LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks to Empress for the clarification. I hope Janadele realizes that we cannot always parse Mormon terminology here, and that comprehension requires a common language. It would not have occurred to me that "in mortality" refers to life preceding death rather than death after life.

So now, as I understand it, gender non-specificity is both spiritual and physical during life, but we presume that this is not the case after death.

Janadele, is this now correct?
 
Bruto... Mortality means in this mortal life.

There will be no confusion in our life hereafter. Our perfect Spiritual body will be united with a perfect Resurrected body for the eternities...as our Heavenly Father and Jesus have now.
bruto said:
Maybe you need to tell us more specifically what you mean by the phrase "in mortality." I assume this means "in death." If it means "in life" then it's not a very good choice of words.
Click to expand...
 
Ambrosia said:
Of course. the point here is that the LDS church believe that the bible is the Holy word of God.

Bit of a sticking point.
Click to expand...

Not really. I think you're missing the concept, which I guess is mind-boggling for those who are used to normal Christian culture, that the LDS church believes that revelation is ongoing. To them, modern revelation is just as scriptural as what's in the Bible. God can speak to prophets today just like he could in Biblical days. God could make a new pronouncement tomorrow that's just as official, binding, whatever you want to call it, as anything printed in the Bible, in the same way that he dictated the Bible.

I'm not getting such a divine, "direct word of God" feeling here.
Click to expand...

That's probably what a lot of people said when some random Jewish guy started spouting off all these things that contradicted the Torah circa 30 A.D. :) Obviously you're not. I'm not either. But obviously lots of people do, from both the Bible and/or the Book of Mormon, and they think their personal opinion is just as good as ours.

Direct word of god would be god writes down what he is saying in a gold (or any other kind of book) in contemporary language.
Click to expand...

That's no different than a Mormon defining what it is, or a Jew, or a Catholic. It's just one person's opinion.

As folks here would say: Evidence.

There is no evidence for what the direct word of god is, because there's no evidence for god, so once one accepts the premise that there is a god, the field is wide open to define how he communicates with people.

The direct word could be the voices a schizophrenic hears, it could be what's written in the Bible but nowhere else, it could be what a certain human says. Each religion can make up its own definitions.

The book of Mormon was translated from words apparently of an indigenous American prophet circa AD 400.
Click to expand...

You're missing the part where Mormons claim it was translated by divine inspiration. In other words, the Bible was translated by men, while the Book of Mormon was translated by God.

On top of all of that it's revised in later editions so just how divine and accurate can it be? Polygamy(?) really?!?
Click to expand...

Um, I think your ignorance of LDS doctrine and history is showing here. The Book of Mormon hasn't been revised with any significant changes, other than a few words here and there, and putting it into chapters and verses rather than plain text.

Possibly you're mixing it up with the Doctrine and Covenants?

You seem to be coming at this from a modern Jewish-Protestant/Catholic-centered view, starting with a baseline that the "normal" Judeo-Christian viewpoint is okay, but anything besides that is weird. I'm coming from the viewpoint that all religion is equally weird, so I don't see why polygamy deserves a "really?" any more than, say, "cutting off the foreskin? really?" or "dunking kids in water? really?"

The bible is considerably more accurate and has archeological, historical evidence to complement it... (Not that the bible is worth the paper it's written on either imo but hey)
Click to expand...

As far as I know, the Bible is more accurate because it had the benefit of being written by people closer to the time and place when most of it is set, but it still has major historical errors (even outside the supernatural stuff), due to things the authors couldn't have known or were transcribing as legends.

The Book of Mormon suffers from the fact that Joseph Smith was writing about a period he knew virtually nothing about, so of course there are more mistakes.

If you want accuracy, check out the Doctrine & Covenants. Joseph Smith doesn't make any anachronistic blunders about the 1830s, the time period that his writings in there are set. And it's the same for the writings of every prophet since, when giving revelation about their own time periods. It's a miracle! :)

Bottom line: People who are used to traditional Judiasm-Christianity aren't used to what it's like to see a similar religion start virtually from scratch within the last 200 years. I guess the patina of a few thousand years somehow makes the newness and strangeness of the Bible less obvious, so it now sets the standard for what's "normal" in religion and anything else is weird. But folks, it's all weird.
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
Bruto... Mortality means in this mortal life.

There will be no confusion in our life hereafter. Our perfect Spiritual body will be united with a perfect Resurrected body for the eternities...as our Heavenly Father and Jesus have now.
Click to expand...

Will this perfect resurrected body have an appendix and tonsils?

Will it have a digestive system with bacteria aiding digestion as in the earthly body that, in turn themselves, would require perefectly resurrected bodies, or will there be no need for a digestive system? If that is the case what will fill the void where the digestive system once resided in the earthly body? If it is not the case and digestive systems will still be required, what food will be eaten? Will we be eating the bodies of perfectly resurrected animals? Do you have a professor of the Mormon afterworld who can answer all my questions? I have many more like those to ask. An answer along the lines of "all things are possible with any god" would not be convincing or sufficient.
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
Perhaps posters who keeping asking foolish questions do not realise the meaning of "Scripture".
Click to expand...
Are you sure the fault is where you assign it? In common usage the word has more than one possible ramification. Scripture is sacred writing in general. Most religions include works they regard as scriptural, but in the vocabulary of most Christians it refers specifically to the sacred writings that have been accepted by Christians in general to belong to the Bible. Obviously the first definition allows for some argument as to veracity or authority. Not only do various religions disagree in ways that cannot be reconciled, but a great deal of argument and discussion occurred before membership in the realm of the second definition was settled upon. Many writings presumed to be holy were, after study, rejected and declared apocryphal. Obviously also the second definition does not include the Mormon writings, which did not exist at the time the Bible was compiled.

Some people argue that the authoritative nature of scripture renders it immune to argument, but this is not inherent in the definition. It cannot reasonably be so except to those who adhere to a specific religion and consider competing scriptures to be in error. You can't have it both ways. If you allow the term to be applied to the sacred writings of any religion, including those you do not share, then obviously scripture can be wrong or at least arguable. If you disallow questioning and argument about your scriptures, you have nothing to discuss.
 
Explorer, You need first to understand the basics, and the Scriptures which have already been made available to you, before seeking further enlightenment. Baby steps first before marathon races :)
 
The Lord has but one Prophet who speaks for Him to the world, even though the members the College of Cardinals are also Prophets, Seers and Revelators it is only the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church through whom the Lord speaks and who is referred to as the Prophet.

Lucifer deceives many by using his powers for good as well as evil, and seeks to confuse and imitate so that many are therefore not able to recognise the true Prophet of God from the deceivers.​

Multiple choice question here:

God speaks through the following people to reveal his thoughts to the people of the world today:
  • the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church
  • the President of the LDS Church
  • Maria Liwayway Alvaran of the Philippines
  • All of the above
  • None of the above.
 
Janadele said:
Explorer, You need first to understand the basics, and the Scriptures which have already been made available to you, before seeking further enlightenment. Baby steps first before marathon races
Click to expand...
The "scriptures" are made up nonsense. There are no non-Mormon historians, archeologists, etc. who give any credence whatsoever to the BofM because it is an obvious fraud to anyone who isn't Mormon.

I will step forward and defend Mormons and Mormonism when they have been falsely accused. In the case of the validity of the BofM there is no compelling evidence that it is anything but a fiction.

Even the Mormon Scholar B.H. Roberts admitted that the BofM had very serious problems.
 
have these questions been addressed yet?

How can we determine the gender of our spirits?

If an 8 year old sins as much as his 9 year old brother would only the 9 year old be punished?

If I kill my child is it OK if I just say that I blessed him and wanted to make sure he didn't grow up and do bad things?
 
Janadele said:
Explorer, You need first to understand the basics, and the Scriptures which have already been made available to you, before seeking further enlightenment. Baby steps first before marathon races :)
Click to expand...

With respect Janadele, it is you that has to understand that unlike my sister, I am not a gullible person, and reading the basics of a book written by a dubious fraudster is not going to impress or convince me. I am much more interested in people like you, and my sister, that have swallowed the fiction wholesale, and believe without question, all the fictional content.

I have only enquiry when it comes to religion. I am only interested as to how individuals senior or lay within a given church, extrapolate, and extend the often nebulous and contradictory religious text into the real world, that is consistently proven to be nonsense when subjected to reason, or even plain and simple common sense.

I have posted long enough on this board to know that you, like the innocent and the religiously deluded before you, will be unable to answer any questions directly, honestly and rationally, that I ask. That is the reason, as some have suggested above, why your religion has peaked and is in decline, and that the rate of decline will accelerate as the internet and social network disseminates knowledge and rational debate. Reason is, and always has been, the enemy of all religion.
 
Janadele said:
There is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion in this thread. Simple matters are twisted, confused, misunderstood, repeated, repeated repeated... even though the obvious clear simple answers have been previously given, and should be easy enough for even the intellectually handicapped to understand.

Are you really all this dumb, affected by medication, drugs or alcohol, or is this a deliberate tactic ????
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could refrain from insulting us and specifically state what has been "twisted"? For example: could you explain what you feel to be wrong regarding the observation that Joseph Smith's claimed translation of the Book of Abraham was a fraudulent lie, as evidenced by the fact that the actual translations are nothing like what he reported?
 
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/explanation?lang=eng

The Book of Mormon is a sacred record of peoples in ancient America, and was engraved upon sheets of metal...
In or about the year A.D. 421, Moroni, the last of the Nephite prophet-historians, sealed the sacred record and hid it up unto the Lord, to be brought forth in the latter days, as predicted by the voice of God through his ancient prophets. In A.D. 1823, this same Moroni, then a resurrected personage, visited the Prophet Joseph Smith and subsequently delivered the engraved plates to him.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/introduction?lang=eng
The Testimony of Eight Witnesses
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun.
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen.
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith
 
Explorer said:
Will this perfect resurrected body have an appendix and tonsils?

Will it have a digestive system with bacteria aiding digestion as in the earthly body that, in turn themselves, would require perefectly resurrected bodies, or will there be no need for a digestive system? If that is the case what will fill the void where the digestive system once resided in the earthly body? If it is not the case and digestive systems will still be required, what food will be eaten? Will we be eating the bodies of perfectly resurrected animals? Do you have a professor of the Mormon afterworld who can answer all my questions? I have many more like those to ask. An answer along the lines of "all things are possible with any god" would not be convincing or sufficient.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised Janadele didn't mention the "flesh and bone, but no blood" thing. Here's pretty much the sum total of official doctrine on the subject, which isn't a lot, but does cover a few of the questions above:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/resurrection?lang=eng

That illustrates the heart of the problem with religion. It starts with diverse made-up stories and tries to reconcile them, and of course when you get to the furthest loose ends, there's just no way they can be tied together logically, because they grew out from the core myths with no overall coordination.

The same kind of problem doesn't face those who start with the real world and look for answers, because the real world by definition is what it is and all hangs together. If the equations, when compared with each other, wind up saying 0=1, that's an indication that we have to revise the equations, realizing we made a mistake somewhere (like missing out on time dilation, for example).

But with religion, one is supposed to keep pounding away, trying to figure out how 0 can equal 1, in an endless battle of either frustration or denial. It's not a quest for knowledge in the style of Explorer's questions, it's a quest for emotional comfort, so if the questions interfere with that, the solution that religion offers is a suggestion not to ask them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom