doing these things by faith or "discipline", but can we ever stop??? This is why we need Jesus.

Sorry, I know I only said one comment before going into the post above. Got carried away. Whew...my fingers hurt.

Ok here goes:

Oh first of all, I didn't think that was offensive at all. I only mentioned that you were prostelyzing me when I said I wouldn't do the same. But how can what I believe in be offensive? But of course no offense taken if that is my belief.

Ok.

original sin, (HJ can give that up. can you? didn't Jesus wash away our original sin?)

As I went on before about how we all do bad things, no I can't imagine a religion without original sin because it's good to know the origins of our bad behaviour. Both of us have to admit that this world is pretty evil. With Christianity, you can know why. With Buddhism you can only guess or with the atheistic part of your belief you can only assume that it is evolutionary. But no where else in any other religion does it specify the heart of man more distincly than in the Bible and especially in Jesus' words. "Original" sin is merely the birth of sin. The only thing man created. And since man created it, it is not good. I honestly cannot think of one thing that man invented or created that could not break down or that is so perfect as to even come close to what God created. Of course this is debatable depending on your views of evolution and creation. We'll just skip that argument though.....PLEASE..

judgment, (see the Prague guilt disavowal above. Judgment is very UN Jesus like.)

Judgement is very Jesus like. He is God and therefore He can judge. Actually He will judge everyone eventually. I have no problem with this judgemental Jesus because I have faith in Him and know that I have already been found guilty but my faith has set me free.

a wrathful God, (don't you and I believe in a Loving God/Universe, respectively)

Yes, I do believe in a loving God and that a wrathful God is just another personality trait of God. How can He be the Judge, but yet produce no sentence? They go hand in hand. You must remember too that God allows plenty of time for repentance. So many people point out the wrathful acts of God on humanity in the OT but of course forget the part where God allows hundreds of years to repent. (Noah story) God allowed 400 years (I believe 400, more or less) to allow humanity to repent before finally bringing judgement and wrath. He is a merciful God, who will allow the proper amount of time plus some to repent.

"a personality cult (we don't love Jesus to be part of a personality cult, we love him as an incredible gift giver)"

Yep.

"a multitude of gods and saints, (you don't believe in a multitude of gods, do you?)"

C'mon, if you've seen me fighting with the mormons, you know I don't believe in multiple gods. The Bible says there is only ONE God in several places. The mormons of course forgot those parts.

an eternal hell, (without punishment, there is no hell)

This of course is the hardest part of faith because I do not want anyone to endure this. Some have down-played hell as just eternal seperation from God. I'm not too sure if it's just that with the fire and brimstone, but all I know is that it's a terrible place. So to imagine a religion without the doctrine of hell.....well, yes I can imagine a religion without that doctrine. And to me it sounds nice, but then I would be denying what I don't want to hear just to accept the "nice" things. So why lie to myself or convince myself that there is no eternal punishment. If a doctor tells me I have terminal cancer and that I'll be dead in 4 weeks, should I plan a trip to Europe in 2 years? No, I have to accept the bad news. Why would I lie to myself when the fact is that hell is real? Imagining a religion without the hell doctrine is simply that....imagining.

idolizing a book, (that may be a problem for you. would you say you "idolize" the bible)

Nope. I don't worship the paper or the cover. I worship the One who divinely inspired it. To Idolize something would mean to worship that thing. I worship God alone. He inspired the authors of the Bible. Never a book, but God. But how would I know God without the Bible, right?

Satan, (and no Satan)

Imagine a religion without satan. How nice would that be huh? But once again I'm ignoring the Docs diagnosis which in reality is cancer. Yeah without satan, religion looks reallly nice. But again that also leaves out the important fact of knowing where temptation comes from.

Last ones

a blood sacrifice for atonement, (again a problem for you: jesus shed his blood to atone for our sins)
a rejection of personal experience, (you don't want a religion that rejects personal experience, I don't believe)
holy wars, ( i am sure you are against these)
hypocritical rules,
sexism, a cultish mindset (you are surely against these)

and constantly asking for money.
(???)

Of course against holy wars. They aren't very holy. hypocritical rules, of course against those as well. Sexism needs to be defined in order to answer that question.

There is no longer a need for blood sacrifice in that Jesus made the final sacrifice. So my faith does not support blood sacrifice. Again that would mean that Christ's death wasn't sufficient enough.

Personal experience. Must be defined as well. I think Christianity evolved around personal experience.

Tithing. nothing wrong with giving right? I'm sure you would agree?

I do have to run now. Looooooong post and I'm sorry for that. But I wanted to be clear about a lot of things. Have a great day.

Much love and blessings

God bless

David

given the truly Christian attitude towards guilt that our Prague Christians exhibit in my post above, i thought i would go back to my offending paragraph of a couple of days ago and speculate how YOU really feel about whether religion should include those things.

the paragraph started:
"Imagine a religion without

original sin, (HJ can give that up. can you? didn't Jesus wash away our original sin?)

judgment, (see the Prague guilt disavowal above. Judgment is very UN Jesus like.)

a wrathful God, (don't you and I believe in a Loving God/Universe, respectively)

a multitude of gods and saints, (you don't believe in a multitude of gods, do you?)

an eternal hell, (without punishment, there is no hell)

Satan, (and no Satan)
a sense of guilt, (see above)
a personality cult (we don't love Jesus to be part of a personality cult, we love him as an incredible gift giver)

idolizing a book, (that may be a problem for you. would you say you "idolize" the bible)
a blood sacrifice for atonement, (again a problem for you: jesus shed his blood to atone for our sins)
a rejection of personal experience, (you don't want a religion that rejects personal experience, I don't believe)
holy wars, ( i am sure you are against these)
hypocritical rules,
sexism, a cultish mindset (you are surely against these)

and constantly asking for money.
(???)

So, by my tally, you would agree with most of the "offending paragraph." am i right.

love
Henry

david from a christian site, the Prague Christian Fellowship, about Christ and guilt

is your morality based upon doing what you know is right and not doing what you know is wrong? For most it is. But for Jesus it was not! Was the woman at the well right or wrong? Was Matthew working as a tax collector right or wrong? Was Peter’s denial right or wrong?

Interestingly enough Jesus’ question to Peter was not - “do you feel bad?” It was not even - “can you admit you were wrong?” Jesus simply asked him, “do you love me?”

For many, many Christians morality is an issue of goodness and badness rather than an issue of love. Jesus said, “if you love me you will obey me”. Institutions tend to say, “if you understand the rules you will follow them. If you break the rules, you will be punished.” Implicit with understanding of the rules is an understanding of the consequences. The consequences include judgement and condemnation. Ultimately the motivation for “good” is fear and guilt.

Scripture says, “there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus”. It says “Christ died for our sins” and the penalty for those sins has been paid in full. That means judgement and condemnation are no longer issues. The initial response is “then why do good?” It is the response of those whose morality is based upon right and wrong and whose motivation is based upon fear and guilt. Manipulation via fear and guilt does not eliminate sin; it is the reason the law causes sin to increase. Jesus died for us out of love for His Father and love for us.

Jesus introduced a new morality. It was a morality based on love. The love of Jesus was one that would lay his life down for another. It replaced the old motivation of fear and guilt. Why? “It is only when we are no longer condemned for the bad that we can let go of it”.2 The law held us in bondage by keeping our self-image wounded and needy. Feeling terrible and unlovable is a perfect recipe for sin. Some call it the “sin cycle”. The worse you feel about yourself, the stronger the “need” to get your needs met in the flesh. But “if we aren’t worried about condemnation when we sin, we have more energy to be worried about the one we hurt. That is godly sorrow instead of crippling guilt.”3i

David good thoughts. keep thinking good thoughts.

you write

"I truly find that Jesus' death is unique because no other religion or philosophy can conquer what our hearts have condemned us for.
If people don't follow the laws to be good, what are the consequences?"

Christians depend on guilt and "consequences" I assume you mean hell or punishment.

Buddhists depend on discipline (esp in the practice of the principles) and fostering the innate desire to do good (and control the bad).

If you read at the website below about the eightfold path, you will see how the buddhist practice includes the practice of not lying or speaking ill of your fellows. the daily practice in loving kindness and goodness builds the habits of goodness. Just like the daily practice of ballet makes great ballet dancers, not the punishment that they receive is they make a mistake in a step.

All humans innately feel guilt. usually unhealthily. lots of religions use guilt as a manipulative control mechanism in a diabolical way. buddhism avoids that kind of manipulative approach. it's practice helps people be mature loving responsible human beings. Guilt as a motivator is VERY LOW on the moral development scale (google Kohlberg).

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html

Hey HJ,

I can tell you what the Bible says about meditation. In Joshua 1:8 it says to meditate on God's Word.

"Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, DWELL on these things" (Philippians 4:8, NASB).

There are quite a few other verses that mention meditation. Meditation according to the Bible is a "focused thinking" on God. It is the quiet time in our minds that we can just focus on God's Word. I think there are certain meditation practices in Buddhism (Transendal Meditation) that should be avoided in Christian practice. This tends to be a more self focused form of meditation to uplift oneself. The main point of meditation from a Christian standpoint is to focus solely on God and His Word. I believe that that entails focus even in times of working or relaxing. I find myself in my backyard at times mowing the lawn and just thinking about God's Word. I tend to forget that I'm mowing the lawn and next thing I know it's done. My focus on God enables me to do my daily living and at the same time do what I need to do. I think meditation is not just for a quiet time alone, but can be a mental focus on God no matter where I'm at or what I'm doing. There are no specific chants involved because God knows our hearts and hears our indwelling chants of praise. I do think the outcome can be somewhat similiar in practice with Buddhism in that we can walk away feeling refreshed physically and mentally to refrain from sin.

I do think Christianity has a false assumption from non-Christians. Non-believers assume that Christians do not accept anyone other people than Christians. When you read about Jesus and who he was with during his time here, he hung out with sinners. Prostitutes, tax collectors, prideful human beings. The Pharisees and Sadducees tried to bring Jesus down for this saying that was a terrible man He is for hanging out with societies worst people. What Jesus says is amazing. "It is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick." If Christians should be more "Christ-like" we should accept all brands of people. There is no other in the history of the world (except Jesus) that deserves to be in heaven. We all have fallen short of the glory of God. Rom 3:23. So acceptance should be for all Christians, acceptance of Buddhists, Muslims, prostitutes, murderers...We are all the same in God's eyes. The difference in Christianity from all other philosophies and religions ever, is one thing. Forgiveness. Buddhists focus on not trying to do bad things. Great. So do any other moral beings. But we all do bad things once in awhile. Are we to shrug that off as just a slip? Oops, won't happen again? Or do we take the responsibility to acknowledge that no matter what I cannot do good all the time. This is the difference in Christianity that no other religion can offer. Forgiveness of the guilt that is accumulated from the detestable things we do. This is a burden I carried and ignored my whole life until I accepted Christ fully. No other philosophy or religion or god other than Jesus can lift that burden and enable me to do good things by His will. I truly find that Jesus' death is unique because no other religion or philosophy can conquer what our hearts have condemned us for.

Buddhist philosophy is great if one can abide by those rules. God made rules too. But I know I cannot keep those rules without ever breaking them. This is why I need Jesus. I do feel that the whole of Buddhism goes against Christian philosophy, but the notion of goodness that we SHOULD do is great. The problem lies within itself. Can anyone stick to those set of laws to "be good"? And if not, what are the consequences? This is my question to you? What do Buddhist teach that can help oneself conquer the acts of defiance to a certain group of laws?

Thanks HJ.

Hi david

Christians adopting Buddhist practices, examples:

1. Meditation is the most prominent one. It is, of course, quite similar to prayer. Your mantra can be “blessed Mary, mother of
God”, or “om”. In both cases it is meditative.

2. the method that Buddhists have of dealing with desire, again largely through meditation but also through their philosophy.

3. study of The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path (to enlightenment). If you google these you will get more detail on the philosophy.

None of the above contradicts Christianity. It is a different vantage point on the biggest moral and spiritual issues man faces.

The Moral system IS essentially the same as Christianity, and Secular Humanism, and every society that has ever existed.

Buddhists don’t believe in God, but they don’t “reject” people who do. There are huge overlaps among all the wisdom traditions in the world. Buddhism is much more a philosophy than a religion. And most religious people have a philosophy.

Peace
HJ

Thanks Karen. I can't wait to see that one. I bet Hinckley is whipping out his massive paper shredder as we speak. Was Enron Mormon owned??

HJ,

I think I've mentioned before how much lack of knowledge I have concerning Buddhism. So because of that, I think it would be wise for me not to "critique" Buddhism or I might just find myself with my foot in my mouth. I do prefer not to speak of certain things unless I've given them some study. I can however offer my opinion, but just to let you know...it is opinion.

You mentioned how Christians are adopting Buddhist practices along with Christianity. I'm not exactly sure what particular practices they are adopting, but I do not deny the fact that they might. In my opinion, then they are not true to their faith. The Bible speaks of a time when those who call themselves Christians will be "apostate" and will adopt other false doctrines. If truly they are doing this in large numbers, then I might say that that prophecy is becoming reality. Actually I could say that anyway with false doctrines such as mormonism and jehovah witnesses, and certain catholic doctrines as well. Your description of Buddhism earlier about not hurting anyone, not stealing, etc, seem equivolent to what Christianity teaches. Therefore if one abides by what Buddha taught as morals, it seems that those same morals are in place Biblically. I do think you might have to be more specific on the type of practices you are talking about whether it be meditaion, certain prayers, worship or catching flies with chopsticks....just kidding...but to be honest, I'm not sure how Buddhist practice Buddhism. I would like to know though. Thanks HJ.

Have a great day and

God bless

thanks Karen, that is good news.

God doesn't have anything to hide, does She?

HJ

HJ, Phaedrus,Huff:
Did you see the article from ethics daily linked on the main page of "on Faith" re: the Oregon courts decision that the LDS must divulge its financial status in response to suit brought against the church?
Who knows? You may all yet get to see some numbers...

Thanks David

Correspondingly, I would be happy to hear your critique of my Buddhist beliefs. (the buddha invited critiques - he welcomed them). I know that you believe in the Christian way, so the fact that Buddhism is a different path is one clear distinction.

a number of christians do combine buddhist practices with their christian beliefs. there are probably some contradictions, but aren't there always with whatever spiritual practice we adopt?

peace
henry

HJ,

Ahh don't worry about it. No offense taken. Thanks for the apology. Of course it is accepted. Those darn evil twins....

David
my apologies. please pretend i never posted that offending paragraph, and just note the positive descriptions of buddhist practice. must have been my evil twin taking over. or William. same difference. but again, i apologize, you were very gentlemanly in your pledge and you kept it.

peace
henry

HJ,

Thanks for the info. As I promised I will not try to refute those teachings with a Christian response, but will in fact acknowledge that if you find peace in that, that's great for you and much respect to you. But you didn't have to go all anti-Christian on me homie! Ex:

"Imagine a religion without original sin, judgment, a wrathful God, a multitude of gods and saints, an eternal hell, Satan, a sense of guilt, a personality cult, idolizing a book, a blood sacrifice for atonement..."

Sounds like your prosthelyzing (did I spell that right?) to me Mr. James. I promised not to do that to you and you did that to me......shame on you, sir...... :)

Of course as you may know that I am true to my faith and it can't be broken. As you as well, of course I would wish for everyone to accept Christ, but if not the least I could hope for would be that those who do not accept Christ can find a faith that can bring peace in their lives and the lives of others. Unfortunately, for this world there are always gonna be islamic jihadists, popes that divide people and just straight up evil and violent people. That's really too bad, huh? But HJ, I really do respect you and the teachings that you follow because if you do stick to those teachings, I feel assured that you can and will always be a peaceful individual. Kudos to you my friend. It's just too bad THAT YOUR GONNA BURN IN HELL! C'mon, you know I have to give you a hard time! Much love to you and your family and no matter your faith I hope that you would find it a compliment that I keep you in my prayers. Thanks HJ.

Peace and love to you.

And know some people don't like this, but this is who I am.....

God bless (please don't take offense to that statement at the end of my posts)

HJ ~

That sounds simply beautiful. I'm pretty glad we'll be in the same hell if that's where we go after we die, because I'd love to hear you teach about it more in person.

Why the 'Buddha rejected the existence of God:
the argument which the Buddha most frequently uses is what is now called the "argument from evil" which in the Buddhist sense could be stated as the argument from dukkha (suffering or unsatisfactoriness). This states that the empirical fact of the existence of dukkha cannot be reconciled with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient being who is also all good.
The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha.(

David

this web site statement gives a good summary of why Buddhism is attractive to me:
Imagine a religion without original sin, judgment, a wrathful God, a multitude of gods and saints, an eternal hell, Satan, a sense of guilt, a personality cult, idolizing a book, a blood sacrifice for atonement, a rejection of personal experience, holy wars, hypocritical rules, sexism, a cultish mindset and constantly asking for money. Luckily, a religion without all of this negative baggage does exist and is called Shin Buddhism.

Shin Buddhism is an 800 year old religion and a way of life dedicated to manifesting the endowed purpose of every human being to realize enlightenment. This is a natural path open to everyone; it is especially geared to ordinary working people involved in daily responsibilities and worldly entanglements. It is called a natural path because it is devoid of superstitious dogma and is based on personal experience and reality-as-it-is. It uses everything as a vehicle on the journey to enlightenment. It never forces itself onto others and maintains a gentle but persuasive demeanor. What’s more, it does not have a blind eye to what it is to be a real human being but it fully accepts the human condition with all of its limitations and potentialities.

Being a natural way, it is also all-inclusive and embracing because like the ocean it accepts everybody, even non-believers and the so-called lowliest of our society. No matter who you are or what you have done or what burdens you carry, you and everyone else is assured to be transformed through the power of great compassion into an authentically real and awakened person. This is the assurance of Shin.

At its core, Shin can be seen as an anti-cult; this feature is clearly manifested in our Buddhist Fellowship, which is non-hierarchical, egalitarian and non-dogmatic. Moreover, it does not ask for followers but seeks dedicated practitioners of daily compassion, love and wisdom, so together we can transform ourselves and the world into a happier place. As a wholesome vehicle to spiritual practice, it does not have any requirements to join but only to have the faith and commitment to transmute the burdens of daily life into the source of received wisdom and compassion. Come as you are and practice with us.
from
http://buddhistfaith.tripod.com/pureland_sangha/id71.html

david thanks for the question.
the buddha taught explicitly that he was NOT a god, and that there are no supernatural beings. so a true buddhist is by definition an atheist, though some sects believe in gods.

here is a short synopsis of buddhist teachings that i adhere to (i don't literally believe in reincarnation, but Hindus do).

(1) to lead a moral life,
(2) to be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions, and
(3) to develop wisdom and understanding.
Science is knowledge which can be made into a system, which depends upon seeing and testing facts and stating general natural laws. The core of Buddhism fit into this definition, because the Four Noble truths (see below) can be tested and proven by anyone in fact the Buddha himself asked his followers to test the teaching rather than accept his word as true. Buddhism depends more on understanding than faith.

The moral code within Buddhism is the precepts, of which the main five are: not to take the life of anything living, not to take anything not freely given, to abstain from sexual misconduct and sensual overindulgence, to refrain from untrue speech, and to avoid intoxication, that is, losing mindfulness.

The highest wisdom is seeing that in reality, all phenomena are incomplete, impermanent and do no constitute a fixed entity. True wisdom is not simply believing what we are told but instead experiencing and understanding truth and reality. Wisdom requires an open, objective, unbigoted mind. The Buddhist path requires courage, patience, flexibility and intelligence.

Hey Henry,

Just for my educational purposes alone, can you explain to me what an atheist buddhist is? I promise I'm not going to try to counter your beliefs with some Christian statement. I'm just wondering how that works. Of course with my limited knowledge about buddhism, I had the assumption that Buddha was a god. And if he is not your "god" and you don't believe in "gods" then I understand the atheistic approach. But does that mean that you follow the teachings of Buddha? Do you believe in re-incarnation, karma and the such? Just a question from a curious Christian. Thanks HJ.

David ~

I never thought I'd hear someone singing THAT scary song here! Made me shiver!

David
I'm an atheist buddhist. like all good buddhists.

thanks for the kind words.

peace and love
henry

Sister Mary,

I fully respect you and whatever you believe in or not believe in. It's not the athiests or agnostics that give me heartburn. It's those who use the Word of God to influence people to join their cults (Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, etc..) and turn them away from God just like satan did to Eve in Gen 3. (Hint,Hint, mormons...) It not only gets me angry, but I find great offense when someone uses the Bible to promote false teachings. This is something in my life I choose not to tolerate, hence me being active on the mormon threads and such.

What I will do is defend my faith from any attacks from atheists or agnostics. I feel like it's held up pretty good so far. At least 2000 years, huh? We're on a roll. :)

Of course as you know I believe in salvation and that salvation comes to those as a free gift from God through His Son Jesus Christ by faith alone. I wish you would have faith in Jesus because I (and you) know the consequences otherwise. But if not, I love ya and respect you the same. I have a great deal of respect to those who give it in return. Henry James has been one of those who have given me full respect and has acknowledged that my faith has given me peace and allowed me to love those who I do not even know. I thank him for that. I would hope all the same from those who are non-believers and as well I would hope the same and equal respect from Christians to non-believers. Just because we don't agree doesn't mean that we can't get along!

Henry.....I will be haunting you in your dreams.....BWHAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAA.

1,2, Davids coming for you
3,4 Davids at your door
5,6 Need a crucifix
7,8 Better stay up late..........

No, really...have a great night. Talk to ya later buddy.

Oh by the way, I didn't know you are Buddhist?? I thought you were an atheist. Silly me, huh?

David ~

You made me laugh with your evil laughter.

I wasn't trying to wage a battle with you, just to point out people's need to create such people and myths to feel better about what is beyond this life. I can fully respect your belief and faith, and I hope you can respect my non-belief in gods and my faith in mankind.

Off to a ladies' night out with my sister! Peace.

David
your evil laugh will echo through and trouble my dreams, i am sure. artfully done.

and you are right, this is all the ebb and flow of the spirit and the heart - we are all continually molding it.

best to you

HJ

HJ,

Good argumentative response. After I posted what I wrote, I found the holes in my statement and was waiting for the proper intelligence to argue against me. Nice job.

You mentioned if I think most of the similiarities are accurate. Well, I have no idea. Of course someone could say so and it might be true but I don't know in what way I could verify them. I guess I could read about Buddha and Krishna more, but then I probably wouldn't waste my time. I guess concerning this subject I should keep my mouth closed. I really do not have the proper studying in Buddhism or Krishnaism to make a solid point. The few facts I know are already mentioned. Otherwise, I have no basis or enough knowledge to argue the matter. The only argument I can amount to on this subject would be the reliability of the Bible. Otherwise I'm stumped.

I guess I'll let this pass and strike one up for the atheists! You may have won the battle, but you didn't win the war. Whaaaaa haaaaa haaaa!! (Evil laugh)

Have a great evening.

David: you write:
“The death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is what seperates them all.”
Well, yes, BUT, the Hindus believe in reincarnation, that the soul lives on after death. Instead of being resurrected, it takes on NEW bodies. Different, but similar effect.
All religions are created largely to help humans overcome their anxiety about death and dying, so they all make up stories about what happens after death that are intended to comfort the living. The Hindu reincarnation story does this about as well as the Christian resurrection story. Neither have any hope of being proved. They are the equivalent of myths.

David, you are right, Buddha explicitly told us he was NOT a god and there were no supernatural entities. This is why I am a Buddhist. But people “deified him” to some extent despite that, and he was surely a hero to billions. A Messiah of sorts. And the stories people made up about him are similar in many cases to the stories people made up about Jesus.

With all due respect, throughout history there have been millions of “eyewitness accounts” to millions of events that have not actually happened or were distorted beyond recognition. And the “eyewitness accounts” of Jesus’s resurrection were recorded 50 years after the accounts were given. One has to accept them on Faith, because there is no way they can be verified by evidence.

Again, the point of SML’s lists are that humans have a need to create gods, and they do so in similar (though not identical) ways most of the time

David and Anon:
As David says, “of course there are similarities.” Why “of course.?” Because humans like to have Gods and Heroes. These lists SML gave illustrate similarities, and even IF the compiler is “biased” (whatever that means in this instance), don’t you think most of them are accurate?

David, you make the point that Krishna was a fictional character. Fine. But he IS a deity worshipped as a God across many sectors of Hinduism.

The point is that the Hindus created a God who is similar in many ways to Jesus. Makes one wonder whether there isn’t some human desire for such Gods, as opposed to the Gods actually possessing the attributed characteristics.

You say “no one should adore or trust an imaginary god.” I agree, but billions do (I of course include Christians and Jews in this category.) Jesus most likely DID exist, but as Harold Bloom says, every other “fact” about his life is open to challenge, so he might as well be a character in a novel. An historical novel, perhaps, but still a novel. The Gospels were all written 40=60 years after his death, and even written accounts are unreliable the moment they are written, let alone after they get retold a few times.

Of course the first hand accounts of Krishna are unreliable. Gods are imaginary. Even Christians believe all Gods are imaginary EXCEPT Jesus and Yahwey and the Holy Ghost.

That is SML’s point!! People create these gods out of their imaginations. And since all people are pretty much alike, they create similar gods.

(to be continued)

HJ

Of course there are similarities and of course a biased source would not include the differences. First about Krishna.

Krishna Is the hero of the 18th chapter of the novel or epic Mahabharata, the Bhagavad-gita, who never existed as a person.He is the result of divinization of a novel hero, like the Greek or Roman gods... it is like making a god out of Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes who never existed, only in the mind of the writer, of Shakespeare and Sir Arthur Conon Doyle, the writers of these English epics. Krishna is not alive now, because he never was, just as Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes can't be alive now, because they never were.Of course, there are many wonderful novels and epics with great moral and social teachings, and with glorious descriptions and intuitions of God, but there is no way to make a god out of any of their imaginary heroes... and no one should adore or trust an imaginary god.Most of the 800 million Hindus know and agree that Krishna never existed on earth, that he is a product of a novel, a hero of an epic. Jesus however DID exist. Big difference. I will admit that the comparisons are strikingly similiar, but at the same time, the most important elements are different. Most importantly the fact that Krishna was a character and Jesus was (and is) real. Of course there were many witnesses to the accounts of Jesus, especially the death, burial and resurrection. Krishna was only (supposedly) witnessed by one "Hunter" in some account written about him. One person to witness about Krishna?? Sounds like Islam to me. Not very reliable either. Oh I should mention that there were never prophecies concerning the coming of Krishna as well as is the case with Jesus and the fact that they are 100% accurate.

Buddha

Buddha didn't claim to be god or a god. Jesus claimed to be God. No prophecies concerning buddha as well. Jesus performed miracles. Buddha did not. Jesus resurrected. Buddha did not. Not to mention that the message Jesus brought was quite different that Buddhas.

The death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ is what seperates them all. This of course is the backbone of Christianity and is what seperates all from the rest. Since there were several eye witness accounts to the resurrection of Jesus, not just eye witness accounts from biased sources such as the apostles but remember Jesus was witnessed by Saul of Tarsus (Paul) who was a great persecuter of Christians. And as I mentioned before, if they were all lying it doesn't make much sense to be imprisoned, tortured and eventually murdered for a lie.

I'm not too sure about the archeaological evidence concerning the writings of Krishna. It can be claimed that they were written centuries b.c. but then do we have any documents that can be dated or verified for historical accuracy for that period...I don't know. If not then I guess I can make the claim that "The Cat in the Hat" was originally written by Socrates and you should believe that too.

I think I made my points. I guess I should say that those are great similarities, but you forgot to add that they don't have dark hair as well and that they both have ten toes and ten fingers. Point being, that the important aspects of Jesus are not portrayed as similarities with Krishna or Buddha. Have a great day.

God bless

If it is what Christians believe as well as what Buddhists believe, what difference does it make when either was written?

Anonymous:
Good to see you again.

The "conclusion" I "drew" from SML's lists was that Humans have a need for a Messiah, and that they are continually "creating Messiahs" that have supernatural abilities.

Frankly, neither you nor I needed SML's lists to draw this conclusion. We just had to have had our eyes open in reading the history of civilizations, as there are hundreds of examples of the phenomenon, and it has been widely documented in the psychological/sociological literature.

So go ahead: be IMPRUDENT. Leap to the conclusion that human societies are "always" looking for a Messiah.

Might I suggest that before drawing conclusions from what SML posted, it would seem prudent to understand the source documents and when they were written. It goes without saying that just because a thing is said to have occurred in such and such a year doesn't mean that is when the "event" was recorded in some written record. Does anyone know the source documents for the writings about "Krishna"?

SML
very interesting compilations.

just as it is quite clear that essentially identical moral systems develop in all societies, and that man has an innate moral sense that has evolved similarly to how his language sense evolved,

so your lists demonstrate that different cultures and the humans within them have a need to "create" a divine figure who, as a symbol, performs identical functions in the society.

In other words, that man created God in the image of the personage man felt he needed.

I have no idea why it posted twice...I'd not have done that on purpose.

My friend, Bishop Rick, posted these comparisons on his blog which I found fascinating:

Many of you may not know much about origins of gods and their many similarities. For this post, let's compare a few similarities between Jesus and Krishna. Additional comparisons are forth coming.

PART ONE

Jesus and Krishna

• Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God.
• Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
• Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity
• Adoptive human father was a carpenter.
• A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
• Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
• Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
• Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination.
* The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
• Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
• Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
• Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
• Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
• Both were "without sin."
• Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
• They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
• Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole.
* Each cured "all manner of diseases."
• Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
• Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
• Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
• Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
• Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.

Traditional belief is that Krishna was born on July 19, 3228 BCE
Traditional belief is that Jesus was born in the spring around 6 BCE

PART TWO

Jesus and Buddha

1. Both Buddha and Jesus were baptized in the presence of the "spirit" of God
2. Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom.
3. Both fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty--seven days and Jesus for forty.
4. At the conclusion of their fasts, they both wandered to a fig tree.
5. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:
Buddha was twenty nine years of age
Jesus was about thirty years of age
6. Both were tempted by the "devil" at the beginning of their ministry
7. Buddha answered the "devil": "Get you away from me.
Jesus responded: "...be gone, Satan!"
8. Both experienced the "supernatural" after the "devil" left:
For Buddha: "The skies rained flowers, and delicious odors prevailed [in] the air."
For Jesus: "angels came and ministered to him"
9. The multitudes required a sign from both in order that they might believe.
10. Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth.
11. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic's eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away.
Jesus said: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;"
12. "Buddha taught that the motive of all our actions should be pity or love of our neighbor. Jesus taught: "Love thy neighbor as thyself...love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
13. Buddha said: "Hide your good deeds, and confess before the world the sins you have committed."
Jesus said: "Beware of practicing your piety before men to be seen by them” and "…Therefore confess your sins one to another…”
14. Both are said to have known the thoughts of others:
"By directing his mind to the thoughts of others, [Buddha] can know the thoughts of all beings."
"But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: `Why do you think evil in your hearts?'"
15. Both were itinerant preachers with a close group of trustees within a larger group of disciples.
16. Both preached that their disciples should renounce all worldly possessions.
17. Both had a disciple who "walked" on water
18. Both met a woman at a well (remember, so did krishna)
"One day Ananda, the disciple of Buddha, after a long walk in the country, meets with Matangi, a woman of the low caste of the Kandalas, near a well, and asks her for some water. She tells him what she is, and that she must not come near him. But he replies: `My sister, I ask not for your caste or your family, I ask only for a drought of water.
"There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her: `Give me a drink.' For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. The Samaritan woman said to him: `How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?' For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans"
19. Both received similar receptions:
For Buddha, "The people swept the pathway, the gods strewed flowers on the pathway and branches of the coral tree, the men bore branches of all manner of trees, and the Bodhisattva Sumedha spread his garments in the mire, [and] men and gods shouted: `All hail.'"
"And they brought the colt to Jesus, and threw their garments on it; and he sat on it. And many spread their garments on the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields"
20. Both had a close figure trying to betray them:
Buddha – Devadatta (a cousin)
Jesus – Judas (an apostle)
21. Both told their disciples to continue the ministry after they were gone and they would be with them always.
22. When Buddha died: "The coverings of [his] body unrolled themselves, and the lid of his coffin was opened by supernatural powers."
When Jesus died: the stone blocking the entrance of his tomb was rolled away.
23. "In the year 217 B.C. Buddhist missionaries were imprisoned for preaching; but an angel, genie or spirit came and opened the prison door, and liberated them."
"They arrested the apostles (of Jesus) and put them in the common prison. But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out"
25. Both men's disciples are said to have been miracle workers.

My friend, Bishop Rick, posted these comparisons on his blog which I found fascinating:

Many of you may not know much about origins of gods and their many similarities. For this post, let's compare a few similarities between Jesus and Krishna. Additional comparisons are forth coming.

PART ONE

Jesus and Krishna

• Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God.
• Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man.
• Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity
• Adoptive human father was a carpenter.
• A spirit or ghost was their actual father.
• Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent.
• Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star.
• Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination.
* The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura.
• Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted.
• Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head."
• Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki."
• Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection."
• Both were "without sin."
• Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.
• They were both considered omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
• Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole.
* Each cured "all manner of diseases."
• Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead.
• Both selected disciples to spread his teachings.
• Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners.
• Both encountered a Gentile woman at a well.
• Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies.

Traditional belief is that Krishna was born on July 19, 3228 BCE
Traditional belief is that Jesus was born in the spring around 6 BCE

PART TWO

Jesus and Buddha

1. Both Buddha and Jesus were baptized in the presence of the "spirit" of God
2. Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom.
3. Both fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty--seven days and Jesus for forty.
4. At the conclusion of their fasts, they both wandered to a fig tree.
5. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:
Buddha was twenty nine years of age
Jesus was about thirty years of age
6. Both were tempted by the "devil" at the beginning of their ministry
7. Buddha answered the "devil": "Get you away from me.
Jesus responded: "...be gone, Satan!"
8. Both experienced the "supernatural" after the "devil" left:
For Buddha: "The skies rained flowers, and delicious odors prevailed [in] the air."
For Jesus: "angels came and ministered to him"
9. The multitudes required a sign from both in order that they might believe.
10. Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth.
11. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic's eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away.
Jesus said: "If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;"
12. "Buddha taught that the motive of all our actions should be pity or love of our neighbor. Jesus taught: "Love thy neighbor as thyself...love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you"
13. Buddha said: "Hide your good deeds, and confess before the world the sins you have committed."
Jesus said: "Beware of practicing your piety before men to be seen by them” and "…Therefore confess your sins one to another…”
14. Both are said to have known the thoughts of others:
"By directing his mind to the thoughts of others, [Buddha] can know the thoughts of all beings."
"But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: `Why do you think evil in your hearts?'"
15. Both were itinerant preachers with a close group of trustees within a larger group of disciples.
16. Both preached that their disciples should renounce all worldly possessions.
17. Both had a disciple who "walked" on water
18. Both met a woman at a well (remember, so did krishna)
"One day Ananda, the disciple of Buddha, after a long walk in the country, meets with Matangi, a woman of the low caste of the Kandalas, near a well, and asks her for some water. She tells him what she is, and that she must not come near him. But he replies: `My sister, I ask not for your caste or your family, I ask only for a drought of water.
"There came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus said to her: `Give me a drink.' For his disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. The Samaritan woman said to him: `How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?' For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans"
19. Both received similar receptions:
For Buddha, "The people swept the pathway, the gods strewed flowers on the pathway and branches of the coral tree, the men bore branches of all manner of trees, and the Bodhisattva Sumedha spread his garments in the mire, [and] men and gods shouted: `All hail.'"
"And they brought the colt to Jesus, and threw their garments on it; and he sat on it. And many spread their garments on the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields"
20. Both had a close figure trying to betray them:
Buddha – Devadatta (a cousin)
Jesus – Judas (an apostle)
21. Both told their disciples to continue the ministry after they were gone and they would be with them always.
22. When Buddha died: "The coverings of [his] body unrolled themselves, and the lid of his coffin was opened by supernatural powers."
When Jesus died: the stone blocking the entrance of his tomb was rolled away.
23. "In the year 217 B.C. Buddhist missionaries were imprisoned for preaching; but an angel, genie or spirit came and opened the prison door, and liberated them."
"They arrested the apostles (of Jesus) and put them in the common prison. But at night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors and brought them out"
25. Both men's disciples are said to have been miracle workers.

david
you are so conscientious in replying. thank you. i have great respect for your thoroughness and persistence.

i will respond later re my thoughts on your prophecy input. but for now: regarding your relationship with jesus, your dream, etc.

as far as i am concerned, that experience is real *for you.* as you say, your heart finds a profound relationship with God and Jesus, and that has great meaning for you. I think that is great. Doesn't mean it is that way for everyone as you would be the first to admit. But it seems to me that your belief leads you to a loving relationship with your fellows and a profound engagement with the big questions in life.

People who use beliefs, religious or political, to do bad things to others (wage war, discriminate, hate, be self-righteous) are to be argued with.

Your experience with God seems lovely for you, and for the world.

Peace
HJ

Thanks Phaedrus for the compliment. I guess I would have to ask what internal inconsistencies in specific are you mentioning. I can assume your are talking about the geneologies of Matt 1 and Luke 3. If that is the case then I can give you an explanation of that. Otherwise if you could be more specific please. I will note that I have been studying apologetics as of recent and I guess this would be a great time to practice. Hope I do well. But please let me know the specifics that way I'm not wasting my fingers away explaining something else that you didn't want to hear. Thanks my friend.

Subnote: I understand that apologetics are taken as "excuses" for non-believers, but bear with me. If you ask me a question regarding biblical interpretation or a seeming contradiction please understand that I will try my best to back up scripture with scripture to ensure the proper meaning. I definately do not want to mislead people or for some reason I can't explain something, I truly will say I don't know, otherwise I will try to study the question at hand and return with a proper understanding. I always tell people, you can't just read the Bible, you need to study it and take scripture as a whole, not just verse by verse.

So, please let me know the specifics and I'll get back to ya. Thanks

David, you obviously have a well-stocked fund of information about Biblical matters. What is your view of internal inconsistencies in, say, accounts of the birth of Jesus, between Matthew and Luke?

HJ,

I like your analysis of biblical prophecy. Of course I have heard all the rebuttals in time and they seem to indicate the same. Of course there is the "gospel writers wrote it that way to fullfill prophecy". There is the "prophecy was written after the event". And of course the "vagueness" of prophecy.

I can totally understand why someone would be skeptical, and they should. The Bible teaches to challenge and test everything. I commend you for doing so. I have done the same. For example. Daniels writings were "supposedly" in the 6th century B.C. Some have said that he wrote them in 166 b.c. as you have claimed. Here's the catchy thing. Daniel also described in his written account the details of King Nebuchadnezzers palace, including the walls, decor, size and the such. I can't give you proper evidence as of now because I am not quite sure of where I studied this at but, archaeologically the description that Daniel portrayed was what archaeology has found. For someone to live 400 years later and describe the exacts of their findings would be quite amazing. So, in conclusion, it makes more sense that the description that he gave that archaeologically was proven shows that Daniel DID live during the time of King Neb and therefore his prophecies concerning the future kingdoms are exactly that, prophecy.

Concerning messianic prophecies, I can understand the skepticism aroung the apostles falsifying their writings to proclaim that all prophecy was fullfilled. This would also include the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But this is what I do not understand if they truly did falsify their statements...Why be persecuted and eventually murdered for a lie? If they knew the resurrection and all the fullfilled prophecies were lies, then why be tortured and eventually murdered for this lie? This does not make sense. Also, what does not make sense (if the gospels are falsified) is the story of Saul of Tarsus. You can even find this story in current High School History books. Saul of Tarsus was living quite comfortably as a Jewish priest of some sort, and he constantly condemned and persecuted Christians until of course he was on that road to Damascus where Jesus appeared to him. Why would a man living quite comfortably turn and be one to be persecuted and later murdered as well, for a lie?? Now, you know as well as I know that the early Christians were persecuted beyond belief. This is historical fact, until the time of Constantine (324 a.d.) I truly cannot imagine being constantly persecuted for what I know to be lie. Imprisoned, beaten, whipped and then eventual death??? No way. I would just confess and say it's a lie. No one can be willing to go through that for a lie. But they all did. This (to me of course) justifies their accounts and their writings as well. And if this justifies their accounts as not a lie but indeed fact, then you have fullfilled messianic prophecy. Of course you can and have that right to believe that or not, but taking the evidence at hand, I believe that I have enough (for me) to have faith in the gospels and all Biblical prophecy.

I would like to add one thing as well. That of course this cannot be proven and you can assume that I am liar if you like, but my personal experiences have brought me to Jesus as well. I have had several spiritual accounts (that can be discredited by you as mental disfunction or craziness if you like) but they are very real to me and unexplainable. I have had Jesus come to me in dreams as well, that were very real to me and contained messages that I needed to hear that my subconcious would have never thought about. This of course if my account, and has no basis or proof, but something I would like to share with you. My point is that Biblically, the evidence seems to indicate a strong case for prophetical accuracy and for the prophecies to be real. Also, the gospel accounts are evident as being truth and not lies. My personal experience as well. I add all these things up and have enough logical evidence (FOR ME) to know (IN MY HEART) that God is real and that God is Jesus.

"What makes sense in my heart has to make sense in my head".
Ravi Zacharias

I believe it makes sense in my head so that my heart can confirm it.

Thanks for your opinion HJ, it's always well appreciated. Have a great day my friend.

Thanks David
One can see how books and books have been written on this subject. As you know, there are varying opinions on bible prophecies. My favorite religious web site, religioustolerance.org, lists 6 criteria for evaluating prophecies, whether from Isaiah or Joseph Smith or Jeanne Dixon. Here is their list:

1. The prophecy must be clear and unambiguous. It must not allow for a multitude of possible events. For example, Ezekiel 39 fails this test. It makes a prediction involving two military powers: Gog and Magog. "Gog has been interpreted as Gyges, king of Lydia, the Goths, and even a modern or future leader of Russia. Magaog has been interpreted as the Scythains, the Chaldeans, the Huns and modern-day Russia among others." 1 Almost any military conflict in history could be cited as a fulfillment of this prophecy.
2. The event must be a fulfillment of the prediction. That is, the prophecy and the event must be related. Some feel that Isaiah 7:14 predicts the virgin birth of Jesus. It is commonly quoted at Christmas time. But it can be argued that Isaiah's prediction describes a birth which happened centuries before Jesus, and may or may not have been fulfilled in the 8th century BCE. Jesus was born circa 4 to 7 BCE.
3. The event must have actually happened. Countless predictions of the end of the world have failed; the world continued as normal afterwards. Ideally, there should be historical or archaeological evidence that the event really occurred.
4. The prophecy must have happened before the event. The book of Daniel describes a Jewish hero, Daniel, who many believe lived at the beginning of the 6th century BCE. It discusses the rise of various empires in Daniel's future. But religious liberals generally believe that the book was written about 166 BCE. If the liberals are correct, then most of the predictions in the book about the rise of various empires were not predictions of the future inspired by the Holy Spirit. They were actually historical recollections of the past written after the events really happened.
5. The event must not have been artificially created by a person who knew of the prophecy, with the intent of fulfilling it. For example, during a crucifixion by the Roman army, the legs of the victims were generally broken. This hastened their death by asphyxiation. But the Gospels record that Jesus' bones were not broken. When the Roman guards came to break his legs, they found that he had already died. There are a number of possible scenarios abobulletut this event. Three are:
1. As John 19:31-37 states, this happened "... that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken..." In this case, the prophecy came true in spite of the odds against it happening.
2. Jesus might have been physically exhausted as a result of his scouring and blood loss. He may have died on the stake or cross earlier than expected. Thus the Roman soldiers had no need to break his legs. Jesus intact legs were correctly reported by the Gospel writer(s).
3. The guards might have followed standard procedure by breaking his legs. But the author(s) of the Gospel of John may have ignored this event, and written that it did not happen, in order that a prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures would be fulfilled.

In this example, it would be impossible to tell if the prophecy:
1. Came true because it was divinely inspired.
2. Came true by chance, due to an accidental occurrence.
3. Did not come true, but was fraudulently reported as having happening. Reporting of the event was falsified in order to make it appear as if the prediction in the Hebrew Scriptures came true.
6. The prophecy must not have been a logical guess. For example, a person in mid-1939 who prophesized that a European war would break out before 1950 would simply have been describing the inevitable outcome of pre-existing Nazi expansion plans and activities. Hundreds of millions of people at that time expected a European war. A physic might predict a major volcanic eruption and a serious earthquake rated at over six on the Richter scale somewhere in the world during the current year. But these events are so likely to occur each year that the prophecy would be a sure thing. Similarly an ancient prophet might notice the Assyrian army approaching Israel from the East, conquering country after country in its path. He might quite logically guess that Israel was next.
END QUOTE

as you might expect, i believe there are other explanations for Bible prophecies than that God gave them to man. The above is a fair overview of the questions. Some of us still believe the prophecies, and some don't.

But an interesting question in many many ways. one of the most interesting ways to me is the philosophical. how do we tell EXACTLY what a statement/prophecy means? how do we know what causes what?

cheers
HJ

Oops meant to say Daniel predicted the exact date, not Isaiah. Daniel's seventy-sevens....duh

Sure thing HJ,

I guess I'll give you prophecies concerning Israel.

Ez 11:17

"Therefore say: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will gather you from the nations and bring you back from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you back the land of Israel again.'

Fulfilled in 1948.

Isaiah 43:5
"Do not be afraid, for I am with you; I will bring your children from the east and gather you from the west.
6
I will say to the north, `Give them up!' and to the south, `Do not hold them back.' Bring my sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth"

In Isaiah 43:5-6, the prophet said that the people of Israel would return to their homeland from the east, the west, the north and the south. Isaiah lived 2700 years ago. Beginning at that time, a succession of empires conquered the land of Israel and forced many into exile. This led to a worldwide scattering of Jews. But, during the past century, millions have returned to Israel.

From the east: Many Jews living in Middle East countries moved to Israel during the 1900s. After Israel reclaimed independence in 1948, more Jews moved to their ancient homeland after being forced out of various Arab countries in which they had been living for centuries.

From the west: During the mid-1900s, hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the West (Europe and the United States) began moving to Israel to escape various persecutions, most notably, the Holocaust in Nazi Germany.

From the north: Hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the former Soviet Union have moved to Israel since the 1980s.

From the south: During the 1980s and 1990s, Israel struck a deal with Ethiopia's communist government to allow Jews of Ethiopia to move to Israel. On the weekend of May 25, 1991, for example, 14,500 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel.

Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the north (Russia) and the south (Ethiopia) would have to be persuaded to allow their Jews to move to Israel. Many countries pressured Russia for years before it began to allow its Jews to leave. And Ethiopia had to be paid a ransom to allow its Jews to leave.

Isaiah's prophecy was also correct in saying that the Jews would return "from the ends of the earth," and Isaiah said that many centuries before the Jews had been scattered to the ends of the earth. During the past 100 years, Jews living as far east as China, as far west as the West Coast of the United States, as far north as Scandinavia, and as far south as South Africa, Australia and South America, have moved to Israel.

I should mention too that there are a lot of other things taking place right now that seem to indicate a fullfillment of several other prophecies as well.

I'll give two messianic prophecies as well.

Psalm 22:16-18

16
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17
I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
18
They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Piercing hands and feet. As we know this is crucifixion. This Psalm was written about 1000 before Christ and about 500 years before crucifixion was even a practice. Casting lots for Jesus' clothes was recorded in the NT as well as fullfilled prophecy.

Zechariah 9:9
Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king[1] comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Fullfilled Luke 19:35. I would like to mention too that Isaiah predicted the exact date that Jesus would enter Jerusalem. It's Daniel's seventy-sevens, if you would like to study that.

I believe there are 456 Messianic prophecies which all have been fullfilled through Jesus. So the likelihood of any other Messiah is out of the question. Also the Messiah had to come before the destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. according to prophecy as well.

Hi David
could you give us, say, two examples of biblical prophecies that were fulfilled?

thanks

Henry

Sorry David,

That last was from me, and I meant to write "internal consistency."

Anon,

I'm sorry but could you explain inernal constency to me?

David,

Thank you for that direct and forthright response. Permit a follow-up question from someone who knows far less about the Bible than you do;

Would you consider inernal consistency to be a necessary condition for an argument to be considered logical?

Great question Phaedrus!

Why do I believe in God? And especially a great question considering that I myself have concluded that scientifically it is impossible to prove God. So why do I believe in God.

The Bible. Plain and simple. Not because it says to believe in God and therefore I believe. But for several reasons. First off before I could fully commit myself to Christ I had to have logical reasoning to believe in Him. So I had to examine the Bible's credibility. I will not go into detail unless you want me to, but I will say that I found the Bible to be historically accurate, geographically accurate and most importantly...prophetically accurate. Of course any non-believer would debate these issues, but when it comes down to it, there is evidence for a divine inspiration of the writings in the Bible. Now for it to qualify as divine, several things have to occur. Of course things like miracles and healings, but most importantly prophecy. I have found that messianic prophecy is 100% accurate. And today looking at end time prophecy, the establishment of Israel as a nation (super sign) among other prophetical outcomes, it is easy to see that there is evidence for a divine person to inspire someone who lived thousands of years ago to know what will happen in the future. And not vaguely either as some might point out. These are no Nostradamus prophecies that can lead to any specific event. Biblical prophecy is unique in that it is 100% correct and correct to the minute detail. You may not believe this, but this is my evidence for a spiritual world and therefore I have concluded that the God of the Bible is the only true God and He is real, not according to science, but according to Biblical evidence.

This is why I believe in God.

Simply the Bible.

David,

Perhaps the best way for me to make my point is by asking you a question; What causes you to believe there is a god?

Parker:

Dawkins view on probabilities applies not only to the origin of life. He also extends it to the question of whether or not god exists. Essentially what he, and many others I should add, point out, is that there are a billion billion planets in the universe. Now, admittedly, the conditions for a planet being able to sustain life are extremely remote. There is the so-called "goldilocks zone" in which a planet must be close enough to a heat source to allow for water to remain in liquid form, but not so close as to have it boil away. This would allow for an atmosphere, a necessary, though not sufficient condition for life. A planet's orbit would have to be close to circular, so that the goldilocks zone would not be exceeded at any point, which even a modest ellipse would violate. The heat source would have to be non-binary, which would allow it to remain fairly stationary. The planet would have to have some protection from the bombardment of space debris, which might be provided by having a very large planet, like Jupiter say, near enough that its gravity field would attract such objects away from the life-sustaining planet, etc etc.

Now, assuming that the odds of such a planet existing were one per billion, that would STILL mean that there were a billion potentially life-sustaining planets. And some fraction of these might allow for the development of eukaryotic cell development, and some fraction of these might allow for the development of consciousness, and so on. His real point is that the laws of large numbers, numbers far larger than we are used to considering, allows for a surprising number of extraordinarily rare events to occur. And keep in mind, the generation of life only has to occur once, a single time, and natural selection takes over from there.

There is one additional point to make on this; whatever the catalyst for life's development, it MUST be relatively simple. Life must travel up a gradual slope of increasing complexity, or you run into what Daniel Dennett refers to as the "sky-hook" problem. To posit that life is created by a more complex form of life, creates the infinite regress to which the "designer" argument ultimately succumbs.

Henry James:

You state our position with near Scottish econmomy, and German precision. Kudos, Sir.

Oh Phaedrus one more thing I forgot to mention.

You said that science has a strong track record of proving things over time. Stating that we currently can only call ourselves agnostics simply means that we currently do not have enough information to say one way or another. Of course if science proves indefinately on the origin of life issue then of course this view has every right to change, otherwise saying "I know" God is real or not is illogical due to lack of knowledge. Thanks

And thanks by the way for the exchange as well. Thanks a lot for your intelligent insight.

Phaedrus,

Your still not getting my point. I'm gonna only mention my side of this argument to show you something. In general, I am agreeing with you.

If taking scientific evidence it is illogical for me to believe in God because I cannot prove God scientfically.

As equivolent to it being illogical that "it just happened" or that a meteor or pool of magic water made life.

None have been proven and therefore are illogical conclusions due to the fact they are not KNOWLEDGE but speculation.

Is this understandable? I'm not trying to prove God or say that I can. If I said that I could scientifically, it would be illogical.

So, in conclusion like I said, until further discoveries or scientific hypothesis' and theories become proven knowledge, no one can say for sure that a meteor created life or God or a leprechaun. This is where we are stuck with "I don't know" scientifically. And if you base your knowledge on science and what science has proven, then that would make you agnostic, not atheist due to the lack of knowledge scientifically. It would be illogical to be atheist (knowing there is no God) if you do not know everything or if science cannot determine how life was created by proven fact, not hypothesis or theory. It is only by knowledge can you make a case for this argument. There is no knowledge, only theory, for origin of life.

Therefore, scientifically speaking, we are both agnostic.

Spiritually speaking I believe in the God of the Bible. But using science to determine one's beliefs would leave everyone at agnostic since the knowledge of origin of life is incomplete.

Get what I'm saying??

Faith and Faedrus

Phaedrus says he does not have "faith" in science, or anything else for that matter.

I think the sense the "Faith" is meant in on this "Of Faith" web site is in line with the following web definitions, two from dictionaries and the numbered ones from a wag.

• Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
• a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny;

1. The belief that something is true, in spite of evidence to the contrary.
2. The proposition that something is true, even if there is no evidence to support it.
3. The idea that something can be made true, merely by wishing it to be so.

P believes what he believes ONLY if he has material evidence and logical proof.
P has NO belief in ANY supernatural power.
He certainly does not believe things when there is unanswered evidence to the contrary.
He certainly does not WISH that scientific findings are true, or hope that his wishing will make them true.

So I think so far
we have no evidence
that P has faith in anything.
Just as he says.
I am in the same boat.

To say that a person puts their "faith" in science in the same way one puts "faith" in God is a misuse of the English language. On which I am an expert.

Phaedrus,
I appreciate the effectiveness of your writing, and realize I don't do it well. Since you added another insightful comment, I wondered if when you have time you could say what you think of Dawkins' perspective that sort of tackles my question about the compatability of this earth's life-sustainable conditions being a probability question. I understood him to say that current science thinks in terms of more than one universe existing, which would allow for a much greater probability of the exact conditions necessary for life to form and flourish, and in fact predicts that there are many other such worlds (I assume in other universes).

I was excited to read that since it squares at least in basic theory with LDS beliefs about other worlds in existence with other human inhabitants. (Why not in other universes?)

Thanks.

David,

I certainly do not intend to mistake your meaning, nor be unclear in expressing mine. It still appears to me that, whether you address the origin of life, or the evolutionary process, or whatever else, the mechanism by which you arrive at your personal position that God exists, is the same. In either case you are maintaining a belief in something without tangible evidence to justify that belief. I understand that you think that science has "no idea" as to the origin of life, although you'd get a lot of disagreement about that in scientific circles. But, even if this were true, it does not diminish the fact that science has a very long track record of solving one supposedly "insoluble" problem after another. SML makes this point earlier on. The real value lies in the "method" of science, as opposed to its body of accumulated knowledge at any point in time.

So, on the one hand you have a method of inquiry with a substantial track record of accounting for natural phenomena with ever increasing breadth and precision, and on the other you have a belief system that relies on speculation, personal experience, ancient writings, and a tendency to pounce on temporary shortcomings in empirically-derived knowledge as affording room for the maintenance of beliefs that violate much of that accumulated empirically-derived knowledge. This may be many things, but "logical" is not amongst them. There is just as much logic comprised in the belief that a giant unicorn, or Zeuss created the universe as there is in the god of any supernatural belief system. Which is to say, none.

Now, to clarify some things that may be unclear about my position; I do not have "faith" in anything. I rely on the evidence as a basis of belief, but even then I will change those beliefs readily in the face of clear contradictory evidence. Also, i have no fear of admitting what science does not know, in fact I am excited by just those things. I do not worship at the altar of science, as some have suggested. As soon as a superior method for discerning the truth emerges, I am all for that.

As for the origin of life debate, we can do that if you like. It is a fascinating topic. I will leave that up to you.

Thanks for the exchange,

P.

Pheadrus,

I think you are quite mistaken about my position on this matter. It is obvious you are used to the typical argument from creationists stating that science can prove the existence of God. I am not saying this. I have not once said that the lack of scientific knowledge proves God's existence. Please read HJ's post just above mine. He knows exactly where I stand. My argument is not illogical. Here's where I stand according to logic.

Science has no proof or even a reasonable hypothesis concerning origin of life. NOT EVOLUTION. I'm stricly talking about origin of life. These theories or hypothesis' are not proven therefore anything could have happened to start these little amino acids to form. So, with science not knowing, it is not knowledge. I wish you could admit to the point that science currently has no idea how life began from non-living matter to living matter. This is scientific fact. Please do not be afraid of saying "I don't know", otherwise you are doing science a greater discredit than any ID proponent.

Now, my view is that if there are no proven facts (knowledge) on how origin of life came to be, then why can I not be logical for having my own hypothesis of God as a creator? Of course since I cannot prove God to you scientifically, it is an hypothesis as well, but just as good as any other because none have been or can be proven currently. So is it logical for you to say "it just happened" but for me to have a God hypothesis is not logical? I think it would be illogical for either one of us to say that this debate favors God or not. It is a stalemate becaue the scientific knowledge we have does not conclude either way. So I have as much right and logic in concluding God did it as you have in saying that "it just happened". We can either be both illogical and say that origin of life favors mine or your side. Or we can be logical in admitting that neither side can win this argument due to lack of knowledge in this matter.

So from my side I will say that there is no way I can take current scientific evidence to support the existence of a higher being. From you side, taking all the evidence (or lack there of) you must logically admit that you cannot prove God is not real. I have an hypothesis I can't prove as well does science. How is this debatable?

I feel like I cannot get this point across. I guess in summary it is illogical for me to take current scientific knowledge and say that God created everything. But it would be just as illogical to say that it just happened because "just happened" is not scientific. So here is where we both have faith. What is faith? Believing in something that we cannot prove or see. Is that agreeable?

So I have faith God did it. You have faith that it just happened. We both have faith in something that currently cannot be scientifically proven and therefore LOGICALLY neither one of us can say either way. We both must admit that we do not have an absolute truth on the matter, scientifically. Is this agreeable?

David and Phaedrus

I think David is arguing something slightly different than what you ascribe to him, phaedrus. (correct me if i am wrong david)

i think he is saying that since we do not KNOW how life originated,
it is POSSIBLE (though not proved) that God created it, and it is likewise possible that HE didn't.

So David's belief in God is NOT PROVEN WRONG.

I am not sure he would go so far as to say that our lack of knowledge is EVIDENCE of God's existence, would you David? I agree with P that that position would be illogical, and just plain wrong.

HJ

Dr. William James:

Although it is a great honor to be merely addressed, much less praised by one of your intellectual heroes, I respectfully suggest that you assist your colleagues in William James Hall in recalibrating their IQ divining software.

Having now written to you, Dr. James, I will never wash my keyboard again!

David writes:

"So, Phaedrus, can you see from my point of view that it is logical to have faith or not? Of course I mean logical in terms of scientific comparativism? Is it agreeable that neither side can win this debate until further evidence that can be stated as absolute knowledge is discovered?"

David, I admire your doggedness, and I am certain that I will never convince you of anything that you do not prefer to believe. That said, I cannot agree with you that there is any logic in your position. You continue to argue for the existence of something for which there is no evidence, on the basis of gaps in our fund of empirically-derived knowledge. This is the classic "god of the gaps" approach, and it is fundamentally illogical. It is also self-defeating, in that the gaps continue to shrink day-by-day, leaving smaller and smaller spaces in which god can supposedly be found. Even Michael Behe, primary proponent of ID/creationism does not posit the type of god described in the Bible or Koran, because the gaps in scientific knowledge are not big enough at this point to accomodate such a being.

To be considered logical, a line of argument must conform to the rules of logic. The syllogism you propose can be stated as follows:

A. Whatever science cannot explain, is evidence for the existence of god.
B. Science cannot fully explain the origin of life.
c. Therefore, the origin of life proves that god exists.

The problem with this syllogism lies in its initial premise. On the one hand you require reliable and valid evidence of science, if a particular tenet is to be accepted. On the other, you require nothing by way of reliable and valid evidence to justify a belief in god. (Your evidence for god does not even speak to "god," it merely reflects what you see as a shortcoming with the current body of scientific knowledge.) If the initial premise is flawed, the rest of the syllogism is nonsensical.

As I said to Karen, I do not begrudge you your belief in a god. And i hope that it goes without saying that I have no quarrel with "you," as a person. But I hope that I have at least been able to demonstrate that your argument here is fundamentally illogical. Doesn't mean that you are not really bright, or well-educated, or thoughtful, or anything of the sort, just that this one particular position you put forward is lacking from a logical perspective. Like I said though, I admire your doggedness.

Best to you,

P.

Hello David

I should explain a bit about brother William. If you think he is nettlesome now, you should have seen him when we were growing up. totally insufferable.

At this point, he has lost a few of his marbles, if you know what i mean. he thinks he is still a professor at harvard, torturing pigeons, and for him IQ is still a new invention, so he trots it out like a new toy at every opportunity.

i think the import of his statement was just that Phaedrus is a heck of a smart fellow. And it gave him a chance to take another swipe at me, as he did every day of our childhood.

So, you are right, he is an arrogant, cantankerous old SOB. Knows his pigeons tho.

Peace

HJ

Whomever,
I certainly never intended to prove God exists. I agree almost wholeheartedly with the following statement by Dawkins, minus the parenthetical opinion:
"It may even be a superhuman designer--but, if so, it will most certainly not be a designer who just popped into existence, or who always existed. If (which I don't believe for a moment) our universe was designed, and a fortiori if the designer reads our thoughts and hands out omniscient advice, forgiveness and redemption, the designer himself must be the end product of some kind of cumulative escalator or crane, perhaps a version of Darwinism in another universe." (p. 156)
Yes-perhaps.
'Bye all, and best wishes.

Ok I guess I should either apologize to Mr. James or stick with what I said. I should say that I've talked with Henry several times on here and gotten to know his sense of humor and when he's being sarcastic as opposed to being ignorant. I can't say the same for William James, since I've never really had a dialogue with him. If he truly was intentent on being humorous concerning the IQ thing, I truly am sorry and hope that you can forgive me Mr. James. If not, then...well...you know.

Thanks for bringing that to my attention SML. I think I might have spoke a little too soon. If so, forgive me for my assumption William James.

Have a great day

David ~

You said to Henry, "I have seen a great sense of humor in you."

You seriously can also apply the exact same phrase to our beloved Mr. William James too. He'll appreciate it equally as much as Henry does. ;)

HJ,

I like this..

"HJ, your favorite Atheist (I get so few compliments, I have to repeat them when they happen)"

I'm glad I made your day. I am laughing right now. That's funny HJ. I have seen a great sense of humor in you. Thanks for bringing that to this thread.

HJ I think you summed up my position perfectly in your first two paragraphs. Thanks for that. I'm glad someone (especially an atheist) can agree that we are both logical in our outcomes when faced with what evidence we have. It's well appreciated and for that you win the "David's Favorite Atheist Award" for the month of July. Congratulations! I don't know what the prize is yet, but I'll think of one. :)

So, Phaedrus, can you see from my point of view that it is logical to have faith or not? Of course I mean logical in terms of scientific comparativism? Is it agreeable that neither side can win this debate until further evidence that can be stated as absolute knowledge is discovered?

Mr. William James,

Why does anyone care about anyone's IQ in here. And do you plan on giving an opinion or are you just hanging out rooting for the home team? And as you said....

"As you earthlings say, wow. Almost as high as mine. Much higher than Henry's" concerning IQ's...

Does that machine dock 100 points for arrogance? If so, then you owe Mr. IQ a couple of points. You probably are in the negative. I find that humbleness happens to be the smarter thing to do than lifting yourself up higher than others. Arrogance=stupidity.

David,

Thanks for the reiteration of your views. I take back what I thought you also meant, and direct it solely toward Parker.

I appreciate your views. I agree that it may never be proven through scientific channels that God exists. Of course, to me, that's because it doesn't seem likely that he exists at all, but I can certainly also identify with those who believe that he does exist. I believed that for over 30 years myself.

Peace.

David

You are correct. The lack of a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life is neither a Proof or a Dis-Proof of the existence of God. It tells us nothing on that score. God MAY have guided it, or he may not have.

And therefore, as you state, it is not illogical to have faith in God, given that we don’t know. It IS illogical to say that because we don’t know, we have therefore PROVED that God exists, and we realize you are not taking that position. IDers and Creationists do or come close.

The Case is Closed that the Improbablity Argument DOES NOT prove God’s existence, as Parker seems to want us to believe.

We still, of course, have neither proved nor disproved God’s existence.

A scientific worldview would say: Don’t believe ANYTHING exists unless you have convincing evidence. There is no convincing evidence that God exists, and until there is, the Occam’s Razor embracing scientist will NOT believe in God.

Neither will he say he has proved the Non-existence of God. But, as you note, it is virtually impossible to prove Non-existence.

The Case Closed statement is that Parker’s Three problems get us no closer to proving the existence of God, and he seems to believe that they do. In fact, they all entail serious fallacies in reasoning.

Love and Peace to You David
HJ, your favorite Atheist (I get so few compliments, I have to repeat them when they happen)

I enjoyed reading Dawkins as suggested, especially his exploration of the ideas of multiverses and "daughter universes" as well as the potential of expanding and contracting universes. Later on (when I have time), I'll quote from p. 156 of his book. It makes sense to me.

Just for the record, I never concluded or said that the lack of scientific findings are proof for God. Phaedrus, I agree with a lot of the scientific evidence you propose. But there is also a lack of factual scientific absolutism with the origen of life question. I know scientifically ID cannot be a hyposthesis upon with science can further themselves upon therefore the ID theory is out the window. I understand this very well. God cannot be proven scientifically.

I'm not leaning toward a creationist point of view when it comes to origin of life. I am simply stating that the origin of life question cannot or has not yet been scientifically concluded and therefore I have all the reason to have faith in a God that guided the natural process of forming life. Once again the question that has not been answered as far as life goes is how did these amino acids (building blocks for life) come to be from non-living matter, then seperate themselves to exaclty the right amount of rights and lefts, then repeat that same complicated cycle over and over again over an extreme amount of time in an unstable environment, then form a protein molecule which then had to survive the unstable environment as well, then evolve as well? This question has not yet been answered in the scientific community. If it has been, then what is NASA'S purpose for spending so much on trying to find life on other planets. Of course to answer that question?? Of course there are scientific hypothesis and theories out there, but none that are conclusive and can be proven without a doubt. I hope one day they will. That would be great! But so far, none.

Therefore, having faith in a god, or creator, is not illogical when taking the evidence that science has. Of course you can continue to hope that one day science can figure out the chemicals to people solution, but until then your stuck with the beginning stages of chemical life and a big "I DON'T KNOW".

So, when you DO have definate knowledge of how these fragile chemicals came to earth and survived over a long period of time in an atmosphere that could easily disturb or destroy the chemicals to begin life, then you have no case, it is NOT knowledge, but theory. Why should I accept just theory or should I say theorieS because there are so many concerning origin of life.

If anything it IS case closed, but nobody wins. I cannot prove God to you scientifically and you cannot disprove Him as well. Of course you can give me the "can't prove a negative" argument, but you can't prove the origin of life either. How do I know that's not a negative if origin of life is not or not yet knowledge?

I hope I made myself clear on this subject. I am no scientist, but then again I have researched some facts. The facts do not win the debate for either side. They simply cause it to be a draw since there is no conclusive evidence on the matter.

Have a great day

Parker and David ~

You both seem hung up on the idea that science can not prove that Intelligent Design isn't legitimate because they can't reproduce the beginning of life in the lab satisfactorily.

Once upon a time in our history, scientists also could not satisfactorily prove that the earth was round. Yet they persisted, regardless of how many people scoffed at their persistence.

Wow, Phaedrus. I leave you for a time and come back to find that I almost missed brilliance from you! Great writing here. I can't imagine anyone being able to believably refute what you've so concisely explained.

I'm so very glad that my future eternal companion, Henry James, came to me in a dream, telling me that I should check out the goings-on here.

:)

Phaedrus's IQ

I was so impressed with the thinking in Phaedrus's latest demolition of the pseudoscientific ID/Creationist "theorists"

that I had my minions at the Harvard Psychology Department in William James Hall

run his writings on this web site through their
fancy-dancy IQ calculating Machine

They came up with 173.

As you earthlings say, wow. Almost as high as mine. Much higher than Henry's.

As usual,
I see that Phaedrus has trumped me with his explanations. Now you don't have to go to the bookstore and read Dawkins. Phew.

Logically, and morally, Mr P is correct in all of his details and logical steps.

Case closed?

Parker mentioned Logic, so here i am.

on the 3 questions he rationally and logically raised.

1. Saying that
the fact that science has not recreated the beginning of life
PROVES that God exists

is logically equivalent to saying
the fact that science has not recreated the beginning of life
PROVES that Santa Claus exists

In other words, a total non sequitur.
it proves NOTHING about God.

2. 4,000 books on Evolution explain EXACTLY this.
Evolution for Everyone is a good current choice.
as Mr Dawkins advises, "Read a book."

3. As Mr James noted, Dawkins deals with this question quite succinctly. go to a bookstore and read the 4 pages on this question.

There: we have logical answers to all 3 of Parker's questions.

O ye of little faith.

David and Parker:

You employ the argument from improbability. There are several major errors at the heart of this tack. One of them is that the "ultimate 747" analogy is a false one. Natural beings are not analogous to machines invented for specific purposes. Of course no life form has ever been assembled at once from a collection of discarded parts. Ironically, this is actually the creationist's argument, except that it posits god as the "assembler." Natural selection is a process that occurs over eons, with naturally occurring and incremental variation being tested for fitness (survival) in a given environment. There is no chance involved, and to suggest otherwise is to admit of a poor understanding of natural selection.

"God" actually redoubles the problem put forward in the ultimate 747 scenario, because things which are actually designed, require a designer more complex than the designed object. Thus, what more complex being created god, who created man, who created the 747? Creationism is the ultimate infinite regress. IDers have used the 747 argument to posit "irreducible complexity," the notion that some things are so complex that they could only have come about in complete form, as successive approximations to that complete form convey no survival advantage. One of their favorite examples is the "flagellar motor," a propulsion device for a certain microscopic creature. Of course, this was debunked over time when it was revealed that the early approximations of this device were utilized as a sort of pump. This gets very esoteric, and I know that you have said you have no interest in this level of inquiry, but such things are required to point up the fatal flaws of the creationist argument.

The second issue with the argument from improbability is that it presupposes god as the only alternative to the scientific understanding of a given phenomenon at a given time and place. And then to compound this error, it creates a zero-sum game in which anything science gets wrong, automatically results in god's getting the prize by default, without ever having to submit any evidence of his own. OF course, the knowledge that science has gotten anything wrong only comes about through the continuing efforts of scientists, using the self-corrective mechanism that is the scientific method. Man has never devised another system for knowledge accumulation that utilizes this self-correcting feature, not one. This is why scientific understanding advances in stunning fashion, while theologians argue the same points for thousands of years.

Thirdly we have the anthropic principle. It is an error to assume that statistical improbability signals supernatural causation for a given event. The fact is that we are here contemplating this issue because events have transpired as they have, but that does not imply that there is any supernatural design to it all. This argument has at its heart the notion that human beings are such unbelievably special things that our existence necessarily implies an unbelievably special design, and hence designer. But, what lies at the heart of this notion besides human narcissism? What causes us to conclude that we are better than what might have developed had conditions been slightly different? In fact, to take this to its apex, what makes us conclude that "somthingness" is inherently superior to "nothingness?" Could it be that we make this unchallenged assumption merely because we are "somethings," and are sort of attached to and impressed by our own existence? Henry james has written previously on the "why is there something rather than nothing" question that so puzzled Aristotle. But, an off-shoot of this question is "what makes us certain that something is better than nothing?"

