LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
The world, God's Creation, is not in error. Those who reject what Creation teaches us because it contradicts human-constructed scripture are.
 
tsig
dafydd
DragonLady :

Janadele said:
We all, including Cain, have existed always... first as an intelligence, then our Heavenly parents created our Spiritual bodies... in which our intelligence was housed.
Therefore it was not an option for God to "create Cain less prone to violence".
Click to expand...
 
Janadele said:
:D The Book of Mormon is not in error. Those who criticise it are.
Click to expand...

Why did you come to this forum? For what purpose? It certainly wasn't for the purpose of discussion.

Did you come just to preach at us? This is a skeptic's forum. Do you expect us to believe your utter nonsense?
 
Janadele said:
The Book of Mormon is not in error. Those who criticise it are.
Click to expand...
Argument by assertion.

Mormon Scholar B.H. Roberts disagreed.

Mormonthink said:
B.H. Roberts was president of the First Council of Seventy, a prolific writer and author of some notable historical, biographical and theological works. He was an intellectual and the 'Hugh Nibley' of his day. He wrote A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' which was printed as a series in Americana (a monthly periodical published by the "American Historical Society" of New York) from June 1909 to July 1915 and updated to 1930 when it was published.

Ironically, while he was indeed a defender of the faith and expressed a strong testimony of The Book of Mormon throughout his life, he also authored a manuscript entitled Studies of the Book of Mormon (which remained unpublished until after his death), which critically examined the book's claims and origins. He identified many problems with the Book of Mormon such as things mentioned that did not exist in the Americas in Book of Mormon times.
Click to expand...
I think Roberts is far more credible than you.
 
Neither I nor the writers at Fair are deceived by anti-Mormon propaganda:

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jone...on-claims-that-b-h-roberts-lost-his-testimony

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/did-b-h-roberts-abandon-his-faith-in-the-book-of-mormon

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/B.H._Roberts'_testimony

"An excellent argument against the claim that B.H. Roberts abandoned the Book of Mormon can be found in his last book, which he considered his masterwork. [B. H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life: An Elementary Treatise on Theology, edited by John W. Welch (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Studies, 1994).]
Given Roberts' clear respect for the Book of Mormon in this volume, there can be little doubt that he continued to believe in and treasure it.
Ironically for the critics, many of the issues which drew Elder Roberts' attention have now been solved as more information about the ancient world has become available. He expressed faith that this would be the case, and has been vindicated:
We who accept the Book of Mormon as a revelation from God have every reason to believe that it will endure every test; and the more thoroughly it is investigated, the greater shall be its ultimate triumph"
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
It is irrelevant, of no consequence... nor of any eternal significance.
I stand by my previous posts on the matter.
Click to expand...

Janadele said:
:D The Book of Mormon is not in error. Those who criticise it are.
Click to expand...

...which means you are still avoiding the question.

tBoM (not "anti-mormon sites") has it that domestic barley, cattle husbandry, domestic hoirses, and steel production all occured in the new world before their introduction by Europeans in the 13th and 14th Centuries C.E.

You say that tBoM is "not in error"; you also say that the "barley issue" is "irrelevant, of no consequence".

I would appreciate it if you would resolve the conflict in your words.

Is it that the errors are of no consequence, or is it that that the absolute lack of evidence for domestic barley (not just lack of evidence of domestic barley, but of any hint of barley straw, barley cooking, barley storage, or any of the other things that would indicate barley cultivation); for cattle husbandry (not just lack of evidence for cattle, but lack of evidence for thhe entire culture of husbandry); for domesticated horses (not just lack of evidence of the horses themselves, but of evidence of tack, stableage, silage, or any other indication that would signify the keeping of horses); and for steel implements (much less the technological foundation for producing the materials for such implements); is wrong?

Did such actually exist, as reported in tBoM,in the new world?

Where is the evidence?

Why are you also avoiding the Book of Abraham issue?
 
Last edited:
My strong suspicion is that he/she is one of those people who feel strong when they stand up to us heathens. She has no logical argument, no evidence, no wish to engage but rather to show her faith and her belief in the face of our disbelief. Nothing we can say will penetrate this shield so we may as well let her/him be. Baiting this particular belief troll isn't even amusing, it is pretty sad really.
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
:D The Book of Mormon is not in error. Those who criticise it are.
Click to expand...

If that were remotely true, you could answer any of the challenges that have been presented. Instead, you either ignore them, hand-wave them away, or ask people not to criticize the BoM here (yeah, THAT's gonna happen).

The Book of Mormon describes animals, plants, and technology that did not exist at the time and place that the book says they did. In what way is the above statement in error?
 
Although I'm fascinated by the oxymoron of evident errors in a declaredly unerring book, I have a different question:

Earlier in this thread I read that, after death, we'll discover that LDS is the one true religion and that having failed to believe in its tenets will have dire consequences for the status and treatment of our spirits thereafter.

I also read that it's possible for a departed person's spirit to contact the living and request a retrospective baptism, which can mitigate some of the spiritual deficit of the former unbeliever.

My question is, why isn't there a clamouring mass of billions of departed spirits, begging and pleading with their relatives to a) get them baptised and b) join the LDS themselves?
 
Vic Vega said:
In all serousness, RandFan, I don't get it. What does she hope to accomplish? She looks like a complete fool and it get's worse everytime she posts. What is her point?
Click to expand...
I think she is sincere. I think she is in over her head. Why does she keep digging her hole deeper and deeper? See my sig file.

ETA: the phrase is primarily aimed it me.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Although I'm fascinated by the oxymoron of evident errors in a declaredly unerring book, I have a different question:

Earlier in this thread I read that, after death, we'll discover that LDS is the one true religion and that having failed to believe in its tenets will have dire consequences for the status and treatment of our spirits thereafter.
Click to expand...
"May" discover. Mormonism holds that people will reject the message even in the next life.

I also read that it's possible for a departed person's spirit to contact the living and request a retrospective baptism, which can mitigate some of the spiritual deficit of the former unbeliever.

My question is, why isn't there a clamouring mass of billions of departed spirits, begging and pleading with their relatives to a) get them baptised and b) join the LDS themselves?
Click to expand...
It's a good question.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Although I'm fascinated by the oxymoron of evident errors in a declaredly unerring book, I have a different question:

Earlier in this thread I read that, after death, we'll discover that LDS is the one true religion and that having failed to believe in its tenets will have dire consequences for the status and treatment of our spirits thereafter.

I also read that it's possible for a departed person's spirit to contact the living and request a retrospective baptism, which can mitigate some of the spiritual deficit of the former unbeliever.

My question is, why isn't there a clamouring mass of billions of departed spirits, begging and pleading with their relatives to a) get them baptised and b) join the LDS themselves?
Click to expand...


If I understand things correctly, until only recently the poor dearly departed didn't even have to ask. Those of the living, family members mostly, could request the proxy ordinance on the dead's behalf.

This practice fell into disfavor when the Jewish community complained that many Holocaust victims were being volunteered for this Mormon kindness.
 
Abel did not lose his eternal life, only his mortal life... and that is destined to be lost no matter of what earthly duration. Death of the mortal body is inevitable.

All circumstances and stages of our eternal progression will be taken into account at judgement, and that is all that is of consequence.

DragonLady said:
Okay.... But Cain took that same choice away from Abel. Abel was not allowed to live, act, and receive consequences...

See...Abel lost his life. Apparently he lost his life for no reason other than to appease Cain's desire to murder...

Abel may well have screwed up severiously later, but he never got the chance...

God gave everyone free will. But then gave Cain -and others- the power to remove that will. Why would he do that? ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
Abel did not lose his eternal life, only his mortal life... and that is destined to be lost no matter of what earthly duration. Death of the mortal body is inevitable.
Click to expand...
That's a doge. Even if this were all true it does not address the question asked of you.

P: When person A kills person B, person B is denied free will.
C: God values the free will of killers over the free will of their victims.

Why is free will important if it's so easily forfeit?
 
Janadele said:
Abel did not lose his eternal life, only his mortal life... and that is destined to be lost no matter of what earthly duration. Death of the mortal body is inevitable.

All circumstances and stages of our eternal progression will be taken into account at judgement, and that is all that is of consequence.
Click to expand...
BTW:

Ad Hoc Explanations, Causes, and Rationalization

...

Typically, you will see statements referred to as "ad hoc rationalizations" or "ad hoc explanations" when someone's attempt to explain an event is effectively disputed or undermined and so the speaker reaches for some way to salvage what he can. The result is an "explanation" which is not very coherent, does not really "explain" anything at all, and which has no testable consequences - even though to someone already inclined to believe it, it certainly looks valid.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom