Leaderboard

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/s/wt8jz3TFOc Recent statistics are showing around 50% of returning Mormon missionaries are leaving the church. It seems the most devout adherents to the rules are among the ones leaving first. Those who go through motions for political gain are advancing in positions. What a testament to the long-term adverse effects of using another individual to expand your organization via free labor and outreach programs. Did I recognize these patterns in how TWI uses their “Wow” TM Ambassadors? Or “Way Ambassadors”? Or Way Corps pressured to “get a class together”? I did these programs. They isolated me from family and friends and re-enforced the cult values over individual goals. They lead to ever increasing commitment to an organization and protection of everyone and everything they represent regardless of how evil the impact is. There is long-term isolation from support groups and replacing them with more devout and controlling support groups. There is the grooming for higher programs always. In those programs there is the climbing over each other to obtain position and status. The ultimate end of this is the BOD who answer to nobody and are treated like gods. Don’t let your life be used for another’s political aspirations and control. Regardless of what group it is, what pitch they have, the results will always contain consequences.

What a great video! Thanks RighteousRider. Perhaps the greatest mistake man can make is to think otherwise.

I am not sure I am understanding the whole premise here. I live with a freakishly talented musician. He has literally taught himself to play any instrument he has ever picked up . . . . starting with the touch-tone phone at the age of 4. One day he sat down and wrote the most beautiful piece of music I have heard in a long time. It took him a few hours to write it, record all the parts, and mix them together for a stunning result. Fascinated, I asked him how he did this . . . He simply said he was inspired. It was still him writing the notes and it was his talent. .. . but, the inspiration for that music came from somewhere. Probably a poor analogy, but we do have some kind of understanding about what it means to be inspired by something. It is not an unheard of concept. It should almost be more clear to those with artistic leaning. Musicians, artists, creative people. Although, inspiration is not limited. Scripture writing, being an inspired act, should not be a confusing idea? One may choose to not believe that declaration of inspiration within these ancient documents, (more than one set of scripture declares this) but the notion that . . . yes, it was Paul's words, doesn't serve to disprove the idea of them being inspired by God. Holy men. . . a specific kind of person . . . spoke their own words. . . in their own style. . . in their own language . . . with their own understanding . . . inspired, or moved by the Holy Spirit. I guess it helps to understand the concept of holiness and how the Holy Spirit moves within the life of a Christian. If that is not something one does understand. . . it is fairly easy to ask a Christian to explain it. . . or even allow the scriptures themselves to enlighten us to the concept. They do that when we are not trying to tell them what they are saying, but let them tell us. I think we missed that in TWI. Another bad analogy. . . Dear Abby can write a piece of advice addressing a particular problem or issue. Does that mean the advice is only relevant to the person to whom it is particularly addressed? Can others accept the advice and use it in their own situation? What Paul wrote to particular church, facing specific issues, can be relevant to churches today. We can take those corrected doctrines and apply them within our own church and life. Especially if we believe the words written by Paul, his own words. . . are inspired by the Holy Spirit. To me, what is more illuminating is that these same issues still arise in churches. The whole concept of written language as a form of communication. . . . it is a very human thing. Christians believe God to be very engaged in the events of human history. That is the whole premise of Christian scripture. Before the advent of television, radio, internet and email. . . . which we as a culture can relate to . . . letter writing was an art form . . . a duty. . . how we related to others important information. Books, not an antiquated or confusing concept. Taking relevant information presented at one time in letter form . . . . concerning a particular subject and putting it together in a book with other information about the same subject matter is not so far fetched. The canon had a purpose and these doctrines and concepts were already understood. The understanding of an Apostle's purpose and calling were known. One doesn't have to accept the premise, but it doesn't mean there wasn't specific guidelines or reasons for what was accepted. The knowledge of false apostles and false letters being circulated is addressed in scripture. Thessalonians speaks to false letters . . . . other scripture addresses false teachers. . . .other scripture. . . . false doctrine. A right and wrong way to understand certain things within the faith. What is so odd about that? This specific collection makes claims about itself. It is great to evaluate its history. . . . but, limiting oneself to a particular method is like using just part of a recipe. At some point, we need to evaluate the text itself for its claims. It addresses the genesis of life, the human condition, and a specific historic figure who made claims relevant to all of mankind. That is what we have . . . no matter who said it. . . wrote it down. . . copied it. . . or put it in book form. The Shakespeare on your shelf may have a few words wrong . . . a few passages tweaked, but the story line we can have some confidence in. . . .

I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenticity of the Pauline Epistles because frankly, I'll doubt that I'll put forth anything you haven't heard yourself hundreds of times. A cursory study of church history will shed some definite light on these questions. Church history is fairly easy to study. I believe you will find there are others who give testimony as to the authenticity of Paul's writings. Not the least of which is the Apostle Peter who refers to Paul's writings as "scripture". The very fact that the early Christians valued Paul's writings enough to protect them is also testament as to how his writings were regarded. It was Luke who wrote Acts and gave testimony as to conduct of Paul and speaks loudly to his "personal credibility". How? By example to be sure, but it's clearly stated the Apostles respected him and offered him the "right hand of fellowship". Ya gotta drop all the rot in TWI about "The Rise and Expansion of the Christian Church" which IMO is an assassination on the characters of the other Apostles. You're correct about there being scholars out there who now believe that Ephesians was actually written in the 4th century. My only answer to that is that it's a "Johnny-come-lately" theory. This whole concept of "Man of God for Our Day and Time" is rubbish. Wierwille wanted to be considered that so he could fleece the flock and he claimed Paul was the MOG for his day and time. He wasn't. Paul postulated over and over again that Jesus Christ was the center of Christianity. I say all that to say that there is no evidence to suggest that Paul was the Wierwille of his day and time. He was held in high regard by the established church leadership and the church followers. The early Christian church was not a Way Tree. There were different areas like Asia, Galatia, and Rome, and Antioch and they pretty much stood on their own. They didn't get SNS tapes from Paul or from Jerusalem. If Paul had been a "loose cannon" and a womanizer he would have simply been rejected and run out of town on a rail.

I see it as a sorta forerunner to science and the scientific method. Life was a short and brutal affair when most religions came about. Real knowledge about how the earth worked was very sparse and so superstition immediately filled the void. Your brother got eaten by a lion on his way to work one day, so you, in a desperate attempt to avoid a similar fate, devised some code to help minimize your exposure to that danger. You noticed that when you wore a garland of garlic, or your chartreuse toga, or paid homage to The Lion King, that you DIDN'T get eaten, so you start doing that every time you need to travel near lion country. Pretty soon it becomes mandatory for you and yours to do it all the time. And so it goes. Then you have to devise a regimen to avoid poisonous food, diseases, and dangerous sociopaths. Some of it may even have a trace or two of wisdom in it. Before too long you and your decendants have cooked up a whole plethora of rituals and beliefs to subscribe to. Then it's a matter of which clan has the most power and influence or maybe just writes the most eloquent mantras to have your particular mythologies carried on. That's how I imagine it having happened anyway. Maybe not quite poignant, but I think it makes sense...

Well, why would one use the "aforementioned criteria" to draw a conclusion? That ship has sailed. I am confused? Is VP's standard for inerrancy what we use to evaluate Paul as a con man? We are confronted with a collection of ancient documents. . . the most well preserved of ancient documents BTW. We use certain criteria to evaluate their validity . . . including, but not limited to what they say about themselves. We give them the benefit of doubt. That is not just given to scripture, but we do look to see what all ancient documents say about themselves. We also know a great deal about the practice of letter writing during his time and beyond. These things were not just put in a letters, these guys went around and preached at these churches. These things were known and believed on . . . . . .and by many who knew Jesus. I am missing something here. . . . where does this hypothesis about Paul come from? What is the basis for the possible conclusion? "I would that ye all spake with tongues"? VP said that meant every Christian. . . so, Paul was a con man? VP was an a$.. The same "Rap sheet" we have on Paul which we conclude goes to his credibility is found in the same document which we learn of his conversion. So we accept one and not the other? Setting the supernatural aside. . . . say Paul's rap sheet is true. He had some influence. . . . he spoke. . . people jumped. If his rap sheet is true, we can assume his pedigree is true. . . So, this con man gives up this kind of affluence and authority within his beloved faith. . . to be imprisoned, beaten, nearly stoned, and ultimately martyred because he gained . . . . what? He was a very lousy con man. . . . He could have had a motor coach had he remained a Pharisee. Instead, he was on trial before the Sanhedrin. His head probably ended up on a chopping block. The joke was on him if he was lying. Just to add: Most gnostics adhere to the Pauline epistles to the exclusion of most everything else. Marcion for example. There might be a bigger picture here. The nature of what we were part of in TWI.