I know that you have indicated a lack of desire to debate this issue further, and that is fine with me. People can believe whatever they like, and the variety of different beliefs is kind of fun to explore. I find, though, that I have difficulty in lying down and avoiding the bait of pseudoscience being used to impugn real science. I am willing to let it go at this if you like, and regards to you both,

P.

Phaedrus,
I see that I was misunderstood. I have several major assumptions that I can't rationally understand as being logical with respect to completely unguided organic evolution:
1. Why can't science re-create the starting point (from inorganic to an organic micro-organism) in a lab, then show how some form of evolution occurs over 100 years or 200 years from that beginning micro-organism?
2. I've never seen good logic to explain how all of the mutations go off in different life-form directions from the same starting point and amidst the same conditions. This doesn't make sense to me.
3. I've never seen a scientific position that logically explains how the probability of our earth and its many "necessary compatible conditions" for life fits in with the known universe. In other words, what is the realistic probability of all of this happening by chance, like David noted?

I don't think these are irrational questions.
But I don't expect answers, since I don't think they can be logically answered. I just wanted to clarify what I was trying to say.

Oh BTW Phaedrus, those scientific facts I posted about Miller and amino acids are scientifically accurate. It's not some YEC mumbo-jumbo just so you don't think I'm using one of those askingenesis.com quacks for information.

Phaedrus,

I've been down the evolution/creation debate several times. Like I said before I find it quite pointless. I'm not a scientist nor are most of the atheists on this post. So what's the point. I'm not debating evolution right now. I am simply pointing out the origen of life argument. From the facts I posted (Miller's experiment) science has not concluded or probably could ever conclude on the origen of life question. This is what leads me to believe that it is logical to believe in God. The statistical probabilities of non-living matter forming over millions or billions of years in a corrupt creating environment of the earth's early atmoshpere is quite ridiculous. And then you have the formation process. The chemical to people theories have all crashed when it came down to the "assembly" aspect of amino acids forming a protein molecule. Like I said before, it's the equivolent of a tornado forming a 747 fully functional jet just by passing through a junkyard. Statistically, where on the scale is that?? 10 to the 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 power maybe??

Evolution and origen of life are two differnet debates. I'll just end them both right now. But even you phaedrus must know that the origen of life debate gives logic to those who have faith in God for creation. But since I am no scientist, I'll just let that go. Take care and thanks for your information Phaedrus.

David, you write:

"I just want you all to know, that it is NOT unreasonable to believe in a higher being that created the universe. Scientifically, yes. Logically, no. But science can only take us so far. And so far that's as far as it has taken us. To just a few theories that could never be replicated in a lab. Good luck with your faith in that. It takes a lot less faith in knowing that God created all this."

David, would you please explain where you see logic and science diverging? I am used to the so-called "God of the gaps" position, in which what is not understood scientifically at any given moment, or what is suspected but cannot be proven to exist at a given point in time(such as the Higgs field) is asserted as some sort of evidence of a supreme being, but I have yet to see anyone argue that logic and science are not fellow travellers, and that believing in the supernatural is somehow more logical than not. To state that science has produced "only a few theories that cannot be replicated in a lab," is breathtakingly obtuse. One might ask what religion has produced by way of iron clad evidence of a supreme being, of the historicity of every word of an inerrant collection of bronze-age writings? You disparage what science has NOT been able to explain or reproduce, and claim this as evidence of the existence of God, but how do you justify that? Intelligent design is merely the attempt to cloak creationism in the garb of real science, and it has been a dismal failure. Even a Republican appointed judge could see through the ruse that is ID, referring to it as "breathtakingly inane." Proponents of ID have stated in a leaked position paper their strategy of down-playing its religio-centrism in secular settings, while simultaneously playing it up inside the revival tent. It has sought to create the impression that there is great disagreement amongst real scientists about natural selection, and then demanded that ID-ers be permitted to "teach the controversy." However, objective studies have shown that there is no real divide amongst the world's scientific community when it comes to Genesis versus natural selection. Not only is the ID effort a scholastic failure, it is also dishonest.

IF you look at the explosion of scientific understanding in the last 500 years, and then compare it with what theism has produced, and wrought, it would seem quite challenging to assert the superiority of religion when it comes to discerning the mysteries of the universe. Religion really seems to be what science has yet to explain, at any given moment. The good news is that these "gaps" get smaller every day.

Further, to claim that scientists disregard ID and other supernatural explanations for natural events because they would be out of a job were they to do otherwise, suggests a rather severe lack of understanding of science, and scientists. We will never run out of scientific challenges, and I am glad for that every single day. These unanswered questions are why real scientists get up in the morning. But, unanswered questions are no reason to assert a god, and then claim that this has been a logical process.

Parker asks for evidence of macro-evolution in an earlier post, apparently asserting that if it cannot be demonstrated in his lifetime, it must not occur at all. Macro-evolution takes millions of years to occur, and to claim that it must not occur at all, despite the irrefutable evidence of the fossil record and geographical dispersion, simply because it does not conveniently take place within a single human life-span is remarkably narcissistic.

Of course, LDS theology teaches that the Earth was once intimately situated next to a giant, slowly-revolving planet named "Kolob," where God himself resided. But, after the "fall" of "Adam and Eve," God could not tolerate such a corrupted planet nearby, and simply punted the Earth across the universe to its present location. And, this occurred all of 6000 years ago according to several statements by LDS leaders through the years. Now Mormons are free to believe that if they like, but to then turn around and challenge evolution on empirical grounds is quite a feat.

Hello David

thanks for the kind words.
you wrote: "I just want you all to know, that it is NOT unreasonable to believe in a higher being that created the universe."

I agree with this statement. Many many reasonable people believe a higher being created the universe.

Most of those reasonable people believe that God used the process of evolution to create animals and humans. Atheists believe it happened without God.

Both are possible. There is not evidence for the God version, so one needs to accept that on Faith. Many do.

The Intelligent Design theory attempts to debunk evolution. It has been widely deemed to be a Just-So story with no scientific basis.

Peace
HJ

Hi HJ,

I'm not big on the evolution/creation debate. I find it quite senseless for both sides. But I guess I would like to give a quick opinion.

As you may know "origen of life" is not only complicated but also impossible to figure out. The closest to ever come was Miller in his experiment and how he created 12 amino acids from non-living matter. Of course later on this experiment was found tainted by his presumption of what earth's atmosphere was like in the birth of this world. I know this experiment took a new leap recently and created 16 amino acids from a non-tainted environment. From what I have read on the subject there is a need for 20 amino acids which need to be seperated by lefts and rights to withstand the environmental hazards the original creation of earth imposed and to do this 10 times over just to make one living organism which would be a protein molecule. No scientists has done this and doubt it can even be possible. I've seen an analogy of this scenario to the equivolent of a tornado going through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional 747 airplane. If someone told you the tornado story, could you believe that?

Now like I said, I'm not big on debating this issue, but I have studied some facts. I know scientists cannot come up with a clear conclusion of how these chemicals turned to people. Of course several different theories apply, meteors, pool of goo, etc.. And as far as my opinion goes on the matter (of course this is just opinion), if scientists accepted ID as the only way life originated, then I guess they wouldn't have a job anymore. No more federal grants, no more income. If they said, ok God did it, then what do they need to prove? But of course they would never say such a thing. Scientists need to eat too. So there we are stuck with other theories that cannot be proven fully, just accepted as the only possible scientific explanation. But if God created things, then that defies all scientific explanation because God defies all scientific measures.

I guess I'll leave it at that. But I just want you all to know, that it is NOT unreasonable to believe in a higher being that created the universe. Scientifically, yes. Logically, no. But science can only take us so far. And so far that's as far as it has taken us. To just a few theories that could never be replicated in a lab. Good luck with your faith in that. It takes a lot less faith in knowing that God created all this.

Take care HJ. By the way I do appreciate your opinions. I guess your one of my more favorite non-believers. You don't get all ignorant and over-intellectual like you know everything like some do. I appreciate the humbleness.

God bless

Parker

If you think your belief that the creation and "here we are" is miniculely probable, then the God you posit who created the system is EVEN more improbable.

Richard Dawkins, a clearer thinker than either you or I are (though not than William is) demoloishes your argument in about 4 pages of The God Delusion.
Rather than SPam that here, i refer you to it.

Now, should I put more stock in a court that heard lots of testimony and weighed it "judiciously," and 100,000 scientists who deem ID to be a travesty, or in your random assurances that it makes sense?>

That seems like one of the easier choices I have ever had to make.

Somehow, that doesn

HJ,
I would say you have had to resort to the usual higher authority of intellectualism and the safety of the court system to defend a position that still for me is illogical. Explain rigorously the probabilities involved in the fact that "here we are", and everything is working just the way it needs to work, by chance. Good luck.

Huff, your latest post is very compelling. I have read several of the sources you named, though not as rigorously as you obviously have, and concur that the BOA is the "smoking gun" that you claim it to be. The founding premise of Mormon truth-claims is that Joseph Smith had the ability to translate ancient documents written in an archaic tongue. It really is as simple as that, without this capability his writings are either the products of a delusional mind, or a conscious fraud. Some of the apologia are artfully conceived and eloquently written, considering the case they seek to make, but after a time it is their very artfulness that betrays their false note. William of Occam could not have cut even the finest of whiskers with their particular razor. I also think that accounts of Smith's life undercut the "mentally-ill" argument, as there is much evidence of a long-standing tendency towards rather ornate self-promotion and hucksterism, but little of the bizarreness attendant to psychotic pathology. As such, I have come to be pursuaded that Joseph Smith was an exceedingly clever and charming con, who knew what he was doing right along. I think that were he around today and submitted to an MMPI-2, he is 4-9 all the way.

As for Karen's question regarding altruism, I have posted on that topic on my blog. The short version is that evolution has shaped us to derive a certain satisfaction from altruistic acts. This is borne out in recent neuroimaging data showing that the brain's pleasure centers are activated in the performing of such acts, in much the same fashion as they are during other pleasurable activities. One can see the evolutionary advantage attendant to this capacity, given that humans were largely dependent upon the "tribe" for survival in the environment of origin. This included the "willingness" to expose oneself to danger for the sake of another, so long as it is likely to be reciprocated.

OF course, the issue of altruism is not problematic for non-believers in the manner in which the problem of evil tends to be for theists. Rejecting the existence of good and evil as actual entities, non-believers have no struggle with the preponderance of one or the other. However, the theistic claim is a universal one, in which one need only find a single exception to undermine the whole. A single exception to the notion of God's perfect goodness and mercy is sufficient to undermine the claim. Because of this, arguments supporting this perfect goodness have to take great liberties in discounting a world of observable phenomena that stand as contradictions to same. Some of these are, as some defenses of Joseph Smith are, quite cleverly conceived and expressed. But, in the end I find them unsatisfying for the same reason, they are far too fanciful, and they do not account for the data.

This said, I will be forced by professional concerns to join my esteemed friend John D in the cyber-ether.

Best to all.

Putting on my Professorial Hat for a Moment (the Psychology Building at Harvard is called William James Hall)

comparing the lucidity, fairmindedness, and thoroughness of Huffenhardt's critique of this Book of Abraham

with Parker's scattershot, illogical, vague defense of what seems to be, as Edmund Wilson described the Book of Mormon, a "farrago of nonsense,"

I give Huff an A
and I give
Parker an F.

Parker's seeming support of the preposterous theory of Intelligent Design is consistent with his defense of the BoA.

Further: Huff notes
"The only thing that took me longer than a few days to make sense of were my spiritual experiences"

It is intellectually absurd to think that

the only explanation one can give for "revelations" such as Joseph Smith claimed, or for the conviction that believers who have invested hours in reading and praying to believe the BoM and then come to be convinced that it is "True"

is that Smith "Really" received revelations from God or that God is "really" confirming for us, through chest burning, that the BoM is the word of God.

Anyone propounding such an explanation would not make it in the door of William James Hall.

Parker,

You seem to be an Intelligent Design proponent.

By now considered to be a pathetically laughable attempt to look scientific while having no basis whatsoever.

There is loads of writing about this so i won't bore you.

but for the rest of you, just google Lehigh University's disowning of Michael Behe, ID proponent whem that have gone to the extraorinary length to repudiate his writing in support of ID.

So Parker, free of being tied to preposterous theories is one example. which even the courts describe ID as being, let alone the scientific community.

HJ,
Free to what--be an atheist? I'll allow the believability of your train of thought when you or someone with rigorous trustworthiness proves by actual demonstration that a chemical mixture under potentially explainable conditions actually generates a living organism, and when someone can adequately explain why such an organism is going to mutate along millions of lines of mutation to get to the millions of species we have on earth. That, my friends, is a preposterous idea. It has to rely on "we're here and the species are here, so it must have happened."

I am interested that Mormons like JD say they "don't know enough" about the Book of Abraham issue to engage in the argument.

I must ask: why not? JD knows loads about other aspects of Mormon history. This is the most clear case where Smith's claims are riddled with problems, and goes to the heart of his claims to be an inspired prophet.

Study up, JD. I know it is not a pretty story, and if i were you i would have a psychological disinclination to really look it square on.

But ye shall know the truth,and the truth shall set you free.

For any who do decide to investigate the BoA it might be helpful if you know the current state of apologetics. There has been a trend lately to draw parallels between the BoA text and the Traditions of Abraham in ancient texts that have surfaced since the time of Joseph Smith. The apologists side-step all the other issues and just ask, "How could Joseph Smith have known all these things if he were not divinely inspired?"

I'll admit that it seemed like strong evidence at the time I first read it. But, then I went back and read books that we know Joseph was familiar with and looked to see if those "amazing parallels" might be better accounted for by Joseph adapting stories from those other books that we know he read. Those other books are: the Old Testament, the writings of Josephus, and the Book of Jasher. Lo, and behold, once you realize where Joseph got his ideas from, then all of those "amazing parallels" with books that were unknown during Joseph's day are accounted for. The question the apologists ask of how Joseph knew all these things is answered.

Frankly, there are no convincing apologetic arguments on the BOA issue to the reader that is fully informed. I have read all that Hugh Nibley, John Gee, Kerry Shirts, Jeff Lindsey, even Dallin H. Oaks, etc, have had to say about this issue, and I can show how the evidence refutes whatever theories they suggest. I don't know why they even buy their own theories, because they should know better. In every case, they fail to address the evidence that destroys their theory, whether that is due to some sort of mindblock or forgetfulness or dishonesty, I don't know, but it is clear that the theories cannot stand the full light of all the evidence. Many just say that they don't think we know enough about the issue and just shelve the issue. But, we do know enough, more than enough to conclude that it was a fraud. More information cannot save this sunken ship. All possible avenues of salvation from new information have been shut off by existing information. I find that a lot of people are just too sacred to really confront the implications of what it would mean if it were false.

The BoA is the smoking gun of Mormonism. If the Book of Mormon is the key to conversion, the Book of Abraham is one large key to deconversion. Personally, I had no doubts about the Church at all, until I knew for sure that the BoA was a fraud and then everything else fell in place. I no longer had to make excuses for why Native Americans don't have Hebrew DNA, or why it was ok for Joseph to marry women who were concurrently married to other men, or why the signs and tokens of the endowment ceremony were Masonic in origin, even though the Masons only go back to the 12th century Europe, or all the many other countless things. The only thing that took me longer than a few days to make sense of were my spiritual experiences, but even that became easy when I came to apply psychological principles to them.

Occasionally, on post-Mormon message boards a poll is conducted asking what caused us to leave Mormonism. Lots of things make the list: the Church's homophobia and misogyny, polygamy/polyandry, etc, but you know what tops the list every time? The Book of Abraham. Why? Because with every other issue, people often second guess themselves saying maybe the only reason I have an issue with (blank) is because of my own prejudice or I need to learn to conform better to the mind and will of God or maybe this is just a test or a trial of faith. But, when they get to the Book of Abraham, the evidence is so condemning and complete that there is no room to second guess. It is what it is and there is no running away from it, if one is honest to oneself about it. One this issue, one can hang their hat and be confident that one is making the right decision by coming to believe the church is not true. You can know this for sure and that is comforting.

For this reason alone, active, believing members should come to know the Book of Abraham issue inside and out. Because very likely, someone in your family or in your ward will be facing this issue and you will want to know how to address it. A non-direct response such as, "you just need to read your scriptures and pray more or have more faith" will not help because they will be armed with knowledge that brings into question that whole approach to learning what is true.

Fight the temptation to stop searching at the first apologetic theory you come upon. Test it against the evidence, and you need to know all the evidence before you can adequately do that. Every time an author cites an original source, go look it up and see if it is quoted correctly and in context. This will take some time, but it is among the most important studying you'll ever do. You have built your whole life and worldview on this religion and are raising generations in it. If it really might not be true and there is solid evidence of that, it should be critical for you to find out. If you are like I was, it is inconceivable that the Church could not be true. You feel that you have a lifetime of evidence to support the truthfulness of the Church. But, I'll tell you, if after looking into the BoA, you begin to entertain the idea that the church might not be true, and you look back on all the evidence you have collected over the years that you thought support the church to find some solid counterweight to the BoA, you will be disappointed to realize that none of those experiences provide the solid foundation you need; they all can be explained even if the Church is not true.

Post-Mormons are good people. For the most part they are the same caring people they were as members. Some times on the Post-Mo message boards we talk about the kind of members we were. The majority of us were very active and had responsible callings. I was a second counselor in two Bishoprics. I taught at the MTC, am a BYU grad, and married in the temple, etc. We knew very well what the Spirit feels like. Many of use had regular scripture study and prayers, etc. The only thing that separates me from where I was to where I am now is that I learned some things that I was previously unaware of and it came from 6 months of BoA studying. My research started because I was trying to resolve some concerns of one of my hometeachees about the BoA. He brought up some stuff I had never heard of, so I first looked to see what the apologists had to say on Fairlds and FARMS. They did not address the specific issues, so I had to go beyond apologist literature and that is when I found there was a whole world of stuff that I never would have found sticking solely to pro-LDS sources. I was skeptical of what I was reading, so I verified every citation and it all checked out. You know the rest of the story.

Anon,

you said, "They would rather make better use of their time by offering service to those in need."

You are in need. In need of salvation from the one true Jesus. That's why I'm here. To help those in need. I wish Jehovah Witnesses would come on board as well because they too are in need of the Biblical truth.

You can call me ignorant or whatever. I think you should ask RTC how she feels about me. We had somewhat of a personal conversation on another thread. I've grown to really respect her and her opinions. I have seen the love from her in wanting me to know her truth and she has acknowledged my love for her in wanting to bring her to biblical truth.

Yes, I see the mormons leaving this post, but for what reason I don't know? Maybe the their truth is exposed? Maybe you can't answer the difficult questions regarding your faith? Maybe your convinced that you follow a false teaching and a false prophet and would rather not be fully convinced of that truth? Who knows. But I'll remain just in case there are any on here who need spiritual guidance I will make sure they do not turn to the false teachings of the LDS, God willing. I want people to be saved, not damned. That's why I'm here and this is what God instructed us to do. To make disciples. What hurts me the most is not that atheists do not accept Christ, or that muslims reject Christ as God, etc..but that there are those who use God's Word to actually take people away from God. Like I said before, Satan did the same thing to Eve in Gen 3. Used God's words as deception instead of truth. Should any Christian allow this? Should any believer in the true Christ and His Word let man decieve man with His own words? Not me. I just can't stand by and let it happen. Here's one of the LDS' favorite verses. "Faith without works is dead". It sure is. I would rather spend my selfish time doing something else, but instead Christ is working in me to stop you from poisoning anybody else. My faith is working, not on my own, but through and for God.

Please understand this and do not take it as a personal attack.

God bless

what an illuminating conversation between two nobodies.

Can "I" join too.?

Yes doublestandard - your observation is duly noted and witnessed here. The reason why those posting here are not classified "offensive" and not being "chastised" is because they are supporting the anti-mormon cause.

I find it childish how some are posting the same anti-mormon arguments that have been circulating for years. I've seen the same arguments posted time and again, virtually word for word. It's interesting how every argument presented here has already been answered by more qualified theologians and apologists but they will continue to argue that they have not been answered. This is because they are trying to corner others who may not be as experienced with doctrine, into thinking that the mormon religion is false. This is also why many mormons have stopped posting because it's obvious what the agendas are for many here and others don't have the time or patience to deal with ignorance. They would rather make better use of their time by offering service to those in need.

As one that has been following these On Faith threads for quite some time now, I wonder if anyone else finds it ironic that RTC has been severely chastised for much less "offensive" rhetoric than what we routinely find from another contributor to these threads. Just wondered if anyone else had noticed.....

Karen,

Thanks for the reference. I'll check them out. I must agree that Strobel isn't that much of a literary genius, but I guess he gets a few good reasonable points across. I'll be sure to check out Yancey's books though.

I'm sorry about whatever your going through and I promise that I'm gonna pray for you. Whatever it may be I just hope that you can let go and let God. If you have any special prayer request, please let me know, otherwise I'm sure the Lord knows what I'm praying for. Take care Karen and thanks for all your wonderful posts on here.

God bless

Hi David,
I have read The Case for Faith, the Case for Christ and the Case for a Creator. I enjoy Lee Strobel's books though I may not agree with everything he writes.
I did think that The Case for Faith was a good review of the problem of evil and why the God of the Bible is not the mean old guy that some make him out to be. But I have continued to struggle with the problem of pain in my own life and the lives of others. The book that I have found the most helpful in this regard is "Disappointment with God" by Philip Yancey. Through this book, I have reached a much deeper understanding of how God works in the new testament era. If you have not read it, I strongly recommend it. All of Yancey's books are excellent, including What's so Amazing about Grace and The Jesus I Never Knew. You will find Yancey takes things to a deeper level than Strobel and is incredibly thoughtful in his study of the Bible.
I have faith, the Bible and knoweldge, but there are days when I still wish that God made Himself known in more obvious ways.

Huff

my reading of Nibley in general is that it is a tragic story.

here is a brilliant (and psychologically stunted) guy who was beholden to the Church for his very, and meagre, livelihood. With lots of kids, including the adored Martha.

He may have started out as a totally sincere "defender of the faith," but by the time he was 50/60/70/80, he had no choice but to defend outlandish stories like the Book of Abraham
or his entire past history as Church Apologist extraordinaire would be put in question.

And the entanglements of his position at BYU reinforced his need to maintain his position as chief credible apologist.

Did i remember that you took a course with him? When you get dead like I am, you start to imagine things.

Huffenhardt,
Thanks for the friendly encouragement. I will as I get time.

Parker,

Your last post was addressed to HJ (Henry James), but you often said things like "both of you". Was I the other person you were addressing?

I have meant no disrespect of you, you and I just have a disagreement about the BoA (and probably most Mormon issues), but we can still be friends.

I have never asked you to trust me or take my word for anything. In fact, I have encouraged just the opposite. I want one and all, who have any connections to Mormonism, to thoroughly look into the BoA for themselves. Read everything - original sources, critical, and apologetic info, but do not substitute anyone's opinion (not Nibley or anyone else) for your own. Frankly, I have found through my own research that Nibley is unreliable.

It's hot down here. Hitler says hi.

Hello Karen

thanks for replying.

i think your characterization of Jesus is pretty accurate, and you named lots of the things that I admire about him as well.

Throwing the money-changers out of the temple is the one place where we see him get mad, isn't it.\? I admire him for that action as well. Knowing the difference between the sacred and profane is extremely important.

As far as evolution and morality, most evolutionary biologists now think that morality and altruism did indeed evolve in roughly the same way that our capacity for language evolved. "Moral Minds" by Marc Hauser of Harvard (where my brother William taught) is one of the recent highly respected accounts of the research.

Almost all human beings in all societies (except sociopaths) feel guilt and shame to some degree. At least anyone who had a mother.

That doesn't mean God couldn't have instilled a moral sense THROUGH evolution, but it is there whether God put it there or not.

peace
Henry

more detail to follow Parker

but Hugh Nibley is the LAST person you should trust.

read people who are neither apologists or anti-mormons on this one (and all the others)

Nice post Karen. You know, there's a book you might have heard of, it's called The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel. It deals with these hard questions about pain and suffering and what God's purpose is for these terrible times. I think it helped me get a better understanding of why things happen and to also realize that God is in control. I think it might fit in perfect for understanding why God allows such things. Also, I think it is a great tool to have to answer the typical "God is a mean guy in the OT" statement from the atheistic point of view. Have a great day Karen.

God bless

HJ and Phaedrus, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. You have both obviously given this subject much thought.

I am well aware of the problem of evil/pain. I have read extensively on this subject because for a christian, it is the most vexing. I certainly do not ascribe to a blame the victim mortality for the most part (such as the case of the rape victim for example), but you must admit that the vast majority of pain in the world is man made. Even such things as hurricane Katrina and the tsunami may be related to changes in the earth's climate caused by us. The individual victim of a disaster or a war cannot be blamed, but collectively, are we not to blame for the state of affairs in the world? If we all truly cared about the poor and the sick, rather then pursuing our own interests and riches, would there still be any sick and poor in the world? If we were all truly good to each other, we may not be able to stop earthquakes, but there would be no man made holocaust, mass graves, starvation etc. L'homme est un loup pour l'homme, how can we deny it?

I think that when we act with kindness and selflessness towards strangers, we go against evolution's drive. One of my classmates in high school was a volunteer with the red cross. He was killed by a sniper while trying to pick up a wounded, perfect stanger in the street. So now his line is exctinct. Doesn't this go against evolution? I think that the universal moral law is in us in spite of evolution and is God's thumbprint in us.

If, as christian, I read the Bible carefully, I will see that most of God's promises are for eternity, not for life on earth. He never tells me that if I am "good", I will not have pain and trouble while on earth. But He does tell me that He would be with me to comfort me and guide me. He does not promise me happiness but He promises me Joy and Grace. He does not work with reward and punishment but only requires an acknowledgement of my sin, and repentance. What I call the "Health and Wealth" and "pray it and claim it" snake oil evangelist do a terrible disservice to people because like you said, they foster a blame the victim mentality i.e. you get cancer because you did not have enough faith. Jesus would abhor any such claims.

The reason that I find Jesus so credible is that unlike Mohammed or Joseph Smith or so many false prophets, He did not have any ambition for a wordly kingdom or wordly riches and glory. He did not fight, even in self defense. He reached to those whom "good people" scorned and said He came for the sick, not the healthy. His entire message was about elevating ourselves seeking after God's kingdom without being lured or seduced by earthly riches and glory. And He did promise justice. No doubt my early life experiences lead me to want justice. But I think that it is a lot more then wishful thinking. Or at least, I certainly hope so.

Finally, I put before you the criminal that is never found out but, tortured by his conscience steps forward and confesses. How does evolution explain this prodding?

HJ,
Before I go mum, which is a good idea, I do say that I trust and respect Hugh Nibley more than I trust and respect the two of you, though no doubt you have your place in the realms of respectability. Have you both examined every single one of all of the relevant artifacts (are they all currently examinable?) and all of the relevant documents, and understood perfectly all of the relevant connotations of all of the transcribers of the "words" of Joseph Smith? I can pull out my grandfather's signature and copy it and say "that's my grandfather's signature" and mean "that's what my grandfather's signature looked like". A seer can look at a representation (in whatever form that it takes) of the thoughts of an ancient author and understand the meaning of the author through seership. It is more than a "translation" process. But now, mum's the word. 'Sincerely have tried to be your friend, bye.

Huff and John D

JD was irritated with me because i couldn't reconcile his "fallible human prophets" theory with his belief that he could tell when the prophet was telling the Truth.

Huff's examples of the clear anacronisms in the BoA are a perfect example of what i was trying to say.

Huff notes: "Blake Ostler's Expansion Hypothesis, which is that revelation is the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. All of the things like the false reconstruction of history are products of Joseph Smith's own mind, but part of the text contains true ideas that come from God."

HOW IN HECK does one tell WHICH part is True and which part is Joseph Smith's own mind??????

It (evidently) drives me nuts.

Accepting this "hypothesis" means that ANY revelation of Smith is suspect, even if one accepts, against the preponderance of the evidence, that he was anything but a fraud.

Parker: sorry friend, but your continuing defense of the BoA is pathetic. Follow Huff's advice: remain mum on this til you do your own research.

Hello again Karen:

HJ has responded quite well to your question, so there is little need for me to really expound. But, I do want to make this general categorical statement: The concepts of good, evil, justice, injustice, righteousness, wickedness etc, are all human inventions. Evolution has shaped us for a "moral sense," but we have cognitively embellished and conflated this with supernatural explanations for the world's observable phenomena, and complex systems of exhortation as to how a deity wishes us to actually behave. The universe does not actually contain "justice," the human mind is its only repository. Is it just when the lion kills the young gazelle, or is the wasp behaving immorally when it lays eggs in a host insect, "knowing" that the hatched larvae will consume this living host from the inside out?

The notion that there is justice in the universe actually leads to phenomena like "blaming the victim," in which rape victims are held at least partially responsible for their rapes because of what they were wearing, or the person whose home has been washed away by the flood is quietly blamed for building his home near the river to begin with. The attractive element of this cognitive bias is that, if thee were really fairness and justice in the universe, then all we have to do to avoid such catastrophy is to "be good." This notion is beyond ridiculous when you really look at things, and then think about them, but it tends to make us very uncomfortable to have to admit that pain can come to us no matter how we behave, or what we believe. As Camille Paglia once put it: "Nature shrugs, and man breaks." There is not much comfort in knowing that you have no control over when and where nature "shrugs," resulting in your being "broken." But, there is truth where there is no comfort. I prefer to deal with the comfort, while admitting the truth.

With the horrible things that you have experienced in your life, I can see where the notion of a just universe would be particularly compelling for you Karen. I do not begrudge you that, and respect you as a survivor of the the universe's great obliviousness to our suffering, who has come through with your humanity intact.

And Huff:

As John Adams put it when in defense of the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre, "Facts are stubborn things." You prove this once again, and thanks for doing so.

Parker,

I would like to respond to your comment:

"David,
I would never expect "mainstream Christianity" not to be suspicious of Mormonism. Humanity treats any "newcomer" with suspicion, and doubly so if they seem to have a better outlook on life than the oldtimers. I will say that I don't get how you think the God of your Bible is unchanging and yet you don't wonder why there are no prophets on earth today that you believe in. Isn't that a change from times past? (But I don't need a lecture on the subject.)"

Sorry, but I think you do need a lecture on the subject. Yes of course any "newcomber" should be tested and treated suspiciously. Of course just like the Bereans did with Paul, they tested everything he said instead of just accepting it and guess what, it was credited to them as the right thing to do.

You ask me why I think God never changes...well...He said so.

"I the Lord do not change" (Malachi 3:6)

"17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" James 1:17

So shouldn't you believe God never changes too?

And please explain to me why you think we need modern day prophets? And can you show me biblically where it might say that we need "modern day revelation"? Or is it that mormons need to claim the need for modern day revelation in order for J. Smith to be considered a prophet? Oh by the way, you might want to check out Heb 1:1-3.

You also mentioned that you "newcomers" have a better outlook on life that the "oldtimers". So are you saying that mormons have a better outlook on life than Jesus? Sounds kinda blasphemous to me.

Parker, you can tell I'm persistent about exposing the falsehood you believe in. I want you to be saved. Matt 24:24 applies to the LDS. They preach a different God and a different Jesus (same thing) than the Bible. Your faith is only as good as who you place it in. Jesus is not the brother of the devil who was born from a God the Father who has a goddess wife that live on a planet named Kolob. This is a different God than in the Bible. If you believe in a false Christ, then how can you recieve the grace given freely by the one True Jesus who paid the penalty for our sins on the cross (1 Pet. 2:24) not at the garden of Gethsemane. You've placed your faith in a false Jesus. A false god. Please examine what you believe in. Test everything. 1 Thess 5:21. You will never become a god. There is only one God. Is 44:6, Is 43:10. Ask yourself this, what what satan's first deception?

Gen 3:4-5

4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Some translations have it as "you shall be LIKE God".

Satan's first ever deceptive motive was to convince Eve that she could be just like God. It worked on Eve and now even today that act of deception is working on you. They tell you that one day you can be a god. Satan did the same thing to Eve. He tried to do the same thing to Jesus in Matt 4. Of course he will do the same thing to you too.

"Your word is a lamp to my feet, and a light to my path" (Psalm 119:105)

God's word never will let you down. Please know this and please consider that what you have faith in is going to bring you to eternal seperation from God. That is satan's purpose unless you have faith in the ONE True God of the Bible. I wouldn't be doing the work that the Lord intended for me if it were not to bring you to Him.

God bless

Parker said:
"My short answer is that I believe Abraham and Joseph were familiar with and may have been involved with the origins of the funerary depictions, and that the symbols meant something different to them than as the Egyptians corrupted the meanings to fit their beliefs down through the ages."

One of the major problems I have with apologists is that they do not what is probable, only what is possible. They throw out wild possibilities and then do nothing to really look at the feasibility and or try to find anything that actually supports the crazy ideas. They think they have settled an issue and need look no more into it if they can think of some crazy possibility that might at first glance explain one small bit of the evidence.

Your theory does not work for a multitude of reasons. I will mention a few, but I won't bother really explaining the ins and outs. When you are ready to really get to the bottom of this, you'll do your own research.

Despite Joseph Smith (JS) claiming that these papyri were written by the hand of Abraham (he even pointed to one group of characters and said it was Abraham's signature), the papyri date from the 1st century BC.

The Book of Abraham supposedly came from the papyrus that scholars call the "Breathing Permit of Hor". Each breathing permit is a little different, yet they reflect the ages in which they were written. The 1st century BC breathing permits evolved and are different in a number of ways from older ones. This breathing permit was specially made for Horus, the guy the papyrus was buried with. Apologists debate whether the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, in which character by character of the papyrus is paired with lengthy text from the BoA, were working translation papers or a later attempt to learn Egyptian by matching the characters with the translation. JS clearly thought or tried to convey that what is now known as the Breathing Permit of Hor was the source material for the BoA. He translated the characters for Horus (remember these characters would not have existed in Abraham's original) as many different important things each time those characters appeared.

Many years ago apologists tried using cryptology techniques to find any kind of pattern in the characters that could produce the BoA to no avail. So, your different meaning for the characters theory falls flat on its face when you really try to make it work.

Futhermore, there are a number of incorrect reconstructions of history and anachronisms in the text itself. For example, the BoA has this to say about the origins of Egypt:

"21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal."

But, Egypt was a Greek word that came to be used to refer to the country. Egypt was not named after a daughter of Ham named Egyptus. Futhermore, the kingdom of Egypt with its pharoahs pre-date Noah and the Flood by over 1,000 years, so the people of Egypt could not possibly have originated through Ham, Noah's son.

There are many more such examples. Please, before throwing out another desparate theory, really test it to see if it can work. I did that to each and every apologist theory and found that the evidence keeps shutting theory after theory down, ruling out everything and boxing you into the conclusion that the BoA isn't a translation, nor can it be the pure Word of God. The evidence rules out every other possible explanation except fraud. But, you won't be able to see that until you fully investigate the issue and become aware of all of the evidence.

Every apologist I have ever read either ignores, forgets, or is ignorant of the part of the evidence that rules out their pet theory.

I will tell you of the best two apologist theories out there. One, is the pious fraud theory in which the apologist attempts that the BoA is a fraud, but they claim that JS intentions were good. He wanted to bring people closer to Christ, so it is ok that he made up false scripture.

The second is Blake Ostler's Expansion Hypothesis, which is that revelation is the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. All of the things like the false reconstruction of history are products of Joseph Smith's own mind, but part of the text contains true ideas that come from God. John D the First and I had a rather long discussion about this theory on this forum, I don't remember which thread.

Huffenhardt,
Glad to hear about your feelings of peace in your life.

David,
I would never expect "mainstream Christianity" not to be suspicious of Mormonism. Humanity treats any "newcomer" with suspicion, and doubly so if they seem to have a better outlook on life than the oldtimers. I will say that I don't get how you think the God of your Bible is unchanging and yet you don't wonder why there are no prophets on earth today that you believe in. Isn't that a change from times past? (But I don't need a lecture on the subject.) Much happiness to you and yours.

HJ,
I believe Abraham was a real historical figure, not a mythical one, and that his and Joseph's interaction with the Egyptians produced a cross-cultural change in perspective for the Egyptians, but the symbols and meanings of the funerary depictions changed over generations until the point in time that Egyptologists refer to as the reference point for the basis of the meanings as they interpret them. I think both Abraham and Joseph were among the geniuses of their times, and were well-respected by the Egyptian rulers of their day who learned from them. Who knows what influence they may have had, including teaching gospel knowledge about the afterlife?

Parker,
Thank you for your concern. I still feel the things I formerly attributed to "the Spirit" very frequently, I just no longer believe they are a reliable way to identify truth. I have learned more about the psychological conditions that are necessary to illicit feelings such as transcendence, awe, elevation, peace, intimacy, love, warmth in the chest, enlightenment, etc., and I continue to enjoy them.

I have applied psychological concepts such as confirmation bias, selective memory, and the Barnum effect to understand the experiences I used to have that I previously interpreted as answered prayers, fulfilled prophecies, and the "miracles" of priesthood blessings.

I don't feel any spiritual void, even though my universe has been depopulated of any supernatural being or forces.

david
sure i love Jesus.
whom should i NOT love?

luv you
henry

Hello my esteemed friend Karen,

Great question. Versions of it in reverse have been called "the problem of evil." you might be interested to google that phrase for a concise summary, but basically it's: how can a just and good God allow so much evil and tragedy in the world (innocent children killed by tsunamis, etc).

I suppose i would derive some comfort knowing that Hitler was going to be severly punished by god. but to give you the frank answer, my desire for that revenge doesn't outweigh my conviction that there is not going to be such a final judgment. I just can't believe in that, try as i might.

i believe that there are good forces in the universe, and that we humans should try to be among those. i believe the universe as a whole is just about as much "evil" as it is "good." I believe that "virtue" (loving kindness to fellows) is "its own reward" without needing God to add reward or punishment. I guess you'd say i believe in Karma.

i think the way YOU believe in Jesus gives you an embodiment and a model for your loving kindness towards your fellows. He gives me a model too most of the time, even though I don't believe he or anything else (other than all of us) is divine.

I think YOU can certainly know that Jesus is the personage you want to use as your ultimate guide and model, and I admire the way you do it.

I think Phaedrus will say that though he might find a belief in final judgment "comforting", he can't use that as a criterion for truly believing in something.

For instance, I might find it comforting to believe that my drug-addicted friend who has been a liar and a cheat for 40 years will turn everything around next month,
I can't honestly believe it will happen JUST because it is comforting.

Peace and Love
Henry

Hi Karen,

Henry James loves Jesus. Don't let him fool ya.

Ain't that right HJ???

Hi Phaedrus and Henry James:

I have a question for the two of you because I would really like to get the perspective of non-believers who started out their lives in a belief system that included heaven and hell but later rejected it. I also consider you both very intelligent and well read as well as having very logical minds so I think your perspective would be very interesting to me.

With no belief in an afterlife, heaven or hell, how do you deal with the lack of justice in this world? How do you deal with wicked people getting away with their evil deeds and never being brought to justice or being somehow held accountable for their crimes?

I ask because I find comfort believing in a just God that will hold people accountable in the end. I am not talking about the "petty" sins that we all commit. I am talking about evil to the level of Torquemeda or Stalin or Pol Pot, or mass murderers or pedophiles who have never been caught. I want these people standing before the throne of judgement and being made to see the evil that they have caused without ever repenting for it. I know it may all sound childish and vengeful but it is also comforting to know that there will be a day of reckoning for all, no matter how powerful or feared they once were.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.
Karen

I'm just curious from a mormon perspective. Why would you think that "mainstream" Christians would want to "debunk" mormonism? I'm just curious if you've ever asked yourself that question. I know why, but I just would like to know what you all think. I know in a way you relate this struggle to the persecution that the apostles went through and that does increase your faith. But have you ever thought that maybe you've been misled? And if you ever thought you might have been mislead do you see this as reasoning for "mainstream" Christians to try to convert you to the truth in the Bible?

Thanks and God bless you all. Have a great weekend.

James,

Whenever I present a model of revelation that takes into account the complexity of human dynamics you say "I can't understand that." I never really have difficulty getting people who aren't dedicated day in and day out to attempting to debunk Mormon truth claims to understand it. Especially those involved in the mental gymnastics of trying to understand the complexity of human dynamics. The mental gymnastics come into play, not in understanding that God has to work through concrete cultural and environmental means to bring about his purposes, but trying to explain it to a critic of Mormonism who, though not a believer, has never gotten past a fundamentalist paradigm for thinking about God/human interaction. They like the fundamentalist paradigm, it makes their job easier. They "don't understand" a more nuanced and realistic way of looking at God/human interaction.

The view that God works through cultural, and environmental means to bring about his purposes and prepare people to recieve his will, is not at all difficult for me to think about. It makes perfect sense to me. This view is required to accept the Bible too, if you look into how the Bible actually came about. It doesn't suprise me that your stuck on this point and you won't look at all the corroborating evidence he provides. This is the nature of polemics...take the weakest point and act like it is the only point.

Why don't you post on David Bokovey's Blog about how ridiculour his perspective is? I'm sure he would like to have someone participate. It is a Mormon apologetics blog. He knows more about the historical issues surrounding the Book of Abraham than I do. This concept is his idea. Its easy to talk to those who know comparatively little about it (me).

I now give my word I will not post again. You are just so good at baiting, its hard to resist. My posts have gotten a snootier lately because I try not to participate, but I jump in when I get annoyed. Apologies.

Best to you,

Jd1

JD writes, in a paragraph that seems to say one should be skeptical of any saying by any prophet
"What Joseph believes (nature of the Papyri) about anything is not necessarily God's fault, but God can use the incorrect assumptions of his servants to reveal the truth to them. Just like much of the Bible seems to use the incorrect assumptions of Hebrews as a springboard to Eternal Truths: see Genesis. As an anthropologist, I just don't see how God could work any other way in dealing with mere mortals. I know others imagine revelation occuring in a clear cut vacume, which I think is naive and doesn't recognize the messiness of human cultures and cognition."

JD, this is either an uncharacteristically crackpot idea (God uses what look to humans like funeral documents to induce JS into telling the ":true" words of Abraham- why would God do that?)

or it is a license to disregard any story by any prophet.

Your explanation is frankly so convoluted to me that it makes no sense at all.

Parker: your first paragraph seems totally non-sensical. WHAT are you tryig to say? Are you translating from the Egyptian? Can you say it in English.?

If Huff is anything like me, he did NOT "suffer" from a spiritual vacuum on learning what a fraud smith was, but felt liberated and energized and found a new kind of peace. When one looks back at a period when one was deceived and gullible, one does not nostaligically long for that state of ignorance and credulousness.
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

Huffendardt,
My short answer is that I believe Abraham and Joseph were familiar with and may have been involved with the origins of the funerary depictions, and that the symbols meant something different to them than as the Egyptians corrupted the meanings to fit their beliefs down through the ages. I know you won't believe that at all, but fine by me.

Since your "knowledge" trumped your faith, I suspect the spiritual vacuum that created has been difficult. I hope you may find the peace you would naturally be seeking within such a vacuum.

Pheadrus,

Nice to hear from you. I linked to the site because he is a graduate student in Hebrew at Brandeis who knows a lot on the subject. I don't know if I agree with all of his ideas. He's already published in the flagship journal of Biblical studies, I don't remember which. I linked it because I would really like to see a debate between him and Dave, as one who knows comparatively little. I think his main point is that the parallels between the Book of Abraham and the ancient near east are very difficult to make sense of if you see it as a nineteenth century invention.

What Joseph believes (nature of the Papyri) about anything is not necessarily God's fault, but God can use the incorrect assumptions of his servants to reveal the truth to them. Just like much of the Bible seems to use the incorrect assumptions of Hebrews as a springboard to Eternal Truths: see Genesis. As an anthropologist, I just don't see how God could work any other way in dealing with mere mortals. I know others imagine revelation occuring in a clear cut vacume, which I think is naive and doesn't recognize the messiness of human cultures and cognition. I have to accept this model of revelation in order to accept both Biblical and Modern revelation, more so with Biblical revelation however.

I can email if you'd like to chat more. I am trying to curb my addiction to this forum. Now I am out...again

All the Best,

Jd1

Here's a nice bunch of contradictions for ya. Not only contradicting the bible but contradicting themselves as well.

http://home.teleport.com/~packham/contra.htm

John:

I make no pretense to serious scholarship in the BOA controversy, my interest having dimmed primarily because there does not seem to be sufficient cause for real debate as to whether JS was able to translate what he claimed to translate. The fact is that he did not, in this particular case. The interesting question is whether or not he "knew" that he was taking pedestrian funerary documents and turning them into impressively fanciful "scripture." If he did not know that his "translations" were so divergent from the actual content, then he was likely suffering from the symptoms of mental illness. If he did know, then he is another of history's unusually successful confidence men. It is a fascinating question.

However, the theory that God used JS to produce His "word" by allowing him to believe that he was competently translating ancient Egyptian documents, when he in fact was making a complete hash of the job, seems almost impossibly absurd. Perhaps I simply, in my admitted haste, misread the site you linked to, but it seemed pretty clear that this was the thrust of the argument. If God wanted Smith to produce the BOA, why have him use any documents whatsoever, especially if they did not contain what he ultimately claimed? It makes it sound as if God himself is the trickster, although I am certain that is not your intent.

David,
Congratulations, Don Quixote, on such a stupendous display of intellectual prowess. I bear you no ill will--wish you the very best. Cheers.

David,

Before you condescendingly pontificate on the nature of the debate on Mormon truth claims, I suggest you read the following article written by well known and respected Evangelical Scholars:

http://www.cephasministry.com/mormon_apologetics_losing_battle.html

I just wrote a briefing on the DNA issue for a professor in London I am working for. It really is not as big of an issue as its made out to be, considering that the limited geography model for the Book of Mormon has always been a viable alternative in the church.

I think you are once again applying a double standard here. Thomas Murphy was quite frustrated with Living Hope Ministries, because they used what he said in their interveiws very selectively. They showed him talking about the homologies between modern American Indians and Siberians, but left out the part where he dated the time of divergence to 10,000 BC. They also left out the part where he discussed the strong genetic evidence for the relationship of humans to other primates. Why do you think they would leave that part out?

BTW, no where does the Book of Mormon claim the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Earlier you claimed the Book of Mormon says there are many Gods which is also not true. I suggest you do a little more research before you trumpet this kind of triumphalist rhetoric.

Now I'm going to try to leave this conversation again, but no guarantees.

All the best,

Jd1

Parker,

Thanks for the explanation about Jeremiah. I do believe V.9 says that the heart is decietful. You assume that we are to take that as only other peoples hearts. It just says the heart is decietful. Can't that mean our own hearts as well? It reminds me of a verse in Proverbs. Can't think of the numbered verse off hand but it goes something like this. "There's a way that seem right to a man, but in the end is death". Something along that line. That reminds me of Jer 17:9 in that we may think that we are on the right path and that what we believe is true, but in the end it leads to death, (I would assume spiritual death). That's why we have God's Word, the Bible. To descern what's true and what's not. It is obvious to anyone, even non-scholarly individuals, that the BOM and all that J. Smith came up with is a fraud. Not only were his "revelations" contradictory to scripture, but they also changed what God had already set forth as His plan. As we know "God is never changing". So please explain to me why God would change? Isn't that contradictory to His nature?

And concerning Hinckley stating that the LDS is either true or false and that if indeed it is false, it is the greatest scheme of all time. I would disagree. It's actually not that great of a scheme at all. If it were, then why is it so easy to find the falsehood in it? Now of course any religion is going to face some type of scrutiny. But what I find amazing is that the scrutiny of the mormon church and history has not been answered. No shred of archaeological evidence. DNA confirmation that no semitic type found in the native american dna. This "ancient egyptian" that J. Smith supposedly translated was found not to even resemble any type of ancient egyptian writing ever. Taking all the easy evidence it can be obvious that Mormonism is a fraud. Sorry Hinckley! Your on candid camera!

The Bible does have archaeological evidences. Not for all parts but that's in part because certain areas cannot be excavated. I saw on the History Channel that only 4% of the Bibilical accounts have been or can be excavated due in part to governmental issues or geological issues. The Bible is geographically correct, not like the BOM, (garden of eden in Missouri???) The Bible is historically correct. Not the BOM, (people were called Christians FIRST 95 years before Christ??) Bible tells us they were called Christians first at Antioch. Not only a biblical contradiction, but also a no duh? How can you be called a Christian before Christ was ever around?

So pretty much the evidence speaks for itself. Sorry ya'll, but it's just too easy to recognize a false religion when we see one.

JD and Parker

I haven't read AS extensively as Huff has about the Book of Abraham, but i have read both the mormon apologetics and the non-mormon sources who were both egytologists and archeologists.

it won't surprise either of you to know that it looks like a clear case of blatant fraud to me, and to all the non-mormon academic experts i have found.

parker: your defense was exceptionally weak, both logically and evidentiarily.

let me underline one of Huff's points: it is AMAZING that two such historically important documents would turn up with a small time dealer in Kirtland Ohio.

Don't you all understand the point that incredible claims require incredibly convincing evidence to be believed?????? In this case, the objective evidence is all on the side of Fraud. As a reasonable man who had no axe to grind would expect it to be if he were told the facts of the story, even before the document was revealed to be an ordinary funerary document.

Hi Huff,

I have no doubt you know much more about the Book of Abraham controversy than I. But I have a hard time believing it is as cut and dry as you claim. I read all the links you have previously posted and found nothing very earth shattering. I would like to see you debate someone who really knows their stuff on this. Like this guy:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/blog/david_bokovoy/index.php?

As for me, I haven't time to dig up every primary source. Hopefully some day I will.

Best,

Jd1

Parker said:

"Huffenhardt,
If the Book of Abraham was a fraud, why did Joseph Smith wait until Egyptian papyrus happened to be for sale to come up with such a book? Why didn't he just do like he did with the Book of Moses, at a similar time? And why did he stop at Abraham? Why not a Book of Enoch, a Book of Joseph, a Book of Noah? Why not claim he had found the books of the lost ten tribes? I have no trouble with your doubting, but it seems you ought to follow your train of thought into other questions."

When the mummies and the papyri toured in Kirtland, the Saints were very excited because they believed these as yet untranslated, ancient Egyptian writings could now be translated by Joseph Smith and their cryptic contents revealed. Remeber Joseph claimed that the Golden Plates were written in reformed Egyptian and the Saints believed he had interpreters and the power of God to translate. Joseph did not go looking for this experience, but now he was placed in a situation in which he either had to produce something that looked like a translation or admit that he did not have power to translate and admit his fraud.

There were two papyri scrolls and a few other fragments. In Joseph's typical grandiose style, he claimed one of the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham by his own hand and the other the writings of Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Parker, your question above suggests that you did not know that. How remarkable that two original texts of countless significance to the whole world, written by the Patriarch of the 3 Great Faiths AND written by the famous Joseph, the son of Israel, just happened to be buried with some unimportant mummies and find their way to a remote town in Ohio? Joseph Smith never got around to "translating" the scroll of Joseph, but he and Oliver did relate the drawings on that scroll to Biblical events, through some stretch of the imagination.

Frankly, Parker, you seem quite uninformed about all the events surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Abraham. I was an amateur apologist for Mormonism until I read everything about the Book of Abraham (original sources, and articles both apologetic and critical). I, like you, would have claimed that Swedenborg did not make up the 3 degrees of Glory, too, but that it was a true revelation mingled with his own ideas that were off a bit. But, once, I had completely irrefutable evidence of Joseph Smith's fraud, I quit giving him the benefit of the doubt. Swedenborg's ideas are in all likelihood made up and Joseph plagiarized them - plain and simple.

The History of the Church records (2:236):

"...with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc., — a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth."

What i find interesting about our religion concerning the 3 degrees of glory is that we have somehow missed the interpretation of the vision of section 76. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is based fundamentally on the restoration of Christ's teachings found in the Book of Mormon as another companion to the New Testament. What is interesting though is that since section 76 came to light, our view of heaven and hell have changed drastically.

We do not really teach a saved/damned dichotomy anymore. Instead we have a rewards/punishment system based upon the record of ones life in mortality. The problems arise when we do not understand the implications of this system. For instance- We teach that although a person can be redeemed in the spirit world,they will still be punished eternally for not accepting the atonement while in their mortal states (Terrestrial). This is a punishment system that rewards or punishes people not for if they accept, but when they accept! This is very problematic however because it shows that we really do not believe in an "infinite" atonement. Instead it is a doctrine founded upon the hearts and minds of men.

If Christ fully forgives the repentant in spirit prison/hell, what could then possibly stand in their way from reaching full fellowship with Christ? After all they are spotless! It is misunderstandings like these that have led the church and it's doctrines into strange territory. Many verses in section 76 should raise warning flags that our doctrine is flawed. For instance- take verses 103-108, these verses are not describing any souls who Christ saves. In fact, Joseph in the vision is seeing the devil and his angels- Christ's enemies (v.106). Verse 103 is a paraphrase from revelations and earlier revelation from Joseph himself concerning the sons of perdition who are cast off into the lake of fire. It even states that they are not saved in verses 106-108 because they remain under Christ's feet until Christ shall have perfected all of the saved and present them to the Father. After this they come forth in the resurrection of damnation to inherit the kingdom of the devil.

Why have we strayed from the truth?Misinterpretation! We have had the temple endowment ceremony that correctly teaches the plan of salvation and the truth concerning the 3 kingdoms which are very drastically different than what is taught outside the temple and where has it got us? We just can't seem to figure it out, and it is a unique mystery to our religion. And yet, I hold faithful to my religion because I hope that soon the truth will come to light.

JD1, RTC and Parker:

Amen to that! Thanks for your all your well thought and exceptional responses - it's always good to see all of you come back and give your input.

JD1 - I couldn't have said it better myself!

David,

I do find it interesting that you would take one statement given in levity as reason to pass judgement on a man’s status before God. Most Latter Day Saints would not be the slightest bit persuaded by this apparent self-righteousness. Do you really think Biblical Prophets measure up to the standard of impeccable perfection you hold Joseph Smith to? Were I to apply you standard, I would have to throw out much of the Book of Psalms, many of its chapters being written by an adulterer and a murderer (David). Not to mention the Book of Proverbs, written largely by a man with 600 wives and 200 concubines, an idolotrer at that (Solomon). What about the first five books of Moses? Written by a man who killed an Egyptian, who also was a polygamist? What about Pauline epistles? If boasting is such an unforgivable sin, Paul certainly can’t pass your “spirit testing” exercise (2 Corinthians 11).

What is spirit testing anyways? Comparing what the spirit tells me to the Bible? I read the Bible frequently and I find what the spirit tells me is in harmony with it. The biggest contradiction is not between the spirit and the Bible, but common sense and the Bible; by the grace of God the spirit helps me get past these hurdles. Though because of my assumptions about the authenticity of scripture, I don’t think your method in theory is entirely unsound. But if I think about it logically, sola scriptora doesn’t even achieve the status of tautology. You can’t say, “Believe the Bible because the Bible says so”, because none of the revelations even make reference to the Bible. The protestant view of the cannon is entirely extra-scriptural.

In the end, the real challenge to LDS belief is not from “Orthodox” Christianity, but from the same location that challenges all religious belief, secularism. Most Latter Day Saints just politely and quietly shake their heads at the double standard applied to their belief system by those trying to persuade them of the superiority of Protestantism.

If I were to decide my answers from God that have always led me to peace and love, were not actually from God, and were left entirely to my rational faculties, I would find Protestantism, or what is called “Biblical” Christianity more wanting than my own faith. At least Mormonism provides a sufficient answer to the problem of evil, and doesn’t impose a warped dichotomous reward/punishment system. In the end, I would go the rout of Agnosticism.

I must apologize; this is a hit and run. I will be quite busy this weekend and won’t be able to respond to any further commentary. Best to you!

Jd1

Parker -

I too have been unable of late to keep up with the thread, but checking in tonight I was so happy to see that you have been able to stop by and are holding the fort so admirably. In particular, I so appreciate your testimony in regards to The Book of Abraham of which I also have a firm testimony of its authenticity.

In fact, how ironic that it would be up for discussion on this very day, as I spent many hours today in deep study with this record, along with other sacred text. What I came away with, was an even stronger testimony of Joseph Smith as a true prophet of God, as there is no possible way that Joseph could have known many things that were given him by pure revelation, that are only now coming forth from more recently discovered text. Which also give more credibility to the doctrines that have been brought forth... for we do believe the Bible so long as it has been translated correctly. Many plain and precious doctrines for one reason or another have been left out and in the restoration of The Gospel of Jesus Christ, has come a restoration of those doctrines.

Also, this evening I checked lds.org, as I often do and this was on the main page. When I read the dialogue that was taking place here, I felt that nothing could be said any better than this. And so here it is.

Parker, thank you for your great work here and your testimony and knowledge that radiate above the echoes in the hallways. You are being heard and the sound is light!!!
rtc

07/05/2007 10:53 PM LDS Newsroom -

Approaching Mormon History

SALT LAKE CITY 5 July 2007

The increasing media attention devoted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has led many journalists to explore Mormon history. Some of them have questioned the miraculous aspects of the faith and have inquired as to why Latter-day Saints continue to believe them as reality and not myth.

Some writers have suggested that Mormons have a tougher “sell” with their faith because the miraculous events associated with its history are relatively recent and not obscured by antiquity. One scholar even wondered whether the Church — as it becomes more familiar and more widely accepted — will be pressured by public opinion to step back from those doctrines and elements of its history that are unique and challenging to modern eyes.

But to deny the Church’s miraculous history is to deny its very foundation. During an interview for the recent PBS documentary “The Mormons,” Elder Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian and a member of the high-ranking Quorum of the Seventy, was asked why Mormon history is taken so literally and not simply treated as a myth. In response [link pending] he said that viewing history as a “figment of language or ... imagination” takes away its essential meaning. From the perspective of believers, for example, Joseph Smith’s miraculous visions give real meaning to their lives not because of their symbolic value, but because they actually happened.

According to the scriptural model of history, prophets and apostles taught spiritual truths through historical narratives.

Likewise, according to Elder Jensen, “the greatest piece of Church history that we have is Joseph Smith's story. It's scripture, and it's history, and it's the foundation, really, for everything that we have and we are, and it's beautifully clear and simple.

Mormon history is often viewed in terms of how sacred history can be reconciled with the empirical demands of secular history. It is often asked, for example, how the Church can reconcile the authenticity of the Book of Mormon with the absence of archeological proof. This difficulty is inherent in all religious history and illustrates how spiritual matters are best verified by spiritual means. For example, the Jewish belief in the reality of the Exodus is not dependent on archeological evidence, but rests on faith. At a time when many religions are pressured to treat their sacred histories as myths, the Latter-day Saints on the contrary embrace their history as a literal expression of their faith.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was asked how faith interacts with history.

He emphasized that ultimately spiritual matters cannot be empirically verified, but require faith: “It will forever come to faith, or it isn't religion in any way that I understand religion.” Furthermore, Elder Holland said that there is no need to hide from Church history and that it should be accepted for what it is.

Church President Gordon B. Hinckley, also interviewed by Helen Whitney, similarly expressed the need to take Church history literally.

Articulating the difficulty of finding middle ground between myth and reality, President Hinckley said of the foundational story of Mormonism that “it's either true or false.

If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world.”

Since the birth and growth of the Church has taken place right before the public’s eyes these past two centuries, it cannot escape public scrutiny. Nevertheless, this scrutiny does not require that the Church compromise or hide from its history.

Far from being a liability, Mormons view their history as one of
the Church's greatest assets.

David,
I'm supposing there are only a few people who will ever read this, so I'm going to springboard from your train of thought in Jeremiah 17. I'm writing this without notes, on the fly as it were, so it will not be polished but will hopefully convey my thoughts on the subject you have chosen (Jeremiah 17).

1-3. The house of Judah is reprimanded by God for worshiping idols (altars and groves) that had been introduced to them by the nation-states around them, causing them to commit the sin of false worship, even to the very heart of their being.

4. The house of Judah will be taken to a land they "know not" and not receive the heritage they could have received at that time; there, they will serve their enemies.

5. Cursed is the person that trusts in their own judgement and works without acknowledging their dependence on God, and whose heart has departed from the Lord. (This reminds of the scripture in Proverbs, "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he will direct thy paths.")

6. Such a person as described in the preceding verses shall feel "parched" (thirst without being quenched because of the desert they are in spiritually, "in the wilderness" (i.e., lost).

7. Blessed is the person that trusts and places eternal hope in the Lord completely, without reservation or holding back.

8. He shall no longer feel "parched" but shall be planted "by the waters" and not cease from "yielding fruit" (doing good among fellow men, and feeling watered by the living waters of the gospel of Jesus Christ.) This reminds of Isaiah 55--"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters. Yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price."

9-12. The Lord searches the heart of each person(compare the story of David's being found by the prophet Nathan wherein he was told "the Lord looketh not on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.") Men cannot know the hearts of other men because it is easy to be deceived by outward appearances, but the Lord is not deceived, and knows the "fruit of our doings". We ought not be fooled by the falseness of the pursuit of riches rather than the "glorious high throne" that is offered as the "place of our sanctuary".

13. Many have forsaken the Lord, "the fountain of living waters" (continuing the theme of verse 8.)

14-18. Jeremiah acknowledges the inspiration of his message of warning to the Jews.

19-27. If the house of Judah returns to keeping the sabbath day holy and doing the "sacrifices of praise," Jerusalem can become safe "for ever", but if not the palaces of Jerusalem will be destroyed. This theme is repeated throughout the Book of Jeremiah.

You're right, David, that we should be careful about trusting the hearts of men, and instead should trust in God. There is so much we can learn from this chapter and from all of Jeremiah, that applies not only to his day but to our day. Best to you and your family.

Huffenhardt,
If the Book of Abraham was a fraud, why did Joseph Smith wait until Egyptian papyrus happened to be for sale to come up with such a book? Why didn't he just do like he did with the Book of Moses, at a similar time? And why did he stop at Abraham? Why not a Book of Enoch, a Book of Joseph, a Book of Noah? Why not claim he had found the books of the lost ten tribes? I have no trouble with your doubting, but it seems you ought to follow your train of thought into other questions.

As to "intelligences" and the "degrees of glory", those are just human words. I doubt an "intelligence" lives in a state of labeling itself.

If you would, take out a piece of paper and draw a large circle, and label it "truths of the universe". Within that circle, draw another much smaller circle and label it "truths known by mortals". Within that circle, draw another much smaller circle and label it "truths taught in Mormonism". Now Swedenborg didn't grasp all of the truths in that smallest circle, and perhaps grasped some truths within the second circle that are apart from Mormonism (I have no idea), but the fact that he was inspired with the idea of "degrees of glory" does not surprise me in the least. Why shouldn't he be, if he sincerely wanted to know? God is no respecter of persons when it comes to revealing truths, in His own time and in His own way, wherever and to whomever is sincerely seeking for them.

As to the "names" of those degrees of glory, there won't be a sign on any of them saying "welcome to the Celestial Kingdom" or etc. Those are just words. And the Telestial Kingdom is really comprised of thousands of "kingdoms", each different in the degree of light and knowledge of the people who inherit them based on their degree of repentance, faith, and good works--or in other words, how well they have finally come unto Christ and followed His example. As I've said before, each person will get what they deep-down desire, including taking into account the pre-mortal life and the spirit world. Best wishes for you as you explore the truths outside of Mormonism and enjoy the happiness you desire for yourself. And thanks for fishing for those weak in faith, thus helping separate the wheat from the chaff. It serves the purposes of the Almighty.

David,
Congratulations on your new baby, as also to your wife. I wish you all well. We learn a lot as parents, don't we?

Joseph Smith said, "I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam...Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." (History of the Church, Vol. 6:408-9).

Are these the words from someone who is a TRUE prophet of God? Or maybe a prophet from satan?

I think this quote alone proves that J. Smith was a moron. I guess not being a very good treasure hunter, he realized that the real money was in starting a new religion. What a fraud! It doesn't take a genius to know how faulty mormon doctrine is. Just compare it to the Bible and you can see the many contradictions. By the way Parker, you shouldn't trust your heart on matters of faith. The Bible says so. Jer 17:9. So whatever "feeling in your bosom" you obtain in knowing the truth can mislead you. And yes this is the same David that was in a dialogue with you before. Have you tested "the spirit" yet or have you just accepted this feeling? I'm glad your still on here. I just hope that I can bring the truth to you. Have a great day.

God bless

Huffenhardt,
You have offered logical and reasonable discussion points. I will plan to offer my views on these questions later tonight when I have the time, which I don't have right now and don't want to give you a simplistic answer. In the meantime, have a good day, all.

Parker,
Faith works fine on issues where knowledge does not exist. One could have faith in things that cannot be proven one way or the other. But, when something can be proven leaving no sliver of ambiguity or doubt, faith cannot exist in that thing, because knowledge leaves no room for it. There has to be uncertainty in which faith can work.

For example, can you put faith in the idea that the Moon does not exist. No, because you know it does exist. Similarly, I cannot put faith in the Book of Abraham, because I know it is a fraud. I gave the book the benefit of every doubt until there was no wiggle room left. There is no way to avoid the unavoidable conclusion that the Book of Abraham is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. Not even God could make it so. My confidence comes from the strength of the facts. The link you provided misleads the reading into thinking the critics only have three challenges to the BoA's validity. The authors hand-picked arguments they thought they had a good response for and fail to inform the reader of all the evidence that they do not have a response for.

This is not a question about who is smarter, god or man. This is about recognizing a fraud and that it has nothing to do with god.

As for the doctrines themselves, they sound beautiful and promising until you find out that there were not received by revelation as Joseph claimed, but were plagairized. What Mormon has ever heard of "intelligences" outside of the Church? That sounds like an original doctrine to our 21st century ears. Lo, and behold, it was Thomas Dick who introduced the idea in his book, "Philosophy of a Future State," of which we know Joseph had a copy.

Well, what about Joseph's doctrine on the Three degrees of Glory, etc, the New Testament only alludes to it? It is a reworking of the ideas in Swedenborg's "Heaven and Hell" of which we know Joseph was familiar with (see my first post in this thread).

Parker
To be blunt,
you totally misread my example.

I was making an comparison/analogy, not saying you or Mormonism believe in a 6000 year old earth.

Your position is that no evidence can affect your belief in God and Mormonism.

that is LIKE (NOT, the SAME) the kind of statement that 6000-year believers make.

To state that one will continue to believe something despite any conceivable evidence to the contrary

is a remarkable statement.

That is what I was pointing out.

HJ,
I had found some other of your comments more compelling than this most recent. I absolutely am not saying that Mormonism holds any exclusivity on truth--quite the contrary. Nor did I ever say or imply that the earth was "created" in six days or 6,000 years. I think it was organized over a millions-of-years process, as you would well know if you'd studied Mormonism. By dragging in faulty suppositions like that, you only show the weakness of your position, needing to resort to something you know I wouldn't believe. (Sorry to be blunt on that point.)

Parker writes

"My personal belief is that
our loving Father would have made 100% sure that whatever physical evidences (or the lack thereof) are found by however well-meaning researchers, acceptance of the possibility of inspiration from God would require faith on the part of those doing the accepting."

Let me paraphrase this, as accurately as I can.

"God wants us to believe in Him and Mormonism
because Joseph Smith said we should
regardless of how much evidence there is that Smith was an "unreliable narrator"
and in the complete lack of verifiable evidence in support of Smith's extraordinary truth-claims."

No matter how much evidence that is shown to the true believer, according to Parker, the true believer will not be shaken.

Sounds like the people who take the Bible literally and believe that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

It is also remarkably like the thought system of a paranoid who can interpret any event as consistent with the motives of those who are persecuting him.

There is no way to "crack into the system." it is unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless.

Huffenhardt,
Thanks for taking the time to address my comment.
I have no doubt you have read here http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_of_Abraham_papyri and still remain doubtful about the legitimacy of the Book of Abraham "translation" by Joseph Smith. My personal belief is that our loving Father would have made 100% sure that whatever physical evidences (or the lack thereof) are found by however well-meaning researchers, acceptance of the possibility of inspiration from God would require faith on the part of those doing the accepting.

Rationally thinking, if the Divine Being that I am talking about exists and is providing us this life as a test of our faith, then He is a super-intelligent being compared with whom we are mere infants, if that. Why would such an intelligent Being allow His test to be "solved" by rational study alone? This would defeat His purpose. I don't think that He would. Rather, I think that He would "allow" if not "provide conditions in which" skeptics will have plenty of room for their skepticism, that being a part of the test.

As to the "truths" of Mormonism that are doctrinal rather than "historical", I have no idea what you're talking about when you talk about your "mounds of evidence." I'm not asking you to list the doctrinal truths you disagree with based on your study, because these endless arguments back and forth seem to do no one any good and waste the time of those few reading here. For me, the doctrinal truths stand on their own, with or without the history that describes how they were provided to the world through Joseph Smith or others.

We have reached different conclusions, and I've no doubt you have rationale to support yours. That's fine with me--I won't try to persuade you otherwise.

Parker,

In several of your posts you give the impression that people who do not believe as you do have not experienced the same types of spiritual experiences you have. As if the experiences would be enough to produce belief.

I was a very true believing Mormon and had all the types of experiences that many Mormon leaders have had. Those experiences are still in my past and I remember them very well. But, I always believed that truth will not contradict truth wherever it may be found. I found that Joseph Smith defrauded us with the Book of Abraham through physical evidence. And no amount of profound spiritual witnesses no matter how beautiful and deeply felt can counter that physical evidence.

I know of many other post-Mormons who were among the most elect, who had what they believed to be powerful encounters with God confirming the truth of Mormonism, who came to think of things differently in light of all the mounds of evidence against the truthfulness of Mormonism. Experiences are not enough.

There are a number of people who have had near-death-experiences who do not believe in an afterlife. There are strong, compelling reasons why we should doubt the implications of our experiences.

Thanks, all. I enjoyed your comments. I'm not an expert at all about NDEs nor how they have been "reproduced" by artificial stimulation. I of course know they don't "prove" anything about an afterlife, and if I were to think I needed to spend my whole life trying to prove any doctrine or belief that has been confirmed in my heart, mind, and soul based on what we are calling "faith," then I would be wasting my time because God is infinitely more intelligent than I am. There is a realm of knowledge that is beyond reason and rationality, though it is described in words and thus can be dismissed by those who haven't had the experiences so they don't relate to the words used to describe them. It will ever be thus.
Thanks for the kind-hearted dialogue. What a great nation we have, amazingly preserved despite flaws in individual leaders. The plurality of ideas and unfettered religious or rational-based beliefs are one of the strengths of this nation. May it ever be thus.

and yes, Parker

a Near Death Experiencer is in a cognitive state very like Inebriation in many ways.

Doesn't say the person is crazy. It says that they are in an extreme physiological state. this is obvious, no?

Parker
P's amplification reminds us that we humans
believe what we want to believe

and interpret evidence to fit our own view/paradigm of the world.

If one wants to believe in heaven, one will experience NDE's as evidence of heaven, though in no meaningful sense are they evidence of heaven, any more than an inebriate's vision of Pink Elephants is evidence of the existence of pink elephants.

Phaedrus's "theory" however IS verifiable. One can experiment and observe neurologically the processes that occur when one is having something like a NDE experience.

Scientists REVISE their theories when the evidence contradicts them. True believers in things like Heaven, of which there can NEVER be evidence, do not follow this process.

