Anything Goes LDS Thread (Everyone Welcome)

[Sola'lor]

I'm not saying that, one of your Prophets said that:

''The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children ; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers'' (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 8 page 115)

Notice how this is talking about birth and not conception. But I guess that last part could be seen in a particular light.

 

[TrueBlue2]

How about we just prove the Book of Mormon is false and untrue using scientific methods. There are no continually flowing rivers that empty into the Red Sea (1 Nephi 2:8). There are not even rivers which flow for four months into the Red Sea, which is how long Lehi and company camped along the River Laman. There are no valleys which would indicate there even used to be a River Laman. There are no secular records of such a river, which would have been an important water source for travelers in the desert of Arabia.

I have to smile a bit at this Francine. No one has ever been able to find any evidence of the Garden of Eden. Does that mean that Adam and Eve didn't really happen? No one can fathom the size of the boat that Noah must have built to fit 'two of each kind.' Does that make the story untrue? No, spiritual truths will never be proven or unproven using scientific methods.

It starts with faith. Because of the Book of Mormon we know far more today about the fall of Adam, the Atonement, what happens after death, the purpose of life, judgment day, and a myriad of other gospel topics than we would by leaning on the Bible alone. Why wouldn't the rest of the Christian world want that?

 

[Francine]

I have to smile a bit at this Francine. No one has ever been able to find any evidence of the Garden of Eden. Does that mean that Adam and Eve didn't really happen?

Adam and Eve didn't really happen. We evolved from earlier primates, and God spoke to one or more of them when they were ready.

No one can fathom the size of the boat that Noah must have built to fit 'two of each kind.' Does that make the story untrue?

There was no global flood. To cover a mountain 5.5 miles high on a globe that is 200 million square miles in area requires 1.1 billion cubic miles of water. A static column of air at 14.7 lbs psi can hold one inch of water, not 5.5 miles of it. There is nowhere for that amount of water to come from, and nowhere for that water to go.

 

[Katzpur]

Adam and Eve didn't really happen. We evolved from earlier primates, and God spoke to one or more of them when they were ready.

There was no global flood. To cover a mountain 5.5 miles high on a globe that is 200 million square miles in area requires 1.1 billion cubic miles of water. A static column of air at 14.7 lbs psi can hold one inch of water, not 5.5 miles of it. There is nowhere for that amount of water to come from, and nowhere for that water to go.

Okay, so you don't like those two examples. How about this one: A young virgin named Mary gave birth to the Son of God. Prove it!

 

[Francine]

Notice how this is talking about birth and not conception.

I don't really have a reading comprehension problem. He said it was the "result of natural action". The birth is the result, the natural action that caused it was the conception.

 

[Sola'lor]

I don't really have a reading comprehension problem. He said it was the "result of natural action". The birth is the result, the natural action that caused it was the conception.

Your right. But it's still not church doctrine. I don't believe that God went off hammer and tongs in the middle of the night with Mary. If so she wouldn't have been a virgin. I don't care what any prophet thinks it is. Only if it became church doctrine would I be more likely to accept it.

 

[Katzpur]

I don't really have a reading comprehension problem. He said it was the "result of natural action". The birth is the result, the natural action that caused it was the conception.

You know, it would be really interesting if we were to drag everything some of the Catholic Popes ever said into a thread about Catholicism and try to make the Catholic posters here defend them. I wonder why we Latter-day Saints don't ever do that?

 

[kadzbiz]

Sure. Joseph Smith returned them to Moroni, who gave them to him. If your next statement is going to be "Oh, how convenient!", let me assure you that it is not.

Actually, I'd ask "why?"

Trying to prove the Book of Mormon is real and true using scientific methods is like trying to prove God is real using the same methods. Or how about Noah's ark? Where's the undisputed evidence that Noah's ark is real? And if scientists suddenly did make a discovery that corroborated everything we've been saying about the BofM would people believe it? To me the evidence is everywhere that God exists and yet people still dispute it. Scientists could find a city tomorrow with an old signpost that read "Zarahemla" and it really wouldn't make any difference.......

Firstly, I don't believe much of what the Bible affords as truth. It's a book. A book of some historical value and a lot of exagerated emblished stories IMO. Secondly, what sort of evidence that God exists are you refering to? Thirdly, I think a signpost saying "Zarahemla" would indeed be significant if it were verified to be of that time period.

....Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1999, pp. 54-63. .....

.... photogallery at NephiProject.com. ..... the work done regarding the Valley of Lemuel..... The Nephi Project, at Welcome to the Nephi Project. ........But it is there, an incredibly rare perennial stream in Arabia. ........An anti-Mormon laughingstock has become one more piece of evidence for them to ignore.

Regarding George D. Potter's article "The views expressed in this article are the views of the author and do not represent the position of the Maxwell Institute, Brigham Young University, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Personally, I find that amazing.

 

[TrueBlue2]

Adam and Eve didn't really happen. We evolved from earlier primates, and God spoke to one or more of them when they were ready.

Oh my gosh, you just denied the Biblical account of the creation!:drool: ( I wish they had a better smiley face). I'm pretty certain the Catholic church stands behind the creation account, not evolution, right?

Let me take a stab at this. It's ok to tell me if I'm totally off base. The missionaries left you a Book of Mormon a couple of years ago. You read the book and were touched by its content and by its dramatic testimony of the Savior. You felt the spirit testify of its truthfulness. You've been doing every thing conceivable since that time to convince yourself that the book can't be true. You keep looking for evidence that proves the book is false. You want someone in this forum to say something incredibly stupid that would convince you of its fallacy. But that old feeling you had when you read the book still haunts you...

 

[Francine]

Your right. But it's still not church doctrine. I don't believe that God went off hammer and tongs in the middle of the night with Mary. If so she wouldn't have been a virgin. I don't care what any prophet thinks it is. Only if it became church doctrine would I be more likely to accept it.

It is frustrating that a Catholic first has to prove to Mormons that an issue is indeed doctrine before offering a critique of that doctrine. Catholics never fail to step up when the tables are turned. Nevertheless, would it be safe to say that things written in a book called "Mormon Doctrine" by a member of the Quorum of 12, is, in fact, Mormon doctrine?

"God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage, And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says." (page 742 Mormon Doctrine Bruce McConkie)

 

[Sola'lor]

You know, it would be really interesting if we were to drag everything some of the Catholic Popes ever said into a thread about Catholicism and try to make the Catholic posters here defend them. I wonder why we Latter-day Saints don't ever do that?

Because I'm not that interested in Catholicism to do that much research. Nothing against Catholics. But I have so much more to do with my life. I'm probably wasting to much time on RF too. Hehehe.

 

[Sola'lor]

It is frustrating that a Catholic first has to prove to Mormons that an issue is indeed doctrine before offering a critique of that doctrine. Catholics never fail to step up when the tables are turned. Nevertheless, would it be safe to say that things written in a book called "Mormon Doctrine" by a member of the Quorum of 12, is, in fact, Mormon doctrine?

"God the Father is a perfected, glorified, holy Man, an immortal Personage, And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the son of God, and that designation means what it says." (page 742 Mormon Doctrine Bruce McConkie)

The book Mormon Doctrine contains doctrine but it isn't doctrine. I've never I imagine if it were it would be required reading by memebers. The standard works are required reading. I've never read Journal of discourses and I probably wont for quite a long time if ever. I've only read parts of Mormon Doctrine.

 

[Francine]

Oh my gosh, you just denied the Biblical account of the creation!:drool: ( I wish they had a better smiley face). I'm pretty certain the Catholic church stands behind the creation account, not evolution, right?

The Popemobile has sported a Darwin Fish since 1992.

Let me take a stab at this. It's ok to tell me if I'm totally off base. The missionaries left you a Book of Mormon a couple of years ago. You read the book and were touched by its content and by its dramatic testimony of the Savior. You felt the spirit testify of its truthfulness. You've been doing every thing conceivable since that time to convince yourself that the book can't be true. You keep looking for evidence that proves the book is false. You want someone in this forum to say something incredibly stupid that would convince you of its fallacy. But that old feeling you had when you read the book still haunts you...

No, they left the book of Mormon on November 1st and I read it in two weeks. I engaged in a series of discussions about the BoM that more or less mirror what you have seen here. In the fullness of time it came to pass that I grew exceedingly disappointed by the glaring lack of answers to my question, "What plain and precious things were lost from the Gospel of the Lamb that required a Restoration?" In fact, I only received two answers, and they were not acceptable to me: 1) That baptism requires a priesthood with the proper "keys" to perform 2) That Jesus was "a" god, not God the Son.

 

[FFH]

I don't really have a reading comprehension problem. He said it was the "result of natural action". The birth is the result, the natural action that caused it was the conception.

Yes, she was naturally impregnated, but not in any mortal human way, but in an unseen immortal human way which we, of course, do not have any comprehension of yet, and we don't need to know the details, it's not important to our faith.

All things are possbile with God.

Matt. 19: 26
But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark 10: 27
And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Luke 18: 27
And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.

Wisdom of Men

 

[Francine]

Because I'm not that interested in Catholicism to do that much research. Nothing against Catholics. But I have so much more to do with my life. I'm probably wasting to much time on RF too. Hehehe.

You know what? I agree. I've wasted too much of my time doing this Mormon "outreach". It's not going anywhere. This is the end. I'm going to hang out in other places on RF.

 

[Katzpur]

It is frustrating that a Catholic first has to prove to Mormons that an issue is indeed doctrine before offering a critique of that doctrine.

What on earth do you think gives you the authority to say what is and what is not Mormon doctrine, Francine? If you think for one minute that you are in any way qualified to define LDS doctrine for the Latter-day Saints, you are sadly mistaken. Honestly, what would you think if I were to make such a statement -- that I was frustrated that I had to first teach you what Catholics believe before I could start convincing you it was wrong?

Nevertheless, would it be safe to say that things written in a book called "Mormon Doctrine" by a member of the Quorum of 12, is, in fact, Mormon doctrine?

No, it would not. Just because the book is entitled "Mormon Doctrine" does not mean that it is Mormon Doctrine. It's one man's interpretation of Mormon doctrine. All of our doctrine can be found in our "Standard Works": The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine & Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price.

 

[Sola'lor]

That Jesus was "a" god, not God the Son.

Where did you hear this one from? I hope no LDS members are saying the Jesus is just 'a god.'

 

[Sola'lor]

You know what? I agree. I've wasted too much of my time doing this Mormon "outreach". It's not going anywhere. This is the end. I'm going to hang out in other places on RF.

I hope you didn't take that the wrong way. I didn't mean that I don't care about the Catholic religion. I respect Catholics. Catholics are wonderful people. The Catholic religion has done wonderful things in the way of bringing people to Christ. I just have so much more to learn about my own religion and other projects I'm working on. I appreciate your efforts on this forum. I enjoy learning things about the Ctholic religion but going out of my way to learn about Catholicsm isn't my greatest priority right now.

 

[FFH]

The Popemobile has sported a Darwin Fish since 1992.

Could you provide an image to back up your claim ???

 

[Francine]

Could you provide an image to back up your claim ???

That's my unique way of saying that in 1992 the Pope published a document that said evolution was a useful model for explaining observed data, and it was not contrary to Christian belief per se.