Originally Posted By utahjosh I must admit that South Park episode is pretty funny. Mostly one-note, but funny. However, the youtube uploader of that episode added title card that had a statement with no basis in reality.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<That's a beautiful metaphor. Tom Sawyer, and I believe that's true in a a lot of ways. However, the source of that light is God. I believe that Jesus Christ is being who gave his life for our sins, and enables us to gain forgiveness and be "saved.">> I think you missed the point of the metaphor. Religions, including all of their details (like the ones you just rattled off) are the windows. Behind the windows is the light, which transcends religion, is pure and intangible. Ideally religions would draw people to look toward this light. Sadly, they mostly want people to focus on themselves, the religions, and their intricate details instead.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I didn't miss the point of the metaphor. And I agree that I think my pane of glass is clearer that others. I wouldn't continue to live my faith the way I do if I didn't believe that. However, I do believe there is an absolute truth behind the glass, and we are meant to find it.
Originally Posted By utahjosh What I mean to say is that I completely understand the metaphor. And I think it's lovely. However, I do not believe that the light behind the glass is unknowable. I believe that some of the panes of glass can allow us to see more clearly. And I happen to believe that the light is Jesus Christ.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<Here is a church-produced film sharing the key points of his life and how the LDS Church was restored.>> Can you do me a favor, josh? Can you tell me a little about the original church that Joseph Smith supposedly restored? When in history did it cease to exist? Who were its leaders? I ask because this gets thrown around a lot by you guys and when I was a missionary I spouted that line all of the time. Someone challenged me on it one time and I looked into early Christian history. There is a ton of it out there, not to mention the New Testament. Christianity was a chaotic mess from the very beginning. Apparently Jesus provided very few answers and caused people to ask a lot of questions. The result: there were numerous churches, some decidedly Jewish in nature (like Peter's), others not so much. They didn't achieve any sort of orthodoxy until the 4th century. So if you have any insight on the Mormon church's position on which church they supposedly restored, I'd love to hear it.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<What I mean to say is that I completely understand the metaphor. And I think it's lovely. However, I do not believe that the light behind the glass is unknowable. I believe that some of the panes of glass can allow us to see more clearly. And I happen to believe that the light is Jesus Christ.>> And the Muslim thinks the light is al-Lah, and the Buddhist thinks it is Atman, and the Catholic thinks it's the trinity.....see my point? You are painting the light with your window. You are polluting it, perverting it with your beliefs (not singling you out here, every religion does it). You are telling people that your tainted light is the pure light, that there is no other light. I know you want Jesus (at least your version of him) to be the light, but he's just a window.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <Can you do me a favor, josh? Can you tell me a little about the original church that Joseph Smith supposedly restored? When in history did it cease to exist? Who were its leaders?> Here's my take on it: 1. It ceased to exist not long after the original apostles were killed. Very sad. 2. It's leaders were the twelve apostles Jesus called. When Judas died, they replaced him. They key element is Authority of the Priesthood. The programs and practices are not what makes the difference. Cultural times change, and programs can change. But the key points of salvation, and authority of the priesthood, are what really matter. A LDS Manual describes the early church this way: "The Bible does not tell us everything about the priesthood or the organization and government of the Church. However, enough of the Bible has been preserved to show the beauty and perfection of the Church organization. The Apostles were commanded to go into all the world and preach (see Matthew 28:19–20). They could not stay in any one city to supervise new converts. Therefore, local priesthood leaders were called and ordained, and the Apostles presided over them. The Apostles and other Church leaders visited and wrote letters to the various branches. Thus, our New Testament contains letters written by Paul, Peter, James, John, and Jude, giving counsel and instruction to the local priesthood leaders." Persecution against early Christians continued after the resurrection. People were confused, false teachers arose, and eventually the Apostles were martyred and the priesthood (and thus the Church) was taken from the earth, I think the by the time there was orthodoxy in the 4th century, the original organization was corrupted and the authority of God taken away (although still claimed by the various churches). A lot of good, and a lot of evil was done in the name of Jesus in the centuries that passed. What was truly restored through Jospeph Smith were: 1) Understanding of God's plan of salvation - where we came from, where we're going, etc. Also the nature of God, Jesus Christ,and the Holy Ghost 2) Key doctrines of salvation like baptism, temple work, etc. 3) Priesthood authority to perform those saving ordinances and recieve revelation.
Originally Posted By utahjosh <I know you want Jesus (at least your version of him) to be the light, but he's just a window.> I completely understand the metaphor. I understand perfectly what it means. It's beautiful, but flawed. It basically says that the real truth behind the light is not possible to know. I don't believe it's accurate in that what's behind the light is "pure and unknowable."
Originally Posted By utahjosh Before this continues, let me say that I enjoy sharing my view about my faith. I enjoy learning about other faiths. I do not enjoy attacking other faiths, nor defending attacks on my faith, so I won't engage if that's the direction this goes.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That pure light may be knowable, but we are a species that can't truly comprehend the scale of the observable universe from the quantum level to the entirety of it, or the idea of infinity. If there is some sort of intelligence behind it all it must exist on a scale that is completely beyond the ability of our tiny brains to truly comprehend. Our ears only hear part of all of the sounds. Our eyes see a tiny bit of all available frequencies of light. Our brains are only able to comprehend things that we can compare to other things we already know. Out of the 13.7 billion years that the atoms that make up our bodies have been in the universe it has only been in the last century or so that we have grasped the true scale of the universe and of our history. The fundamental tenets of all of our religions change. The first Hebrews were commanded as a tenet of their faith to sacrifice animals to God. That changed. That fundamental sacrament and foundational ritual was left behind as Hebrew culture evolved. The idea of sacrificing to God became the idea of God sacrificing himself on the altar for us. (The Eucharist is Man symbolically spilling the blood and body of Christ on an altar and consuming it.) The formal laws of Moses became the judgment of intent under Jesus. Our understanding of the nature of reality is far, far different than it was in Iron Age Rome or in the Neolithic Levant, or even in 1830's New York. Heck, it's different than it was 50 years ago when I was born. While our ancestors were telling each other about Adam and Eve and the great flood and about giants walking the earth and people living for 900 years, huddled around their hearth fires armed with stone tools, they were surrounded by a universe of things that were invisible to them but that affected their lives every day. They didn't get sick because God was mad at them. They got sick from viruses and bacteria that they couldn't see. They couldn't comprehend that those times when day became night were because a moon that was 250,000 miles away was blocking out a sun that was 93 million miles away. They thought that a child with birth defects was a curse of some sort rather than understanding that it was just a problem with how the chromosomes reproduced themselves. Those people knew God, or so they thought. They understood God as a shepherd because they themselves were shepherd. They understood him as a fierce warrior and defender of their homes because they were locked in wars with the enemies. They looked to him as a father because they understood power in the context of patriarchy. Someone who has lived their entire lives in the cathedral in the metaphor can no more have a true understanding of the light outside than Peter or Paul could have of relativity or quantum mechanics.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Well said TS! How religions continue clinging to such archaic beliefs in these modern times is one of the great lessons of the obstinate nature of Humans.
Originally Posted By utahjosh From the Book of Mormon: 28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. 29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
Originally Posted By utahjosh After re-reading my last post, I realized it could come across pretty mean-spirited, and that was not my intention. It's just the scripture that popped into my mind after posts 50 and 51. I believe there is plenty of room for learning, science and God in our lives.
Originally Posted By barboy4 "Any gay person would have a greater understanding of reality ... Because they (I) know there's nothing "evil" or "sinning" about their lives at all. " Nice theory, Mate...... but the reality is this: a percentage of those who are sexually attracted to their same gender and act on that attraction do question it. Some find it "sinful"/ immoral.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The language of God is not in words, but is written in the fabric of the universe around us. Only by knowing the reality of the processes and material properties that guide the evolution of matter and life can we even begin to glimpse that which exists beyond it. Words are puny things that can't even capture the feeling of a summer day or the love a parent feels for a child even though those are common experiences that poets have tried for millenia to capture. Trying to define or understand God through texts is a fool's errand, in my opinion. One thing I've always been curious about - why did the translation from Reformed Egyptian into English come across in a bastardized King James English and not the vernacular language of the time?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Some find it "sinful"/ immoral." That's called internalized bigotry. Yeah, it exists. But thankfully becoming less and less common.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***a percentage of those who are sexually attracted to their same gender and act on that attraction do question it. Some find it "sinful"/ immoral*** Duh. Society has told them at every turn they are sick and wrong. What else are they going to do? Funny, nobody questions the morality of their heterosexual urges (though they might beat themselves of for porking out-of-bounds of some obscure church rule). What I would like to see is some stats discussing how many gay people NOW question themselves compared to, say, 30 years ago. Methinks it's far less, even a brave cat like O.C. Dean would've been far less likely to speak openly 30 years ago, and probably more likely to question the morality of his nature (even then there were some brave souls to bucked society, and yes it took guts to do so...definitely!).
Originally Posted By Mr X beat themselves UP (a more appropriate typo instead of 'of' woulda been 'off' lol)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Of the two, when it comes to beating; I personally prefer "off" to "up". ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Of the two, when it comes to beating; I personally prefer "off" to "up". ;-)>> And NO, I don't feel guilty about it. Why do you think Almighty God gave man the opposable thumb in the first place?? ;-)
