LDS

[skyrider44]

. . . Nowhere in the xianist bible is Jesus who is said to have been said to be "the Christ" said to have instituted, approved of, suggested, or called his followers to practice "baptism for the dead".

And nowhere in the Bible are Jesus's followers told to wear garments. . .or to live by a health code. . .or to undergo an interview to obtain a document granting admission to a temple. . .or to fast on the first Sunday of the month. . .or to serve two-year missions. . .or to pay tithing at 10%, etc.

Consequently, by your reasoning, Jesus's failure to specify those requirements (and others) means that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christians.

The Church is not a static institution; were it otherwise, there would be no need for a living prophet.

 

[deaman]

The church loves living profit.

 

[Slowvehicle]

And nowhere in the Bible are Jesus's followers told to wear garments. . .or to live by a health code. . .or to undergo an interview to obtain a document granting admission to a temple. . .or to fast on the first Sunday of the month. . .or to serve two-year missions. . .or to pay tithing at 10%, etc.

Exactly. Thank you for the admission that these LDS tenets are not in the xianist bible.

Consequently, by your reasoning, Jesus's failure to specify those requirements (and others) means that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christians.

Not by my reasoning. IMO, all of the various forms of xianist superstitons are equally a-historical, equally unreasonable, equally based on myth and wishful thinking. The discussion came about because of what other xianists think of the xianist credentials of LDS.

The Church is not a static institution; were it otherwise, there would be no need for a living prophet.

In other words, as I have said in other threads, you feel free to invent anything that fits your particular brand of superstition, from institutionalizing racism to telling lies about history, and say that "Jesus is the authority" for whatever you choose to do. The only source for that claimed "authority" supposed to be granted by Jesus who was said to be said to be "the Chrst" is contentious texts rejected by other xianists. Which is why so many other xianists do not consider LDS to be xianist.

With or without the approval of other xianist groups, the BoA is demonstrably not Abraham's autographic record of his time in Egypt; pre-Colombian Americans are demonstrably not descended form asiatic hebrews; and (as you yourself admitted) there is no practical, objective, empirical evidence of the anachronisms claimed in the BoM to have existed in the pre-Colombian Americas.

 

[RandFan]

And nowhere in the Bible are Jesus's followers told to wear garments. . .or to live by a health code. . .or to undergo an interview to obtain a document granting admission to a temple. . .or to fast on the first Sunday of the month. . .or to serve two-year missions. . .or to pay tithing at 10%, etc.

Consequently, by your reasoning, Jesus's failure to specify those requirements (and others) means that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not Christians.

No. It means that those things were never authorized by Jesus in the Bible.

The Church is not a static institution; were it otherwise, there would be no need for a living prophet.

If we grant the premise that there is a "living prophet".

That was the most difficult thing for me. A person who talks to god but god does not tell that person important information. Brigham Young was a "living prophet" who declared forcibly that his words were from god. Much of what he has said has since been rejected by the Church. The racism, Adam God, Blood Doctrine, etc..

Supposedly a living god told the saints not to drink hot water but that god neglected to tell them to boil their water before they drink it (if not drinking it hot were really important he could have instructed them to let it cool).

The fact is that the proscription against hot drinks has not likely saved any lives but the failure to instruct the saints to boil their water resulted in many deaths.

Then there was Mark Hoffman, his fraud, and Church leaders meeting with Hoffman behind closed doors. Why did god not warn the Church?

• No novel (unique) wisdom provided to Mormons or the world by this living prophet.
• Many very serious and glaring omissions that god could have communicated to the Church but chose something trivial and/or provided information that was already in the public domain.

To an outsider the apologetics look ad hoc and are not at all compelling.

 

[skyrider44]

RandFan;9479571]A.) Dogma is not per se pejorative. B.) LDS doctrine is dogma by definition.

Both A and B take liberties with the truth.

Re. A: c. dogma: "a point of view or alleged authoriative tenet put forth as dogma without adequate grounds; an arrogant or vehement expression of opinion." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, p. 668)

Re. B: Based on the foregoing definition, LDS doctrine is not dogma.

 

[jsfisher]

Both A and B take liberties with the truth.

