LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shalamar said:
I find the Missionaries when they come around to be polite. They always ask if there's anything they could do for me. Alas, they were never around when I was painting the house.
Click to expand...
When I was a missionary I helped lots of people (non-members) move. I've put up wall paper, pulled weeds, cleaned out a garage, etc., etc..

To be a missionary, for most, is the exact opposite of solipsism. Your entire life is dedicated to saving people. I can tell you that when I was a missionary I was very happy to help people.
 
RandFan said:
When I was a missionary I helped lots of people (non-members) move. I've put up wall paper, pulled weeds, cleaned out a garage, etc., etc..

To be a missionary, for most, is the exact opposite of solipsism. Your entire life is dedicated to saving people. I can tell you that when I was a missionary I was very happy to help people.
Click to expand...

I do wonder what they would say if I was headed to troop (usually a charity event) and asked them to come along to act as spotters. Maybe have one of them wear my other costume if he were big enough.
 
Janadele said:
The Lord has given all the evidence he needs to give. Every opportunity has been given to mankind to be able to progress through the eternities. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation. Ignore the Gospel of Jesus Christ at your peril, and spend the eternities regretting the decisions made in mortality.
Click to expand...

If the Lord actually wants people to be saved, this puts an odd spin on the word "needs." Clearly, if as you imply, the evidence is the evidence that makes you a devout Mormon, then either the Lord is contented to save only a small few, or is not doing it right. I mean, after all, we have to assume that, even with a respect for free will, the Lord, at least as you picture him, is mighty and powerful and clever. Is this really the best he can do? You can't have it all ways at once. If God is as great as some believe, then he ought to be able at least to provide more convincing evidence than what we've seen, and if he can't then it's hard to see him as all that great.
 
kerikiwi said:
So what's changed? Are you a grumpy bugger now?
Click to expand...
:D I walked into that one. I don't consider myself grumpy. I ask politely for the kids to get off my god damn lawn.

To be honest if someone asks me to help them move I'm not as anxious to do it as I once was.
 
RandFan said:
:D I walked into that one. I don't consider myself grumpy. I ask politely for the kids to get off my god damn lawn.

To be honest if someone asks me to help them move I'm not as anxious to do it as I once was.
Click to expand...

That's not grumpy, that's called WISDOM!
 
A special thanks to Pup and Lisa for getting me on! BTW, I'm Mrs. Pup, and yes, I'm LDS have have been for more than a couple decades, I'm also a returned missionary (out the same time as Randfan, based on a prior comment of his).

Why would Joseph Smith summarize only the Book of Ether in his introduction to the entire book? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Because Joseph Smith didn't write the title page, he translated it. It is believed that it was written by Moroni. See www . lds. org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-1-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng I can't post links yet. That link is to the Book of Mormon Institute Manual published by the Church. See also Ether 12:23-25, where he also talks about the same concerns.
 
Cat Tale said:
A special thanks to Pup and Lisa for getting me on! BTW, I'm Mrs. Pup, and yes, I'm LDS have have been for more than a couple decades, I'm also a returned missionary (out the same time as Randfan, based on a prior comment of his).

Because Joseph Smith didn't write the title page, he translated it. It is believed that it was written by Moroni. See www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-1-keystone-of-our-religion?lang=eng I can't post links yet. That link is to the Book of Mormon Institute Manual published by the Church. See also Ether 12:23-25, where he also talks about the same concerns.
Click to expand...
Welcome Cat. I'm really glad you are here. :)
 
StankApe said:
Now wait a minnit herrr... Mrs Pup is a Cat?

that's just sick...... ;)
Click to expand...
Fulfillment of prophecy.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
 
*runs outside and checks sky for marshmallow men*

whew, coast is clear!!!





for now.............................



Glad to have ya Cat Tale! (also glad to know somebody is here who will answer questions rather than just preach and ad hom)
 
RandFan said:
Fulfillment of prophecy.

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
Click to expand...

Dammit! Beat to it by Randfan 11eleven11
Good show, Robin--darn good show...
 
Cat Tale said:
A special thanks to Pup and Lisa for getting me on! BTW, I'm Mrs. Pup, and yes, I'm LDS have have been for more than a couple decades, I'm also a returned missionary (out the same time as Randfan, based on a prior comment of his).
Click to expand...


Welcome! Thanks for jumping into the snake pit, too.

