Anything Goes LDS Thread (Everyone Welcome)

[Katzpur]

Good question! The pope could not make a valid ex cathedra statement about day or night or for that matter pink t-shirts or blue t-shirts. The pope can only speak with infallible protection on matters of faith and morals and not science or anything else.

Well, in essence that is true for us, too. You asked a ludicrous hypothetical question and I should have just given you a ludicrous hypothetical answer, instead of attempting to actually address it.

So it would have to be related to scripture and tradition for the Pope to be able to use that charism. Popes have not used that charism often.

Neither have our prophets. I can think of only twice in the last hundred years or so.

This brings up another question for you LDS members though. If you do not have to hold to any Prophecy or new revelation unless God confirms it with you personally then what makes the LDS church different from the protestants who say that they must be confirmed by the Holy Spirit for leading them to interpret the passages of the bible correctly. What good is a ultimate Authority(like a prophet) or a Church if one does not have to abide by the teachings? This seems protestant and kinda defeats the whole purpose of the LDS Hierarchy and prophets does it not?

Simple. As long as the prophet speaks the truth, the Holy Ghost will confirm it. The prophet has never given new revelation that the Holy Ghost has not confirmed in the minds and hearts of the members of the Church.

Paul said it best, when he spoke of the organization of Christ's Church here on Earth: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..." (Ephesians 4:11-14)

Without Prophets and Apostles, the Church would be left without its foundation and would be like "children... carried about with every wind of doctrine."

 

[Katzpur]

Bishka, I know that Roli has been very antagonistic but I wonder if we're not taking the whole "this is not doctrine" thing too far. I hesitate to say anything as this has not been my argument, but to an outside observer things are starting to come across as though the Mormons can discount the words of a prophet because it's not in the official canon, whereas the fact is I think most LDS people have high regard for the words of Talmage, McConkie, and any other apostle. And we accept their teachings as being accurate very near 100% of the time. I think we would admit that when the church was in its infancy that things were said by Brigham Young and others that do not align with official church doctrine today, but the fact still remains that we hold in high self esteem the words of the prophets.

Many of the claims in this recent post by Roli are true: there was a premortal council held in which two plans were presented; Joseph Smith did make that statement in his King Follett discourse; and the Father does have a body of flesh and bones. Why not admit that, and discuss it?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood Bishka as saying that roli's sources were not doctrinally binding. When you take a quote out of context from any of these books ("Mormon Doctrine," "Journal of Discources," "The Gospel through the Ages", etc.), you can build up a whole case against the Church, which is exactly what roli is attempting (although very unsuccessfully) to do. Let's take the "Mormons believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers," example. Well, we do believe that, but it's within an entirely different framework than CARM would like people to believe. Certainly, it warrants an explanation, lest people misunderstand its meaning, but who is in the best position to present that explanation? Active members of the Church, who know and understand what they've been taught week after week for years on end, or those whose intention it is to denegrade the Church? I think it's always a good idea to stick to the Standard Works when talking about what is and what is not doctrine, rather than branch out to questionable commentaries.

 

[Bishka]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood Bishka as saying that roli's sources were not doctrinally binding. When you take a quote out of context from any of these books ("Mormon Doctrine," "Journal of Discources," "The Gospel through the Ages", etc.), you can build up a whole case against the Church, which is exactly what roli is attempting (although very unsuccessfully) to do. Let's take the "Mormons believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers," example. Well, we do believe that, but it's within an entirely different framework than CARM would like people to believe. Certainly, it warrants an explanation, lest people misunderstand its meaning, but who is in the best position to present that explanation? Active members of the Church, who know and understand what they've been taught week after week for years on end, or those whose intention it is to denegrade the Church? I think it's always a good idea to stick to the Standard Works when talking about what is and what is not doctrine, rather than branch out to questionable commentaries.

Thank you.

 

[TrueBlue2]

1) Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163.)

It is the position of the church that God is the Father of ALL. You, me, and the billions of others who live, or who have lived on this earth. Of all the titles he could be referred to it's interesting that the most frequent one is "Father." And, yes, he is the father of Lucifer as well. How many of you have had problems with a rebellious son?

2) A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." (Mormon Doctrine, page 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, page 8.)

True story. The book of Abraham chapter 3 tells the story of the premortal council held in heaven.

3) The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s..." (D&C 130:22).
Could you show me where these doctrines are taught in the bible?

Joseph Smith testified that when he went into the words to pray, to determine which of all the churches were right, that both the Father and the Son appeared to him as glorified personages in physical form. I think all would agree that an eyewitness to an event is the best source of truth. However, there are evidences in the Bible as well. Moses saw and spoke with God FACE to FACE as a man speaketh with a friend. See Exodus 33:11.

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . .

Most members of the church believe this doctrine as it was taught by Joseph Smith, as well as one of his successors, Lorenzo Snow. It speaks to the potential of eternal progression for all of us. However, none of us are qualified to speak to the full complexity of the doctrine. We too believe that God has been God for all eternity. The doctrine is beyond full comprehension, and will not be understood in this life. However, let me remind you that the Savior often stated that he had done "nothing but what I have seen the Father do." Please explain how that is possible.

God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428.) God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus, (Brigham Young

We accept and agree with the Kolob concept. It's something that's been revealed by modern scripture through a modern prophet.

We totally reject the second concept. Anyone can discover for themselves how Christ was conceived by reading the gospel of Luke. That's ALL we know. Though Brigham Young was a great prophet he sometimes said things that fell outside the realm of doctrine. What else can I say? The church was in its infancy. There was a lot of speculation about doctrine at the time. We need to distinguish here when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and when they are just speaking for themselves. I'm sure Brigham didn't realize that everything he said was going to be analyzed to the teeth 170 years later.

Iguess my problem with these not being accepted by mormons today as mormon doctrine, how can these men be prophets.

As indicated, almost all of this IS accepted as mormon doctrine!

 

[TrueBlue2]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood Bishka as saying that roli's sources were not doctrinally binding. When you take a quote out of context from any of these books ("Mormon Doctrine," "Journal of Discources," "The Gospel through the Ages", etc.), you can build up a whole case against the Church, which is exactly what roli is attempting (although very unsuccessfully) to do. Let's take the "Mormons believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers," example. Well, we do believe that, but it's within an entirely different framework than CARM would like people to believe. Certainly, it warrants an explanation, lest people misunderstand its meaning, but who is in the best position to present that explanation? Active members of the Church, who know and understand what they've been taught week after week for years on end, or those whose intention it is to denegrade the Church? I think it's always a good idea to stick to the Standard Works when talking about what is and what is not doctrine, rather than branch out to questionable commentaries.

I accept what you're saying as well Katzpur, and thanks for joining the conversation. My concern is that to someone peering in from the outside it may appear that we don't accept these concepts as doctrine, when in fact we do. I am sure that Bishka's intentions were all good.

 

[FFH]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I understood Bishka as saying that roli's sources were not doctrinally binding. When you take a quote out of context from any of these books ("Mormon Doctrine," "Journal of Discources," "The Gospel through the Ages", etc.), you can build up a whole case against the Church, which is exactly what roli is attempting (although very unsuccessfully) to do. Let's take the "Mormons believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers," example. Well, we do believe that, but it's within an entirely different framework than CARM would like people to believe. Certainly, it warrants an explanation, lest people misunderstand its meaning, but who is in the best position to present that explanation? Active members of the Church, who know and understand what they've been taught week after week for years on end, or those whose intention it is to denegrade the Church? I think it's always a good idea to stick to the Standard Works when talking about what is and what is not doctrine, rather than branch out to questionable commentaries.

Great writing, very well spoken. You're a pro. :bow: You make us all look like amateurs.

 

[Katzpur]

Great writing, very well spoken. You're a pro. :bow: You make us all look like amateurs.

Aw, shucks...

 

[Sola'lor]

We accept and agree with the Kolob concept. It's something that's been revealed by modern scripture through a modern prophet.

I thought Kolob was a planet not a star.

 

[Francine]

I accept what you're saying as well Katzpur, and thanks for joining the conversation. My concern is that to someone peering in from the outside it may appear that we don't accept these concepts as doctrine, when in fact we do.

The solution is simple. It takes two to tango. If someone initiated a thread titled "Why Do Catholics Worship Mary?" I would only respond if I agreed to the premise that Catholics do worship Mary. If someone initiated a thread titled "Why Do Mormons Believe In Many Gods?" I would expect the Mormons to reply only if they agreed that the plurality of gods was official LDS doctrine.

 

[Katzpur]

I thought Kolob was a planet not a star.

In Abraham 3:2-3, it says, "And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest."

 

[Katzpur]

The solution is simple. It takes two to tango. If someone initiated a thread titled "Why Do Catholics Worship Mary?" I would only respond if I agreed to the premise that Catholics do worship Mary. If someone initiated a thread titled "Why Do Mormons Believe In Many Gods?" I would expect the Mormons to reply only if they agreed that the plurality of gods was official LDS doctrine.

