NOM

I bet that if you attend a doctrinally sanitized church these days, you won't hear much anymore about the awful fate of millions who complained about long rainy days and ended up drowning in the great Flood. Animals we're more favored than them and spared. Look at the fate of the people described in the Book of Numbers chapter 31:17-18, Luke 12:15 and also Revelations 21:8. Today's preaching has been sanitized to bring you: "All of the good, and none of the bad". Why? Because the bad tells a totally different story. That's why SOME Christian religions continue to be deceptive and manipulative. What did The Messiah allegedly say? Read all about it in Matthew 7:21-23.

Probably because that is what sells best in today’s world

Why would anyone want a fire and brimstone religion? Why embrace a petty and petulant God when you could opt for the God of love?

If given a choice between a sanitized versus a festering faith, I would take the sanitized faith. If I am to believe in something, I want that something to be worthwhile for both myself and the rest of humanity. I want the new covenant.

I recently attended a funeral at a Southern Baptist church. The building was so full they had to place mourners up front with the choir. The man who died was a good man and a Deacon in the church, which is an esteemed position.

Besides the Eulogy, there was only one speaker who actually talked about the man who died. The rest of the people who spoke gave full-on hellfire and brimstone sermons.

Feel good stuff may be all you see on TV, but repentance vs damnation is alive and well here in the Bible belt.

crossmyheart wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:45 am I recently attended a funeral at a Southern Baptist church. The building was so full they had to place mourners up front with the choir. The man who died was a good man and a Deacon in the church, which is an esteemed position.

Besides the Eulogy, there was only one speaker who actually talked about the man who died. The rest of the people who spoke gave full-on hellfire and brimstone sermons.

Feel good stuff may be all you see on TV, but repentance vs damnation is alive and well here in the Bible belt.

I've only been to one Baptist funeral in my life and it was very similar to that.

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:17 am Why would anyone want a fire and brimstone religion? Why embrace a petty and petulant God when you could opt for the God of love?

If given a choice between a sanitized versus a festering faith, I would take the sanitized faith. If I am to believe in something, I want that something to be worthwhile for both myself and the rest of humanity. I want the new covenant.

Of course the problem is that if you believe in Happy-Friendly-Loving-God, you're still stuck with the same scriptures where Nasty-Malicious-Spiteful-God is always lurking in the pages that you try to skip.

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:17 am Why would anyone want a fire and brimstone religion? Why embrace a petty and petulant God when you could opt for the God of love?

If given a choice between a sanitized versus a festering faith, I would take the sanitized faith. If I am to believe in something, I want that something to be worthwhile for both myself and the rest of humanity. I want the new covenant.

I agree, and I think there's much more to religion being worthwhile than just lack of festering.

I want to be challenged to find truth and goodness. I want to be disabused of false ideas about other people instead of having them reinforced. I want my community to push me to reach out to those who aren't like us. I want my people to lighten my burden so I'll be glad to shoulder that of someone under a much heavier load than I am. I want to do some hard work that matters, dammit, not spend all of my time buttressing imaginary castles built on a foundation of sand.

In short, I want religion to make me stretch in a way that doesn't come down to making myself and the world around me more Mormon.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:02 pm Of course, the problem is that if you believe in Happy-Friendly-Loving-God, you're still stuck with the same scriptures where Nasty-Malicious-Spiteful-God is always lurking in the pages that you try to skip.

I put more credence in the New Testament than I do the Old Testament. Thomas Jefferson took the Bible and removed all but the most affirming parts. If I remember right it ended up being 47 pages long.

BTW, my father thought that Mormonism was an attempt to revert Christianity back to an Old Testament religion. Some have suggested young Joseph was attracted to the battle scenes and the begetting.

Out of curiosity, who do you think would win in a cage match between the Cosmic Muffin and the Hoary Thunderer?

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 1:47 pm BTW, my father thought that Mormonism was an attempt to revert Christianity back to an Old Testament religion. Some have suggested young Joseph was attracted to the battle scenes and the begetting.

I think you're father was right. There are statements by people from the Nauvoo period claiming that Joseph was planning on reintroducing animal sacrifice. Too bad we never got to find out.

The Thunderer would have mopped the floor with the muffin. All that remained would be the echoing words "you are a fluke of the universe, you have no right to be here."

Some of the early Christian sects (e.g. the Marcionites) believed Jesus came to rescue them from the clutches of the Old Testament Thunderer. Muffins get nailed to things.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:36 pm There are statements by people from the Nauvoo period claiming that Joseph was planning on reintroducing animal sacrifice. Too bad we never got to find out.

If cooler heads had prevailed with the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor, perhaps the D&C would have contained this entry:

Then God commanded that "You shall render unto my Servant and your King and High Priest of the Earth, one fatted calf on a monthly basis to be placed directly on the barbecue rotisserie in his backyard".

The Thunderer would have mopped the floor with the Muffin.

You're probably right. Muffins tend to be softies. Thunderer's could deliver the five-fingers of death blow without hesitation since there is no prohibition as such listed in the Word of Wisdom.

Clarification:

I am not saying that a church should ONLY preach hellfire and damnation and make people feel bad, guilty or worthless as imperfect creatures that we all are. What I meant to say is that we SKIP scriptures that tell a different story than the "feel good" stuff. Weeping and gnashing of teeth is a biblical prophecy, not to mention all the people that were burned and buried alive in the so called Zarahemla city and the city of Ammonihah.

And thus ended the eleventh year of the judges, … the people of Ammonihah were destroyed; yea, every living soul of the Ammonihahites was destroyed, and also their great city, which they said God could not destroy, because of its greatness. But behold, in one day it was left desolate; and the carcasses were mangled by dogs and wild beasts of the wilderness.”
Alma 16:9–11

I get it that spreading positive messages and saying what people want to hear is more productive in terms of church marketing and inspiring people to do better. But, the blatant disregard of all the other scriptures and admonitions in the Bible and Book of Mormon is ridiculous. They are preaching HALF the BIBLE and HALF the Book Of Mormon, or HALF TRUTHS.

BlackMormon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 16, 2018 11:29 pm Clarification:

I am not saying that a church should ONLY preach hellfire and damnation and make people feel bad, guilty or worthless as imperfect creatures that we all are. What I meant to say is that we SKIP scriptures that tell a different story than the "feel good" stuff. Weeping and gnashing of teeth is a biblical prophecy, not to mention all the people that were burned and buried alive in the so called Zarahemla city and the city of Ammonihah.

And thus ended the eleventh year of the judges, … the people of Ammonihah were destroyed; yea, every living soul of the Ammonihahites was destroyed, and also their great city, which they said God could not destroy, because of its greatness. But behold, in one day it was left desolate; and the carcasses were mangled by dogs and wild beasts of the wilderness.”
Alma 16:9–11

I get it that spreading positive messages and saying what people want to hear is more productive in terms of church marketing and inspiring people to do better. But, the blatant disregard of all the other scriptures and admonitions in the Bible and Book of Mormon is ridiculous. They are preaching HALF the BIBLE and HALF the Book Of Mormon, or HALF TRUTHS.

I really do not hear the church preaching a lot of feel good stuff. What I hear over and over is the message that you are never quite good enough, that God's love for us is conditional on our behavior (current prophet) and that we are such screw up that all we can do is no where near enough and we will be saved by the grace of God after all that we can do, only our best is not good enough to qualify as "all you can do" and we need to do more, pray more, pay more, obey more. Our best is not good enough to qualify as enough to earn God's grace.

Which after a crappy guilt and shame filled childhood is really what drove me out of the church. If my best isn't good enough to earn God's love, then he certainly is not a God worth worshipping.

So, maybe the church preaches the good parts of scripture to kind of balance out that they also preach how you will never be enough to earn God's love. The good parts of scripture are to make God look good in general, so that it is only YOU as an individual who sucks and is unworthy of love even when you do your very best.

I think it comes down to what the gospel means it literally translates to the good news. It's what you will never learn in Mormonism is that Christ died for you and saved you from your sins and it's not after all you can do it's in spite of what you can do

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:17 am Why would anyone want a fire and brimstone religion? Why embrace a petty and petulant God when you could opt for the God of love?

If given a choice between a sanitized versus a festering faith, I would take the sanitized faith. If I am to believe in something, I want that something to be worthwhile for both myself and the rest of humanity. I want the new covenant.

There's no attraction to it on a primal level. It comes off as phony (and I don't mean"non-existent. I mean the messenger comes off as being disingenuous). Being a few steps removed from skull cracking primates puts a god of wrath that can be on your side more genuinely approachable than a super-ego style god people can't believe in. It isn't relatable.

There's also a lot more emotional energy in a cult of violence. There's a reason this kind of thing has an appeal even on a mythical level:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH2NNvYvynM

I'd like to see what Jesus promised take place in a more tangible way, until then, I think we've all been subjected to just church marketing and sales.

What did Yeshua promise?

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
John 14:12

It's very hard for men to imitate the Messiah and do the works that He did.

moksha wrote: ↑Fri Jun 15, 2018 11:17 am Why would anyone want a fire and brimstone religion? Why embrace a petty and petulant God when you could opt for the God of love?

If given a choice between a sanitized versus a festering faith, I would take the sanitized faith. If I am to believe in something, I want that something to be worthwhile for both myself and the rest of humanity. I want the new covenant.

A God of Love and Truth can be a better example to follow than a God, or a Prophet who is petty, petulant, misinformed:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT1OfP8CqKo
Thanks BlackMormon, for reminding me of the reference above.