If that is the path forward for LDS, Inc, then Elder Price in "Book of Mormon the Musical" is the ultimate example of this idea. Should I refer to the creators of South Park as Elder Stone and Elder Parker? Or should that be President Stone and President Parker. Those guys have a shit-ton of revelation coming out of their work. I cannot say the same for LDS, Inc.

I wonder how the Brethren would react if Elder Price changed his "I Believe" song to "I Choose to Believe"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2021 03:48PM by cheezus.

When you have Faith, Facts don't matter. (sign on front of a church years ago)

I don't believe NOR do I have faith in much of anything.

Faith is a choice, as is belief. Is it a bad choice? It’s interesting to me that the church uses direct experience to gauge truth. That’s really its value proposition. A healthy church is a big tent that allows many variations on individual truth. It doesn’t need correlation or micromanagement.

The modern church has lost touch with its mystical roots, probably because folk magic has fallen out of fashion. The church is anachronistic. It can’t get with the times because the GAs aren’t prophetic in any sense of the word. They are completely clueless, which should tell the Saints something about their religion. The best they can do is jettison whatever makes the church special and become vanilla Christians.

Name one idea or concept that can be accepted on faith, but its opposite can not. I have posed this to literally thousands of people. Not one has provided an answer.

That is exactly how useful "faith" is.

HH =)

To quote Mickey from “Rocky”, there is no tomorrow. Which is correct in that the tomorrow you don’t create now will never exist. So whether you believe one thing or its opposite, that’s the tomorrow you create. Or you can believe in nothing and let tomorrow just happen. Which could work except sufficient is the day unto the evil thereof. Getting to tomorrow in one piece is an act of faith. Maybe not faith in God, but faith in something. Society, money, or a cold brew at the end of the day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2021 01:01AM by babyloncansuckit.

I certainly can't argue with that kind of logic. SMH


HH =)

I always heard that faith is belief in things unseen. The dictionary seems to agree, "Faith . . .strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Uh, apprehension? That being based on anxiety as far as I can tell---anxiety about the future-- is often the case. No need to have apprehension about the past as the past is known. Apprehension based faith/beliefs seems to be an unstable choice to me. Just doesn't work with my life philosophies based on what I have seen so far.

I still like to have some facts and reason to sort through. Even if I can't come to a conclusion, at least the journey is on concrete ground. And when I have apprehension about the future I prefer to form a plan, not just wish and hope that somebody else-- heavenly or otherwise--- will fix all.

Apprehension has a secondary meaning of “understanding”.

I know. But since it's secondary I sort of let it go in favor of the common meaning. haha. Because--- Seems like an odd second meaning. The two meanings seem to oppose each other. And shouldn't understanding be "comprehension" rather than apprehension.? Cuz, faith is what you need when things don't make sense, are not understood.

.....which is derived from the Latin word.. 'Jalapeno'

I don't see belief or faith as a choice. You either believe something, or you don't. My friends who believe really do wholeheartedly believe it. To me, belief is being convinced of a thing.

I could choose to behave and live as though I believed it, but at the same time, I would know that I was lying to myself. I could say that I chose to follow it, but I couldn't say that I chose to believe it.

Maybe over time, you could convince yourself. But by that point, you'd have actual belief.

That actually describes my entire career in the Church. I'd have myself more convinced at times, but then doubts would eventually creep in again.

But once I found evidence that it was all a fraud, belief never happened again, and never will at this point. I know too much and I can't unlearn what I've learned about the true history of the Church. The evidence is too strong.

It's a bit of a side note, but I was just thinking about people who will not look at the evidence. Some won't look at it because they're afraid that they could be wrong, while others simply dismiss it because they "know" that they're right. So there's no point in looking at it.

I believe many things, however, I do not act on all my 'beliefs' until they meet a certain criteria. I try to be open/it may be possible on all things that are not 'obvious' to me.