Re. A: c. dogma: "a point of view or alleged authoriative tenet put forth as dogma without adequate grounds; an arrogant or vehement expression of opinion." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, p. 668)

Re. B: Based on the foregoing definition, LDS doctrine is not dogma.

If that were the only possible meaning of 'dogma' then you might be right, but it isn't, now, is it? You would need to rule out all of the other definitions before you can conclude "LDS doctrine is not dogma."

Consider the full set of the Merriam Webster definitions:

1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2
: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

...or perhaps The Free Dictionary site is more to your liking:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.
3. A principle or belief or a group of them: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present" (Abraham Lincoln).

 

[Olowkow]

Funny. A man says "Dogma is not per se pejorative." and it becomes "dogma is not .....pejorative" in Mormon speak, and therefore untrue.

Just like the LDS article I keep asking about. I feel like I am being conned by "clever" manipulation of the language.

 

[Olowkow]

Three senses of the meaning, for native speakers of English. You don't get to pick one from the list like a Chinese food menu. The word conveys all three subtleties.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
Definition of DOGMA

1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

 

[Slowvehicle]

Both A and B take liberties with the truth.

Re. A: c. dogma: "a point of view or alleged authoriative tenet put forth as dogma without adequate grounds; an arrogant or vehement expression of opinion." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, p. 668)

Re. B: Based on the foregoing definition, LDS doctrine is not dogma.

Cherry-pick much?

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

dog·ma
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. (See Synonyms at doctrine.)
3. A principle or belief or a group of them.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogma

dogma
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a religious doctrine or system of doctrines proclaimed by ecclesiastical authority as true
2. (Philosophy) a belief, principle, or doctrine or a code of beliefs, principles, or doctrines Marxist dogma
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/misc/HarperCollinsProducts.aspx?English

dog•ma
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively put forth, as by a church.
3. prescribed doctrine: political dogma.
4. an established belief or principle.
http://www.kdictionaries-online.com...e=18#&&DictionaryEntry=dogma&SearchMode=Entry

dog·ma
1.an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church. Synonyms: doctrine, teachings, set of beliefs, philosophy.
2.a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church: the dogma of the Assumption; the recently defined dogma of papal infallibility. Synonyms: tenet, canon, law.
3.prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group: the difficulty of resisting political dogma.
4.a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle: the classic dogma of objectivity in scientific observation. Synonyms: conviction, certainty.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dogma

and,
dogma
1. a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church.
3.prescribed doctrine.
4. a settels or established opinion, belief, or principle.
RHWUD2, p. 579 (so you can find it).

So, no: the word "dogma" is not, per se, pejorative. It is merely descriptive.
And, yes, given your propensity to blame the lack of evidence for LDS claims on others' preparation, or ability to interpret mormon scholarship, your presentation of LDS dogma is an arrogation. And lacks what others would accept as evidence.

By definition (if you insist on argumentum ad lexicon), LDS doctrine is, in fact, "dogma". This is not a condemnation, merely a description. The protestant denial of transubstantiation is a dogma. The Catholic insistence on transubstantiation is a dogma.

 

[skyrider44]

Exactly. Thank you for the admission that these LDS tenets are not in the xianist bible.

Now you undertake an exercise in diversion. Initially, you say the Church is not Christian because it teaches a principle Jesus did not teach (baptism for the dead). When reminded that the Church teaches/practices other principles not taught by Jesus, you use that fact as additional proof that the Church isn't Christian, failing to 1) understand that the Church is a dynamic, evolving entity led by a living prophet; and 2) Jesus expressly commissioned, by means of the Holy Ghost, his disciples to carry on his work after he was no longer with them. Paul, in particular (on the road to Damascus) was charged with continuing Jesus' work. Point: Jesus's successors were authorized by Him to continue his work, including instituting practices Jesus did not institute during his mortal ministry. Note, too, that you and others have been quick to criticize the Bible as being afflicted with numerous errors and "black holes." How do you know what Jesus told his disciples that is not recorded in the NT? The truth is, you don't know.

Not by my reasoning. IMO, all of the various forms of xianist superstitons are equally a-historical, equally unreasonable, equally based on myth and wishful thinking. The discussion came about because of what other xianists think of the xianist credentials of LDS.

Why should I care what other xianists think or believe or practice?

In other words, as I have said in other threads, you feel free to invent anything that fits your particular brand of superstition, from institutionalizing racism to telling lies about history, and say that "Jesus is the authority" for whatever you choose to do.

You extend credit to me for developments not of my making.

The only source for that claimed "authority" supposed to be granted by Jesus who was said to be said to be "the Chrst" is contentious texts rejected by other xianists. Which is why so many other xianists do not consider LDS to be xianist.

Is it your practice to conduct your life based on what others believe? Do you think you could be hypersensitive to criticism?

With or without the approval of other xianist groups, the BoA is demonstrably not Abraham's autographic record of his time in Egypt; pre-Colombian Americans are demonstrably not descended form asiatic hebrews; and (as you yourself admitted) there is no practical, objective, empirical evidence of the anachronisms claimed in the BoM to have existed in the pre-Colombian Americas.

True, based on this point in time. But you don't know what scientists will discover in the years ahead re. anachronisms in the BoM and asiatic hebrews.
You don't know, unless you are willing to confess that science is a static disciipline that never makes mistakes.

 

[RandFan]

Re. A: c. dogma: "a point of view or alleged authoriative tenet put forth as dogma without adequate grounds...

Not only are there no adequate grounds there are NO grounds. By your logic "faith" is pejorative.

Perhaps it should be pejorative but we give some slack for a Santa Claus for adults (let me be clear, that was pejorative but accurate).

 

[Slowvehicle]

Now you undertake an exercise in diversion. Initially, you say the Church is not Christian because it teaches a principle Jesus did not teach (baptism for the dead). When reminded that the Church teaches/practices other principles not taught by Jesus, you use that fact as additional proof that the Church isn't Christian, failing to 1) understand that the Church is a dynamic, evolving entity led by a living prophet; and 2) Jesus expressly commissioned, by means of the Holy Ghost, his disciples to carry on his work after he was no longer with them. Paul, in particular (on the road to Damascus) was charged with continuing Jesus' work. Point: Jesus's successors were authorized by Him to continue his work, including instituting practices Jesus did not institute during his mortal ministry. Note, too, that you and others have been quick to criticize the Bible as being afflicted with numerous errors and "black holes." How do you know what Jesus told his disciples that is not recorded in the NT? The truth is, you don't know.

No diversion at all on my part. Responding to your claim that there is not a single LDS dogma, or doctrine, or practice, for which Jesus is not "the authority", I pointed out (and will continue to point out) that there is a raft, a veritable plethora, of LDS practices for which the "authority" of Jesus who is said to have been said to be "the christ" must be assumed or invented--as it is recorded nowhere but in documents that uniquely claim that "authority". The only place that "baptism for the dead" is promulgated as a doctrine is in LDS-specific texts outside the xianist "bible". You may create a document that claims the "authority" of he who is said to have been said to be "the christ" for any number of things; it is a stretch, an arrogation, an exercise in superstition, to claim that the said document "demonstrates" the claimed "authority". Many xianists claim the "authority" of he who is said to have been said to be "the christ" as support for their fear and hatred of the LGBT community, despite the fact that he is never recorded (in the xianist bible) as having addressed homosexuality at all.

Why should I care what other xianists think or believe or practice?

When your polity is egregious to mainstream xianism, it is up to you to demonstrate why mainstream xianists have no right to suspect your mainstream xianism. As I said, I find all flavors of xianism equally fabulous, equally superstition-based, equally divorced form evidence.

You extend credit to me for developments not of my making.

Are you claiming that your sect does not tell lies about history?
(cough)BoA (cough)

Are you claiming that the LDS did not institutionalize racism?

Are you claiming that the "3 levels of glory", and the whole "man becoming gods" thing, and any number of other LDS dogmata are not unique to the LDS, and attested to only in LDS documents (and controverted documents, at that...)?

Or are you claiming that you (as an LDS) are not responsible for the errors and abuses of the LDS as a whole?

Is it your practice to conduct your life based on what others believe? Do you think you could be hypersensitive to criticism?

You made a false claim in order to dodge the fact that you cannot produce the requested evidence. You have never produced the requested evidences. You cannot produce any. You continue to dodge. An insult is like a drink--it can only affect you if you accept it. I know the quality of my preparation. It is annoying to watch a self-proclaimed xianist attempt to denigrate it, to distract from a patent lack of evidences, by bearing false witness.

