LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Janadele said:
In our Pre-Mortal existence, as Spirit-children of God and intelligent individuals, we each were at a different stage of progression and knowledge. We possessed the power and opportunity to choose both the course we would pursue and the leaders we would follow.

Lucifer and his followers sought to destroy our God given Free Agency and compel all to obey his will. Compulsion for others was the basis of his selfish ambition to aggrandise himself, without regard to the rights and agency of others. He envied the power of our Heavenly Father and wanted it for himself.

War resulted when his plan was rejected by our Heavenly Father, and as the losers of that war, Lucifer and his followers were cast down to this earth and given no opportunity to progress and obtain their mortal bodies. Instead, they will eventually regress back to the state they were at the beginning, as an intelligence only, without even a Spiritual body.
Click to expand...
I don't believe any of that. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
 
Cat Tale said:
Outer darkness is only reserved for those who who've had a sure knowledge of Christ and have denied him. They're mean, nasty folk you don't want to be associated with. I'd say by and large most fallen away members have never had that knowledge. Based on what little I know of you, I'd say you don't have to worry about that, err... I mean... well... this is a skeptics forum, so yeah, you're not worried, I get that :D

Figures, I join and people just gotta get away. India's a little overdoing it though, don't you think? Have a great time!
Click to expand...
FWIW: re "sure knowledge", there is little basis for such a thing in either philosophy or science (there are even some who question whether or not the proofs of math are absolute). Leaving abstract math aside, there is much evidence for why we should be wary of such a claim or belief. I don't mean to patronize, please to forgive me if I am. Please see epistemology. To summarize, "sure knowledge" in either philosophy or science (with the possible exception of math) is very likely outside of human cognitive capability.

Let me give you an example. I've argued with many Islamists who claimed that they "knew" that Mohammad was god's prophet. The perpetrators of 9/11 likely thought they "knew" that god wanted them to fly those planes into the twin towers.

What is the difference between someone who believes he knows to such a certainty that he is willing to give up one's life and one who really knows?

Can we Know Anything? --Christianity and Cognitive Science

 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
In our Pre-Mortal existence, as Spirit-children of God and intelligent individuals, we each were at a different stage of progression and knowledge. We possessed the power and opportunity to choose both the course we would pursue and the leaders we would follow.
(snip)
Click to expand...

Really? Are you sure?

In fifteen minutes of clickin' 'round the 'net I can find enough horror stories to fill a forum.

You honestly want to say the victims of terrible diseases, horrific crimes, natural disasters, warfare and human mistakes chose their fates?

Can you provide any evidence of that?
 
You misunderstand DragonLady. The statement you quote is referring to our life in the Pre-existence, as per the opening words.

As for your comments referring to this lifetime, those points have been covered time and time again previously.
 
DragonLady said:
You honestly want to say the victims of terrible diseases, horrific crimes, natural disasters, warfare and human mistakes chose their fates?
Click to expand...
This is one of those ad hoc explanations that ignores the wealth of knowledge of human behavior and human psychology. It also brings up why god would choose such horrific punishments and what is the nature of human beings.

If you want to understand the various beliefs about god(s) then it's important to understand human psychology.

Why the Biblical God is So Human - God's Emotions 1

 
jsfisher said:
. . . Repeating your bit of fiction does not improve its truth.
Click to expand...

There is no shame in admitting that one's argument is erroneous.

You lost the debate when you claimed that the last sentence in the introduction refers to a fraction of the Book of Mormon (Book of Ether), rather than to the BoM in its entirety. That view is groundless--and absurd.

In any event, time to move on (but you're welcome to have the last word, futile though it will be).
 
skyrider44 said:
There is no shame in admitting that one's argument is erroneous.

You lost the debate when you claimed that the last sentence in the introduction refers to a fraction of the Book of Mormon (Book of Ether), rather than to the BoM in its entirety. That view is groundless--and absurd.

In any event, time to move on (but you're welcome to have the last word, futile though it will be).
Click to expand...
I've no horse in that race.

And why did Mormon officials meet in private to purchase forgeries from Mark Hoffman?
 
skyrider44 said:
There is no shame in admitting that one's argument is erroneous.

You lost the debate when you claimed that the last sentence in the introduction refers to a fraction of the Book of Mormon (Book of Ether), rather than to the BoM in its entirety. That view is groundless--and absurd.

In any event, time to move on (but you're welcome to have the last word, futile though it will be).
Click to expand...

skyrider44, since you're still posting, you wrote in post 1439 of this thread that you would address the charges against JS for glass-looking in another post. So far, you have not done so, unless I'm somehow missing it. Before you leave, could you follow through with your promise? Here's a link to your earlier post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8900825&postcount=1439
 
skyrider44 said:
There is no shame in admitting that one's argument is erroneous.

You lost the debate when you claimed that the last sentence in the introduction refers to a fraction of the Book of Mormon (Book of Ether), rather than to the BoM in its entirety. That view is groundless--and absurd.

In any event, time to move on (but you're welcome to have the last word, futile though it will be).
Click to expand...

How is finding the pre-Colombian barley going?
 
skyrider44 said:
There is no shame in admitting that one's argument is erroneous.

You lost the debate when you claimed that the last sentence in the introduction refers to a fraction of the Book of Mormon (Book of Ether), rather than to the BoM in its entirety. That view is groundless--and absurd.
Click to expand...

Very consistent with the rest of your beliefs -- assume the answer you want. Much easier that way. Moreover, your statement is still a strawman, and now repeated yet again, a bare faced lie. Congratulations on that. Lie for Jesus.


By the way, where's your proof the Joseph Smith wasn't a convicted con-artist? The public record seems clear.
 
tsig said:
They were never really true Mormons?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. Yes, they *were* Latter-day Saints. But the point is that there are different levels of church membership. I mean President Monson has a much stronger testimony than I do. :blush: Just based on Church doctrine I'd say that by far the majority of the people who've left the Church never had a strong enough witness to be categorized into Outer Darkness, that's not to say they didn't have a testimony at one time, or that they weren't sincere in their beliefs, or that they weren't really LDS, or anything else. I don't think I'd even be categorized into Outer Darkness, if I were to ever leave the Church.

Much beyond that, I have no further information, i.e. who exactly will go there, etc.
 
Cat Tale said:
I didn't say that. Yes, they *were* Latter-day Saints. But the point is that there are different levels of church membership. I mean President Monson has a much stronger testimony than I do. :blush: Just based on Church doctrine I'd say that by far the majority of the people who've left the Church never had a strong enough witness to be categorized into Outer Darkness, that's not to say they didn't have a testimony at one time, or that they weren't sincere in their beliefs, or that they weren't really LDS, or anything else. I don't think I'd even be categorized into Outer Darkness, if I were to ever leave the Church.

Much beyond that, I have no further information, i.e. who exactly will go there, etc.
Click to expand...

The Outer Darkness? We're in Harry Potter land.
 
Cat Tale said:
I didn't say that. Yes, they *were* Latter-day Saints. But the point is that there are different levels of church membership. I mean President Monson has a much stronger testimony than I do. :blush: Just based on Church doctrine I'd say that by far the majority of the people who've left the Church never had a strong enough witness to be categorized into Outer Darkness, that's not to say they didn't have a testimony at one time, or that they weren't sincere in their beliefs, or that they weren't really LDS, or anything else. I don't think I'd even be categorized into Outer Darkness, if I were to ever leave the Church.

Much beyond that, I have no further information, i.e. who exactly will go there, etc.
Click to expand...
To reemphasize my previous point, justifiable knowledge isn't something that can reasonably come from revelation. Why? We have too many examples of people who believe false things with a high degree of certainty. People who believe god speaks to them but we have very good reason to believe that they are wrong.

  • What's the difference between someone who is sincere, certain and wrong and someone who is sincere, certain and right?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom