Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!christian From: timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Mormon Religion Message-ID: Date: 25 Aug 90 07:11:23 GMT Sender: hedrick@porthos.rutgers.edu Organization: IDE, San Francisco Lines: 91 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article wcsa@cbnewsc.att.com writes: >In article , bralick@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Will Bralick) writes: > >for Mesoamerica is still incomplete. Frankly, I would feel rather >uneasy if my faith depended on the placement of an archeologist's >trench. Still, Mormons have had to play this archeological waiting >game several times before: ie., the wheel, elephants, silk-like material, >etc. and our patience has paid off thus far. personally, i'd feel GREATLY uneasy about my faith if i was unable to see that what i believe fits together cohesively. >>I think that the real question is, why would a 19th century American >>translate (divinely inspired from the _original plates_) into 17th >>century British English? > >I have heard so many variations on this charge and in every case it >leaves me rather confused. In the first place, it seems to be based >on some simplistic view of the translation process, sort of, God just >gave the translation to Joseph Smith verbatum. From the beginning, [some deleted for brevity] >nineth verses state: "Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed >that I wuld give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to >ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in >your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, ..." eh? since when has God been in the business of deliberately making it difficult to come to Him and understanding His Word? What was the purpose of Christ's parables, except that they were object lessons that simple folk could understand? To attribute to God that He wants to make it tough on us strikes me as a clever way of man trying to justify himself by his own efforts - man's arrogance shows through again. Christ spoke to the layman in his own language - the Jewish religious hierarchy (eletist snobs) cast aspersions on Christ because he was not "educated" like they were. So why would it be in His nature to *not* simply "give it unto" His flock, since that was already His modus operandi?? >The typical polytheistic attitude is one in which there are not only >a multiple number of Gods, but also a multiple number of agendas, one >for each God. To be accurate, we may believe that there are many >seperate individuals acting in the Godhead, but that there is only >one agenda (all act as *one*) or, if you please, one God. why would i want to worship a small God? certainly this God-committee that you describe falls far short of omniscience and omnipotence. this reminds me of the question James Kirk asked in the somewhat inane movie Star Trek V: "What would God want with a Starship?" I would reword this as "What use would God have for a decision-making committee, where He only served as a sort-of chairman?" if God is who He claims in the Old Testament, there is only ONE God, and none other like Him. surely if God is omniscient and omnipotent, then He has no need of advisors??? >Worship is >reserved to the Father, this would seem to make Christ out to be merely an errand-boy, by all means an exhalted errand-boy, but one nonetheless, not worthy of worship. there is no need to separate Almighty God into three separate gods merely to "simplify" understanding of the Trinity. there is a point in nature where water (yes, h2o) exhibits the characteristics of its three states (liquid, solid and gas) all at the same time. now, why should a God who is able to create the Universe be limited in the forms which He make take? >For example, you state in your post that Mormonism teaches that Jesus >and Satan are brothers (a sort of damned by association argument), >what you seem to leave out is that Mormonism teaches the universal >spiritual brotherhood of all mankind, and that each individual is >free to choose his way. The unspoken suggestion in your post is that >Christ and Satan have the same agenda, and that is a damnable lie! you've missed the point. Christ is not some sort of subordinate to another God - He IS God. Satan was an angel - *not* a god, though he dreamed that up in his own mind when he sought to challenge God. Satan was an angel - and what are angels? they are *creations*. you have also read more into the statement than was there, by suggesting that the post was saying that Christ and Satan have the same "agenda." since Satan is our Accuser - constantly before God pointing his finger at us and telling God that we are not worthy of His mercy (which is true enough, based on our own merits) yet Christ died to Justify us, then i have a hard time imagining a Christian suggesting their "equality." Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!"