May I ask you the same question I've asked of one or two other LDS members? It is simply this: In the Articles of Faith, Article number 8 states that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the word of God, but the Bible may suffer from human error in translation (while the Book of Mormon does not). On the other hand, the Church clearly doesn't consider the Book perfect since it has amended it so many times.

How do you reconcile the apparent conflict?
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Welcome! Thanks for jumping into the snake pit, too.
Click to expand...
Wait, this is a snake pit! I'm out of here. Can we have it be a velociraptor pit instead, please. Then I'll stay around. :D

May I ask you the same question I've asked of one or two other LDS members?
Click to expand...
No. jk. Sorry, just so happy to finally be able to voice some of my thoughts. :)

It is simply this: In the Articles of Faith, Article number 8 states that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are the word of God, but the Bible may suffer from human error in translation (while the Book of Mormon does not). On the other hand, the Church clearly doesn't consider the Book perfect since it has amended it so many times.How do you reconcile the apparent conflict?
Click to expand...
That's a really good question. I've seen no amendment to the 8th article. It's still in the PoGP exactly as it's always been.

To me, I put the two books on the same level. And if I'm honest, I can't deny that there are errors in both. As I've been reading this thread over the last several days, I got to thinking, well... maybe the Lord just had Joseph Smith call things by names that we'd recognize. So instead of saying the Lamanites (or whoever) rode pickadoos, he had Joseph write horses, but that didn't really work because he mentions cureloms (unidentified), so if my logic worked out then why use cureloms instead of something we'd be more familiar with? I think the main difference between science and religion is that religion relies on faith which, as it's taught in Hebrews, "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." And that's pretty much what people have to rely on with any religion. Sorry for rambling, I think I answered the question by admitting that there are errors, and that I put both books on the same level. The problem is there's just not always logic when it comes to religion, it's just a feeling and that's why it's not science. :)
 
Cat Tale said:
Wait, this is a snake pit! I'm out of here. Can we have it be a velociraptor pit instead, please. Then I'll stay around. :D

No. jk. Sorry, just so happy to finally be able to voice some of my thoughts. :)

That's a really good question. I've seen no amendment to the 8th article. It's still in the PoGP exactly as it's always been.

To me, I put the two books on the same level. And if I'm honest, I can't deny that there are errors in both. As I've been reading this thread over the last several days, I got to thinking, well... maybe the Lord just had Joseph Smith call things by names that we'd recognize. So instead of saying the Lamanites (or whoever) rode pickadoos, he had Joseph write horses, but that didn't really work because he mentions cureloms (unidentified), so if my logic worked out then why use cureloms instead of something we'd be more familiar with? I think the main difference between science and religion is that religion relies on faith which, as it's taught in Hebrews, "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." And that's pretty much what people have to rely on with any religion. Sorry for rambling, I think I answered the question by admitting that there are errors, and that I put both books on the same level. The problem is there's just not always logic when it comes to religion, it's just a feeling and that's why it's not science. :)
Click to expand...


That is a curious answer. Your answer distills down to "I don't know." I much prefer "I don't know" to an empty "God did it" or, worse, "there is no conflict." You also imply you are willing to accept additional evidence as it comes along and will adjust and adapt as appropriate.

Thank you.
 
I was raised LDS, and my opinion on their beliefs is that they are just as illogical as any other christian organization.

I do however believe their theology is much more interesting than the average church, I love to get into theological discussions with members.

A few questions I have for any Mormons on this forum are...

How do you reconcile the condemnation of Lucifer and the Plan of Salvation?

I mean the fall of Adam was necessary for the salvation of man correct? So if this is true, would not Lucifer's betrayal of God be part of that plan and thus he would not be completely accountable for his actions?

According to Mormons we had agency in the preexistence. But was there temptation? If so what was the cause of temptation in the preexistence?
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the velociraptor pit. :) While you're not overseeing Pup as he cuts the lawn, does the dishes, etc. stop in some of our other forums.

Cat Tale said:
To me, <snip>
Click to expand...
Excellent answer. Could you maybe start a Mormon class entitled Dialog 101 and send a personal invitation to Janadele and skyrider44.
 
Than what is the cause of envy and pride in a perfected state (as I assume we were in at the time as we had not yet had mortal bodies and were in the presence of Heavenly Father)?

And I must ask again, since the deception was part of the plan of salvation why is Lucifer condemned for simply playing his part?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom