LDS

[Empress]

Your razor-sharp debating style and knowledge of the subject at hand truly has us all writhing in the grasp of your superior arguments. Congratulations.

 

[Janadele]

Fortunately The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not rely on her enemies to decide what is doctrine:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C13
"Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?
Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).
Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?
No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2). "

 

[desertgal]

Your razor-sharp debating style and knowledge of the subject at hand truly has us all writhing in the grasp of your superior arguments. Congratulations.

Maybe she's just...well, not the sharpest pencil in the box? It would explain the lack of content to her posts, the tendency to copy/paste, the failure to answer questions, the silly smilies when she can't think of what else to say, her bizarre use of big words, and her inability to put down a single precise thought...AND her Jack Mormonism.

I don't think she understands the questions, folks.

 

[desertgal]

Fortunately The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not rely on her enemies to decide what is doctrine: <anti Mormon propoganda snipped>

Nope. You're wrong.

Cat Tale is true LDS. You are the Jack. We'll go with what she said.

 

[Janadele]

Of course. What else would one expect ?

 

[desertgal]

Of course. What else would one expect ?

 

[Pixel42]

Of course. What else would one expect ?

Given the contrast between the behaviour of Cat Tale and of yourself on this thread, no-one on the planet would expect anything else. I'm glad you recognise this.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Fortunately The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not rely on her enemies to decide what is doctrine:

<snip> "

Why then, do you think that those of us it pleases you to describe as "enemies" of the CJCLDS, or, for that matter, of any sect or cult in thrall to superstition, be subject to "rules" derived form that superstition, and invented to apply to members only?

 

[RandFan]

Dude.

Focus.

Anything but.... We are in red herring, gotcha heaven. Anything to avoid the salient issue.

Now, what in Mormon or LDS doctrine gives you the right to dictate who Non-Mormons can marry?

Good question, hopefully we will get an answer soon and not more distractions.

 

[Janadele]

then he'd be LDS right?

There are no denominations, as we know them, in the eternities. Baptism is required to be entered into to facilitate progression, but is not the only one, there are others.
My original response was more than sufficient. The question asked was totally INAPPROPRIATE as has also been the subsequent harping and discussion upon it... which itself has also certainly not warranted ANY response.

 

[halleyscomet]

Fortunately The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not rely on her enemies to decide what is doctrine:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-101#C13
"Do Latter-day Saints believe they can become “gods”?
Latter-day Saints believe that God wants us to become like Him. But this teaching is often misrepresented by those who caricature the faith. The Latter-day Saint belief is no different than the biblical teaching, which states, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:16-17). Through following Christ's teachings, Latter-day Saints believe all people can become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).
Do Latter-day Saints believe that they will “get their own planet”?
No. This idea is not taught in Latter-day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Mormons believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ’s statement that “in my Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2). "

That's a cute game of semantics. You deny the church teaches you get your own "planet" by creating an artificial distinction between that and the teaching you get your own "Earth" or "world." Deception by definition. How very "Freeman on the Land" of you Jan.

There are a number of official church publications. Here are some quotes used in official LDS publications.

10th President Joseph Fielding Smith

“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48, quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual, 1976, p.132)

"The real life we’re preparing for is eternal life. Secular knowledge has for us eternal significance. Our conviction is that God, our Heavenly Father, wants us to live the life that He does. We learn both the spiritual things and the secular things 'so we may one day create worlds [and] people and govern them' (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 386)." (Henry B. Eyring)

“Brethren, 225,000 of you are here tonight. I suppose 225,000 of you may become gods. There seems to be plenty of space out there in the universe. And the Lord has proved that he knows how to do it. I think he could make, or probably have us help make, worlds for all of us, for every one of us 225,000” (Spencer W. Kimball, “The Privilege of Holding the Priesthood,” Ensign (Conference Edition), November 1975, p. 80. Quoted in Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student Manual).

I can go on. Official LDS publications supporting Cat are not hard to find. The teaching isn't as prominent as it was in past decades, but it's still there.

 

[desertgal]

There are no denominations, as we know them, in the eternities. Baptism is required to be entered into to facilitate progression, but is not the only one, there are others.

Blah, blah, blah. All false testifyin'.

My original response was more than sufficient.

Wrong.

The question asked was totally INAPPROPRIATE as has also been the subsequent harping and discussion upon it... which itself has also certainly not warranted ANY response.

Wronger.

IOW, "I'm not going to respond because I can't think for myself." (Except to falsely testify in the name of Mormon church, of course.)

 

[halleyscomet]

There are no denominations, as we know them, in the eternities. Baptism is required to be entered into to facilitate progression, but is not the only one, there are others.
My original response was more than sufficient. The question asked was totally INAPPROPRIATE as has also been the subsequent harping and discussion upon it... which itself has also certainly not warranted ANY response.

You were doing OK with the first paragraph of your response. You actually addressed the question of if your husband will be LDS in the afterlife. It was one of the few genuine replies you've given.

The second paragraph however was just anger. As demonstrated by Cat's fine example, calm, honest, level headed answers engage us and make us want to learn more. If you seek to evangelize or educate you should look to her as a role model.

