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

Jane_Doe · Nov 28, 2015

Hammster said:
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.

So essentially you're saying "Because my beliefs are right, and yours are wrong, that gives me permission to hold a hypocritical double standard"?

Hammster · Nov 28, 2015

Jane_Doe said:
So essentially you're saying "Because my beliefs are right, and yours are wrong, that gives me permission to hold a hypocritical double standard"?

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Perhaps you could explain my argument back to me so we can see where I'm not being clear.

Thanks.

Jane_Doe · Nov 28, 2015

Hammster said:
I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Perhaps you could explain my argument back to me so we can see where I'm not being clear.

Thanks.

Ok.

I addressed what I see as a double standard (post #268 and previous ones). You say quote: "I see why you think it's a double standard." (#271), and then go on to seemingly defend such double standard defend on the basis of "For a belief to be true, it has to be grounded in reality." (#271 & 280) This is coming from your perspective (aka what you view/think is reality).

So summed up, it appears that your argument is "double standards are okay when they align with what I think is reality." or "double standards are ok because I'm right and you're wrong".

If I have gone astray here, please let me know where.

Hammster · Nov 28, 2015

Jane_Doe said:
Ok.

I addressed what I see as a double standard (post #268 and previous ones). You say quote: "I see why you think it's a double standard." (#271), and then go on to seemingly defend such double standard defend on the basis of "For a belief to be true, it has to be grounded in reality." (#271 & 280) This is coming from your perspective (aka what you view/think is reality).

So summed up, it appears that your argument is "double standards are okay when they align with what I think is reality." or "double standards are ok because I'm right and you're wrong".

If I have gone astray here, please let me know where.

I thought that we could have a rational discussion. I see that you just want to attack. I hope the rest of your day is good.

Jane_Doe · Nov 28, 2015

Hammster said:
I thought that we could have a rational discussion. I see that you just want to attack. I hope the rest of your day is good.

How is this an attack? I'm not insulting you personally, your beliefs, or asking you to change any of your beliefs. I've just been asking clarifying questions so I understand what you're saying. If I'm incorrect, please point out where (as I previously invited you to).

Hammster · Nov 28, 2015

Jane_Doe said:
How is this an attack? I'm not insulting you personally, your beliefs, or asking you to change any of your beliefs. I've just been asking clarifying questions so I understand what you're saying. If I'm incorrect, please point out where (as I previously invited you to).

And I asked for you to give me my argument back to me. I've never used the words "double standard", and you know it. So if you can't repeat my argument back in your own words, either you don't understand it and would rather mock instead, or you do understand it and just don't like it.

If you'd like to try again, I'll be happy to continue. But if not, then okay.

drstevej · Nov 28, 2015

Heavenly Mother indeed is proving to be an awkward doctrine.
And THIS is restored Christianity?
I do not think so.

Jane_Doe · Nov 28, 2015

Hammster said:
And I asked for you to give me my argument back to me. I've never used the words "double standard", and you know it. So if you can't repeat my argument back in your own words, either you don't understand it and would rather mock instead, or you do understand it and just don't like it.

If you'd like to try again, I'll be happy to continue. But if not, then okay.

I first addressed what I see as a double standard in your epistemological approaches-- (if you want I can copy and paste the post I reference here)

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.

You replied (bolding mine)--

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.

And... (again, bolding mine)

Hammster said:
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.

fatboys · Nov 28, 2015

drstevej said:
Heavenly Mother indeed is proving to be an awkward doctrine.
And THIS is restored Christianity?
I do not think so.

The only awkwardness is found with you. I understand it. If you don't believe it or then I don't think you want to understand. If it makes sense you might start to believe it and you don't want that to happen.

Hammster · Nov 28, 2015

Jane_Doe said:
I first addressed what I see as a double standard in your epistemological approaches-- (if you want I can copy and paste the post I reference here)

You replied (bolding mine)--

And... (again, bolding mine)

I'm asking what my argument is in your own words. You just keep linking to other posts and saying that I'm saying double standards are okay. Please, once again, give me my argument in your own words. Or don't. But at this point, since I don't know what you are hearing, we cannot move forward.

Hammster · Nov 28, 2015

fatboys said:
The only awkwardness is found with you. I understand it. If you don't believe it or then I don't think you want to understand. If it makes sense you might start to believe it and you don't want that to happen.

No one has question whether or not you understand it. The question is can you defend the doctrine. So far, you have not.

Jane_Doe · Nov 28, 2015

Hammster said:
I'm asking what my argument is in your own words. You just keep linking to other posts and saying that I'm saying double standards are okay. Please, once again, give me my argument in your own words. Or don't. But at this point, since I don't know what you are hearing, we cannot move forward.

Ok. The double standard you're displaying lies in inconstancies in your epistemological approach.

I believe X, and which you say
1) Is untrue hearsay because the lack of a definitive "genesis" historical quote laying it out (giving the impression historical quotes define truth).
2) Due to my disinterest in reading history, you say that I'm uninterested in truth.
3) You disregard an interpretation of the Bible to support this idea.
4) You disregard any thoughts as to whether X may be true as off-topic or unprovable, instead focusing on historical quotes.

For belief Y,
1) The lack of a historical quote to "genesis" the idea is unimportant (180 from before).
2) Say that an interest or knowledge of history is unimportant to truth (180 than before).
3) You submit an interoperation of the Bible to support the idea (whereas before you off-handedly rejected Biblical interpretation to support ideas).
4) You say that history is unimportant, because the idea is true (different than before, where whether or not it was true was "off-topic", and truth must be proven by historical quotes).

So yes, I see inconstancies and a double standard in your epistemological approach. The key difference between beliefs X & Y is that you belief X and not Y.

Hammster · Nov 29, 2015

I will try again because you've made statements that are not true or are taken out of context.

The genesis of anything you believe in is important. It has to be grounded. That's why I've quoted the beginning of 1 John several times.

I have nowhere stated that interest or knowledge of the history is unimportant to the truth. I did say it was not important to know the history in order to believe something. This is evident in the fact that you believe in heavenly mother. But that doesn't meant that history is unimportant to truth. It very much is.

I have no idea what point you are making in Y3.

So to sum up, history is important to the truth. It is not necessary to know all of it in order to believe. So one can come to faith in Christ without knowing everything about Him. This does not mean that there is no historical evidence of Christ, though.

In the case of Heavenly Mother, it is not necessary to know all about her in order to believe in here. This does not mean that there is any evidence that she exists.

We have in scripture where it says "In the beginning, God..." That's evidence for His existence (whether that evidence is compelling is another subject). We have nothing of the sort for a Heavenly Mother. The basis for her is someone says they heard Smith say something about her so they wrote a poem.

Huge difference. An no double standard.

fatboys · Nov 29, 2015

Hammster said:
No one has question whether or not you understand it. The question is can you defend the doctrine. So far, you have not.

IT IS NOT DOCTRINE. IT IS A CONCEPT THAT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE MALE AND FEMALES CAN BECOME gods WHO ARE MARRIED FOR ETERNITY. we have heavenly parents.

fatboys · Nov 29, 2015

Hammster said:
I will try again because you've made statements that are not true or are taken out of context.

The genesis of anything you believe in is important. It has to be grounded. That's why I've quoted the beginning of 1 John several times.

I have nowhere stated that interest or knowledge of the history is unimportant to the truth. I did say it was not important to know the history in order to believe something. This is evident in the fact that you believe in heavenly mother. But that doesn't meant that history is unimportant to truth. It very much is.

I have no idea what point you are making in Y3.

So to sum up, history is important to the truth. It is not necessary to know all of it in order to believe. So one can come to faith in Christ without knowing everything about Him. This does not mean that there is no historical evidence of Christ, though.

In the case of Heavenly Mother, it is not necessary to know all about her in order to believe in here. This does not mean that there is any evidence that she exists.

We have in scripture where it says "In the beginning, God..." That's evidence for His existence (whether that evidence is compelling is another subject). We have nothing of the sort for a Heavenly Mother. The basis for her is someone says they heard Smith say something about her so they wrote a poem.

Huge difference. An no double standard.

Your back tracking. You said in earlier post that in order for you to believe in truth their has to be history there to make it true or believable. Now your saying that you could believe in it without history but history will make it true.

Hammster · Nov 29, 2015

fatboys said:
Your back tracking. You said in earlier post that in order for you to believe in truth their has to be history there to make it true or believable. Now your saying that you could believe in it without history but history will make it true.

No. Please re-read.

Hammster · Nov 29, 2015

fatboys said:
IT IS NOT DOCTRINE. IT IS A CONCEPT THAT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE MALE AND FEMALES CAN BECOME gods WHO ARE MARRIED FOR ETERNITY. we have heavenly parents.

And when did this concept arise?

fatboys · Nov 29, 2015

Hammster said:
No. Please re-read.

I read what you were saying now versus what you said earlier

fatboys · Nov 29, 2015

Hammster said:
And when did this concept arise?

My own personal belief is that Joseph Smith understood the concept. I think that there were many doctrines that were not taught because of misunderstandings and the attitude of atmosphere that existed at the time. Joseph Smoth said that if he revealed all that had been revealed to him that much of the saints would reject it. The meat before the milk so to speak. I also believe that all the early brethren knew this but it was not taught but eluded to. There are many aspects of the gospel which have not been revealed but what has been revealed is what is necessary for us to receive salvation from physical and spiritual death.

Hammster · Nov 29, 2015

fatboys said:
I read what you were saying now versus what you said earlier

Since I've been consistent in what I've said, I don't think you are understanding. It's probably my fault.

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

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Well-Known Member

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Psalm 144:1

Psalm 144:1

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Psalm 144:1

Similar threads