LDS

[RandFan]

Often the answer to what is sought, is not what the seeker wants to hear nor is willing to accept.

Quoting clichés doesn't make you sound as profound as you think. You would be a lot more persuasive if you didn't sound like Yoda.

It's a very common sentiment though expressed differently at times.

Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest

 

[Richard Masters]

Given the narrative from the BofM I don't have a problem with the Liahona (the putative compass). God gave it to Lehi. Granting the existence of god for the purpose of argument then that's no less plausible than Jor-El giving Superman the historical crystals (granting of course the existence of Krypton and Jor-EL).

It's a very common sentiment though expressed differently at times.

Agree on both counts.

 

[kerikiwi]

you have to be joking...

No.
An example please

 

[RandFan]

I was puzzled by the "too." Who else gets them?

The concept seems no sillier than a lot of lucky things people wear, and less sillier than, say, what some nuns, priests or the Amish have to wear, or yarmulkes, since at least they're hidden from view, but what I think is funny is how they keep shrinking to keep pace with fashion, always being just shorter than what a typical conservative person would wear in the US. You would think God would lead in fashions, rather than follow.

As I understand it, statements like Marriott's are not backed by doctrine. The garments are supposed to be a reminder of one's religion, not evil-proof kevlar, which is why there's no advantage to them being ankle-to-wrist and why Mormons die in fires and accidents like anyone else.

What really blows my mind is watching Dancing with the Stars, seeing Mormons on there nearly naked, or showing their little panties with leg lifts. I don't know if they've been to the temple, but they could have been. No matter how many time my wife explains, "You're allowed to take them off for athletic activities, which includes dancing," I still don't understand the logic. Not complaining, mind you. Just not reconciled to the logic.

Yeah, the Mormon Church is notorious for non-doctrinal beliefs. I've posted this site before. Holy Fetch: The Mormon Urban Legend Website. FWIW: Some Mormons refer to the legends as faith promoting rumors.

"As I say, it never ceases to amaze me how gullible some of our Church members are" --Admonitions for the Priesthood of God", Ensign, Jan 1973

 

[Janadele]

I write as I feel, usually spontaneously. Already too much of my time is spent on the internet, it would have been better spent elsewhere... no doubt others could say the same. In my case since 2006.

Paraphrasing clichés isn't persuasive either. It's common for Mormons and other religious people to make appeals to ignorance. What you said is equivalent to "The Lord works in mysterious ways", "we are not meant to know", "don't question God's plan".

None of these clichés answer the questions that were posed to you, which comes across as rather convenient and dishonest.

 

[Pup]

Agatha, the compass has been around for at least 1000 years.

Trivia point: 1 Nephi 18:21 would have taken place circa 590 B.C., according to the notes in my wife's edition of the Book of Mormon. He was not yet in the Americas, but was on shipboard having just left the Middle East.

I don't know a darn thing about the history of compasses (compii? ), but for those who do, there's a date and location to work with.

Edited to add: I do agree with RandFan above. Things which were divinely inspired, or brought over from the Middle East, aren't really anachronistic within the Book of Mormon, as long as one buys the initial premise, but that doesn't mean one can expect to find archaeological evidence of them, any more than one should expect to find Sherlock Holmes in the 1890 London census.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Women do not need to hold the Priesthood to be held in respect... the Priesthood serve the woman.

Just like women could be respected in the community before they were allowed to vote, or hold public offices? I'm sorry, but saying, "Women can't do this, only men can" relegates women to an inferior position. Ironically, it seems to me that the dogma regarding women and the priesthood is little different from the dogma regarding African Americans and the priesthood, or the dogma regarding polygamy. It will likely change when the obvious discrimination becomes too much of a political liability to continue.

Regardless anyway, it is a non negotiable point. The Lord God, creator of our earth, and our Heavenly Father does not need the advice of mere mortals, and non believing ones at that, as to how He should organise His Church.

Why are you participating in this forum if you are not interested in the opinions of those who's views differ from yours? Are you here only to proselytize?

 

[Richard Masters]

I write as I feel, usually spontaneously. Already too much of my time is spent on the internet, it would have been better spent elsewhere... no doubt others could say the same. In my case since 2006.

That's fine, but if your aim is to be productive and clear things up about your religion (or anything else for that matter), don't you agree that it would be better to actually attempt to answer people's questions instead of dodge them with generalities?

As it stands, some people here seem to know your religion better than you (examples: LDS stance on evolution, lack of official stance on hermaphroditism, the origins and history of the Book of Mormon). If you have any questions about your religion, feel free to ask. A lot of these arguments are not new to us.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal.

