LDS LDS: Heavenly Mother, an Awkward Doctrine ???

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

fatboys said:
So when the rains come down and the floods go up against you faith that is in the arm of man will stand true. Ya. Right

What are you talking about?

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

fatboys said:
If critics were not bigoted against the LDS faith this section wouldn't exist and we could post I all sections of the forum. What is the difference between a bigot and a racist in their attitude? Tell me and stop hedging around the question. You sit and tell us to give a straight answer and look what you guys are doing.

This has nothing to do with the topic. But I'll say this. If I saw someone who was about to do something dangerous, and I could do something to stop them, I would try. I'm sure that doesn't make me a bigot.

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

Trying to deflect from the topic is bad form. Just sayin'

Jane_Doe · Nov 27, 2015

Jane_Doe said:
1) You want to know the first time someone talked about it (the "genesis" of the idea), viewing that as the validation of the idea #232, 238, 240, 242, 244,
2) You refuse LDS interpretation of the Bible in support of the Bible in support of HM. This one was quite a way back. Basically you disregarded the LDS of Genesis 1:26–27, Romans 8:16–17, and Psalm 82:6.
3) You've called me "not interested in truth" because I don't focus on reading the history book. #242, 244

And then when it comes to your own view of the Savior, you flip a 180:
1) Not citing the first time someone talked about the idea as a validation for it. #246, 248
2) Submit your own interpretation of the Bible in support of your idea. #246, 248
3) You call someone who has no knowledge of history to still having a valid faith. #246, 248, 251

So again I ask: why the double standard?

Hammster said:
I think you've missed my point. Having no knowledge of history doesn't make a belief invalid. I'm talking about whether the belief is in itself grounded in history. That's what's important. The doctrine of heavenly mother has no grounding. The first mention isn't in the bible or the BoM or D&C. From what I can determine, it's from hearsay of what Smith allegedly said. That's different from the gospel accounts.

1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-
2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-
3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. - 1 John 1:1-3

Your response does not address my post at all. So, I'll ask a third time: why the double standard?

1) Why do you obsess about the whom first mentioned Heavenly Mother as a validation of the idea (post #232, 238, 240, 242, 244), but have to cite whom first mentioned the need for a Savior as validation for that idea?
2) You refuse LDS interpretation of the Bible in support of the Bible in support of HM, but submit your own interpretation of the Bible in support of your idea?
3) Why so you deride me as "not interested in truth" because I don't focus on reading the history book for finding faith (#242, 244), and yet say knowledge of history is not necessary for faith (#246, 248, 251, 255)?

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

Jane_Doe said:
Your response does not address my post at all. So, I'll ask a third time: why the double standard?

1) Why do you obsess about the whom first mentioned Heavenly Mother as a validation of the idea (post #232, 238, 240, 242, 244), but have to cite whom first mentioned the need for a Savior as validation for that idea?
2) You refuse LDS interpretation of the Bible in support of the Bible in support of HM, but submit your own interpretation of the Bible in support of your idea?
3) Why so you deride me as "not interested in truth" because I don't focus on reading the history book for finding faith (#242, 244), and yet say knowledge of history is not necessary for faith (#246, 248, 251, 255)?

No double standard. History is important because you need a foundation. You can believe in heavenly mother without understanding the history. But there's no substance because it's not based in fact. But you entered into this discussion freely, and I assumed it was to defend or explain your position. You've only done that superficially.

Jane_Doe · Nov 27, 2015

Hammster said:
No double standard. History is important because you need a foundation. You can believe in heavenly mother without understanding the history. But there's no substance because it's not based in fact. But you entered into this discussion freely, and I assumed it was to defend or explain your position. You've only done that superficially.

You're still totally not answering my questions.

Jane_Doe said:
1) Why do you obsess about the whom first mentioned Heavenly Mother as a validation of the idea (post #232, 238, 240, 242, 244), but have to cite whom first mentioned the need for a Savior as validation for that idea?

Still not addressed.

Jane_Doe said:
2) You refuse LDS interpretation of the Bible in support of the Bible in support of HM, but submit your own interpretation of the Bible in support of your idea?

Still not addressed.

Jane_Doe said:
3) Why so you deride me as "not interested in truth" because I don't focus on reading the history book for finding faith (#242, 244), and yet say knowledge of history is not necessary for faith (#246, 248, 251, 255)?

Semi-addressed. You said:

Hammster said:
History is important because you need a foundation. You can believe in heavenly mother without understanding the history.

And yet, when asked:

fatboys said:
If a person that has never heard of Christ in his life was taught the gospel and the Holy Ghost confirmed these teachings does history play a part in his new faith?

You replied:

Hammster said:
Yes.

So rather than answering my question, you have further illustrated your own double standard.

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

1. I don't understand your question.

2. I don't see any support for the LDS position.

3. I've addressed this in my previous two posts.

Jane_Doe · Nov 27, 2015

Hammster said:
1. I don't understand your question.

2. I don't see any support for the LDS position.

3. I've addressed this in my previous two posts.

I'll restate things for you--

1) In previous posts (#232, 238, 240, 242, 244) you have been very concerned about when and which LDS leader first formally said something (and had it formally recorded, and had the record survive) about Heavenly Mother. You've referred to this as the "genesis" of the doctrine. Since such historical recording seems to be your measure of truth: I ask you, when was the first leader you recognize to say something (and had it formally recorded, and had the record survive) about the need of a Savior. Would you say such person and such events is the "genesis" of the idea of needing a Savior? (I'm just following your logic).

2) Ok, you disagree with the LDS position. That's cool, there's more than 35,000 different interpretations of scripture among groups claiming to be Christian. But because you think yours is right, you dismiss mine (which is your right). But following such line of logic, why should any person whom disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible not outright dismiss yours, simply because they think it's wrong? (As you yourself have done).

3) All you have done with this point is thoroughly illustrate your double standard (while claiming it doesn't exist).
I believe in X, but have no interest in reading a history book, and because of that you say my faith is invalid and I'm "not interested in truth".
But another person believes in Y and likewise have no interest in reading a history book (the same thing you said invalidates my faith), but you say this DOES person has valid faith. It's a clear double standerd.

fatboys · Nov 27, 2015

Hammster said:
What are you talking about?

You said your faith is heals together with the historical glue given by the arm of man.

fatboys · Nov 27, 2015

Jane_Doe said:
Your response does not address my post at all. So, I'll ask a third time: why the double standard?

1) Why do you obsess about the whom first mentioned Heavenly Mother as a validation of the idea (post #232, 238, 240, 242, 244), but have to cite whom first mentioned the need for a Savior as validation for that idea?
2) You refuse LDS interpretation of the Bible in support of the Bible in support of HM, but submit your own interpretation of the Bible in support of your idea?
3) Why so you deride me as "not interested in truth" because I don't focus on reading the history book for finding faith (#242, 244), and yet say knowledge of history is not necessary for faith (#246, 248, 251, 255)?

I really like the way you explain things. Thanks

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

Jane_Doe said:
I'll restate things for you--

1) In previous posts (#232, 238, 240, 242, 244) you have been very concerned about when and which LDS leader first formally said something (and had it formally recorded, and had the record survive) about Heavenly Mother. You've referred to this as the "genesis" of the doctrine. Since such historical recording seems to be your measure of truth: I ask you, when was the first leader you recognize to say something (and had it formally recorded, and had the record survive) about the need of a Savior. Would you say such person and such events is the "genesis" of the idea of needing a Savior? (I'm just following your logic).

2) Ok, you disagree with the LDS position. That's cool, there's more than 35,000 different interpretations of scripture among groups claiming to be Christian. But because you think yours is right, you dismiss mine (which is your right). But following such line of logic, why should any person whom disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible not outright dismiss yours, simply because they think it's wrong? (As you yourself have done).

3) All you have done with this point is thoroughly illustrate your double standard (while claiming it doesn't exist).
I believe in X, but have no interest in reading a history book, and because of that you say my faith is invalid and I'm "not interested in truth".
But another person believes in Y and likewise have no interest in reading a history book (the same thing you said invalidates my faith), but you say this DOES person has valid faith. It's a clear double standerd.

I see why you think it's a double standard. That's because you misunderstand what I'm saying. It's not that you are uninterested in reading a book which invalidates your faith. I've actually made that clear. The doctrine is invalid because it's genesis is hearsay and not derived from anything. The premise isn't the result of study. Any support for it came after it was believed to be fact. It's like shooting at a barn and painting a bullseye around it and claiming you are a good shot.

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

fatboys said:
You said your faith is heals together with the historical glue given by the arm of man.

And where did I say that?

fatboys · Nov 27, 2015

Hammster said:
And where did I say that?

You have been saying that your faith relies I history to comfim ram you belief in Christ bother he was a real oerson

fatboys · Nov 27, 2015

Hammster said:
This has nothing to do with the topic. But I'll say this. If I saw someone who was about to do something dangerous, and I could do something to stop them, I would try. I'm sure that doesn't make me a bigot.

It only is dangerous in your eyes. You have no clue what the outcome will be and you only have faith that your right. That does not make you right and you have no right to try and destroy anyone's faith. You do have the right to present your truth as you understand it to those who are looking for something more than what they have. If what we believe is wrong don't you think God has the power to put it to rest.

fatboys · Nov 27, 2015

I don't have a problem with debating doctrines. Presenting both sides and letting the people decide what they want to follow. Heavenly mother is a valid topic to debate. But to beat it and beat it and try to force us to say something we know little about is just wrong

Jane_Doe · Nov 27, 2015

Hammster said:
I see why you think it's a double standard. That's because you misunderstand what I'm saying. It's not that you are uninterested in reading a book which invalidates your faith. I've actually made that clear. The doctrine is invalid because it's genesis is hearsay and not derived from anything. The premise isn't the result of study. Any support for it came after it was believed to be fact. It's like shooting at a barn and painting a bullseye around it and claiming you are a good shot.

This response is a total deflection and not actually addressing my questions...

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

fatboys said:
You have been saying that your faith relies I history to comfim ram you belief in Christ bother he was a real oerson

What???

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

fatboys said:
It only is dangerous in your eyes. You have no clue what the outcome will be and you only have faith that your right. That does not make you right and you have no right to try and destroy anyone's faith. You do have the right to present your truth as you understand it to those who are looking for something more than what they have. If what we believe is wrong don't you think God has the power to put it to rest.

I am presenting the truth.

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

fatboys said:
I don't have a problem with debating doctrines. Presenting both sides and letting the people decide what they want to follow. Heavenly mother is a valid topic to debate. But to beat it and beat it and try to force us to say something we know little about is just wrong

And why don't you know much?

Hammster · Nov 27, 2015

Jane_Doe said:
This response is a total deflection and not actually addressing my questions...

Not at all. Let me try again.

For a belief to be true, it has to be grounded in reality. But that doesn't mean that everything needs to be understood in order to believe. I don't need to understand how electricity to get to the toaster to know that it's true. There's a grounding to the belief.

It's the same with my belief in Christ. I didn't know much when I was first delivered. But that doesn't mean my belief wasn't grounded in reality. So it's not the level of faith that's in question. It's the object of the faith that's in question. And in this case, the object is heavenly mother and there's nothing to ground this belief except belief.

LDS LDS: Heavenly Mother, an Awkward Doctrine ???

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Similar threads