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
See more
See less

Is Kolob a star or a planet?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    Yeah. And they say that this "man" could "walk on water" , could "ascend into heaven" , could "appear suddenly in a closed room" , could "calm a violent storm by the power of his word" , etc.
    Now you're reasoning like a three year old. The Bible is a faithful witness. I believe what it says. Smith is a liar and a false prophet -- I do not believe him.

    Stupid mormons right?
    Deceived, yes. Stupid? Not all, but you're demonstrating some "stupid" rationale.

    One huge difference between you all and LDS is this. We believe that Colossians 2:9 is true. And you do not.
    This is an outright lie. Just because I believe Smith is a fraud does NOT suggest I don't believe the Bible.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post



      Hey, now, I'm not the one who claimed that there were people living on the moon who dress like Quakers! NOR am I part of a religion that TAUGHT that.

      The description of the inhabitants of the moon are attributed to Joseph Smith but are considered somewhat controversial in that it relies upon second or even third hand information. But what cannot be denied is that Brigham Young definitely taught that both the moon as well as the sun were occupied.
      “Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?... When you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.” --Journal of Discourses (v3, p271)

      FairMormon makes several interesting claims concerning this statement of Young's:

      Source: Brigham Young taught that the moon and sun were inhabited


      People on the sun

      Brigham is obviously expressing his opinion, but his point remains that no one knows very much about such things. To reject a novel idea simply because it is new—such as Mormonism—is absurd. All true ideas were once new, and treated with suspicion.

      William Herschel—the preeminent astronomer of his generation and the man to discover Uranus—was also firmly of the belief that the sun was inhabited.

      Source

      © Copyright Original Source



      Unfortunately for apologists nobody told Young this was only his opinion. He made it quite clear that his words were equivalent to Scripture.
      "I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." --Journal of Discourses (v16 p161)

      "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." --Journal of Discourses (v13 p95)

      This sermon about the moon and sun was part of a sermon given at what was then an equivalent to a general conference meeting and was therefore a prophetic statement issued by him to the members of the church.

      And to rely on Herschel here is a non-starter since he never claimed to be a prophet who's words were "as good Scripture."

      It is interesting that Joseph Fielding Smith (the tenth president of the LDS Church, son of Joseph F. Smith, who was their sixth president and grandson of Hyrum Smith, the brother of the founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith) referred to the sun as a "celestial world" not as a star in his book "Doctrines of Salvation" and AFAICT Mormons still believe that others worlds can be inhabited.

      And there are still Mormons defending the belief that the moon might be inhabited:

      Source: One-Minute Answers to Anti-Mormon Questions: Did Joseph Smith Teach That the Moon Was Inhabited?


      "At the present time, man has no scientific or revealed knowledge of whether or not there are inhabitants on the earth's moon. The fact that a handful of astronauts didn't see any inhabitants in the tiny area they viewed when they landed on the moon decades ago certainly gives no definitive information, any more than visitors to earth who might land in barren Death Valley would have any idea of the billions of inhabitants elsewhere."

      Source

      © Copyright Original Source


      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
        Don't bother to notice that I already answered that question ... on this very thread.

        "God is present with all his creations through his influence, through his government, spirit and power, ..."



        My argument on the other thread does not discount God's foreknowledge. You make the same mistake Bill did. Trust me, this is not similar to other conversations that you have had in the past. You are going to have to grapple with all those assumptions that you hold.



        I don't even have to address whether or not God can or cannot. The question is whether or not God did or didn't or whether or not it is necessary. I argue that no true interpersonal relationships exist within the Ex Nihilo creation theory. If that is true, and it is not necessary then God would have no reason to create Ex Nihilo, even if He could.



        Martin's caricature of Mormonism does not correspond to Mormon beliefs. He attacks an imaginary system instead of the real thing. It is like the example we saw recently about Christians performing "ritualistic cannibalism" on a weekly basis and call it the Lord's Supper.

        Tell me foudroyant, Do you believe that God had his own son killed in order to pay Himself off?

        Those are the kinds of tactics that Walter Martin used. Similar tactics are used by anti-mormons even today.

        -7up

        Since I was telling Froud how the LDS redefines Christian terms to mean something else, and you just confirmed that above, I think I made my point. Thanks.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by seven7up View Post
          Quite off topic. But look ... I can give links also:

          https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-m...udies?lang=eng

          My link can beat up your link.

          -7up
          So in other words your link just handwaves away the fact that there is not any genetic evidence that jews migrated to the Americas over 2000 years ago.

          Yeah. Nice "beat up"


          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            The description of the inhabitants of the moon are attributed to Joseph Smith but are considered somewhat controversial in that it relies upon second or even third hand information. But what cannot be denied is that Brigham Young definitely taught that both the moon as well as the sun were occupied.
            “Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?... When you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the ignorant of their fellows. So it is in regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain.” --Journal of Discourses (v3, p271)

            FairMormon makes several interesting claims concerning this statement of Young's:

            Source: Brigham Young taught that the moon and sun were inhabited


            People on the sun

            Brigham is obviously expressing his opinion, but his point remains that no one knows very much about such things. To reject a novel idea simply because it is new—such as Mormonism—is absurd. All true ideas were once new, and treated with suspicion.

            William Herschel—the preeminent astronomer of his generation and the man to discover Uranus—was also firmly of the belief that the sun was inhabited.

            Source

            © Copyright Original Source



            Unfortunately for apologists nobody told Young this was only his opinion. He made it quite clear that his words were equivalent to Scripture.
            "I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." --Journal of Discourses (v16 p161)

            "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." --Journal of Discourses (v13 p95)

            This sermon about the moon and sun was part of a sermon given at what was then an equivalent to a general conference meeting and was therefore a prophetic statement issued by him to the members of the church.

            And to rely on Herschel here is a non-starter since he never claimed to be a prophet who's words were "as good Scripture."

            It is interesting that Joseph Fielding Smith (the tenth president of the LDS Church, son of Joseph F. Smith, who was their sixth president and grandson of Hyrum Smith, the brother of the founder of the LDS Church Joseph Smith) referred to the sun as a "celestial world" not as a star in his book "Doctrines of Salvation" and AFAICT Mormons still believe that others worlds can be inhabited.

            And there are still Mormons defending the belief that the moon might be inhabited:

            Source: One-Minute Answers to Anti-Mormon Questions: Did Joseph Smith Teach That the Moon Was Inhabited?


            "At the present time, man has no scientific or revealed knowledge of whether or not there are inhabitants on the earth's moon. The fact that a handful of astronauts didn't see any inhabitants in the tiny area they viewed when they landed on the moon decades ago certainly gives no definitive information, any more than visitors to earth who might land in barren Death Valley would have any idea of the billions of inhabitants elsewhere."

            Source

            © Copyright Original Source

            Yeah!
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Yeah!
              That's it! You would have to be a member of a species that literally just survives off of sunlight and be invulnerable to survive in an airless environment!
              If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                That's it! You would have to be a member of a species that literally just survives off of sunlight and be invulnerable to survive in an airless environment!
                The Mormon "prophets", particularly Brigham Young, just took off where Smith left off... spewing forth nonsense and declaring it Scripture, and abusing their power as an alleged representative of God to speak for Him.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  The Mormon "prophets", particularly Brigham Young, just took off where Smith left off... spewing forth nonsense and declaring it Scripture, and abusing their power as an alleged representative of God to speak for Him.
                  Or are my jokes about human aliens with superpowers under certain conditions going too far? Hey, 7up, do you know what I am referring too? Hint, started in 1938. One of them is sometimes best friends with a guy that dresses up like a bat?
                  If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                    Or are my jokes about human aliens with superpowers under certain conditions going too far? Hey, 7up, do you know what I am referring too? Hint, started in 1938. One of them is sometimes best friends with a guy that dresses up like a bat?

                    Krypto would take offense to that statement*.


                    *Perhaps Batman as well. Then there's Bizarro...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                      Krypto would take offense to that statement*.


                      *Perhaps Batman as well. Then there's Bizarro...
                      Great. He definitely should know by now...

                      Seriously, in all the multiverse, why can't there be any kryptonians? So did anyone NOT get what I was referring to? And you can't send it back to us because Jesus and Clark Kent have way different powersets. And Clark Kent was created by Seigel and Shuster in the 1930's. You could say that every author is the god of a universe. And they can write a story where the character in the story writes a story/creates a universe....
                      Last edited by Christianbookworm; 05-08-2014, 11:46 AM.
                      If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Christianbookworm View Post
                        Or are my jokes about human aliens with superpowers under certain conditions going too far? Hey, 7up, do you know what I am referring too? Hint, started in 1938. One of them is sometimes best friends with a guy that dresses up like a bat?



                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post


                          I didn't say the Kolobians were Kryptonians!!!
                          If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Now you're reasoning like a three year old. The Bible is a faithful witness. I believe what it says.
                            So, you believe that God can be a man with supernatural powers right? I assume everyone who believes in the Bible does.

                            7UP: One huge difference between you all and LDS is this. We believe that Colossians 2:9 is true. And you do not.

                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Just because I believe Smith is a fraud does NOT suggest I don't believe the Bible.
                            If God is, by nature (as an essential characteristic), an omnipresent essence, then you cannot also believe that the FULNESS of Deity can dwell bodily within Jesus Christ.

                            You have yourself another contradiction.

                            -7up

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                              So, you believe that God can be a man with supernatural powers right?
                              I believe that Jesus was God incarnate.

                              I assume everyone who believes in the Bible does.
                              Well, yeah, but you're mormonizing the Truth.

                              7UP: One huge difference between you all and LDS is this. We believe that Colossians 2:9 is true. And you do not.
                              You're wrong. You've tried this silly stunt before.

                              If God is, by nature (as an essential characteristic), an omnipresent essence, then you cannot also believe that the FULNESS of Deity can dwell bodily within Jesus Christ.
                              You don't know what I believe. But I'll tell you this -- I believe Joseph Smith was a fraud and the Book of Mormon is his work of fantasy.

                              You have yourself another contradiction.

                              -7up
                              Nope. You are not being a friend of the truth.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                                So, you believe that God can be a man with supernatural powers right? I assume everyone who believes in the Bible does.
                                We believe that God can take on the additional nature of humanity, yet still remain God by nature. His humanity is not what makes Him God. And His godhood is not what makes Him human.


                                7UP: One huge difference between you all and LDS is this. We believe that Colossians 2:9 is true. And you do not.
                                No you don't. You believe that the fullness of the FATHER'S deity resided in Jesus, but the Father's Father, and the Father's Father's Father's deity did not.


                                If God is, by nature (as an essential characteristic), an omnipresent essence, then you cannot also believe that the FULNESS of Deity can dwell bodily within Jesus Christ.
                                Why not? The essence of God that is omnipresent at my house is just as much and just as fully God as the essence that resides at CP's house. THat's what omnipresence entails.

                                You have yourself another contradiction.
                                No, you have yourself another strawman.
                                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

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X