Kimball Manner

@CouchDewd That’s for sure, and I’ll add to my previous comment that Islam already did what I’m saying, not just the Greeks. As well, I don’t think pragmatism is the head, too depressing. It’s just 1 principle of adjudicating as head

@KimballManner No worries, Twitter’s limitations surface quickly with quality dialogue. I’m enjoying the conversation

Can anyone explain to me why the answers to any of these questions would merit exclusion from Christ’s salvation?

Sorry jumped the gun, I’ll repost here. More like a spiritual force that forever mediates down to all in order to lift. This will help explain why someone can be so clearly moved positively by Jesus, but then turn around and also do something not so great. Thing is, you and I can clearly recognize when this has happened, when Jesus is misused, which shows the force works. The east has extremely easy pathways to accept Jesus - tho obviously not in his standard Christian form. Let me give a non Christian example of placing Jesus as head. Book of John introduces the Logos as Christ concept. This is an embodiment of move towards the Greek-Christian harmony. And now even agnostics can accept that Logos should rule, even if they don’t believe it’s a person. No one is outside Jesus’ pragmatic circle, because we can artificially stretch it without breaking it

@KimballManner This is why I get nervous when the pragmatist says, “ it doesn’t matter if the Earth is 6000 years old,” or, “ it doesn’t matter if the universe was created with the illusion of age, or, “it doesn’t matter if the book of Abraham was an actual translation of the Egyptian script.”

@CouchDewd That’s just mechanics, interesting but ultimately not descriptive of end function. HOW Jesus accomplished it is much less certain than THAT he accomplished it.

@KimballManner Perhaps. There’s been other contenders for the mantle. Some would say the Scriptural records about Jesus are actually an amalgamation of at least two different individuals who were contemporaries. Arguably what cemented it was Rome’s meddling under Constantine.

The secularist is just another sectarian these days so 🤷‍♂️ ok. But I fail the see the difference. I know if Jesus of Nazareth had not lived and done whatever he did than he wouldn’t be a contender for that spot in western society. That looks like spirit to me, and at the very least functions that way. But I think there are frames for accepting Jesus as theological king for virtually all religions. And even agnosticism and secularism.

@KimballManner I feel this is where you’ll see resistance. The secularist will call it chance mixed with popular opinion and economic forces and call it a day. Is Jesus necessary to explain this force, or are we simply naming a mantle?

@Shawn_star2002 @KimballCall @emit151 Nice pivot

@KimballManner @KimballCall @emit151 if you are a mormon thats a false christ

🚨 Spoiler Alert 🚨 90% of what Latter-day Saints learn in our “super secret cult temples” is the exact same stuff we learn in Church and talk about openly. The other 10% is just metaphor for the 90% and isn’t actually new doctrine. Hope this helps! You can learn it all here:

@Shawn_star2002 @KimballCall @emit151 We believe trusting Christ’s mercy isn’t a gamble

@KimballCall @emit151 You are putting Gods mercy to the test, that's not gonna look good at judgement DO you wanna gamble eternal damnation?

Not exactly. Your comments don’t look like they account for the main accountability mechanism being 2-part: yes pressure from other tribes. But also there is an overarching unity power. So looking at the Bible stories, King David is one of these. I’d say hes the archetype. But of course, the Christian form of this is Jesus of Nazareth. But I make an argument for him as theological “king” for all religions and spiritualists. Through different forms of understanding him. But of course, He’s not here directly, so who sits in that spot? And until he does, a representative council or committee is the best way to access his spirit. This already happens (informally which I’m fine with), the issue is persuading people to accept kingship from the fully unifying lens on Jesus, rather than only the Christian divine lens. For example: Christians typically won’t accept His kingship except in the divine sense because it sacrifices their sure primacy at his metaphorical right hand. Once again, the restoration offers the best lens for this, with its framing of Christ as (sometimes covertly) behind all the light of all nations and tribes. The mechanism for this is typically seen as divinity, but it doesn’t have to be. As a side note, I’ll give credit where it’s due to western secularism as very nearly accomplishing this over unity power correctly. But it went very sideways and now has been rejected. King Saul lol.

@KimballManner Are we in alignment thus far, or do you see it differently? /fin

It’s not that the historical truth of things like gold plates doesn’t matter, it’s just abt what context it matters in. I’d say the best way to do it is a collection of friendly competitive tribes which are united under 1 nation. Each tribe focuses on literal truth narratives, where the over arching unity focuses on pragmatism drawing from the tribes. They’ll check each other on their respective excesses. You see this system through scripture, history and modernity. And it works great as long as the over arching unity is maintained well and the tribes arent feared by the head. As well, you start running into problems if your over arching unity can’t handle other nations’ tribes. The only religious traditions that I’ve come across that can potentially handle this in the theological space are LDS (tho in its less tribal form) and general spiritualists.

@KimballManner Shall we burn the next Galileo at the stake if he contradicts the church with a discovery? Shall we pedestal an unrepentant child molester who brings in a wildfire of new converts and tithes? Help me find the line, as it’s unclear thus far. /fin

Hmm, well there’s a lot of intertwined agreement and disagreement that I find with your comments. 1. my view of doctrine is that it is a tool, or rather a series of tools. Whatever works for the person should be used to obtain the desired conclusion (connection with Heaven and earth). So saying a doctrine might be “right” or “wrong” just isn’t the quite the way I think abt it. Right for what or who? Wrong for what and who? Etc 2. I understand this isn’t the tribal view of doctrine, which is what I think youre criticizing here. That said, the tribal view itself is a tool. Mainly for kids or converts imo. It’s a simplification tool. As well, The fact that it’s always assumed to be the practitioners fault is unbelievably useful - because this extreme accountability view can lead to needed change to obtain results. And it’s often true. 3. The weakness of the tribal tool of course you’re criticizing here - some people just don’t fit the tribal mold, regardless of accountability. My point 1 accounts for this - time to move on to a new tribal set of tools. But the tribal pressure is so important so that people aren’t just flitting around without really investing and changing. Interestingly that social pressure is mostly dissipated in western countries, and even in high institutional religions it’s getting less - anf more and more people are declaring that the tools don’t work for them. Whereas previous generations not near as often. 4. So I don’t think separating it from the social atmosphere is fair. Very few people have the religious wanderer, patriarch gift. That social pressure and community is definitely essential for almost everyone I agree. 5. I only partly agree that devout practitioners have arrived at different conclusions. Doctrinally, philosophically yes (different tool sets); but the results really are mostly the same when successful - or a few good types of results.

@KimballManner As a falsifiable, it doesn’t just weaken the argument. The burden of proof shifts entirely from the practitioner to the claim itself. Where it belongs. That’s a different power arrangement. Which is perhaps why advocates prefer it stay unfalsifiable. /fin

@CouchDewd Lets hear it

@KimballManner We can disagree. Like I said, I can dismantle the steel man of this imo pretty thoroughly, but can also respect the difference of perspective

Oh I’ve heard it. And actually probably agree, but I don’t think it’s a straight line form point A basic to point B complex (and so on). And Protestants agree, obviously, whether they’ll admit it or not. Catholics and other institutional m have the best argument for this due to standardization of doctrines, but they change over time to, or recant etc. So the underlying point is valid , but the use of it in this way isn’t

@KimballManner To be clear, I don’t subscribe to this idea at all. I can dismantle the steel man of the view if you like. But that’s how the ideas are articulated in fundamentalist Protestant circles.

@CouchDewd @TARSRel0aded Unfortunately you’re right. Theyre really just tools for connecting with God. Using it for identity marking is just I’m bad use of the tool.

@KimballManner @TARSRel0aded Theology for many is for the gang signs and territory colors so they can feel like they have an identity

Mormons. LDS followers. Step right up and answer these questions. If you do so honestly, we might make some progress on why we can’t call you Christian: Does God the Father have a physical body of flesh and bones? (D&C 130:22) How does that square with John 4:24 — “God is spirit”? 2. Was God the Father once a man who progressed to godhood? (King Follett Discourse) How does that fit Isaiah 43:10 — “Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me”? 3. Are there many gods in existence, with Heavenly Father having his own Father? How does this align with Isaiah 44:6 — “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no God”? 4. Did Jesus and Lucifer (Satan) exist as spirit brothers in a premortal life? How does that reconcile with John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, where Jesus created all things? 5. Does the Bible teach creation ex nihilo (out of nothing), or did God organize eternal matter? How do you read Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3? 6. Can faithful humans be exalted to become gods, create worlds, and have spirit children? Doesn’t Isaiah 43:10 and 44:8 say there is no God formed before or after Him? 7. Is the historic Christian Church (post-apostles) in total apostasy, requiring Joseph Smith’s restoration? How does that fit Matthew 16:18 — “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? 8. Is the Bible the infallible Word of God, or only true “as far as it is translated correctly”? (8th Article of Faith) What does 2 Timothy 3:16 say about Scripture? 9. Is salvation by grace “after all we can do”? (2 Nephi 25:23) How does this match Ephesians 2:8-9 — “not a result of works”? 10. Is God eternally unchanging, or did He progress from man to God? (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17) If He progressed, how is He the same “yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8)?

As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are all united in faith and in our commitment to living the gospel. But unity does not mean uniformity. Our church congregations are like a beautiful mosaic—rich with diverse backgrounds, talents, and experiences.    I invite each of you to find and recognize your gifts so that you can use them to bless others and move the Lord’s work forward.

@realbenbriggs @jesse_k_fox What is matter?

@jesse_k_fox What is spirit matter?

Almost no one talks about this. The Bible and the Book of Mormon contain only five verses that use the word “Christian.” And ironically, the two verses in the Book of Mormon may provide the clearest description of what a Christian actually is.

@LDSLaw Just people generally

Turns out, most "Christians" are just hypocritical assholes. 🤷 Don't shoot the messenger. 😏😏

There’s a book called the Language of Symbolism a non LDS Christian named Mattieu Pageau. I think hes orthodox or Catholic maybe? Among many things, it talks abt the Sam symbols but independent from the garment or anything LDS, so you won’t be trampling on someone’s sacred things while still being able to learn. Worth the read

I am not trying to be rude truly, but I think it is weird that everyone is talking about Mormons but no one will answer my questions about what exactly the sacred symbols on their special undergarments they have to wear are for I just want to know what the symbols mean

@Latterdaytruth While I agree Galatians 1:8 is not the win they think it is; I also don’t see how it could be referring to the creeds

Galations 1:8 is about the creeds that preach another gospel, not about God’s restoration of the truth of His Gospel.

@plasmarob Seems a bit extreme

What "christians" say about "mormons" is why God is preparing to burn the earth Unfortunately for everybody, "Latter-day Saints" means they are preparing for this