Parker, for clarification sake, I did NOT say that (caps for emphasis only) NDEs were the result of a "deranged" mind. My meaning is that these experiences are best explained by focusing on what is happening neurologically at those particular moments, in which neuronal activity produces sensations of objects and experiences not actually present or occurring in the physical world. For instance, by stimulating certain parts of the brain, these NDE sensations can actually be produced in individuals who are otherwise perfectly healthy. This stimulation merely mimics that occurring when there is some insult to neuronal functioning brought about by trauma or disease.

Parker
Phaedrus, as is his wont, was excessively kind in responding to your acceptance that reported "after-death" experiences prove ANYTHING about the validity of an afterlife. I am restraining myself enormously not to characterize these theories accurately.

You write:

I happen to have a profound mistrust of scientific theories that are taught as "facts" when they skim over logic and relegate other theories to "delusion".

THIS IS AN INCREDCIBLE STATEMENT.

Mormons say, every Sunday
that they KNOW the church is true and that their heaven exists.
in other words, they state as FACT things that no man has ever witnessed in a verifiable way.

This is INCREDIBLE arrogance.
Scientists have much greater humility about their process and their ability to know what they know. They have an understanding of
"what it means TO KNOW'
and they question and continually work to demonstrate even things that they BeLIEVE to be true.

You really do have this completely backwards, my friend.

Make that "put in proper perspective".

Parker,

As with most of us, you apparently were bred, born and brainwashed in your religion. I recommend thinking outside the box and inhaling the reality of life. Start by considering the Mormon belief in the angel Moroni. Angels are the figments of the imaginations of the ancients. Once you come to this realization, your mind will expand exponentially as the foundations of the major religions are put into proper prespective. Enjoy the enlightenment!!!!!

I reiterate again my short synopsis of said religious foundations.

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Phaedrus,
I respect and honor you and appreciate both your perspective and the service you perform helping others. I understand that your experiences in life have given you a certain perspective that gives you a sense of peace. I disagree that God "forces" anyone, and agree that every thought or feeling or belief or even "experience" can be discounted by others as an hallucination. I happen to have a profound mistrust of scientific theories that are taught as "facts" when they skim over logic and relegate other theories to "delusion". I happen to personally know eminent medical doctors who do not agree with your position as to the afterlife being a belief brought on by a deranged mind. But if that theory has brought comfort to you and helped you gain a stronger desire to study and further the work of science (which of course has an important place in the world), then that is well and good for you, I suppose. Some of us differ.

Parker writes:

" I don't understand why atheists can read about so many who have had "life after life" experiences (some who were previous atheists who subsequently became theists) and still posit that a personal belief in an afterlife is not a tenable belief position."

Parker, these experiences are far better accounted for neurologically than by positing the required mass of supernatural causation life after death necessitates. When the brain is affected by significant insult, sensory abnormalities are to be expected. When we see this in a hospital or street corner, we recognize it as mental illness, and understand that the delusions and hallucinations are "caused" by abnormal neurochemical activity. But, given the attendant existential appeal and mystery of the "afterlife" concept, people to tend to attribute near-death experience phenomena to supernatural causes. OF course, mental illnesses were once thought to be the result of demon possession. Continuing advances in neuroimaging technology will eventually remove the mystery from NDEs for all but the most fundamentalist believers. There will, of course, continue to be many who will refuse to accept the naturalistic explanation, some of them adopting your, "God just conceals the real truth to force us to look more deeply and have faith," line of reasoning.

I once had a professor who cautioned me to be even more careful before allowing myself to accept as true, a theory that made me "feel better" in some way. His point was that, in those circumstances, I could not be certain that I was not short circuiting the logical process because of the emotional appeal of the apparent "results." A wise man, providing excellent counsel.

To the honest seeker after truths about God:

I find I can't sleep and have a desire to share some of my beliefs while this topic is still up for discussion.
1. This life and its many ironies and inequities make much more sense when you realize that your spirit existed before you were born, and lived in the presence of a loving Heavenly Father. Why isn't the Bible more clear on this? I believe the answer is that God wants His children to search deeply for answers to life's questions, not be given the answers on a simple "silver platter," because searching leads to a greater opportunity to feel the divine spirit providing guidance, comfort, and peace.

2. I find comfort in the greatness of God's love through knowing that the large majority of the "wicked" will eventually be rescued from "hell" when they finally accept Jesus Christ and repent of their sins after having suffered torment in the spirit world beyond our present imagination if they commited major sins that they didn't repent of in this life. God's unconditional love and infinite patience make more sense to me knowing this.

3. It makes logical sense to me that there are a practically infinite number of gradations of "glories" in the final resurrected state of mankind. The idea of lumping everyone into two camps forever--"heaven" and "hell"--based on the chance circumstances of their individual lives would never make sense to me.

4. I don't understand why atheists can read about so many who have had "life after life" experiences (some who were previous atheists who subsequently became theists) and still posit that a personal belief in an afterlife is not a tenable belief position.

5. For those who question whether Joseph Smith was a divinely inspired prophet, my experience is that reading the Book of Mormon (at least once, perhaps more times than that) without skepticism is the most important single thing they can do to figure out if there is a possibility that he was a prophet of God. I know that he was, as I know that Christ lives and continues to love all of mankind all over the world and reach out to us if we will reach out to Him in faith. May His peace be with you.

'allo Phaedrus

i missed you.

yes, i think the intricacy of Smith's writings has led many to think he must be on to something.

kind of a correlate of "if you're going to tell a lie, make it a really big (and complicated) one."

Why would Smith have given us all this detail on heaven and what you have to do to get there if it weren't revealed to him? He couldn't just make all that stuff up?

Of course, Swedenborg had "made all that stuff up" 70 years earlier, and thereby demonstrated how relatively easy it is. Just keep writing. And Ron Hubbard has shown how it can be done in our time. Just ask Tom Cruise.

BTW, do you remember that my father was a Big Swedenborgian before he switched to the other 30-40 religions he was alternately devout in during his lifetime?

best,

Henry

Anonymous

Philosophers like brother William will tell you that life/death is full of paradoxes .

i illustrate one for you.

HJ

I find it Ironic and Irrational that HJ, the only one here that is dead, claims there is no after life and if there was no one can prove anyone has come back to tell us about it. But

I fear that when we die we only will only be able to blog on the internet like HJ for all eternity!!!

Heaven for some, Hell for me!

Henry James:

Increased work demands prevent my showing up here with former frequency, but it is good to see you soldiering on in your usual, which is to say ironically astute, fashion.

On superstition: People adopt superstitious beliefs and practices to help them allay anxiety, corporeal and existential. We recognize our limited spans of control over potentially painful events, and adopt ritualized behaviors, based on specious assumptions of cause and effect, to exert an enhanced "control" over anxiety provoking life circumstances. e.g. avoiding stepping on cracks will allow us to exert some influence over our mother's spinal health. Such obvious and elementery superstitions become quaint over time, but those with large numbers of adherents and labyrinthine complexities survive. Especially when the anxiety provoking stimulus is particularly threatening.

The most threatening source of existential and corporeal anxiety is death of course, both of loved ones and ourselves, with its attendant seperations and the physical suffering that often precedes it. It should come as no surprise then that the most durable superstitions are those which allow for some sense of comfort in the face of death.

Nonetheless, just because a superstition is metaphysically complex, has billions of adherents, no shortage of resources, and the rich patina of antiquity in which to cloak itself, does not mean that its naked basic assumptions of cause and effect are any less specious than sidewalk-crack-avoidance, nor that its rituals have any influence whatsoever over the actual cause and effect relationships within the natural world.

Of course, you already know this.

Best to you, mon ami.

I guess it's what you think Heaven is. I have lived in Utah all my life and have heard "The Plan" story for 4 decades. I am not LDS and I'm glad that I'm not. I look at Heaven as being in the presence of the living God. Not a place to work towards here on Earth to obtain "godhood" like the Father in your doctrine. It's a shame that you spend your life on earth trying to be perfect to get to a certain "level" of Heaven, instead of rejoiceing in the love that God has for you in Christ Jesus. To live your life freely in the service to other because of the love of Christ.

yours was one of the more insane pieces we have seen on this site.

congratulations. about 3 words made sense.

the, or, and .

Insanity is thinking that there could still somehow be any real meaning to life if there is no life after death and no God.

Insanity is thinking that truth is relative to the individual.

Insanity is thinking that anyone has any real reason to be moral if there is no God and no life after death and no objective truth.

Insanity is thinking that there is a point to insisting that everyone realize that there is no point.

Insanity is thinking it's okay to romanticize completely irrational concepts like love and morality while saying that concepts like God and life after death are ridiculous because they are irrational.

Insanity is thinking that a religion has any capability of serving its purpose when that religion has been invented by people just as blind to God and Heaven as we are.

Insanity is thinking that God is all-powerful and yet incapable of speaking to Man.

Insanity is thinking that Man can fend for himself by mixing his own conjecture with a smattering of misinterpreted words God spoke to people in different circumstances millennia ago.

Insanity is rejecting a perfectly viable answer simply because you don't want to have to change.

"I do not wonder that so many men treat religion with contempt and regard it as something not worth the attention of intelligent beings, for without revelation, religion is a mockery and a farce."
--John Taylor

Is Religion Superstition (whether Mormon or Othewise)?

Well, it MIGHT be a good idea to look at *actual* definitions of the word. Here is a typical one:

1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
a. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
b. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

HJ to DW
Is it "rational" to believe a God is going to bring you to heaven after you die? It relies on no evidence or facts. Even believers admit that Faith is NOT rational. (do i need to look up "rational" for you?)

Believers believe that "God answers prayers," ie influences the outcomes of things. There is not any shred of evidence that prayer has an effect on outcomes. In fact there is a growing body of evidence that it doesn't.

Most believers *fear* the consequences of not following the orders of their God.

Religion in general and in mormonism goes against the "laws of nature." Nature says that when we die we decay and lose consciousness. Religion says we are resurrected and our soul remains with our body.

If I say
"A being named Groucho lives on a planet near the Star Sirius. He answers my prayers and is going to bring me to his planet when I die." you would have me committed.

if you substitute God for Groucho, the statement is just as irrational. Superstitious. Even believers have to go by the definitions of words that are in the dictionary, DW.

To reiterate, here are some beliefs by religious scholars who have studied the situation, (unlike Mr. Otterson):

Professor JD Crossan (an On Faith panelist) does not believe in an afterlife as noted in his book, Who is Jesus?

Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian, has a different take on hell. He reasons that the Singularity does not tolerate imperfection in his spiritual realm. Therefore, any soul dying in mortal sin will simply disappear since hell the imperfect state does not exist.

Aquinas (and JPII) concluded that Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies. From that one might conclude there were no bodily Resurrection of Jesus, no Ascension, no Assumption and no second resurrection of "humankinders".

Other points of interest: Angels and devils (those demons of the demented)

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinker bell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie talking thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Personnally, fear of punishment has it rewards so I CMAFH (Cover My A__ with Fear and Hope).

'Old hat precepts' were not embraced by the majority of mankind in that day also. A fundamental reason why they had to come along (ie the 10 commandments)and, accordingly, recorded.

BTW...More tribes in Israel than just 'Jews'..10 or so more whose descendants are not Jewish to this day.

The bible chronicles many historical things that Israel and others experienced. Whether or not Israel or others chose to or not to obey God does not diminish Gods purpose for mankind. Their wrong decisions were chronicled too. Gods purpose will still come about, in due time.

Belief in God is superstition only to the non-believer. Its a difference in believing you came about by chance or you were carefully manufactured and well thought out just as you or I would, humanly, do at our proverbial work bench.
This is why most of mankind has taken the high road in what they believe their origins are thru the ages. There is a fundamental reason for that too.

DW
You do NOT understand.

*at the time they were given* the moral precepts of the 10 commandments were old hat. everyone in every society had the precept to love their neighbor and not lie kill cheat or steal. The 10 commandments are just the jewish version.
be subtle here: it is a good thing not to kill. we just didn't need the 10 commandments to tell us that.

SECOND MAJOR POINT: just cuz it's written in the scriptures DOES NOT make it true, except for people like you. but it ain't necessarily so.

The Bible proves NOTHING, esp to those who do not think the bible is the word of god.

There is plenty of Fear-inducing dogma in the Bible that would make any rational person afraid. If "god" did not mean it to be taken that way, he sure messed up in writing it.

Belief in God IS a superstitiion, just as believing in fairies or goblins or zombies is a superstition. look up the meaning of the word in the dictionary. it is a commonly held superstition, but still a superstition.

love and kisses
henry

Henry James stated:

DW

The 10 Commandments added *NOTHING* to mankind's moral understanding or ability to live together.

>>True..they certanly have added nothing in our day and age, but that is by mankinds own choice as a whole. There was a time they were esteemed more by those our country. And, when followed, they have added to every living humans life who keeps them...a life of peace, cooperation, care and understanding and love of neighbor.

The Moral precepts (don't kill, steal, lie, commit adultry) had been around for millenia. The God commandments were an updating of existing superstitions, but had NOTHING to do with morality.

>>I have to disagree with lumping the commandments with superstition. Each one of them is a carefully outlined precept that, when kept, brings about a life of contentment. How much better our headlines would be if they were considered valuable...and no question of how much more morally-minded the family of man would be.

Scripture about Heaven/No Heaven PROVES NOTHING except that people were able to fantasize about the afterlife. NO REASON to believe the fantasies any more than any of the other thousands of myths about what happens when we die, which No One Knows.

>>All the different views are certainly religious confusion. It was foretold it would be this way. God gave a choice. Man chose his own way. Doesnt discount or diminish God's overall purpose as is found in the scriptures.

A Muslim or a Fundamentalist Christian who thinks she is going to hellfire eternal damnation if she sins feels no fear???????? Are you kidding????

>>Thats part of the deception encompassing around Rev 12:9..there is no need to fear. Many will accept the opportunity to know God and what he really had intended for mankind- when all are resurrected and given the opportunity to make that choice- a choice that they had never had before or did not fully understand.

American fundamentalists don't seem to understand
that they are religious because their parents and their church raised them to be that way. It is clearly
indoctrination.Its the same reason Muslims are Muslims,and Hindus are Hindus,and Evangelicals are Evangelicals,and Mormons are Mormons,etc.
You don't have to ponder this too long to see that religion has no veracity,
One believes what one is taught to believe as children.
Its that simple.And outrageous.
There should be a universal rule that children should not be taught about religion until they are old enough to tell the difference between reality
and supernatural mumbo jumbo.

Henry James:
I personally think 10 commandments are devoid of any morality. About 5 of them are in praise of the narcissistic deity. The one about lying, is really does not admonish folks not to lie, all it really says is do not lie against another fellow Jew. Regarding taking care of the parents the deity wants to bribe the children. So on and so forth.

I have a few words for the progressive theists (PTs), & the bigots. All the pious religious adherents (PRA) are by definition bigots. For following reasons all PRAs must follow their religious precepts unequivocally. I have not a read a single religious text from any religion that does not have, in a varying degree some amount of bigoted admonishments against non-members. So the pious ones by definition subscribe to those admonishments - they may not carry them out as the secular law keeps them from acting on them or is impractical to act them out. hence they are (all the PRAs) bigots - QED. Now coming to the (PTs) are those who claim to take the good from their religious texts and leave out the ba ones I say grow up. Stop adoring the hallucinating imbeciles (to be charitable) and the conniving opportunists as prophets or holy (wo)men. If you could figure out the good part from the bad parts in the scripture, I ask how did you figure that out. That also implies that, you know how to figure out good from bad independent of the TOME. Then it follows that out don't need that TOME (scripture). This torturous, pedantic discussions about what those decrypt tomes mean, is waste of time - get a life.

DW

The 10 Commandments added *NOTHING* to mankind's moral understanding or ability to live together. The Moral precepts (don't kill, steal, lie, commit adultry) had been around for millenia. The God commandments were an updating of existing superstitions, but had NOTHING to do with morality.

Scripture about Heaven/No Heaven PROVES NOTHING except that people were able to fantasize about the afterlife. NO REASON to believe the fantasies any more than any of the other thousands of myths about what happens when we die, which No One Knows.

A Muslim or a Fundamentalist Christian who thinks she is going to hellfire eternal damnation if she sins feels no fear???????? Are you kidding????

The bible mainly speaks of 'hell' (translated from Greek or Hebrew) as a grave, big cave down in the earth, etc. There is, though, reference to a consuming fire (greek 'gahenna') what will consume (that is, the lake of fire...after the final great white throne judgement - following millenial reign of Christ on earth)..not with red horned beings with pitchforks or turning people on a spit forever and ever. All myth with no biblical basis whatsoever. Just as going to heaven is a widespread deception. Scripture speaks of those who sleep in the grave until the resurrections. Yes, two resurrections. Very clear scripture states no man has ascended to heaven. Gods kingdom will be set up on this earth, with a new heaven and earth following the millenial reign of Christ and the great white throne judgement. The adversary certainly has had his part in deceiving most of mankind thru the ages, as Rev 12:9 informs us.

Those who truly love God and keep His commandments spread no fear, neither are they fearful. The keeping of the 10 commandments would bring abundant living to mankind. That is what they were intended for.

WOW, Anon!

Fear,the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based,I think,primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
Fear is the basis of the whole thing-fear of the mysterious,fear of defeat,fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty,
and therefore it is no wonder if religion and cruelty have gone hand in hand.It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things,and a little to master them by help of science,
which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion,against the churches,and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us,and I think our own hearts can teach us,no longer to look around for imaginary supports,no longer to invent allies in the sky,but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in,instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
Bertrand Russell.
Why I Am Not A Christian.
pp22.

Parker

I participate in "On Faith"
for the same reason I pressure my congressman to try to control
Uncontrllled nucleur Weapons,
like the ones that used to be under control in the Soviet Union.

If religious fanatics (with Faith that they are justified)
get hold of one of these, and

instead of flying planes into the world trade center
detonate the bomb in Times Square
it will ruin not only the Gay lifestyle but the lifestyles of many heterosexuals.

If superstitious faith groups are allowed to control our national policy on teaching evolution, gay rights, women's rights, global warming, response to terrorism, support of cowboy war efforts like Iraq

the Faith establishment may well destroy the United States as effectively as the Faith-based terrorists who are looking for that Nucleur bomb.

Get the picture? And the Mormon Church is among the most dangerous on many of these issues.

Believing in Heaven is just one (relatively harmless) sympton.

Parker
you ask "Henry, since for you there is no existence outside of the known natural world, I can't understand why you keep coming back to the "On Faith" blog."

a number of reasons

1. I write fiction. I am interested in why people are attracted to certain fictions. Religious faith is the most commonly believed fiction.

2. People of Faith have been screwing up the world i live in (or used to) for ages. A lot of this is self protection, for me and my grandchildren and for this great country of ours.

3. I was lied to and misled by my Mormon leaders. In a golden rule kind of way, I would like to help others be spared that fate, or overcome it if they have endured it.

4. I don't think religious faiths should be allowed to get away with the lies and immoralities that most of them spread.

Does that make sense to you.

my position "on Faith" is that Having Faith is a dangerous and often destructive habit that should be severely controlled.

in other words, i have strong opinions "On Faith."

Henry and Betty James,
Greetings! I hope you are both well, and your families. Henry, since for you there is no existence outside of the known natural world, I can't understand why you keep coming back to the "On Faith" blog. I would think you would find a whole world of more useful things to do with your time. I don't know if you're trying to justify the thought positions you have taken, but are still deep-down struggling with them, or if you just like to write and this just happens to be a convenient place to do it. Anyway, good luck with what appears to me to be your struggle to find what you do deep-down believe. I think you are going to find that your ancestors weren't as ignorant as you seem to think they were. Perhaps they made concious choices to ignore some things, because other things in their life were more important to them.

As you know from LDS doctrine, the good you do without thought of reward is both a reward in and of itself, and will lead to an increase later, so the atheist position you have taken puts you into a safe, if simplistic, realm of existence in the afterlife when you finally find out that, lo and behold, you died but there you are still trying to figure out why you didn't drop out of existence. Having convinced yourself there is nothing more and you want nothing more, you'll get what you wanted, though perhaps nicer than you might have supposed.

It's not about a reward system--it's about receiving what we really deep-down want to receive, and doing what we deep-down want to do. Free will choice in this life and the atonement and grace of Christ applying in this life and the afterlife make such possible. That's why the Father (and Heavenly Mother, as Betty reminds us) and the Savior were willing to send us to earth from our pre-mortal life with them--because with their perfect love for us they knew we could learn so very much by coming to earth with a complete mind-blank as to having lived before.

As one studies the gospel they leave the realm of the "reward system" and move to a realm of "we become who we want to become." But we're looking at a thousands-of-years process, bump and grind, learn a little at a time, especially how to love unconditionally and how to allow others their free will agency without trying to control them in any way. Keep thinking, keep learning, keep loving, keep growing. It's a good process. Best to you and yours.

So Betty, you believe in "pretty or ugly wingie talking thingies" sometimes kwown as angels or demons of the demented depending on what mood they are in??

Facts without Vitriol

Casey: the position of many here, stated totally factually and without vitriol as they have been a number of times, is this:

1. Joseph Smith promulgated a complicated version of heaven.
2. Smith's version is remarkably similar to Swedenborg's, which Smith was familiar with.
3. Smith was widely known or believed to be a treasure-hunter, a story teller, a fraud, an occultist, a charlatan. In other words, a man of very dubious reputation in the eyes of a great many.
4. No one has ever seen Smith's Heaven.
5. The idea of Heaven has a long history as a primitive superstition in world culture. Belief in Heaven has many of the same attributes as other common childhood beliefs.

Putting all this together,
one would have to be willfully disregarding of the facts to believe in Heaven at all, let alone Smith's version of it.

Vitriol, or no vitriol.

All one can say is: "well, I believe in Joseph Smith, so I believe his heaven story."

Not too prepossessing a "rationale," do you think?
DO you think?

Casey

Your question requires a longer answer than i have time to give.

but one hint:

many of us grew up being lied to and not told the whole truth, about things like Joseph Smith's history with Polygamy and multiple first vision stories and the book of abraham and having a scheme for heaven copied from Swedenborg.

We were a little upset at being lied to and misled.

We don't think people or churches or governments going to war should get away with misleading and lying to those who believe in them and put trust in them.

So we get outraged at the lies and abuse of authority.

And we try to warn others not to fall into the same traps we unwittingly fell into.

Can you understand that?

One thing that intrigues me most is the constant and repetitive vitriol that is spewed at members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Of my friends including Catholics, Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Atheists, Agnostics, Non-Denominational, etc., I know not one who finds their self attacked so viciously and frequently. While I may or may not agree with your beliefs, I do not mock what you hold sacred. I do not ridicule your faith or your disbelief. I couch my arguments in respectful terms. I state my opinion but do not subject you to diatribes of anger or hatred. I would ask, what is it about Mormons that inspires such fervor in those not of LDS faith, but I'm sure the response would be a repeat of the same comments too-oft re-run. Like I said, I am intrigued by the fascination people hold for the LDS religion.

Has anyone noticed the Mormons have left? This Christian is out, too.
Bye.

Heaven is an Ancient Superstition
Heaven is Bad for Morality

without much serious contradiction, we all have established that
a. heaven is a myth that was spun at about about the time of the 7-day-creation story and the Serpant Who Talked. No serious grown-ups believe either story, and none should believe the Heaven superstition either. It is a Fairy Tale. Akin to the tooth fairy.

b. Heaven/Hell have been used by religious groups to control the behavior of their adherants.

The reward/punishment scheme is at the LOWEST level of moral reasoning, it promotes behavior based on extrinsic rewards and punishments rather than behavior based on truly moral intrinsic motivation.

Any dissent?

Or can we move on from this silly story and talk about serious moral issues in the world, like helping the poor, afflicting the powerful, and keeping wars to a minimum

Mormonism's/"Moroni-ism" (just like Christianity and Islam) foundation, rests on the wings of a mythical angel. That makes for nice poetry and songs but crushes any belief in said religion

So my brilliant friends

Put together
1. Smith's widespread reputation as a fraud, treasure-hunter, and charlatan (maybe he Was REALLY a Saint and just fooled loads of people who thought he was not)

with

2. Huff's documentation that Smith's Heaven Scheme was remarkably similar to Swedenborgs

with

3. the preposterousness of the Heaven Myth in the first place, going back to the magic days of Genesis as it does,

And One Must Ask

How can one be so credulous as to put one iota of stock in Smith's Heaven Scheme?

Wouldn't it be embarrassing just from a most basic analysis-of-evidence standpoint?

I tried to post this earlier, but it got caught up in moderation due to links, so I removed them. I had long heard the idea that Joseph Smith got his ideas about the Celestial Kingdom and differing degrees from Swedenborg, but had never gotten around to looking at the actual writings of Swedenborg to compare for myself their similarities.

In case anyone does not know, by Joseph Smith's own statements, he was familiar with Swedenborg. Said Smith to Edward Hunter, "Emanuel Swedenborg had a view of the world to come, but for daily food he perished".

Anyway, I found an online copy of Swedenborg's book "Heaven and Its Wonders and Hell" (swedenborg(dot)newearth(dot)org(slash)hh(slash)hh00toc(dot)html ). Using the table of contents you will be able to quickly identify the relevant chapters. You'll also be able to read about "the veil", "spirit prison", and "celestial marriage". Swedenborg's complexity of language is a little difficult to get through, but anyone who has been a Mormon will be able to see the "Mormon doctrines" shine through.

Of course, Joseph changed a few things, perhaps with the help of Sidney Rigdon, but the basic doctrines are there. Hopefully, this very relevant post makes it to the board. Joseph and Sidney's vision of the eternities was a ruse based on their adaptation of Swedenborg's imagination. Look into it for yourself if you don't believe me.

Kid Billy

you write " I know there are numerous actions that feel good but are not “moral” (defined as: conduct perceived to have a positive result). Ask the Alcoholic, pedophile, thief, liar, cheat and serial killers of the world how they “feel” at the time they make their defining actions."

as far a pedophiles, thieves, liars, cheaters, and pedophiles, or separate-from-rellgion laws and constitution take care of those just fine, thank you.

Alcoholoics who break laws are similarly sanctioned. Hermit alcoholics who only hurt themselves: we can argue about whether we should force them to stop.

Societies SHOULD have moral discussions about tough issues: illegal immigration, stem cells, abortion, gay marriage. The final judge should be the judge, not the Prophet or Minister.

This seems like an easy one, doesn't it? The Who decides part.

As far as you lying to your mother, YOU have to decide finally. Unless you cheat her out of her money, in which case WE will put you in jail

Billy Good questions.

I'll answer the easiest one first.
Who is going to draw the line? The Pope. End of discussion.

I think it is VERY moral behavior for atheists and believers to discuss with each other the respective reasons and benefits of their positions.

I wouldn't advocate persuasion by torture. As was done in the inquisition, or by Mormon authorities who used shock treatment on Gays.

But discussion is GREAT. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

It is not Immoral to believe (or not believe) in God. Has NOTHING to do with morality.

Humane, loving debates on the existence of Dog (i'm dyslexic) are great. Love them. That is why i am here.

there are reasonable believers and wacko believers. there are reasonable atheists and wacko atheist.

love henry

EXTRINSIC REWARD vs INTRINSIC REWARD

William introduced us to these two types of rewards:
“Moral Behavior motivated by EXTRINSIC REWARD
is NOT moral behavior at all.
“Moral behavior motivated by the INTRINSIC REWARD of seeing the effect of your good deed on your fellow human and feeling good about that is just fine.”

So what is the difference between:

The good atheist, in the attempt to do good by trying to persuade the believers to change their thinking and stop believing in God, this would be good for the believers, in the atheist's eyes, and make the atheist “feel good”

AND

The good believer, in the attempt to do good by trying to persuade the atheists to change their thinking and start believing in God, this would be good for the atheist, in the believer's eyes, and make the believer “feel good”

Are both of these moral behaviors – since neither can PROVE to the other the existence or non existences of God?

And who is to draw the line on “Feel Good”? Do we really have to leave it up to the individual? I know there are numerous actions that feel good but are not “moral” (defined as: conduct perceived to have a positive result). Ask the Alcoholic, pedophile, thief, liar, cheat and serial killers of the world how they “feel” at the time they make their defining actions.

There is one Judge and I'm not Him.

Jim A

I too like the idea that we strive to become our own judges. And if there is a resurrection, I believe Alma 41 will turn out to be right.

We have to learn to judge wisely and fairly of course, and that is the subject of much of the great wisdom literature of the world's cultures.

Motivation and its reflection of our morals is interesting and complex.

As HJ noted, much of what we think and do is so "subconscious" that we obviously are not even aware. I probably we have multiple motivations at any given time. But, I am comfortable in knowing that God knows our hearts.

I love Alma 41 that talks about restoration- that we are restored and rewarded in the resurrection with the same desires and attributes that we developed in mortality. In a sense, we are our own judges.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/41/

Incidentally Betty,

I have read "Punished by Rewards." Good book.

Henry:
Not a Mormon, so your post to me makes no sense.

What does my personal motivation have to do with anything? I was just explaining what the scriptural and theological infrastructure of Mormon thought. I never made any claims about myself.

Personally, I think you're just playing a smoke and mirrors game. "Hey maybe if we can shoot the messenger, that'll prove the message false!"

Nice try, but we're discussing a religion here, not me.

As for what motivates me?

Beats me. I suppose I am motivated by reward. Yet at the same time, I'm also motivated by goodness for it's own sake. I suppose I'm also motivated by fear of punishment.

Shocking, I know.

But of course, everyone knows that atheists are above being motivated by profit or fear. No, they always act from a deep-seated commitment to pure virtue and nobleness.

Not like those shallow religious folk.

So John M

when your behavior includes

Going to the Temple and Being Married for Time and All Eternity

rather than, say, getting married in St Paul's Cathedral,

your motivation has NOTHING to do with your status (reward) in the Next World, the Celestial Kingdom?

I am not living for rewards. That is a false view of Christianity.

True biblical theology involves turning your life over to a God who can do a much better job with it than you can. With Christ, all of my past mistakes, bad decisions, and sins are erased. I am immediately considered part of His family, with an eternal inheritance with Him.

Now, I live by His precepts because I have a relationship with Him. When you have a loving relationship with someone, you want to please them, to show them your love. That is my motivation.

The rewards, then, are a forgone conclusion. God's grace provides that through the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. I don't have to work for it. He gives that freely to those who accept it.

So, my morals and my behavior are not based on a reward. I already have the reward. My actions now are rooted in love and powered by God Himself.

Betty is always pretending she is me.

I would say

Moral Behavior motivated by EXTRINSIC REWARD
is NOT moral behavior at all.

Moral behavior motivated by the INTRINSIC REWARD of seeing the effect of your good deed on your fellow human and feeling good about that is just fine.

Doing Good because it is, and feels like, the right thing to do.

One should, for instance, have the empathy to feel awful when one cheats a friend in a contract.

One should feel GOOD inside by making an honest deal with that same friend and keeping the contract.

Virtue is its own reward, as my mommy used to say.

Seth

Let me warn you:
When Henry says "Admirable Seth" concerning your rewards-motivated behavior,

he is being ironic.

As my religious expert brother William will tell you,

Moral Behavior motivated by Reward
is NOT Moral Behavior at all.

I think you are in trouble, Seth.

For an interesting view on this topic, go to your library and pick up a book called
"Punished by Rewards" by Alfie Kohn.
It details how the reward system corrupts the educational process.
Since life is for learning, the same principle applies to life.

Peace
Betty

Seth

you write
"sure the rewards are motivating".

yes, Seth, we know that. That is the whole point.

The next question is; WHAT do they motivate?

Behavior based on rewards.
Maybe it is only 40% of your motivation.
Maybe 90%.

Frankly, my friend, YOU have no idea how much. It is largely subconscious (I am not being Occultist a la Joseph Smith: this is neurological fact).

So you are saying
"I love my neighbor as myself so I can get to the Celestial kingdom, but only 40% of the reason is that."

Admirable Seth.

Seth, would you say that you do the good things you do because of the reward or because you just want to? Be honest now. Lying is a sin.

Sure the rewards are motivating, but the primary motivation is understood to be love of God, or love of goodness for its own sake to put it in secular terms.

So you expect Mormons to be perfect before you'll acknowledge anything worthwhile about their worldview? Singular.

Seth

You don't put much stock in the feeble attempts of human intellect as I do.

So, you DO put stock in the fantastical products of human unreason?

The Reason Mormons are on earth is to progress on the Plan for Salvation, Eternal Progression.

In other words, our reward/fate/destiny in the afterlife.

You have misunderstood Mormon doctrine.

Mormons are pretty good people, unless you are a woman who wants equal rights (and not SEPARATE but equal), a gay person, a Black person before 1978, a mormon academic who wants to write True History rather than faithful history.

I disagree that Mormonism's primary motivation is the promise of heavenly reward and even less so of infernal punishment.

I also see that its influence in the world is primarily positive.

Finally, I don't put as much stock in the feeble attempts of human intellect as you do.

PS

Oh, and by the way,

being dead,

I have not yet seen any evidence of Heavens or Hells that fit Smith's or anyone else's descriptions.

But if I do, I will write in immediately.

Dear Seth

TWe differ on the subject of views of the afterlife.

I don't think any of the religious views of Heaven are "healthy." I think they are ALL delusional.

Now, lots of good people have various kinds of delusions.

The reason I address the madness of Smith's view of heaven is because that is the topic of the day, and Otterson gave a view on it that I have a different view on. Different Opinion. That's what on Faith is here for.

I demand that there be evidence in order for me to believe something. Like WMD in Iraq. A Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy. The tooth fairy. Heaven.

Mormons are good people and do lots of good things, and some things I think are awful.

But their view of Heaven is "crazy." They aren't unique. I say the same of the 9/11 terrorists who thought they were going directly to heaven with 72 virgins each.

My mind IS much weaker now that I am dead.

Love
Henry

Seth:

". . . whether the Mormon faith provides a useful framework . . . If it's useful, it should be tolerated "

No, that sort of thing is not at all harmless, or benign.
As a parent, Santa Claus is most useful. It makes a kid believe that the quantity and quality of his gifts are based on his behavior, and that behavior is being monitored 24/7 by an invisible being. It does in fact work, the problem? It's completely untrue, and to reenforce and perpetuate the myth, the parents have to lie, again and again... making up an entire universe of elves, reindeer, hyper-sonic sleighs, and the rest... all this JUST because we want our kids to behave when we are not watching them... but it works for the greater good, what's the harm?
Then, eventually the lies crumble. What have we taught our children?
No, Seth, encouraging a doctrine or belief system merely becuase it 'does little harm' is a really, really bad idea. In the greater scheme of national economy for example, slavery is a pretty good idea...
Why can't we strive toward honesty, reality? Why should we encourage fantasy? Why can't we just be decent to one another because it works better for everyone that way? Why is that so hard? Why must we dream up golden palaces and many mansions, and levels of cosmic reward to just be decent people?

Henry James,

Honestly, I wonder why you even care whether Joseph Smith was mad or not.

How is this relevant to you?

The real question is whether the Mormon faith provides a useful framework that leads people to live good lives. If it's useful, it should be tolerated, if not encouraged - regardless of whether you believe its claims or not. As far as religions go, I think Mormons actually have a rather healthy view of the afterlife. For a secularist such as yourself, I'd think the independent strength of the philosophical and moral ideas would concern you more than whether or not Joseph saw angels.

As for the others, the secularists are once more proving here, that they don't really have anything approaching a rational argument against Mormonism (and religion in general). Just a lot of snide mockery - the refuge of a weak mind.

Rob, as a Mormon, I honestly couldn't care less whether the Mormon view of heaven is spelled out in the Bible or not. The fact that Mormonism doesn't have to rely on the Bible alone for its world view makes the religion, in my mind, a vast step forward over the other biblical religions. Mormonism is actually a rather liberating world view, once you take the time to understand it and engage it on its own terms.

John M,

I am an active LDS member. My voice of dissent on mormon heaven is because of years of researching the subject brought about by close friends.

Rob Osborn:

I was fascinated with your posts because you disagree with this one Mormon teaching, but you seem sympathetic to the LDS faith and the BOM. Are you LDS with a dissenting opinion on heaven and hell? Or, are you a former LDS? Or, are you non-LDS who uses LDS terminology and the BOM with ease?

In any case, I have to disagree with one thing. You have referred four times to people being "saved from Satan" or saved from the "power of Satan" or being "rewarded" by Satan. The bible teaches that Satan himself will be the thrown into the Lake of Fire, which was created for him and his fallen angels (demons). The idea of the devil as the evil landlord and torcherer of souls in hell is simply not biblical. He will be one inhabitant. He will be punished and suffering for eternity. He will not have any power. He will not be 'in charge' of anyone. This is a Hollywood fantasy that has to be rejected on biblical grounds.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am not an official voice for the church, just a humble believer with an opinion.

I think that Mormons believe in the same Heaven and Hell as other Christians, but that we call it "Paradise" and "Spirit Prison". Joseph Smith's description of these 2 places compare best with the majority of Christian sects descriptions of Heaven and Hell in my opinion.

I believe that most of Brother Otterson's description of Heaven is of the Eternal Heaven (if you will) that people go to after the final judgement and resurection of our bodies. This occurs after a stint in "Paradise" or "Spirit Prison" or in other words after paying your dues in Heaven or Hell.

What I am trying to say is that I believe that Mormonism and mainline Christianity in my opinion are in agreement on this issue if you look at the big picture, except that Mormons have more information about what happens after the final judgement during the eternities and more information on the reason for it all.

if i wear magical underwear can i get to the third level of heaven? and when i get there can i take them off. i heard they're itchy.

If there is no such thing as Heaven

does it matter if there are one or three levels?

This is where the mormons get the third heaven thingy.

2 cor 12:2

2I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Of course instead of examining scripture to back up this claim, they call it doctrine. If anyone wants an explanation of this, let me know. I can show what three levels of heaven really mean with biblical backing. Peace.

There's only one heaven. Trust me.

Mark,

I do not doubt that there are different levels of glory in the Celestial kingdom of God, I would however highly doubt that there are future eternal worlds that are named the Terrestrial and Telestial where the saved go. It is just completely illogical that Christ would save these individuals through his atonement and away from the power of satan and yet not have them reside in his direct presence- it is completely unbiblical.

Rob Osborn:

The 3 levels of heaven are not a mormon invention. It's in the bible.
I would quote it but i am at work and don't have time to look it up.

mark

Joseph Smith's Revelations and Visions

There are three possible explanations for Smith's stories.

1. The Revelations REALLY came from God, and His minions.
2. Smith was having psychotic-like hallucinations.
3. Smith was making up the stories out of a combination of research and literary fantasy.

If a person other than Joseph Smith did what Smith did within the last 200 years, we would think Number 3 the most likely explanation unless there were evidence of Number 2.

Smith had the advantage that there is no way to prove or disprove whether his scheme for Heaven was true.

Jim A

Plenty of psychotic hallucinations have involved heavenly visitations, visions, and revelations. It is one of the most popular categories.

Smith’s hallucinations answer the question of where we come from and where we are going,

But I can answer that question too. We came from Nova Scotia. And we are going to the planet Neptune. We are here to serve pizza.

Joseph Smith had extensive fantasies and wrote many words about them. So did RonHubbard. That says NOTHING about their truth value. Many paranoid psychotics construct complicated and impeccably logical fantasy systems.

The belief that the world was flat “spoke to the souls of millions of people”, a much higher percentage of the world’s population in 1400 than Mormonism speaks to today.

None of your points make a dent in the fact that Smith’s visions and hallucinations, and fantastical description of Heaven, are very SIMILAR to psychotic fantasies, visions, and hallucinations. They only show that you and lots of others choose to believe these stories, which is of course your right.

Also one other comment that has alway intrigued me is how Mormons view of heaven differs so much from mainstream christianity. Mainstream christianity believes that in the end there will be two basic groups of people- the wicked and the righteous. The wicked are cast off forever into hellfire whereas the righteous go into heaven to shine like the sun forever. Mormon thinking on the other hand believes in a multi-teired heaven where even the wicked are saved in the lowest glory.

What intrigues me the most though is that Book of Mormon teachings do not teach of a layered heaven where even the wicked are saved from satan. Even Christ's appearance and teachings found in 3rd Nephi do not mention a layered heaven.Instead Christ explains quite simply the same exact teachings found in the New Testament. What we then can say is that Mormonism should build off of Christ's teachings on heaven and hell as found in the Book of Mormon as the foundation for all truth, especially when it is coming from Christ's lips himself.

In fact, the modern interpretation of later teachings regarding the two lower kingdoms- the Terrestrial and Telestial actually undermine the core doctrine and teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ himself.

According to Christ himself, there could never possibly be an eternal kingdom like the Telestial after judgment where the disbelievers go and are saved from satan. It contradicts the very points and teachings of Christ. Christ has always maintained the teaching of believing and obeying his word or be forever damned in hell. He has never reversed this truth. Even in D&C 29 Christ reiterates this fact when he states that those who believe not will recieve their eternal reward from Satan and not god.

Ah, Mark 16:16, one of my favorite of all verses regarding salvation. For Mormons, the word damned has a very peculiar meaning because of our view of the three heavens/glorious kingdom model. For mormons damned can mean anything less than exaltation in the highest degree of heaven. But what did Christ really mean when he spoke of the damned?

I believe that when he referred to the damned, he referred to the wicked spirits/souls in hell. It was always a condition that came upon the condemned- those who do not fall under the saving grace of Christ and his atonement. How early Mormons ever came to their definition of the word is quite unique. Possibly they misused the word and used it like one would "dam" a stream- to slow or stop ones progress. But the word "damn" does not have any direct definition of being slowed or stopped. Even Joseph Smith always used the word in the typical sense of condemnation to hell.

To be saved on the other hand means to be saved into the kingdom of heaven. Alma puts it best in Alma chapter 11 when he states that how can one be saved if he does not inherit the kingdom of heaven. All the saved go to heaven. Heaven here meaning the place where God the father resides and rules.

John D the First:
On the requirement of baptism.

From the bible, not the book of Mormon, and not the teachings of Joseph Smith, you will find the following;

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
That is a direct quote of what the resurrected Jesus said.

I think the quote is quite clear. I find it amazing that people choose to ignore that verse.

Then you add in that the book of Mormon and the teachings of Joseph Smith only back up the bible. What else do you need to know?

HJ:

For me, there is a significant difference between the psychotic hallucinations you describe and the heavenly visitations, visions, and revelations that Joseph Smith received.

I am not an expert on psychotic hallucinations, but my impression is that they are often random and without any significant meaning.

What we have from Joseph Smith is very, very different. I know you object to the word "truth" since these claims cannot be proven, but the teachings we receive through Joseph Smith answer the very significant questions about life: where did we come from, why are we here, and where are we going? There is so much that was revealed through the prophet that it would take a very lengthy post indeed to detail it all. It all makes sense and fits together like a very intricate puzzle. Some say he was just a brilliant man, but I cannot see how a mere man, no matter how brilliant he may be, could conceive by himself of such magnificent truths.

In addition, not that this in itself establishes validity, but the truths revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith speak to the souls of millions of people that have embraced Mormonism. This to me is very different than a man with psychotic hallucinations....

Heaven and Hallucinations

Mormons believe in a Heaven described by Joseph Smith.

Smith claimed that he had visions/hallucinations and heard voices that described in great detail the afterlife and its structure, location, and procedures.

No human being has ever actually witnessed this Heaven. There is no evidence whatsoever for it's reality/truth.

The BBC guide to Mental Health says
"Hallucinations are a common psychotic symptom, and this includes hearing voices. For sufferers, the voices are so real that they come up with varying explanations, including the CIA has planted a microphone in their ears, or the spirits are talking to them.

Strange visual experiences, although less common than auditory symptoms, are also part of the diagnosis for psychosis. A patient might see a 'vision'..."

Smith's claims are indistinguishable from those made by millions of psychotics, including our Deus ex Machina Pangloss above.

It may be comforting to believe in Heaven, Mormon or otherwise. As the following quote shows, it has many similarities to what is commonly known as madness

Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

I Have Seen God: Join My Religion and Come to Heaven

God the mother appeared to me yesterday when I was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. I know it was Her.

She said if I would follow her and found a new religion according to Her precepts I would go to Heaven.

She then described Heaven to me.
It looks a lot like one of Donald Trump's luxury hotels by the beach.
There are six levels of accommodations.
If you follow all of Her commandments, you get an Executive/Presidential Suite like Britney Spears had in Las Vegas on her honeymoom with Kevin.
If you led a life full of wine, women, and loud happy song, you have to live in the cleaning closet.
She then proceeded to hand me a 600 page document detailing the features and procedures and Heaven down to the smallest detail.

I swear on the Bible that this really happened. It is true. I know it is true with all my heart. Please join me in this quest for Heaven.

The Myths of Heaven, Hansel and Gretel, and the Good Fairy

I truly respect the right of anyone to believe in Heaven

but I must admit I have a hard time *respecting the belief.*

Belief in the following is to be tolerated but not admired: the Tooth Fairy, Zeus, business ethics, Santa Claus.

Man's belief in heaven is so easily, and increasingly demonstrably, explained by neurology and anthropology

and the "proofs" that believers use are so circular, fantastical, and completely without evidentiary back-up

that it truly does make believing in Heaven (or God for the matter) nearly indistinguishable from psychotic dissociational disorders. I can demonstrate the similiarities. Can someone demonstrate the differences? Aside from the fact that a majority of the US population sufferes from it?

Thanks Mr. Otterson for continually decieving the masses with your lies. (Sarcasm).

Dear Mark,

Interesting first post. I don't think you meant to give this impression, but thems' sound like fight’n words. Even, dare I say, contentious.

One of the things I find so exhausting about polemics between people of different Christian denominations is the reification of idiosyncratic interpretations of isolated Bible passages. We Mormons are guilty of this, as are our Protestant brothers and sisters.

For example, the reference where Jesus discusses the requirement of being "born of water and of the Spirit" to enter the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:5) is subject to various interpretations. My Evangelical friend interprets being "born of water" as a poetic reference to earthly birth. So the focus of the verse is really on being born of the spirit, bodily birth referenced only as an analogy.

Naturally, I find the LDS interpretation more cogent. Not only because of the assumptions I bring to the Bible text, but because of the context of the verse. John the beloved placed this saying of Jesus conspicuously close to the narration of the Savior's own baptism. It makes sense that he would include Jesus' teaching concerning baptism in such close sequence.

I don't, however, find it amazing that one could think differently than I on the matter.

Brother Otterson,

Thank you for your excellent explanation of the LDS view of the afterlife. As your job would require, you are quite apt at explaining LDS theology in a way non-Mormons can understand.

One thing, I don't really think that most Christians see heaven as a place of "suspended animation." I think they teach very little on activities in heaven because the Biblical text provides so little info on the subject.

Maybe we are unique, however, in positing a kind of Eternal growth for every human soul. The process of learning and discovery will be as Eternal and Everlasting as God is. I am guessing you are simply trying highlight this aspect of our faith by your comparison. Thanks again for your hard work and dedication in helping the public understand our faith and our church.

Best,

Jd1

Thanks Mr Otterson, what a great insight to Mormon beliefs.

Some beliefs by religious scholars who have studied the situation:

Professor JD Crossan (an On Faith panelist) does not believe in an afterlife as noted in his book, Who is Jesus? He may have changed his mind as he progresses in years.

Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary Catholic theologian, has a different take on hell. He reasons that the Singularity does not tolerate imperfection in his spiritual realm. Therefore, any soul dying in mortal sin will simply disappear since hell the imperfect state does not exist.

Aquinas concluded that Heaven is a spirit state i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies. From that one might conclude there were no bodily Resurrection of Jesus, no Ascension, no Assumption and no second resurrection of "humankinders".

Other points of interest: Angels and devils (those demons of the demented)

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinker bell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie talking thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Personnally, fear of punishment has it rewards so I CMAFH (Cover My A__ with Fear and Hope).

I find it amaising the number of "christians" that do not believe baptism is necessary. Even though the requirement is stated in their own bibles.