And no, your original answer was not "sufficient," not to us. If it were we would not have asked for clarification. Is this kind of hostility to questions how you taught your own children? If so, you've placed their continued dedication to the LDS church in jeopardy by leaving them woefully unprepared for the larger world.

 

[halleyscomet]

I will take you silence through smilies as evidence you have conceded my points. As you have now admitted you seek to establish a theocracy, I want to know what religions you expect to see banned. I'm sure the fanatics running a Mormon theocracy will be keen to execute non-Christians. What is your stance on Jews?

 

[Cat Tale]

Figures, I'd double post trying to edit to make it look prettier.

 

[Cat Tale]

This was brought to my attention and I don't want to leave the thread on an error, so...

Not necessarily. My family is pretty much Catholic. One of my cousins married someone of the Jewish faith. In order to marry in the Catholic church, they had to agree to raise children Catholic.

Oops, quick apology and gotta get to work. Shalamar you are correct. She had to agree to raise the children in the church, and chose to join so the family could attend church together. Hey, I was 8 at the time.

BTW, Janadele. I do believe that LDS scriptures trump anything that's on LDS.org. I gave scriptural evidence from the D&C 132 I'm gonna cut and paste the chapter heading here, as well as the introductory comments OFF LDS.ORG

D&C Section 132 heading: Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant and the principle of plural marriage. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, evidence indicates that some of the principles involved in this revelation were known by the Prophet as early as 1831. See Official Declaration 1.

1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods;

Vs. 19 "...Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths..." and v 20-21

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.

This is why it's important to study the scriptures and not just cut and paste off lds.org.

Now back to work

 

[Filippo Lippi]

I don't want to have "no end," that's the best bit.

 

[Wolrab]

Yes, you said that, but that isn't all you said, and it isn't the statement of your making to which I responded. In Post 8407, dated Oct. 18 [responding to Janadele] you wrote: "Again, I ask the question you have never answered: How can anything that happens among consenting adults lin the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all" [emphasis added].

I don't know anything about your home, but inasmuch as you were using it to make a representative, universal point, what I know or don't know about your home is irrelevant. The fact is, events can and do transpire between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes that affect the citizenry at large. Examples: they run a drug business out of their homes. . .they grow pot in their basements. . .they set up a counterfeiting operation. . . they design and implement an internet scam. . .they hack their way into sensitive government documents. Perhaps, however, you had sexual relationships in mind when you wrote what you did. I assume you are aware that near-suffocation of a female during intercourse is believed to heighten erotic pleasure. Sometimes that practice, carried too far, leaves the woman brain damaged. She ends up on in a long-term care facility on a ventilator. They have no medical insurance, nor do they have the resources to pay out-of-pocket. Who then finances the woman's care?

Your statement (the one to which I responded) simply isn't true. It's both simplistic and naive.

Look what happened from the privacy of Joseph Smith's various abodes: child rape, polygamy, fraud...

 

[Foster Zygote]

Yes, you said that, but that isn't all you said, and it isn't the statement of your making to which I responded. In Post 8407, dated Oct. 18 [responding to Janadele] you wrote:

"Again, I ask the question you have never answered: How can anything that happens among consenting adults lin the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all" [emphasis added].

I don't know anything about your home, but inasmuch as you were using it to make a representative, universal point, what I know or don't know about your home is irrelevant. The fact is, events can and do transpire between consenting adults in the privacy of their homes that affect the citizenry at large. Examples: they run a drug business out of their homes. . .they grow pot in their basements. . .they set up a counterfeiting operation. . . they design and implement an internet scam. . .they hack their way into sensitive government documents. Perhaps, however, you had sexual relationships in mind when you wrote what you did. I assume you are aware that near-suffocation of a female during intercourse is believed to heighten erotic pleasure. Sometimes that practice, carried too far, leaves the woman brain damaged. She ends up on in a long-term care facility on a ventilator. They have no medical insurance, nor do they have the resources to pay out-of-pocket. Who then finances the woman's care?

Your statement (the one to which I responded) simply isn't true. It's both simplistic and naive.

Are you arguing against all forms of sexual relations? Seriously, did you even think your argument through before posting it? Never mind, I've just remembered that you've presented links to material that actually contradicts your own arguments because you didn't bother to read them through before posting them.

But hey, it sure beats explaining why anyone should overlook the fact that the Book Of Mormon is contradicted by archaeology, paleontology and the human genome, and that the Book Of Abraham bears not the slightest resemblance to the actual narrative of the funerary texts from which Joseph Smith "translated" it.

 

[RandFan]

pakeha the link you refer to in your post 8531 is not an LDS site. The "mormon handbook" refered to is not from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many links Rand Fan has given in this thread have been to anti-Mormon sites, cleverly disguised so that the unwary could easily be unaware of their dubious motives and who is behind them.

Any genuine enquirer should seek their information from official LDS sites, and their affiliates such as Fair.

The Mormon Church A.) Has a history of being wrong. B.) Has a history of not telling the whole truth. I have been upfront with my links. I also, often, post links to FAIR and FARMS.

The following video is apropos to this particular discussion.

Tactics of a Mormon Apologist