Originally posted by square_peg
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
LDS - Mormonism Guidelines
Theists only.
Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!
This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.
Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin
Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Forum Rules: Here
Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!
This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.
Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin
Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Dear Mormons
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostAre you even a theist?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSo, please tell me, what was it Jesus got wrong?Last edited by fm93; 05-03-2014, 10:03 PM.Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostThat's not what I claimed.
I was simply pointing out that the apparent logic behind arguments declaring "Mormons shouldn't have any disagreements"
could just as easily be used to claim that Christians shouldn't have any disagreements.
So, yeah, BIG difference.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostWho said THAT?Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostYou then joined in by saying "I think that the problem is that the Mormons claim that all other religions are apostate, and Smith was chosen by God to set things straight. One would expect a "clear trumpet", but right from the start there was confusion and chaos. Smith did, in FACT, claim that all other religions were wrong...."
I interpreted that to mean "There should be no confusion about doctrine if a religion's founder was sent from God."
Smith frequently gave mixed messages, even telling his followers to abstain from alcohol, but he himself installed a bar in a hotel he owned. He founded his own bank, made himself Grand Poobah of the local Masonic Lodge, made himself a General of the militia....
Smith was a fraud -- Christ was sinless. No contest.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostMan, this is getting confusing. Let's backtrack. I said that the position that Cerealman attacked wasn't a universal belief among Mormons. Cerealman responded by saying "...so are the other hundreds of questions asked of mormonism, and yet at times it's clear in the text that's exactly what they 'should' believe." I interpreted this to mean something like "Well, it SHOULD be a universal position because their scripture seems pretty clear to me on this point." In response, I said that he doesn't have the right to declare what another religious group "should" believe, especially since within his own religion, there's no definitive authority on every single dispute. You then joined in by saying "I think that the problem is that the Mormons claim that all other religions are apostate, and Smith was chosen by God to set things straight. One would expect a "clear trumpet", but right from the start there was confusion and chaos. Smith did, in FACT, claim that all other religions were wrong...." I interpreted that to mean "There should be no confusion about doctrine if a religion's founder was sent from God."
That's also true for many thing Joseph Smith originally wrote down, they don't agree with it or tell you "this what he actually meant" or "he wasn't arrogant" stuff along those lines.Last edited by Cerealman; 05-03-2014, 11:55 PM."Kahahaha! Let's get lunatic!"-Add LP
"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin is pride that apes humility"-Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Oh ye of little fiber. Do you not know what I've done for you? You will obey. ~Cerealman for Prez.
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostMy personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. .That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostMy personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion.
So we know who we are talking to and how to respond to you in debate.
Are you ashamed of your personal beliefs? If so, then please don't post on tweb. It is for open discussion about theology and beliefs. We don't have room for people who just want to troll and are not willing to even share their own beliefs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostMy personal beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. Evidently you missed my point--Cerealman's OP was needlessly insulting and presented a strawman of a religion's doctrine, so to show him his error, I responded with an insulting strawman of a doctrine from his own religion. It's much easier to spot fallacies in other people's attacks on our own positions than in our attacks on other positions.
That's not what I claimed. I was simply pointing out that the apparent logic behind arguments declaring "Mormons shouldn't have any disagreements" could just as easily be used to claim that Christians shouldn't have any disagreements.
ETA: Ninja'd.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostSo, this is an official moderator request. Are you a theist or not?Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17
I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostI'm not a Mormon, and your question was most certainly not serious--or at the very least, not at all thought-out well.
In any case, I'd appreciate it if you took the time to carefully reflect about how you felt about my post and pinpoint exactly what's wrong with it. Then you might begin to understand what was wrong with your post.Originally posted by square_peg View PostI don't need to "assume" anything--it was already pretty clear. Right from the get-go you presented your question in an absolutely incredulous tone of voice (i.e. "Seriously?"), as if the belief's falsity was the most obvious thing in the world and that Mormons were utterly stupid for holding to it. It comes off as subtle mocking, and is incredibly insulting and demeaning. Furthermore, your own religion is founded upon the belief that a dead man came back to life, which to outsiders doesn't sound any less ridiculous than the Mormon doctrine sounds to you.Originally posted by square_peg View Post
Very well then, but I'm just saying that your wording and perceived tone were almost identical to that of the typical YouTube atheist.
Comment
-
Originally posted by square_peg View PostWell, I don't consider myself an atheist, so I guess I am. Although I really don't see how my personal worldview affects the validity or invalidity of the points I made.I am Punkinhead.
"I have missed you, Oh Grand High Priestess of the Order of the Stirring Pot"
~ Cow Poke aka CP aka Creacher aka ke7ejx's apprentice....
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerealman View PostBecome a God of a planet?
Seriously?You see no problem with that?
My understanding of the speculative aspect of LDS theology, is that Jesus Christ would “inflate” a new universe through his “firstbegotten” and perfect spiritual son. Jesus would be “God the Father” of that universe and the exalted and resurrected from the previous universe would be the “hosts of heaven” in that universe and would have spiritual children who would then populate the “worlds without number” in that universe. That would not the same as each couple having, or being gods of, "their own planet". Jesus, as God the Father in the new universe, would be the "Most High God", the God above all other "gods", the "God of gods" and "Lord of lords". Thus, when the spiritual offspring on a world enter mortality, the Most High God will say to the other "gods" , "man has become as one of US, knowing good and evil". And the plan of salvation moves forward again in "one eternal round".
Remember that this topic, including what I just posted above, is considered “highly speculative”. Nevertheless, I have found agreement among members of the LDS faith on the following:
1) God the Father will always be our God and will always be our Father. Jesus will always be our Lord and Savior and we will serve under Him.
Nothing will ever change the relationship that we have with them. (See the Pattern of our Parentage - Ensign)
2) Exalted persons who God elevates as the hosts of heaven will have spiritual offspring (according to the LDS understanding of the “Abrahamic covenant”)
3) “Eternal Life” consists of “living the kind of life that God lives”.
Beyond these 3 things, I find Mormons holding varying theoretical opinions concerning how exaltation will work.
Hope that helps.
-7up
Comment
-
Double Standards
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI think that the problem is that the Mormons claim that all other religions are apostate, and Smith was chosen by God to set things straight. One would expect a "clear trumpet", but right from the start there was confusion and chaos. Smith did, in FACT, claim that all other religions were wrong....
Was Paul chosen by God?
Didn't Paul describe that there was experience and knowledge about Heaven or the next life that he could not even describe?
You continue with the double standards. Also, consider article 9 of the LDS Articles of Faith:
"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
So, we can all understand that Mormons don't pretend to know everything. I think that this would be especially true of Eternal Life, something that is likely to be, in many ways, incomprehensible to us while in mortality.
-7up
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostI'll bite.
My understanding of the speculative aspect of LDS theology, is that Jesus Christ would “inflate” a new universe through his “firstbegotten” and perfect spiritual son. Jesus would be “God the Father” of that universe and the exalted and resurrected from the previous universe would be the “hosts of heaven” in that universe and would have spiritual children who would then populate the “worlds without number” in that universe. That would not the same as each couple having, or being gods of, "their own planet". Jesus, as God the Father in the new universe, would be the "Most High God", the God above all other "gods", the "God of gods" and "Lord of lords". Thus, when the spiritual offspring on a world enter mortality, the Most High God will say to the other "gods" , "man has become as one of US, knowing good and evil". And the plan of salvation moves forward again in "one eternal round".
Remember that this topic, including what I just posted above, is considered “highly speculative”. Nevertheless, I have found agreement among members of the LDS faith on the following:
1) God the Father will always be our God and will always be our Father. Jesus will always be our Lord and Savior and we will serve under Him.
Nothing will ever change the relationship that we have with them. (See the Pattern of our Parentage - Ensign)
2) Exalted persons who God elevates as the hosts of heaven will have spiritual offspring (according to the LDS understanding of the “Abrahamic covenant”)
3) “Eternal Life” consists of “living the kind of life that God lives”.
Beyond these 3 things, I find Mormons holding varying theoretical opinions concerning how exaltation will work.
Hope that helps.
-7up
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment