LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
skyrider44 said:
Perhaps you will find the following instructive: "People use facts and opinions to make decisions; you [writer] must help them by showing clearly which is which. You must attribute all opinions and any facts for which there is no commonly accepted truth" The News Manual, Chapter 56, "Facts and Opinions," http://www.thenewsmanual.com Note: The link is inoperative (at least for the moment); consequently, enter "The News Manual" into your search engine.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. But nobody posting in this thread is writing for The News Manual, so we will continue to post according to the ethos and practice of this sceptics' forum. Facts are expected to be supported with citations; opinions are expected to be defended but need not have citations. The null hypothesis is the default. Logical fallacies will be pointed out.

Having said all that, any chance of a reply to my earlier question?
Janadele said:
No matter how many members there are, does not affect the fact that the Lord has spoken in these latter-days and is gathering his elect for the ushering in of the Millennium.
Click to expand...
Could you explain what this means, please? How do you or anyone know these are the 'latter-days', and what are the latter-days? What is "the Millennium" in this context?
 
Last edited:
Cat Tale said:
...I don't really know of any other Christian church that teaches a second chance after you die. Can I prove any of that? No. Does it seem ridiculous to you? Probably! ;)
Click to expand...

The thing is, Cat Tale, is that 'second chance' comes at the price of putting one's faith in a demonstrable con. I refer to the BOM and the BOA specifically.
Can the good news be built upon falsehood?
 
Janadele said:
The doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church are not designed to win a popularity contest, nor do they bend to suit the wims of mankind.
Click to expand...

Well, it's good you all keep your expectations reasonable and attainable. Now why don't you tell us what you really believe?
 
There is no need for smart alec replies re ex-members who may have neglected to remove their names
Click to expand...

I'd say it goes both ways.

BTW, I'd still like to know why you were insulting my Stake Patriarch, remember for us LDS the insult actually goes deeper than that.

Edited to add: I did nothing wrong sharing two words from it.
 
Last edited:
I don't really know of any other Christian church that teaches a second chance after you die.
Click to expand...

The Swedenborg church. Also, he was a Lutheran who was tried for heresy, which court ended in no finding (and so he is not a Lutheran heretic, and is in fact buried in Lutheran concscrated ground; the separate church arose after his death). Thus, the position is "reachable" within Lutheran orthodoxy.

Since Lutherans "invented" sola scriptura, that suggests that it might reachable in other ways, too. Also, there's a lot of thinking about the "sin" of "suicide." Obviously, any accommodation of sucide at all must offer a de facto "second chance" for repentance. Some of them are ingenious.

For example, you aren't dead until each and every cell in what was your body is dead. Meanwhile, your soul is operating outside of time. You have an eternity to repent, and it's still charged to your one and only chance.

As with God, with a good lawyer, all things are possible.
 
Last edited:
eight bits said:
The Swedenborg church. Also, he was a Lutheran who was tried for heresy, which court ended in no finding (and so he is not a Lutheran heretic, and is in fact buried in Lutheran concscrated ground; the separate church arose after his death). Thus, the position is "reachable" within Lutheran orthodoxy.

Since Lutherans "invented" sola scriptura, that suggests that it might reachable in other ways, too. Also, there's a lot of thinking about the "sin" of "suicide." Obviously, any accommodation of sucide at all must offer a de facto "second chance" for repentance. Some of them are ingenious.

For example, you aren't dead until each and every cell in what was your body is dead. Meanwhile, your soul is operating outside of time. You have an eternity to repent, and it's still charged to your one and only chance.

As with God, with a good lawyer, all things are possible.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I did not know that. ;)
 
abaddon said:
Originally Posted by Janadele
Patriachal Blessings are sacred and private.
Click to expand...

Really? so sacred and private that you felt free to post them on here, then failed at trying to hide them?
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I got curious on the specific doctrine about this, since Cat Tale had shared two words from hers earlier in the thread (that she had an "analytical mind"). Cat Tale explained to me that sharing a few words from one was okay, though you weren't supposed to share the entire thing, but I wanted evidence. ;)

The standard LDS sites like lds.org only talk about sharing the entire thing (okay for close family, not okay to the general public), but didn't address the issue of just sharing a few words publicly.

This confirms what Cat Tale told me pretty well, though. It's a 2011 talk by Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, so he's next in line to become the prophet of the church. In it, he says:

While patriarchal blessings are very private, I will share a short quote from mine: “You shall be guided through the whisperings of the Holy Spirit and you shall be warned of dangers. If you heed those warnings, our Heavenly Father will bless you so that you might again be united with your loved ones."
Click to expand...

They even have a footnote to the quote, as if it wasn't obvious enough:

"Patriarchal blessing of Boyd K. Packer, given by J. Roland Sandstrom, Jan. 15, 1944.
Click to expand...

So if it's wrong to share a brief quote from a patriarchal blessing, Cat Tale will apparently have good company in Outer Darkness. :D
 
pakeha said:
The thing is, Cat Tale, is that 'second chance' comes at the price of putting one's faith in a demonstrable con. I refer to the BOM and the BOA specifically.
Can the good news be built upon falsehood?
Click to expand...

Good question, and that's where faith comes in. I guess to me, it's simple, if I'm right I'll be pleased, if I'm wrong I won't care, so... if it makes me happy now.

And there's also something to be said about being among like minded people who hold the same moral code, i.e. don't drink, smoke, wear revealing clothes, swear... I know it's not logical but... :)
 
Cat Tale said:
You know, one of the weird things about me is I sought out the church rather than the other way around. I looked for a match for me, concluded it was the church (despite having never actually met a member) and called the missionaries and joined. So I guess the answer to what I find loving and comforting about my version of God, is that the Church fits in with what I wanted out of life. I think my answer to your next question might answer this more fully.



Based on my experience growing up in a different church, (Methodist), I saw a God who only rewarded a small portion of people, and that the rest of the world would be punished for eternity after death. I never really thought that was fair.

One thing that drew me to the LDS Church, and I think it draws a large number of converts, is that there is a second chance for non-believers in this life to accept it in the next. Not only that, but the deceased will have all the knowledge he had when he departed from this life. He suddenly wakes up from death, finds himself in Paradise with Mormon missionaries teaching him, I mean, wouldn't that be evidence? :D But on a more serious note, that is how I feel. That is something that enticed me to the LDS Church. I don't really know of any other Christian church that teaches a second chance after you die. Can I prove any of that? No. Does it seem ridiculous to you? Probably! ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer.
I would find a church where god just says 'sorry, my bad, I had a bad millennium or two, actually you all just end up in paradise' far more loving then one with a set of rules that have to be followed for forgiveness for something I did not do, especially the somewhat arbitrary and in my opinion unfounded ones of the LDS. But as you said, that is a matter of opinion.
 
Janadele said:
Pakeha: Where is that found as a doctrine?
Click to expand...

Brigham Young Blood Atonement Sermon:Journal of Discourses Vol. 4, p. 215-221
wiki said:
Blood Atonement. In Mormonism, blood atonement was a controversial doctrine that taught that murder is so heinous that the atonement of Jesus does not apply. Thus, to atone for these sins the perpetrators must have their blood shed upon the ground as a sacrificial offering. The concept was originally taught by Brigham Young, though it appears to be an expansion on the previous teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr. This doctrine is no longer accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church).

The doctrine originated during the Mormon Reformation, when Brigham Young governed the Utah Territory as a near-theocracy. Young and the other members of his First Presidency taught that the doctrine was ideally to be a voluntary choice by the sinner, carried out with love and compassion. Young considered it charitable to sacrifice a life than to see them endure eternal torment in the afterlife. In a full Mormon theocracy, blood atonement practice would be implemented by the state as a penal measure.
Click to expand...
 
Janadele said:
The doctrines and teachings of the LDS Church are not designed to win a popularity contest, nor do they bend to suit the whims of mankind.
Click to expand...

they just 'happened' to be amended by a prophet about polygamy and the issues of african americans at the same time it would be politically convenient for the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom