LDS

[Ambrosia]

Not quite sure what you are after but you might try this.

Thanks.

from the wikipedia page I read:

Joseph Smith taught that the celestial kingdom itself is subdivided into three "heavens or degrees".[9] Only those individuals who are sealed in celestial marriage to a spouse in a temple while alive (or after death by proxy) will be permitted to enter into the highest degree of celestial kingdom.[10] These individuals will eventually become "exalted"[11] and will be permitted to live "the kind of life God lives" as literal gods and goddesses

Earlier in the thread I quoted a verse from Ephesians(NIV). Janadele was kind enough to quote the King James translation.

That scripture states "not by works, so that no man may boast"

Why does LDS doctrine supersede the bible, New Testament at that.

The bible teaches that you cannot get to heaven by doing good stuff. LDS doctrine says 'if you do good stuff you get a better deal'

It's a huge contradiction.

In effect the LDS church is saying that the bible is the word of God, except in these special cases where it isn't, cos our founder said so.

Which leads back to my original "thoughtful post". Each denomination reads the bible a little differently. Each preacher in each individual church imparts their own interpretation on the bible with each sermon. In turn based upon how the person translating the version of the bible they are reading interpreted the text they translated, based upon how the person writing the original text remembered stuff years later..

hearsay based upon hearsay, based upon hearsay etc etc.

Ever heard of Chinese Whispers? Each iteration introduces inaccuracy.

I spent about 10 years studying and reading the bible while I was an active member of the churches my parents attended. Years later I wish I had spent that time studying astrophysics instead...

 

[RandFan]

Richard... I am perfectly aware of the LDS offficial stance on evolution, and it is not an endorsement of Darwin and descent from monkeys or any other species.

It's not a refutation. A.) BYU teaches evolution and B.) The Mormon Church does not take a stance against evolution choosing to leave that to science. Why is that?

Earlier in this thread the answer to the other matter was given.

No. You did not answer that. You simply told us your opinion.

 

[RandFan]

Earlier in the thread I quoted a verse from Ephesians(NIV). Janadele was kind enough to quote the King James translation.

That scripture states "not by works, so that no man may boast"

Why does LDS doctrine supersede the bible, New Testament at that.

The bible teaches that you cannot get to heaven by doing good stuff. LDS doctrine says 'if you do good stuff you get a better deal'

It's a huge contradiction.

To be fair the Bible is contradictory on that. Somewhere in storage is my missionary Bible that is marked with many "works" scriptures.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Janadele]

If you are male, your Spirit is male. If you are female your Spirit is female. Surely this is simple and easy to understand... as per quoted previous post.

Gender is an eternal characteristic. There is no negotiation on the gender of our Spirit. To abide by Eternal Law celibacy is the only option, if for some genuine reason the gender of the Spirit is unknown.

 

[RandFan]

If you are male, your Spirit is male. If you are female your Spirit is female. Surely this is simple and easy to understand... as per quoted previous post.

Easy to understand but it DOESN'T answer the question. It's also A.) Your opinion. B.) Simply asserted.

Gender is a biological definition. Not a spirit one. In fact, there is no evidence that spirits exist.

I understand gender from a biological perspective. What gender is a hermaphrodite and will they be able to marry in heaven?

 

[Myriad]

There is only one question of interest to me, when confronted with doctrine -- any doctrine, regardless of type or source -- that promotes cruelty. It is not a nice question, but it is an extremely important one. The question will never be answered, but sometimes just asking it is enough. Anyone with conscience must consider the question, even if they cannot bring themselves to offer an answer.

The question is: do you put up with the cruelty because it's necessary in order to follow the doctrine, or do you follow the doctrine because it offers license for the cruelty?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[angrysoba]

Richard... I am perfectly aware of the LDS offficial stance on evolution, and it is not an endorsement of Darwin and descent from monkeys or any other species.

Good Lord! Are you a creationist as well?

I suppose that explains the blithe dismissal of the entire body of academic historical scholarship.

I think there's really not a lot of common ground between you and anyone else on this forum because nothing counts as evidence for you that would count as evidence for anyone else. You seem to base your entire worldview on the Book of Mormon, or rather what your intuitions tell you the Book of Mormon says, while apparently having done little more than had a swoon over the first two chapters when some young men buttered you up with the words "golden contact". In that state you probably could have ended up the proud owner of a new set of double-glazing or the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Not only that but your method for establishing what is true and what is not is entirely at odds with any genuine rational enquiry. If someone wants to know how true the Book of Mormon is, then they won't be persuaded by reference to the Book of Mormon. That is circular reasoning. Similarly, saying something is "scripture" is not going to convince anyone that it is true either. Plenty of religions have scripture. That doesn't make it true.

 

[Blue Mountain]

Janadele, you might want to check out this tread here on the forum. The OP (original poster) very much has a kindred spirit to your own.

 

[Janadele]

Rand, Much is known which is not given nor available to those who mock and will not accept the truth of that which has already been given.

Line upon line, precept upon precept. Further expansion of knowledge is withheld from those who do not accept the basics .

It's not a refutation. A.) BYU teaches evolution and B.) The Mormon Church does not take a stance against evolution choosing to leave that to science. Why is that?

 

[Stomatopoda]

Richard... I am perfectly aware of the LDS offficial stance on evolution, and it is not an endorsement of Darwin and descent from monkeys or any other species.

Earlier in this thread the answer to the other matter was given.

Evolutionary biology doesn't endorse the bold, either.

 

[angrysoba]

Rand, Much is known which is not given nor available to those who mock and will not accept the truth of that which has already been given.

Line upon line, precept upon precept. Further expansion of knowledge is withheld from those who do not accept the basics .

This is just another way of saying, accept without question. Don't use your reason despite it apparently being God-given.

Did you know, Janadele, that there are other people, obviously less scrupulous people than the Mormon Church naturally, who make similar claims and they do this not because they are selling the Truth, as I am sure you appreciate, but because they are charlatans telling their flock to hand over the cash and not ask questions.

Shocking, isn't it?

 

[Craig4]

Rand, Much is known which is not given nor available to those who mock and will not accept the truth of that which has already been given.

Line upon line, precept upon precept. Further expansion of knowledge is withheld from those who do not accept the basics .

You've given nobody a reason to accept anything you're saying. You pretty much validate (not that it needs it) the atheist point of view in every post.

 

[Richard Masters]

Richard... I am perfectly aware of the LDS offficial stance on evolution, and it is not an endorsement of Darwin and descent from monkeys or any other species.

Earlier in this thread the answer to the other matter was given.

Evolution isn't about human descent from monkeys. (As noted by someone else here).

So who is a hermaphrodite allowed to marry according to LDS? I don't recall seeing your answer on this. If you don't know just say so, it's the honest thing to do.

 

[Janadele]

The Lord has but one Prophet who speaks for Him to the world, even though the twelve apostles and two counselors of the LDS Church are also Prophets, Seers and Revelators it is only the President of the LDS Church through whom the Lord speaks and who is referred to as the Prophet.

Lucifer deceives many by using his powers for good as well as evil, and seeks to confuse and imitate so that many are therefore not able to recognise the true Prophet of God from the deceivers.

Janadele, you might want to check out this tread here on the forum. The OP (original poster) very much has a kindred spirit to your own.

 

[RandFan]

Rand, Much is known which is not given nor available to those who mock and will not accept the truth of that which has already been given.

This is entirely irrelevant to the question. There is no sacred Mormon doctrine that disputes evolution. Further, evolution is a fact. It's one of the most supported theories in science involving many scientific fields.

Line upon line, precept upon precept. Further expansion of knowledge is withheld from those who do not accept the basics .

I was active in the Mormon Church for 30 years. I believed in evolution then. There is not a single Mormon precept that would obviate evolution.

 

[Craig4]

The Lord has but one Prophet who speaks for Him to the world, even though the twelve apostles and two counselors of the LDS Church are also Prophets, Seers and Revelators it is only the President of the LDS Church through whom the Lord speaks and who is referred to as the Prophet.

Lucifer deceives many by using his powers for good as well as evil, and seeks to confuse and imitate so that many are therefore not able to recognise the true Prophet of God from the deceivers.

Evidence?

 

[angrysoba]

Evolution isn't about human descent from monkeys. (As noted by someone else here).

To be fair, Janadele did say "or any other species", which would include a common ancestor of both humans and monkeys.

But if she doesn't believe in it then I think there's little chance that talking to her about the historical innaccuracies of the Mormon scriptures is going to sway her in any way.

 

[angrysoba]

Lucifer deceives many by using his powers for good as well as evil, and seeks to confuse and imitate so that many are therefore not able to recognise the true Prophet of God from the deceivers.

It's just one big conspiracy!

 

[bruto]

I am perfectly aware of LDS Doctrines, all of which I fully support... whilst certainly do not agree with the opinions of ex LDS and non believers. ...snip....

So really, then, who is your expected audience? You dismiss as a class all opinions other than the ones you've already said you accept. If you're wanting a discussion, you're doing it wrong, and if you're wanting a rendezvous with fellow Mormons or potential converts, you're probably in the wrong place. In any place it would be more economical just to introduce yourself as a devout Mormon and invite anyone who wants to chat or hear more to PM you.

 

[RandFan]

The Lord has but one Prophet who speaks for Him to the world, even though the twelve apostles and two counselors of the LDS Church are also Prophets, Seers and Revelators it is only the President of the LDS Church through whom the Lord speaks and who is referred to as the Prophet.

One can't help but wonder why god didn't tell his prophet that god's church (LDS) was purchasing forgeries from Mark Hoffman?

See Salamander Letters.

Apparently over the years god failed to tell the Mormon prophets lots of important things. He didn't tell Joseph that he would be arrested and murdered. He didn't tell Joseph that Smith's bank would fail. When he gave Smith the Word of Wisdom he left out the part about boiling water to make it safe. Had he done so he could have *saved the lives of many Saints. Instead god, in his infinite wisdom told the Saints NOT to partake of hot drinks. Not that the prescription resulted in deaths but don't you think "hey, boil your water before you drink it" would have been better than "don't drink hot drinks"?

*Illness and Mortality in Nineteenth-Century Mormon Immigration