The Agnostic Religion

[freelight]

topic coordination

topic coordination

Mormonism is true and complete Christianity.

Lets see,...the last time I checked this threads topic was about 'The agnostic religion'....not christianity or mormonism. Each has their 'opinion' as exampled above.

Another perspective on agnosticism would be to imply that both christianity and/or mormonism are anti-agnostic in their claims that they actually DO possess a knowledge(to whatever degree which could be questioned) of 'God' - these are alleged claims and beliefs relative to the system invested in. What makes these 'claims' more relevant or substancial than a purely agnostic view which accepts that a vital knowledge cannot be had of the existence or the non-existence of God? Isnt it only 'belief' that makes a difference? There are christian, lds, agnostic and gnostic believers.....each having their own paradigm within their respective schools. I find some aspects in each school useful in some dimensions...yet other aspects just as useless as well.

While I delight in the free-spirit ventures of a freelance gnostic....I must admit to be an agnostic at some levels, as it is apparent that the Supreme God, the ONE ....in the Immensity of His/Her Infinite BEING....cannot wholly be comprehended/apprehended by this presently constituted finite mind. But alas,....as the soul continues in spiritual progress/revelations...more and more of the divine State or Being shall be realized.

While christianity and mormonism both claim divine revelation.....one cannot exclude the element of mythos in their cosmologies....and the power of 'belief' that these systems must include for their own perpetuation.

So....for now I remain mostly gnostic(loving knowledge, free enterprise, logos)...while also being a-gnostic realizing that the whole of All knowledge is not always afforded my awareness, that essentially there is always God the Unknown existing beyond knowledge.
This makes for a most wonderful God...who remains forever both known and unknowable.

paul

 

[Mustard Seed]

Just so the likes of paul(freelight) and others don't freak out at my posting of this in this thread I will also post it on a new thread so that the hijacking damage will be contained from here on out.

On to the response.

1. Mormonism maintains that the true gospel message was lost from the earth shortly after the apostles died.<LI type=i>The Mormon Apostle Orson Prat said, "Jesus...established his kingdom on earth...the kingdoms of this world made war against the kingdom of God, established eighteen centuries ago, and they prevailed against it, and the kingdom ceased to exist." (Journal of Discourses. Vol. 13, page 125). <LI type=i>But Jesus said, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18, KJV).

1. 
   
   Yes. Peter came to Joseph Smith and gave him the keys that Christ had given him. Where's your tie to Peter?
   
   
   

   [*]As you can see, Mormonism contradicts what Jesus said. That is why they must say that the Bible is not trustworthy. That is, it isn't trustworthy wherever it disagrees with Mormonism.

We do not say the Bible is not trustworthy. We simply acknowledge that certain things have been lost from it or changed. We fully accept Christ's statement with regard to Peter and revelation. That is why it's important that Peter James and John appeared to Joseph and continued the line of authority. Hence my question regarding where you tie in to Peter if you believe the church was established through/upon him.

1. <LI type=A>Since Mormonism claims to be the restoration of the gospel, it also claims to have the authority to perform priestly duties and, therefore, properly represent God here on earth. <LI type=A>All offices of the Mormon church grow out of the priesthoods.
   1. <LI type=i>Melchizedek - This is the greater priesthood. It consists of several offices:
      1. <LI type=a>Elder, seventy, high priest, patriarch or evangelist, and apostle.
      2. Aaronic - a part of the greater Melchizedek priesthood.
   2. Aaronic priesthood - This is the lesser priesthood
      
      1. <LI type=a>Is synonymous with the Levitical Priesthood (D.&C. 107:1,6,10)
      2. Performs the administration of the ordinances (D.&C. 107:13-14)
      3. Deacon, teacher, then priest.
2. Quite simply, the Bible contradicts what Mormons believe concerning the priesthood.

1. 
   
   The above demonstrates nothing of the sort. It doesn't even quote the Bible for reference to where and exactly what is supposedly being contradicted. Oh wait. Here's the Bible verses lacking explanations and just spat out. I see understanding is what we're after.
   
   

   1. Jesus is the only high priest after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 3:1; 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:11,15,17,21,24,26; 8:1; 9:11).

   1. 
      
      Let's flesh these out a wee bit.
      
      Here they are in order of you're citation (or did you copy and paste from some other site?). The only difference is that I just wholesale droped in the inbetween verses on Chapter 7 for continuity.
      
      1 WHEREFORE, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;
      
      He's the Apostle (Special Witness) and High Priest of the profesion. Of course Christ called and ordained Apostles Prophets etc. So this verse is not saying he's the only one with these titles, simply that he's the head. Which we believe.
      
      6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
      
      Okay. We believe that. Again no exclusivity here. In fact I'd be curious to know if you think the namesake of the Priesthood was a high priest in the very priesthood that took his name?
      
      
      10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.
      
      Essentialy the same.
      
      20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
      
      Again nothing new.
      
      11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
      
      Simply stating that the Aaronic priesthood, alone, is not sufficient. We believe that.
      
      
      

      10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
      
      11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

      
      Simply saying that if the Levitical priesthood was sufficient then why was there those called after the order of Melchisedec and not just a continuation of calling after the order of Aaron.
      
      
      

      12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

      
      We had best come to concensus on this. I take the above as saying that it was changes only in that it was augmented. If you think otherwise then you'll need to explain to me how an unchanging God can go and simply change the law and the priesthood that administers it whenever he wants, without consideration of the claims of eternal concistancy.
      
      Christ came not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. For why would he destroy a perfect law? I say God gave the Israelites a preperatory Law and corresponding priesthood that could be augmented/fullfilled by Christ. Thus the changing is changing only in augmentation rather than in destruction and replacement.
      
      
      13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
      
      
      
      Simply stating that Christ was not born into the tribe that had the responsibility of carrying out the Levitical/Aaronic priestly duties. He was born into Judah.
      
      
      14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
      
      15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
      
      Here's you're problem. If Christ is the ONLY Priest after the order of Melchisedec then why does it say that he is "another priest"? How do you have another if you havent had a previous?
      
      <"How can I have some more if I haven't had any yet?" Sandlot tangent, my apologies>
      
      16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
      
      17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
      
      18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
      
      A disannulling of the commandment, but not the Law. Again we believe the Aaronic priesthood alone is insufficient.
      
      19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
      
      20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
      
      Jesus, and all members of the Melchisedec priesthood had to take an oath. But those of the Aaronic were born into it, so they didn't take an oath. We take upon us the Melchisedec priesthood in the same way in our faith. Do you? If you do what does you're oath concist of? What are it's tennants and when do you do it? Or do you think that Christ being a member of it is all that is needed?
      
      21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec
      
      22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
      
      23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death:
      
      24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
      
      25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
      
      26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
      
      So "such an high priest became us" what does that mean? Are we then Christ? Or is this a continuation of the commandment to be perfect as Jesus and his Father are and take upon us all those things they have.
      
      
      27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
      
      We also believe that Christ ended the sheding of blood for atonement.
      
      
      1 NOW of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
      
      Again. There's no explicit (nor do I see any implicit) exclusivities to the title of High Priest in the Melchesidic Priesthood.
      
      11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
      
      Simply stating that Christ's resurection and nature as our Saviour makes him "an high priest of good things to come". We verily believe that. Again, no preclusions, explicit or implied, as to Christ being the only High Priest in the Melchesedic Priesthood.
      
      
      

      1. "Where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek" (Hebrews 6:20).

      1. 
         
         We believe that once a person is a High Priest they are such forever. No discrepancy here.
         
         
         

         [*]"And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life" (Heb. 7:15-16).

         
         Yep.
         

      The Melchizedek Priesthood is unchangeable and untransferable

      
      Why no scriptural support for the above? Just forget to put it down? Or was it not there on the page you likely copied and pasted? Seems a little like trying to slip in an unsuported assertion. That doesn't work to well in arguments in which rational is the intended deciding factor.
      
      

      1. "but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood" (Heb. 7:24).

      
      24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
      
      No disagreement here. That is why it's so important to know that our line of authority goes back to Jesus. Passing through Peter. The rock.
      
      

      Want more?

Well if the remander is of the same quality or lesser then what's the point? Unless, after answering or conceeding my above points you want me to bring into question the "more" you have in store.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Lets see,...the last time I checked this threads topic was about 'The agnostic religion'....not christianity or mormonism. Each has their 'opinion' as exampled above.

I apologize if you feel at all put out or bothered by the discusion. It stemmed from the fact that there was a misrepresentation of LDS beliefs. As I feel the right and responsibility to correct stuff the thread was, for a portion of it, steered in a different course than intended by it's title. But rest assured it was done in the name of preserving the integrity of that herein presented through the process of second guessing.

You may all continue on.

All responses to the priesthood/LDS issue can be addressed in a thread I just started.


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22922

 

[freelight]

Agnostic Views

Agnostic Views

I apologize if you feel at all put out or bothered by the discusion. It stemmed from the fact that there was a misrepresentation of LDS beliefs. As I feel the right and responsibility to correct stuff the thread was, for a portion of it, steered in a different course than intended by it's title. But rest assured it was done in the name of preserving the integrity of that herein presented through the process of second guessing.

You may all continue on.

All responses to the priesthood/LDS issue can be addressed in a thread I just started.


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22922

Hi MS,

Just thought to jostle this thread back on topic is all - I understand your defending mormonism and all, but it seems there are plenty of hash-outs(threads/debates) on 'mormonism' and it gets old hat after-awhile.(being an ex-mormon and having gone thru so many debates therein can become tedious). Also your stance about 'your' faith appears unmovable so one begins to wonder at what point the dialgoues will serve a fruitful purpose in the pursuit of truth (when 'truth' in these venues are 'relative' and subject to ones own conditionings/favor/leanings/logic, etc.). Thanks for the thread for those who want to discuss that subject there.

The agnostics still find 'God' a mystery which religion pretends or claims to offer knowledge about...and then its impossible to sustain these beliefs apart from having 'faith'.
The question is then, as repeated earlier more or less......'how better off is a believer in God over one who is agnostic?' - who fares better? Does your belief in your religion or God(per your tradition/cult-ure) give you an advantage over a non-believer? Is your religions 'claim' the ultimatum of absolute truth? The primary deciding factor seems to come down to 'belief' - having 'faith' that these things are so. Some believe,...some choose not to due to inadequate proofs however they perceive them. 'Belief' then in belief systems such as christianity/mormonism must be the kicker/ticket to grant the individual some kind of saving benefit or 'blessing'. Does 'belief' in an invisible God or religious system/church organization really grant you something better than what an agnostic might possess or not possess?....besides your own thinking that it does? You really cant say that your faith has any other vitalizing aspect or dynamic but for the perpetuation of particularized belief...and such 'suits' you well, seems to satisfy your religious sentiments.(spiritual experiences included or besides).


Ok agnostics,......time for you to chime in to bring balance to the discussion....if you are out there.

To the Unknown God,


paul

 

[servent101]

MustardSeedkey elements of government and shows how society simply revolves in cycles where one class trumps another followed by another trumping from another class, that goes on so long as the society doesn't learn the lesson that government is not there to procure things of others for the benefit of others, but to protect what each has, then that society is doomed to class warfare untill everyone has given each other sufficient punishment to get them all humble enough to work together to protect everyone's rights to life, liberty, property, and ther pursuit of happiness.[/quote]

Yes... I have heard that a lot of times - and it seems to be so true, but for some reason some people just do not learn from their mistakes... all in all though, I believe Christians are not here to learn how to rule the World, for in fact - God does, we are here to learn how to invent ourselves - for the purpose of Fellowship with God... and these trials and temptations are only here for a short time, and as Faith goes, we do believe that God is bringing about this

sufficient punishment to get them all humble enough

though Balder might think it is a little harsh - especially in the Old Testament... what he would not do to protect his own I wonder exactly what length each of us would go to protect our physical well-being, and that of our loved ones... and yet, this is suppose to be done in prayer and supplication, this is how it is on an individual level... but as far as countries it is a different matter, though what is going on in the world,,, as you say - we really should learn or at least our government needs to re-evaluate it's position on issues and policies. God is the Master of the World - America would do a lot better to actually believe this, and follow a more liberal path. That is only my opinion of course and I am not saying I am right or wrong.

With Christ's Love

servent101

 

[servent101]

freelight

Ok agnostics,......time for you to chime in to bring balance to the discussion....if you are out there.

I am not an agnostic - but I do agree with them, that if there is a God, that someone has to show or explain this God too them, that they cannot discern for themselves. In some ways I only can agree, and show them the most "Christian" behaviour I can. As a Mystic or Extreme Eccumentalist I believe Christ did die for everyone, that this is not anything other than an example of God's Character - that God is just to keep on trying because God's effort in Jesus shows us the character of God. This idea about Jesus taking the punishment for our sin's away- well in certain cases, rare ones, yes someone is simply released from a certain bondage like in a few moments - but for the most of us, we still suffer and are in bondage to sin - but there is a lot more we can do to release ourselves from sin by knowledge and wisdom - but the church seems the attempt is a lack of faith. All in all the church today is simply not coherent, so there is no way for agnostics to find out about the nature of God, except through everyday life, and hopefully some information would come their way - but it would have to be better than what I can do - and as far as the church - it is almost impossible to find the TRUTH there.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

 

[Mustard Seed]

Yes... I have heard that a lot of times - and it seems to be so true, but for some reason some people just do not learn from their mistakes... all in all though, I believe Christians are not here to learn how to rule the World,

But they are. The meek shall literally inherit the earth, and it's governance, under God.

for in fact - God does, we are here to learn how to invent ourselves - for the purpose of Fellowship with God

Would you consider us being here for both reasons?

... and these trials and temptations are only here for a short time, and as Faith goes, we do believe that God is bringing about this

And the meek will be one of his instruments in doing so. Both the meek AND God will rule the world.

If we want to go off on world domination we might start up another thread. So if you reply to this I suggest making another thread for such.

 

[servent101]

Mustard Seed -

But they are. The meek shall literally inherit the earth, and it's governance, under God.

... and I hear you here...

If we want to go off on world domination we might start up another thread.

good idea... though I somehow lost the "knowledge" of how to actually do tht since they changed they forum. send instructions please and I will.

But in the meantime ... what did you think of post 106 ... to freelight, as this is more on topic.

What I addressed in the post you responded too was primarily [ sufficient punishment to get them all humble enough[/quote] and in that regard... after the great and dreadful day of the Lord... no man will ask - do you know the Lord, for all will know Him - possibly all people do know the Lord - it is just that "some" believe they have the only so called responsible exegesis of their "writ" and without that dogma, the world will never be free from their need to support the Clergy....? - could the great and dreadful day of the Lord be an occuracne that happens to us individually? and all people know the Lord, as God reserves the right to reveal Himself or Herself to whom, where, and how God wants.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Servent101