Please keep in mind that you have come to a forum that is maintained specifically for the critical examination of various metaphysical claims. If you are offended by questions and doubts concerning your beliefs, then I suggest that you may be on the wrong forum. It isn't as though we all came uninvited to some Mormon social event and started challenging everyone to defend their religious beliefs. I, for one, would never do such a thing and I'm sure that the vast majority of other skeptics that you've encountered here would show the same polite restraint. But simply by coming here and making claims you have invited others to comment, question and express doubt. It is not our intent to offend you or attack your character, but if you are offended by this then the problem is not ours.

 

[Richard Masters]

Trivia point: 1 Nephi 18:21 would have taken place circa 590 B.C., according to the notes in my wife's edition of the Book of Mormon. He was not yet in the Americas, but was on shipboard having just left the Middle East.

I don't know a darn thing about the history of compasses (compii? ), but for those who do, there's a date and location to work with.

Good point.

 

[RandFan]

Please keep in mind that you have come to a forum that is maintained specifically for the critical examination of various metaphysical claims. If you are offended by questions and doubts concerning your beliefs, then I suggest that you may be on the wrong forum. It isn't as though we all came uninvited to some Mormon social event and started challenging everyone to defend their religious beliefs. I, for one, would never do such a thing and I'm sure that the vast majority of other skeptics that you've encountered here would show the same polite restraint. But simply by coming here and making claims you have invited others to comment, question and express doubt. It is not our intent to offend you or attack your character, but if you are offended by this then the problem is not ours.

This ^^^

It's a waste of time to come here and preach. Most of us take skepticism and critical thinking seriously.

 

[Janadele]

I am perfectly aware of LDS Doctrines, all of which I fully support... whilst certainly I do not agree with the opinions of ex LDS and non believers. That you prefer to accept their interpretations and answers rather than mine does not mean that i have not given the official and correct answer... whether you and others have understood it or not.

For instance, how many times do I have to post that our Spiritual bodies are either male or female, there is no negotiation nor choice in the matter, but still you incorrectly state there is "no official stance".

As it stands, some people here seem to know your religion better than you (examples: LDS stance on evolution, lack of official stance on hermaphroditism, the origins and history of the Book of Mormon). If you have any questions about your religion, feel free to ask. A lot of these arguments are not new to us.

 

[kerikiwi]

For instance, how many times do I have to post that our Spiritual bodies are either male or female,

Once is enough for me.
How many times do I have to ask how you know?
I'll make it a two part question: a) that we have spiritual bodies
b) what genitalia they have

 

[ShadowSot]

For instance, how many times do I have to post that our Spiritual bodies are either male or female, there is no negotiation nor choice in the matter, but still you incorrectly state there is "no official stance".

Hermaphrodites?

 

[Janadele]

KeriKiwi: No matter how I know, you will not accept it to be so. Obviously it is LDS Doctrine, which you also do not accept, so further elaboration is not necessary.

 

[Richard Masters]

I am perfectly aware of LDS Doctrines, all of which I fully support...

You were not aware of the official stance on evolution

whilst certainly I do not agree with the opinions of ex LDS and non believers. That you prefer to accept their interpretations and answers rather than mine does not mean that i have not given the official and correct answer... whether you and others have understood it or not.

According to official LDS doctrines, you have not given the official and correct answer.

For instance, how many times do I have to post that our Spiritual bodies are either male or female, there is no negotiation nor choice in the matter, but still you incorrectly state there is "no official stance".

How does this address hermaphroditism? It doesn't. Who should a hermaphrodite marry on this earth? A male or a female, or another hermaphrodite? How about people with unusual chromosome combinations? You have not answered this question, which is what was asked from the beginning.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

KeriKiwi: No matter how I know, you will not accept it to be so. Obviously it is LDS Doctrine, which you also do not accept, so further elaboration is not necessary.

That did'nt really answer the question, Do spirits have genitalia, perhaps color coded auras?

You claimed that spirits have gender and it's been asked how do we determine said gender.

 

[Craig4]

What inaccuracies? Whatever is in the Book of Mormon is fact. It is Scripture.

So are you saying that you did not copy lists from anti-Mormon sites, but that instead you yourself read the Book of Mormon and isolated these quotes and researched yourself to prove that they were inaccurate?

How did you do such research? You were not living at that time and place in mortality. You may well have witnessed as a pre mortal spirit, but then you have no memory of that time.

You are then suggesting that there was cultivated barley in the pre-Colombian Americas? You do realize that no barely means no revelation and that the founder of your belief system is nothing but a shabby liar right?

 

[Craig4]

I am perfectly aware of LDS Doctrines, all of which I fully support... whilst certainly I do not agree with the opinions of ex LDS and non believers. That you prefer to accept their interpretations and answers rather than mine does not mean that i have not given the official and correct answer... whether you and others have understood it or not.

For instance, how many times do I have to post that our Spiritual bodies are either male or female, there is no negotiation nor choice in the matter, but still you incorrectly state there is "no official stance".

You posting it means nothing without evidence. The evidence will have to be better than the lies of the founders of your faith.

 

[Janadele]

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.