LDS

[Frozenwolf150]

Those who openly support the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY, increasingly threaten and demand that all others do likewise OR ELSE take the consequences of being obscenely attacked verbally, physically, financially and through the increasingly perverted "justice" system. In their blind hate and intolerance they confuse the issues and drag many with them on their descent to damnation... whilst failing to realise that Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.

So hell is a more tolerant place to live than heaven?

 

[Pup]

What the Mormons (myself included) were led to believe for nearly 200 years:



It's since been changed. The link to the old preface at lds.org is 404. But I have a few copies, I should scan it and put it on the web.

I got curious about changes, and here's a comprehensive list:
http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/approved-adjustments_eng.pdf


The following is pretty interesting about the Book of Abraham. Looks like it's not a "translation from some Egyptian papyri" anymore, it's an "inspired translation of the writings of Abraham" that just coincidentally happened after Smith got some papyri.

Introduction, paragraph 4, item 2—Changed “A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham” to “An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

 

[deaman]

Eternal Truth, never changing, right?

In 1971, Spencer W. Kimball taught...

"The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people." ("Of Royal Blood," Ensign, July 1971, p. 7).

Fail.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Apparently Janedele does not know her Articles of Faith:

I can't find the quote so perhaps it's apocryphal, but IIRC, one of the reformers said, "a right you affirm for yourself but deny others is not a right but a privilege".

Janedele wants the privilege of living by the dictates of her conscience but deny it to others.

Worse, she appears to desperately need to impose the dictates of her conscience of others...

It is almost as if she has never heard of Jiminy Crickett.

 

[deaman]

Even worse, she seems to have chosen a church that doesn't teach "eternal law".

Also, they worship an imaginary god, but I guess that's beside the point.

Wake-up. Take the blinders off.

 

[Cat Tale]

Janadele, I would still like for you to look at my response to you (via Skyrider) in post 7967. According to Skyrider you considered my comments a "gross misrepresentation" regarding your words. I would like to know if you were not saying that the 'hollow earth' is LDS scripture, what were you saying? Please go back and view the links as it ties it all up in a neat little package. People were legitimately asking if you were saying the hollow earth was LDS doctrine, why you didn't come back and just say that it is a personal interest, but not doctrinal. You really seemed to imply that it said that in the D&C.

 

[RandFan]

I got curious about changes, and here's a comprehensive list:
http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/approved-adjustments_eng.pdf


The following is pretty interesting about the Book of Abraham. Looks like it's not a "translation from some Egyptian papyri" anymore, it's an "inspired translation of the writings of Abraham" that just coincidentally happened after Smith got some papyri.

Introduction, paragraph 4, item 2—Changed “A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham” to “An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

My first thought, "wow". Then again, perhaps the Mormon Church sees the writing on the wall and wants to get some official word out without making grand announcements. Later they can act as if that was always the case.

I can't help but think of Hinkley's minimizing it's past regarding Blacks and the priesthood.

Mike Wallace: Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, "Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."
Gordon B. Hinckley: It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks (or quirks, not sure) of history.

We're not supposed to "worry". I'm not sure what he means. Forget about it? Like the Mormons have forgotten Haun's Mill, Gov. Bogg's Executive (extermination) Order 44 or other incidents of violence and persecution committed against Mormons. There seems to be a moral inconsistency when it comes to egregious behavior.

I wish the Mormon Chruch would be more transparent and face up to its past without minimizing the excesses. Brigham Young was a genius when it came to leadership but he harbored very racist and very abhorrent beliefs. Now with the Internet it's going to do little good to try and whitewash the history.

I'm opposed to the milk before meat doctrine. I believe humans have a right to make informed decisions especially when it comes to matters of conscience.

 

[Empress]

Apparently Janedele does not know her Articles of Faith:

Janedele wants the privilege of living by the dictates of her conscience but deny it to others.

Well, I quoted the 13th Article of Faith to her before, and asked her if she believed she had followed it in this thread. Her response was two words: Of course.

Someone living in that level of denial might very well not grasp how she's violating other church tenets, and other peoples' rights to live by their own conscience.

 

[deaman]

Let's face it, it's pretty hard to go from, "We are the only true Church with a direct line to God", to "Um, we've been making it all up as we go along" to the ultimate admittance of, "There isn't even a god, much less our god".

He-he, sorry.

 

[RandFan]

Well, I quoted the 13th Article of Faith to her before, and asked her if she believed she had followed it in this thread. Her response was two words: Of course.

Someone living in that level of denial might very well not grasp how she's violating other church tenets, and other peoples' rights to live by their own conscience.

Sounds like Henry Ford's freedom to choose philosophy, of the Model T he said, "they can have any color they want so long as its black" (I don't know if that is apocryphal I'm too lazy to check).

 

[Dissolution]

Eternal Law: Not quite as eternal as you may have been lead to believe.

 

[Pixel42]

“Single word change in Book of Mormon speaks volumes”. See here: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7403990
Not sure how many of you saw this, but there was a change announced to all future Book of Mormons that go to print. It is a one-word change in the introduction. Instead of saying: “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians,” it now says: “After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.”

Of course even this watered down claim is already known to be false. DNA analysis shows that Native Americans are descended from Asians who crossed the Bering Straits over what was then a land bridge until it disappeared at the end of the last ice age at least 12,000 years ago. There's no evidence of any further immigration until relatively modern times.

Contrast this with the Lemba people of South Africa, where the arrival of a small number of Jews about 2,500 years ago is evidenced not only in their DNA but in their culture.

 

[pakeha]

^
What a fascinating people, Pixel42.
Thanks or bringing them to our attention.

Still, their existence rather puts paid to the BoM claims, doesn't it?

The following is pretty interesting about the Book of Abraham. Looks like it's not a "translation from some Egyptian papyri" anymore, it's an "inspired translation of the writings of Abraham" that just coincidentally happened after Smith got some papyri.

Introduction, paragraph 4, item 2—Changed “A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham” to “An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

I love the sound of goal-posts shifting in the morning.
Is the LDS now claiming Smith didn't translate the papyri (we knew that all along) but rather was inspired to glean a 'special' meaning of their import via inspiration?
Is anyone expected to swallow such guff?

This means those many efforts on the part of LDS writers (as linked by Janadele, to do her credit) to justify Smith's opus by explaining just how Smith's 'translation' stands up critical analysis were for naught, except as an exercise in intellectual dishonesty.
All their efforts have been wiped out by this pronouncement and I wonder if they realise that yet.

 

[AdMan]

Further to my response post 8150... I confirm that the AP story posted by AdMan in post 8143 was not an accurate reflection of the LDS position... LDS Public Affairs has advised the AP writer to that effect.

Patheos also published this rebuttal:
Mormons softening opposition to homosexuality … or not
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/getrel...softening-opposition-to-homosexuality-or-not/
By Bobby Ross Jr.
08 October 2013

I see.

So what you're saying, is that--recent reports to the contrary--those reports are incorrect and the LDS is actually as hateful and bigoted as you've been saying.

Good to know.

 

[halleyscomet]

Janadele, I would still like for you to look at my response to you (via Skyrider) in post 7967. According to Skyrider you considered my comments a "gross misrepresentation" regarding your words. I would like to know if you were not saying that the 'hollow earth' is LDS scripture, what were you saying? Please go back and view the links as it ties it all up in a neat little package. People were legitimately asking if you were saying the hollow earth was LDS doctrine, why you didn't come back and just say that it is a personal interest, but not doctrinal. You really seemed to imply that it said that in the D&C.

I don't think I've ever seen him/her respond to a difficult or complex question with an actual response, just avoidance and insults, if he/she responds at all.

I don't think Jan is really Mormon. I think we're dealing with a dedicated troll, nothing more. His/her profound ignorance of LDS dogma and history points to either a pretender, or someone who converted in name only because Mormons offered her more excuses to hate homosexuals than whatever Protestant sect he/she belonged to before.

 

[Pup]

I can't help but think of Hinkley's minimizing it's past regarding Blacks and the priesthood.

Did you see what's also being added as a "study help" on that topic, especially the part I've bolded? From the same pdf file:

The Book of Mormon teaches that "all are alike unto God," including "black and white, bond and free, male and female" (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

I predict that in the future, if social change continues the way it has, the church will quote Joseph Smith's words from https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-14?lang=eng:

"I will tell you what I want. If tomorrow I shall be called to lie in yonder tomb, in the morning of the resurrection let me strike hands with my father, and cry, ‘My father,’ and he will say, ‘My son, my son,’ as soon as the rock rends and before we come out of our graves.

“And may we contemplate these things so? Yes, if we learn how to live and how to die. When we lie down we contemplate how we may rise in the morning; and it is pleasing for friends to lie down together, locked in the arms of love, to sleep and wake in each other’s embrace and renew their conversation."

And combine them with Brigham Young's (cited here: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/print/1972/10/genealogy-a-personal-responsibility?lang=eng)

“The ordinance of sealing must be performed here man to man, and woman to man, and children to parents, etc., until the chain of generation is made perfect in the sealing ordinances back to Father Adam..."

And be performing sealings in the temple that members can only imagine today.

 

[RandFan]

Of course even this watered down claim is already known to be false. DNA analysis shows that Native Americans are descended from Asians who crossed the Bering Straits over what was then a land bridge until it disappeared at the end of the last ice age at least 12,000 years ago. There's no evidence of any further immigration until relatively modern times.

Contrast this with the Lemba people of South Africa, where the arrival of a small number of Jews about 2,500 years ago is evidenced not only in their DNA but in their culture.

The error in the narrative, IMO, is that it was far too ambitious. FWIW: IMO Smith was only one of the players n the original scheme and Cowdry took the chief role of turning the Hebrew View and Spaulding's Manuscript into what is now known as the BoM (see Who wrote the Book of Mormon). It was far too ambitious because it made claims that could eventually be objectively verified. It paints a picture of substantial groups of people that would have left substantial anthropological archeological evidence and not the scant cherry picked bits proffered by the likes of Glen Beck.

 

[deaman]

Oh, and let's take a look at all the people of color in the Quorum of the Twelve.

I guess the blacks, Asians, Mexicans, and all the other races are sitting behind these guys: (Scroll down the page a bit.)

http://ldsmediatalk.com/2009/07/09/updated-general-authority-pictures/

So, are we to believe that only white men are in charge of god's kingdom? Seriously?

 

[Empress]

This is just one of the matters still being questioned which has been extensively answered earlier in this thread.

As far as I am aware I have answered all legitimate questions raised.
A sincere enquirer should then ponder and further research from official LDS content... NOT anti sites.

Seeking to expand on and understand the answers given will lead to greater knowledge... ignoring and ridiculing the answers and then repeatedly asking the same questions will not change the facts.
To check on my past posts for answers to sincere legitimate questions ( including those in AAH ) go to profile, all posts / threads.

Well...not so much.

I refer you to Cat Tale's request for a response to her excellent post that I have reproduced below. Surely you would want to answer the questions and objections of another member of your church?

Janadele, I would still like for you to look at my response to you (via Skyrider) in post 7967. According to Skyrider you considered my comments a "gross misrepresentation" regarding your words. I would like to know if you were not saying that the 'hollow earth' is LDS scripture, what were you saying? Please go back and view the links as it ties it all up in a neat little package. People were legitimately asking if you were saying the hollow earth was LDS doctrine, why you didn't come back and just say that it is a personal interest, but not doctrinal. You really seemed to imply that it said that in the D&C.

Actually, the Heart of the Earth thread was brought up on the LDS thread, and that's what I'm talking about, not the other thread. Janadele left many confused by her comments in this LDS thread. I think I've traced it back to post 5912 GeneMachine who asked Randfan to confirm or deny whether or not the "hollow earth" was LDS doctrine. Pup in post 5917 then said his "gut feeling is that you won't find any mention of the hollow earth in either book [BofM or D&C], ..."

It was then, in post 5923 That Janadele said, "There are many appropriate Scriptural references, including the following," and she quoted 5 references from the D&C. Each of them had something like "in the earth" Why is that a common theme in all 5 scriptures if the point is not to show a hollow earth? It was then that Pakeha 5926 quoted Jan's D&C reference posting, and asked her if she was "saying the hollow earth idea forms part of LDS doctrine?" To which she merely answered in 5931, "Pakeha, as you are aware, LDS Scriptures, which includes the Doctrine and Covenants, is LDS Doctrine."

She was asked at least four times, in subsequent posts, like Randfan 5933, where he said, "Do those scriptures mean to you that the Earth is hollow? If not then what do those scriptures mean and why did you post them?" And she never responded, leaving people (including me) baffled as to what exactly she was saying.

I thought this was a thread where she was to discuss LDS doctrine, and suddenly she was confusing them. Why wouldn't she answer them and simply say, "no, that's my own fun thing I'm investigating." Based on the above, what I'd like to know is how is my post 7930 a "gross misrepresentation?" At what point did she dispel the notion that the hollow earth was LDS doctrine in this thread?



Can you deny that she's done a lot of cutting and pasting? Can you deny that some of her earlier posts, most particularly the Mountain Meadows one would be considered plagiarism? And can you deny that people have been angered by her refusal to reply in her own words? Thus leading some participants of this thread to conclude that LDS are brainwashed, or incapable of independent thought? Do a search of the word brainwashed, or "independent thought," they're there, and not by me.



We've tried to explain to her what this forum is all about, critical thinking. It's the ability to hold a discussion about the copy pasted material, not just copy pasting. Hostility can mean things like starting a thread on the LDS Church and then not answering questions, or to continue to copy paste when asked to cease and discuss. There have been many times people have asked Janadele to put things in her own words. Here's one by SezMe 2605 Or this one by Kerikiwi 2495 Why does she not respond in her own words? Honestly I can't recall even knowing a LDS who wasn't excited to have the opportunity to talk about the Church, and yet it seems like there were very few topics that she wanted to respond to, often times she'd say something like, "that's not appropriate for this thread," when I didn't see a problem with it.

And as far as me claiming that what Janadele has posted is "totally outside of LDS teachings?" Post What I actually said was her hostility is completely against LDS teachings. Again, I'm most particularly talking about her refusal to answer questions on a thread she started. But there is also just hostility toward the homosexual community, and pretty much accusing anyone who disagrees with/or questions her as anti-Mormon.

A good example of this is when I posted that "there were a lot of things in our church's past that I find disgusting, but they are no longer practiced." And Janadele responded with this post about how there are enemies both within and without the church.



Me? The victim? Not at all. I can't believe it doesn't bother you that Janadele started this thread and then refuses to/or at least hasn't taken part in an ongoing active discussion based on her own interpretation of the gospel. I mean members do not just copy paste or quote scripture, they're happy to express what the scripture or doctrine means to them, they actively engage in discussion, and/or bear their testimonies. Skyrider, you and I freely express our thoughts and feelings, I'm just confused as to why she doesn't. I could understand if she didn't want to discuss the church on a forum, but she started the thread.

Again, I have no hatred for Janadele. How can I hate someone I know so little about? However, I can stand up against things like lying, plagiarism, making people upset about something I'm passionate about. I've clearly shown my points regarding my previous post and have no more desire to rehash things again. Janadele got her say, though jeopardizing your account. I have not, and will not, report you. That's all I have to say on this subject. However, I will come back and apologize if Janadele can show me where I'm wrong (AFTER her suspension). I have apologized once before on this thread to Janadele when I made a mistake, so I've proven that I will accept my own errors.

I realize I'm not a member and am to some degree anti-Mormon, but I also would be very interested in your response to her post. She has been nothing but kind and informative in this thread, and an excellent example of so much that is right about your church. Surely you would do her the courtesy of a reply?

 

[Empress]

Oh, and let's take a look at all the people of color in the Quorum of the Twelve.

I guess the blacks, Asians, Mexicans, and all the other races are sitting behind these guys: (Scroll down the page a bit.)

http://ldsmediatalk.com/2009/07/09/updated-general-authority-pictures/

So, are we to believe that only white men are in charge of god's kingdom? Seriously?

God's Kingdom is a "white and delightsome people".