Well, when someone asks a man who has never treated his wife with anything but respect, "When did you stop beating your wife?" what's he supposed to do? If the question itself misrepresents our beliefs, what does a non-response say?

 

[Sola'lor]

In Abraham 3:2-3, it says, "And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest."

Hm. Interesting. I guess this part was what alsways stood out to me.

"I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest."

It seems that what this is saying, as well as the rest of that chapter, is that Kolob is the largest, slowest orbiting, solid planet.

Maybe I'll have to reread that chapter.

 

[TrueBlue2]

Could you show me where these doctrines are taught in the bible?...Keeping in mind each of these groups have radically different views of Jesus Christ and God and only one of us use the bible explicitly.

Roli, do you realize that the book of Genesis, with its 78 pages, covers essentially the first 3,000 years of man's existence? Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have the writings of Adam? Or, how about Enoch? I'll bet he'd have something to tell us wouldn't he? Or Noah? Or even Abraham? We don't even have the writings of the father of the entire Israelite nation! Wow!

The Bible we DO have often makes references to books that are NOT included in the canon. It will go along and then say something to the effect that "you can find more about the Lord's dealing with his people in the book of Jasher, or the book of Solomon, or others. Do you think it would be good if we had the writings of the great king Solomon?

Many of your arguments are based around the idea that if something found in LDS doctrine can't be correlated in the Bible then it can't be true. It's absolutely incredible to me that intelligent, well-educated individuals can limit God ONLY to the books currently compiled in what we call the Bible. I think Adam alone could tell us more about God, and about the gospel of Christ, than the entire canon of the Old Testament. The idea that God couldn't, or didn't, speak to the prophets of the Old Testament before Moses, or the idea that he doesn't speak to prophets today is preposterous!

You asked who Paul was referring to in I Corinthians. The answer is any individual who takes it upon himself to place those kinds of limitations on an ever-knowing God.

 

[TrueBlue2]

I thought Kolob was a planet not a star.

I agree. I wasn't paying attention to the details. You can read about Kolob as a governing planet in Abraham 3.

 

[Sola'lor]

Roli, do you realize that the book of Genesis, with its 78 pages, covers essentially the first 3,000 years of man's existence? Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have the writings of Adam? Or, how about Enoch? I'll bet he'd have something to tell us wouldn't he? Or Noah? Or even Abraham? We don't even have the writings of the father of the entire Israelite nation! Wow!

The Bible we DO have often makes references to books that are NOT included in the canon. It will go along and then say something to the effect that "you can find more about the Lord's dealing with his people in the book of Jasher, or the book of Solomon, or others. Do you think it would be good if we had the writings of the great king Solomon?

The Lost Books of the Bible - The Hidden Truths

Great site! Lost of intersting stuff. You can actually read many of the books not included in the Bible. There's a couple books about Adam. Almost everyone contains the story of the premortal life.

 

[kadzbiz]

....an entirely different framework than CARM would like people to believe. ......

I've only just heard about CARM. What's so bad about it?

May I ask the LDS members three questions please?

1. What would be the reaction by the LDS church if another person or group claimed the discovery of a new book with a new revelation etc?

2. What does the LDS church feel about ex members who have been members for a long time and now are saying things against the church?

3. I believe the BoM is about 531 pages long. A member in another thread suggested that the original gold plates of the book were able to be lifted by one person, Joseph Smith's wife was given as a person who even carried them. If my calculations are correct and the dimensions of the plates are indeed, 6 x 8 x 1/8 inch, and given the plates were written on both sides, the total weight of the gold plates would've been about 1064 pounds. I doubt Mrs. Smith was that strong. I'm no weakling, but I've only just managed to get up to a 400 pound deadlift after 6 months training. A typical gold bar weighs about 30 pounds FYI. How does the weight of the gold plates get explained please?

 

[Scott C.]

I've always been curious about the prochronisms in some of the earlier Mormon scriptures. How did words like Bible, Church, Baptism, Apostle, and Christ appear in documents that are claimed to have been written 550-600 BC? These are Greek words, so they wouldn't have been spoken by Hebrews until the 1st century at the earliest, which is why they are not in the Old Testament. Alexander the Great didn't conquer the Mediterranean Coast until ~330 BC, which is roughly 250 years after the books in the Book of Mormon using these words(1 Nephi, Alma) claim to have been written. How did the Nephites learn Greek?

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon into English. These words existed in English at the time Joseph Smith did the translation. We have no idea what ancient, non-English words were written on the plates

 

[Katzpur]

I've only just heard about CARM. What's so bad about it?

It's a website run by fundamentalist Christians who don't seem to be able to get their facts straight. You've run into fundies before. 'Nuff said.

May I ask the LDS members three questions please?

1. What would be the reaction by the LDS church if another person or group claimed the discovery of a new book with a new revelation etc?

I don't know. The circumstances of its discovery would probably require further examination. It's really hard for me to say.

2. What does the LDS church feel about ex members who have been members for a long time and now are saying things against the church?

Well, I suppose they're about as reliable a source on the Church as Judas Iscariot would have been on Christianity after he betrayed Christ.

3. I believe the BoM is about 531 pages long. A member in another thread suggested that the original gold plates of the book were able to be lifted by one person, Joseph Smith's wife was given as a person who even carried them. If my

calculations are correct and the dimensions of the plates are indeed, 6 x 8 x 1/8 inch, and given the plates were written on both sides, the total weight of the gold plates would've been about 1064 pounds. I doubt Mrs. Smith was that strong. I'm no weakling, but I've only just managed to get up to a 400 pound deadlift after 6 months training. A typical gold bar weighs about 30 pounds FYI. How does the weight of the gold plates get explained please?

Your calculations don't take into account that we're not talking about solid gold. We're talking about thin metal plates which, when stacked on top of each other, do not lie perfectly flat, but have some space between them. Air space would have occupied 20% - 50% of the volume. Besides, the plates were never actually said to be "gold" but merely to have the appearance of gold. There is a Mesoamerican alloy called tumbaga, which is gold alloyed with copper. It is about half the density of pure gold. Plates the size Joseph Smith said they were, if made of tumbago, and having the air content previously mentioned, would weigh somewhere around 66 pounds.

 

[Sola'lor]

I've only just heard about CARM. What's so bad about it?

May I ask the LDS members three questions please?

Sure ao ahead.

1. What would be the reaction by the LDS church if another person or group claimed the discovery of a new book with a new revelation etc?

I don't know what the reaction of the church would be but I can tell you my reaction would be. I would be interested. I would learn more about the book. There have been tons of other books containing scripture that have been discovered since the Book of Mormon. The Dead Sea Scrolls come to mind right off the bat.

2. What does the LDS church feel about ex members who have been members for a long time and now are saying things against the church?

I feel that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I do feel that if someone was a missionary and testified of the truth of the church and then they leave; they should go find everybody they taught on their mission. Then they should tell them they were lying and they don't believe it anymore.

3. I believe the BoM is about 531 pages long. A member in another thread suggested that the original gold plates of the book were able to be lifted by one person, Joseph Smith's wife was given as a person who even carried them. If my calculations are correct and the dimensions of the plates are indeed, 6 x 8 x 1/8 inch, and given the plates were written on both sides, the total weight of the gold plates would've been about 1064 pounds. I doubt Mrs. Smith was that strong. I'm no weakling, but I've only just managed to get up to a 400 pound deadlift after 6 months training. A typical gold bar weighs about 30 pounds FYI. How does the weight of the gold plates get explained please?

The overall dimensions of the gold plates were given by Martin Harris: "were seven inches wide by eight inches in length, and were of the thickness of plates of tin; and when piled one above the other, they were altogether about four inches thick."

So the total dimensions are 7 in. wide by 8 in long by 4 in. high. I would like it if you rin that through your calculations please. I'm curious to see what the weight would be.

Also keep in mind that the number of paper pages of the translation doesn't equal the number of pages of the gold plates.

 

[kadzbiz]

It's a website run by fundamentalist Christians who don't seem to be able to get their facts straight.....

they're about as reliable a source on the Church as Judas Iscariot would have been on Christianity after he betrayed Christ.......

Your calculations don't take into account that we're not talking about solid gold. We're talking about thin metal plates which, when stacked on top of each other, do not lie perfectly flat, but have some space between them. Air space would have occupied 20% - 50% of the volume. Besides, the plates were never actually said to be "gold" but merely to have the appearance of gold. There is a Mesoamerican alloy called tumbaga, which is gold alloyed with copper. It is about half the density of pure gold. Plates the size Joseph Smith said they were, if made of tumbago, and having the air content previously mentioned, would weigh somewhere around 66 pounds.

Is there ANYONE that is not an LDS member who has the facts right? Really, is there?

Just because Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus (as he was supposed to do by the will of God BTW) doesn't mean that he wouldn't have been a reliable source, no less reliable than others who wrote books of the bible.

Thin metal plates? The figures given per plate is 8 x 6 x 1/8 inch. Your airspace figures don't make sense. If you stacked these "plates", apart from the upper ones, the air would've been flattened out by the weight. Air wouldn't add weight in any case. The density of copper is just under half of that of gold, so how do you only get 66 pounds?