True, based on this point in time. But you don't know what scientists will discover in the years ahead re. anachronisms in the BoM and asiatic hebrews.
You don't know, unless you are willing to confess that science is a static disciipline that never makes mistakes.

Well, almost. At this point, it has been demonstrated that the peoples of the pre-Colombian Americas do not share significant DNA specific to asiatic hebrews. Of course, at some future time, a hitherto-undiscovered group of isolated peoples might be found--but the nature of the settlement of the Americas argues against it. At this point in time, the claim that "native americans" are descended from the "lost tribes of Israel" has been demonstrated not to be true.

What you continue to fail to understand is that the issue is not that no single horse fossil dating from later than 12,000 ya has been found in the pre-Colombian Americas. What is even more telling is that in the entire continent there has been found not one horse-suitable road; not one chariot-navigable highway; not one horse-appropriate stable, not one artistic representation of an equid; not a single piece of tack.

When you present evidence to the contrary, I will cheerfully examine it--in the meantime, it simply beggars the imagination for you to claim that I should accept the BoM as historically accurate because of what might be discovered in the future.

 

[Prometheus]

I did not write the sentence in which the error was made. As I recall, the poster was referring to "body and soul"--wording to that effect.

No, the original error that spawned this exchange was in a line of scripture which you quoted. Pixie pointed out that the line in question was in error, to which you responded by mistaking the error Pixie noted for a different 'error' altogether--which in fact is not an error at all but merely an alternate sense. It actually makes my head hurt to contemplate how many levels deep the FAIL is with this one.

You have changed the parameters; hence, your examples, though correct, do not apply to my point.

No, I have not done so. MY point is that you have no point. You arbitrarily (and unsuccessfully) chose to attack a grammatical strawman.

The overarching rule, expressed by professional grammarians, indicates that my point about "one and one is two" is correct, to wit: "When the subject stands for a definable unit, such as money, measurement, time, and food combinations, the verb is, indeed, singular: Where IS my $50? Three months IS a long time to wait." (Daily Writing Tiips [available on the Internet])

The example you provide is correct, but irrelevant. I am a college writing/grammar instructor (this statement is also true, but irrelevant )

Another example: "When a seemingly compound and plural subject comes to be regarded as singular through popular usage [the verb is singular]:
corned beef and cabbage is an Irish tradition." (About.com: "Grammar and Composition"

Corned Beef and Cabbage are two of the ingredients in a traditional New England Boiled Dinner.

The site Word reference.com simply states "One plus one is two" is correct.

Yes it is. That fact does not support your case.

And Answers.com asks "Which is correct, 'one and one IS two' or 'one and one ARE two'"? It responds: "The correct wording is 'one and one IS two.'"

If you are referring to the arithmetical operation, then that is correct. "One and one are two" is also correct, if you are describing a pair of pronouns.

 

[skyrider44]

No diversion at all on my part. Responding to your claim that there is not a single LDS dogma, or doctrine, or practice, for which Jesus is not "the authority", I pointed out (and will continue to point out) that there is a raft, a veritable plethora, of LDS practices for which the "authority" of Jesus who is said to have been said to be "the christ" must be assumed or invented--as it is recorded nowhere but in documents that uniquely claim that "authority".

I have not said "that there is not a single LDS dogma, or doctrine, or practice,for which Jesus is not 'the authority.'" Please be accurate.

The only place that "baptism for the dead" is promulgated as a doctrine is in LDS-specific texts outside the xianist "bible". You may create a document that claims the "authority" of he who is said to have been said to be "the christ" for any number of things; it is a stretch, an arrogation, an exercise in superstition, to claim that the said document "demonstrates" the claimed "authority".

As I noted in my earlier post, you have been among those who have denigrated the Bible. You don't deny that, do you? It's interesting, then, that (I'll say it again) you don't know what Jesus may have told his disciples re. baptism for the dead or any other practices. Thus you cannot say that Jesus did not sanction the practice.

: Many xianists claim the "authority" of he who is said to have been said to be "the christ" as support for their fear and hatred of the LGBT community, despite the fact that he is never recorded (in the xianist bible) as having addressed homosexuality at all.

How is that relevant to our present exchange?

When your polity is egregious to mainstream xianism, it is up to you to demonstrate why mainstream xianists have no right to suspect your mainstream xianism.

They have every right to suspect it, and they do. So what?

: As I said, I find all flavors of xianism equally fabulous, equally superstition-based, equally divorced form evidence.

Fine. Am I supposed to be impressed? Are you the ultimate arbiter?

: Are you claiming that your sect does not tell lies about history?
(cough)BoA (cough)

I don't belong to a sect; your question does not merit an answer because it is prejudicial.

: Are you claiming that the LDS did not institutionalize racism?

Covering the waterfront here, huh? But to answer your accusation, no, I make no such claim. Racism in the Church was initiated by Brigham Young, who made the error of "going with the flow" of his era. It's a sad, tragic chapter in the history of the Church.

Are you claiming that the "3 levels of glory", and the whole "man becoming gods" thing, and any number of other LDS dogmata are not unique to the LDS, and attested to only in LDS documents (and controverted documents, at that...)?

Are you unaware of 1 Cor. 15:39-42 and Rev. 21?

Or are you claiming that you (as an LDS) are not responsible for the errors and abuses of the LDS as a whole?

I do not hold the keys that would enable me to be responsible for the "errors and abuses of the LDS as a whole." Surely you jest.

You made a false claim in order to dodge the fact that you cannot produce the requested evidence. You have never produced the requested evidences. You cannot produce any. You continue to dodge. An insult is like a drink--it can only affect you if you accept it. I know the quality of my preparation. It is annoying to watch a self-proclaimed xianist attempt to denigrate it, to distract from a patent lack of evidences, by bearing false witness.

No evidence exists, regardless of how compelling, that would be acceptable to you.

: Well, almost. At this point, it has been demonstrated that the peoples of the pre-Colombian Americas do not share significant DNA specific to asiatic hebrews. Of course, at some future time, a hitherto-undiscovered group of isolated peoples might be found--but the nature of the settlement of the Americas argues against it. At this point in time, the claim that "native americans" are descended from the "lost tribes of Israel" has been demonstrated not to be true.

Thank you for admitting that what you "know" today may be reversed or at least extensively changed tomorrow.

: What you continue to fail to understand is that the issue is not that no single horse fossil dating from later than 12,000 ya has been found in the pre-Colombian Americas. What is even more telling is that in the entire continent there has been found not one horse-suitable road; not one chariot-navigable highway; not one horse-appropriate stable, not one artistic representation of an equid; not a single piece of tack.

All of which is true--today.

When you present evidence to the contrary, I will cheerfully examine it--in the meantime, it simply beggars the imagination for you to claim that I should accept the BoM as historically accurate because of what might be discovered in the future.

I'm not asking you to accept anything--not a single aspect--of the LDS Church. It would, however, be a good idea for you to keep an open mind about issues subject to change as science continues to put them under a microscope.

 

[Kopji]

I for one, am still holding out hope for evidence that cavemen rode the backs of Mastodons playing while playing an early version of polo.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I for one, am still holding out hope for evidence that cavemen rode the backs of Mastodons playing while playing an early version of polo.

Hmm. I think I read that in the bottom of a hat.

 

[Kopji]

the glory of God is intelligence

There is a strong assertion in Mormonism that revelation is a source of knowledge. So much so, that given the proper conditions faith itself is a form of certitude. A true believer 'knows' beyond mere faith. Seekers are told to read the book for themselves and pray about it.

But it is a logical error to say that if someone reads the book and feels it is true, that the Utah LDS is "true". Utah LDS, despite their larger numbers, are a sect among several types of Mormonism. To read the Book of Mormon and believe it is from God, even truly translated by Joseph Smith, says NOTHING about the rightness or wrongness of any of the sects.

These different sectarian beliefs might be true, partially true, or false. Perhaps they are even something like a work of art that is false, but tells a truth. How would we choose? The sects can't all be true, they promote many differences in belief that are incompatible. I'd be willing to bet that few Mormons ever hear that message though - they are never taught there are other types of Mormonism, just as they are kept in the dark about things like the Kinderhook Plates - a known fraud that Joseph Smith believed and then the church rejected.

So pray harder. Which church should I join? The church with more riches? More power? Better internal coherence? More charitable works? Or maybe God will give further revelation on the subject - but why is God the author of so much confusion in the first place? Isn't all this sectarianism what revelation was supposed to do away with? Or maybe this is all a test.

Science has a better way than faith, it is called falsification. Simply - NOT ALL THINGS CAN BE TRUE - but the things that aren't true are valuable in helping decide the things that are. That is such a simple idea, but completely lost in the realm of God - with God all things are possible.

So - what might prove LDS untrue? What evidence could any of us bring?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have not said "that there is not a single LDS dogma, or doctrine, or practice,for which Jesus is not 'the authority.'" Please be accurate.

Why yes, you are right--you bragged:

"And I'm still waiting for a single example of an ordinance performed in an LDS church or temple that does not acknowledge Christ as the authority for that ordinance.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9478095#post9478095

I maintain that what I said is a fair paraphrase, given your tone. Your implication is certainly that you claim the "authority" of the Jesus of which it was said that he was said to be "the christ". If you are admitting that there are LDS dogma of which that is not true, I will retract my implication. If not, you should stand by your braggadocio.

As I noted in my earlier post, you have been among those who have denigrated the Bible. You don't deny that, do you?

If by "denigrated the bible", you mean that I have pointed out that a cursory examination of what is left of the xianists texts demonstrates them to be a poorly-edited and sectarially redacted collection of at least 4 different sources into at least two different traditions, for at least two different reasons, yes. I have studied the bible extensively. I am aware of its failures as literature, as science, and as a cohesive document.

It's interesting, then, that (I'll say it again) you don't know what Jesus may have told his disciples re. baptism for the dead or any other practices. Thus you cannot say that Jesus did not sanction the practice.

But I do know (I'll say it again) that your claims are not contained in the xianist bible, but in egregious texts. I can, and do, say that the xianist bible cannot be used to demonstrate that the "authority" for the LDS dogma of "baptism for the dead" comes from the Jesus said to have been said the be "the christ" as contained in the xianist scriptures. If you want to invent a document that has extrabiblical claims of what he is said to have said you are free to do so; but at the cost of admitting why mainstream xianists do not accept your claim, nor consider the LDS to be mainstream xianists.

IOW, it is perfectly accurate to say that the Jesus recorded in the xianist scriptures did not institute, mandate, or commission "baptism for the dead". You are, of course, free to provide contrary evidence.

How is that relevant to our present exchange?

The claim that Jesus spoke out against homosexuality is as much a fabrication as the claim that Jesus instituted "baptism for the dead".
Do try to keep up.

They have every right to suspect it, and they do. So what?

What evidence do you offer that the xianist bible supports your claims?

Fine. Am I supposed to be impressed? Are you the ultimate arbiter?

No. You are supposed to pay attention, and realize that trying to divert the issue does not change the fact that I did not say that I thought thhat LDS are not xianists. I said that other mainsteam xianists do not accept LDS as mainstream xianist.

I don't belong to a sect; your question does not merit an answer because it is prejudicial.

sect
1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

Are you claiming that the BoA is, in fact, Abraham's autographic record of his time in Egypt, and that it is not at all unusual for standard Egyptian funerary texts to contain distinctly anti-Egyptian material? Are you claiming that Smith's "translation" of the Book of Breathing has been widely used toaid in the translation of other texts?

I am not surprised at your evasion. And, by definition, LDS is a sect no less that the Southern Baptist Convention.

Covering the waterfront here, huh? But to answer your accusation, no, I make no such claim. Racism in the Church was initiated by Brigham Young, who made the error of "going with the flow" of his era. It's a sad, tragic chapter in the history of the Church.

In other words, there have been dogmata of the LDS not based upon the "authority" of Jesus who was said to have been said to be "the christ". And, (to coin a phrase) you don't know which existing dogmata will be discovered not to be based on that "authority" in the future...

Are you unaware of 1 Cor. 15:39-42

I am certainly aware that this passage does not constitute Jesus who was said to have been said to be "the christ" instituting a dogma of "three levels of glory".

and Rev. 21?

...it is almost as if you are unaware that this passage (which does not institute "three levels of glory") was not said to be spoken by Jesus who was said to have been said to be "the christ"...

I do not hold the keys that would enable me to be responsible for the "errors and abuses of the LDS as a whole." Surely you jest.

1. Don't call me Shirley.

2. Are you saying that you, as an LDS, are free to repudiate LDS dogmata?

No evidence exists, regardless of how compelling, that would be acceptable to you.

What "compelling", practical, empirical, physical evidence, attested to by neutral scholars, for the anachronisms claimed by the BoM to have existed in the Pre-Colombian Americas have you offered at all?

I have been patiently asking for such for a good while--all I have been offered is hoaxes, apologetics, and vague linguistic excuses. I will happily keep waiting for actual evidence.

Thank you for admitting that what you "know" today may be reversed or at least extensively changed tomorrow.

...and when actual, practical, empirical evidence, attested to by neutral scholars, is produced, I will read it with fascination.

All of which is true--today.

I'm not asking you to accept anything--not a single aspect--of the LDS Church. It would, however, be a good idea for you to keep an open mind about issues subject to change as science continues to put them under a microscope.

Which is your way of ignoring what I said about the quality of the lack of evidence for the anachronisms claimed to have existed in the BoM in the pre-Colombian Americas.

Bring me evidence and I will be fascinated.

Until you have evidence, you ought to be moire careful not to make dogmatic claims of faith as if they were demonstrated by reality.

 

[RandFan]

¹I don't belong to a sect; ²your question does not merit an answer because it is prejudicial.

1. By multiple definitions you do belong to a sect.
2. It's rather difficult to ask a non prejudicial question of the Mormon Church? By your logic a person's question regarding the honesty of a Mafia boss would no merit an answer because it is prejudicial. Finally, prejudicial is not per se a fallacy. Ariel Castro kidnapped, imprisoned, rapped and caused one of his captors to abort her fetus. By your logic we cannot ask Ariel if he had kept the women's presence a secret because that would be prejudicial.

Covering the waterfront here, huh? But to answer your accusation, no, I make no such claim. Racism in the Church was initiated by Brigham Young, who made the error of "going with the flow" of his era. It's a sad, tragic chapter in the history of the Church.

I think it started much earlier but we can set that aside, why on Earth would god tell Joseph Smith, at the point of death with a fiery sword, to marry multiple women but he couldn't bring himself to tell Brother Brigham to knock it off with the racism? Why does the god you believe in sound arbitrary and capricious? Why does the words of god emanating from the Mormon Church sound more like the predilections and prejudices of the men claiming to speak for god/?

No evidence exists, regardless of how compelling, that would be acceptable to you.

I can change my mind. I loved the Mormon culture and still do. Nearly everyone I know and love is Mormon. There is much reason for me to believe but I find nothing compelling that would cause me to go back.

Thank you for admitting that what you "know" today may be reversed or at least extensively changed tomorrow.

All of which is true--today.

I'm not asking you to accept anything--not a single aspect--of the LDS Church. It would, however, be a good idea for you to keep an open mind about issues subject to change as science continues to put them under a microscope.

Perhaps science will come to find out that heliocentrism is wrong, that gravity is actually angels pushing us down, that quantum mechanics is all wrong that we live in a world of fairies, demons, leprechauns, alien abductions.

For mellenia whenever there was a conflict between science and metaphysics/supernatural, science was always the answer. The empirical scorecard is incalculable on the side of science and 0 on the side of the supernatural. The gaps in our knowledge where god can hide are getting fewer and smaller every day.

The trend is not looking good.

 

[Pup]

On the LDS church being Christian....

I fully agree that members of many other Christian sects say that the LDS church isn't Christian (though some say it is).

But from my view, I can't understand how it could not be.

Hypothetically, I say to somebody: "I could never be Christian. I don't believe that Jesus was more than a regular man, if he even existed. I don't believe the Bible is divinely inspired or that most of the stuff in it happened. I don't believe that there's salvation through Jesus or that there's a heaven or that God is our father who created the earth."

And somebody hypothetically answers: "If you don't want to believe all that Christian stuff, try the Mormons. They're not Christian."

Wut? The difference between the LDS church and other Christian churches is so minute, from my outside view, that they might as well be the same. But to another Christian, I guess, the differences are huge. It reminds me of this old joke.