Book of Mormon

[rabanes]

Ha!After Heidegger and Neitzsche, let's work our way up to some real classy polemic. haha

I'm not quote sure what's so funny, except maybe the fact that this is a strawman in that I was NOT referring to reading general (and I thought that would be apparent to any intelligent reader). The point, in context, was reading my books that he mistakenly judged. This should have been evident given my listing of books that did indeed include criticisms of evangelicals and evangelical segments of the Christian church.

RA

 

[DallasApple]

There were 30,000 Lbs of Bananas!!!

YouTube - Harry Chapin sings BANANAS Live 1977


Love

Dallas

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not quote sure what's so funny, except maybe the fact that this is a strawman in that I was NOT referring to reading general (and I thought that would be apparent to any intelligent reader). The point, in context, was reading my books that he mistakenly judged. This should have been evident given my listing of books that did indeed include criticisms of evangelicals and evangelical segments of the Christian church.

RA

Of course, as one who has so carelessly misjudged other more noble works.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Of course, as one who has so carelessly misjudged other more noble works.

Well, keep in mind, none of us can be Neitzsche's equal, and Heidegger has few peers.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, keep in mind, none of us can be Neitzsche's equal, and Heidegger has few peers.

Don't mind me, I'm just a fella reading the comics.

 

[rabanes]

Of course, as one who has so carelessly misjudged other more noble works.

1. And which works would those be? I've not seen any books mentioned here that we began to discuss.

2. Are you absolving misjudging the works of one person, if that other person has himself/herself misjudged other works? That makes no sense. Surely, you're not saying that.

RA

 

[DeepShadow]

Its fascinating!!! I think they are vampires..lurking in the corners to drain the blood out of our bodies and make "us" inhuman/immortal...

Love

Dallas

Nah, it's more like the Borg:

We are the Mormons. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

1. And which works would those be? I've not seen any books mentioned here that we began to discuss.

2. Are you absolving misjudging the works of one person, if that other person has himself/herself misjudged other works? That makes no sense. Surely, you're not saying that.

RA

I was referring, of course, to dopp's demonstrated inability to read properly as indicated in his discussion of other works which are far beyond you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I was referring, of course, to dopp's demonstrated inability to read properly as indicated in his discussion of other works which are far beyond you.

I'll provide examples:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/comparative-religion/46089-wood-between-worlds.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/51968-discordian-not-reality-original-rorschach.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/theological-concepts/62676-knowing-unknowing.html

If you need more, click on dopp's name and look at the threads that he's started.

 

[DallasApple]

Nah, it's more like the Borg:

We are the Mormons. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

NO I will not.....Dont get a swollen head...


Love

Dallas

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Nah, it's more like the Borg:

We are the Mormons. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Ha! Data will save us!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not quote sure what's so funny, except maybe the fact that this is a strawman in that I was NOT referring to reading general (and I thought that would be apparent to any intelligent reader). The point, in context, was reading my books that he mistakenly judged. This should have been evident given my listing of books that did indeed include criticisms of evangelicals and evangelical segments of the Christian church.

RA

Well, all sarcasm aside, you're certainly not the first author who has begged misreading in light of perceived unfavorable criticism or interpretation. Personally, I find that this demonstrates a lack of integrity on the part of the author - whether writing what he didn't mean in the first place, or insulting the intelligence of the reader - or both.

It makes no difference to me, unlike dopp, I could care less about your drivel, and have no interest at all in reading it. That being said, I enjoy RF for actual conversation and not the indulgence in spam.

 

[DeepShadow]

Deep Shadow is playing games. You know, as well as I do, what Mormons believe about gods, godhood, deification, exaltation, eternal progression, Heavenly Mother, heavenly Father, spirit children, the celestial kingdom, procreation in eternity.....on ad on and on.

So, are you saying we have another set of books we teach from?!

Go read your standard works, conference speeches, Ensign, the Journal of Discourses, and whatever else you have in your libraries.

I prepare my lessons from the lesson manual. Seriously, is that a bad way to prepare lessons?

Just be honest. Stop trying to give what you consider the "milk" to people, rather than the "meat" (read the things they can swallow more easily, and hiding the truths that the average person would probably look at ans say, "what?") The Internet doesn't make it as easy as it was in the 19th-early 20th century to use that tactic.

It's the internet that proves you wrong. The internet contains our actual teachings. Unless you can cite something from what we actually teach, what are you complaining about?

 

[DeepShadow]

HEAVENLY MOTHER is not "decades old."

Cherry picking, but okay, we'll run with it.

Without Heavenly Mother your whole LDS structure falls in a heap.

Hardly.

It is central to Mormonism, but is not discussed much.

How is that even possible?!

It is the only central teaching not found in the Standard Works.

I'll remind you you said that.

I see HEAVENLY MOTHER being talked about here like its some kind of peripheral issue.

...That's because it is. The existence or nonexistence of a Heavenly Mother does not affect any of the saving doctrines: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, sacrament. Nor does it have bearing on the ordinances of the priesthood, nor any of the commandments. It's the Mormon equivalent of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

 

[doppelganger]

Please -- and I am seriously saying, please -- talke a look at how you are assuming so much.

You mean it's not okay to assume things about what people believe and teach unless I ask them, honestly try to listen to their answers, and then read what they have actually written with an open mind to try to understand it?

I agree. It's not okay.


QED

 

[DeepShadow]

Deep Shadow is playing games. You know, as well as I do, what Mormons believe about gods, godhood, deification, exaltation, eternal progression, Heavenly Mother, heavenly Father, spirit children, the celestial kingdom, procreation in eternity.....on ad on and on.

So, besides Heavenly Mother, am I to understand the Standard Works cover deification and procreation in eternity?

 

[idea]

...That's because it is. The existence or nonexistence of a Heavenly Mother does not affect any of the saving doctrines: faith, repentance, baptism, confirmation, sacrament. Nor does it have bearing on the ordinances of the priesthood, nor any of the commandments. It's the Mormon equivalent of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Actually, it does. We look to our Heavenly Parents as a guide as what we are to aim for. She is as central to our doctrine as Heavenly Father and marriage is.

4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
(Old Testament | Proverbs2:4)


She is one of the hidden treasures.


She is not openly talked about for the same reason that temple things are not openly talked about. Not all the the stuff in the temple is in the scripts either... actually She is in the scripts, you just have to know what names She goes by... She is "the love of God" She is "Wisdom" She is "Charity" She is the "tree of life" She is the "staff" / rod ... Just as Jesus has many names (Good Shepherd, Jehovah, Lamb of God, Light, etc.) She has many names. Just a hint for those who want to find Her.... It is a personal quest though, I would not deprive anyone from the joy of personal discovery if they so choose to pursue it.


Everyone knows this script:
7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
(New Testament | Matthew7:7 - 8)

Before we are told to ask, we are told
6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
(New Testament | Matthew7:6)


1 MY son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee...
(Old Testament | Proverbs2:1)

some things are kept hidden. Some people seek for things that are hidden, others do not... some people miss out on a lot of what is out there.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God(s) created man in his/her own image, in the image of God(s) created he/she him/them; male and female created he/she them.
(Old Testament | Genesis 1:26 - 27)

see orig Hebrew... the image of God is "male and female"

 

[Watchmen]

Actually, it does. We look to our Heavenly Parents as a guide as what we are to aim for. She is as central to our doctrine as Heavenly Father and marriage is.

4 If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
(Old Testament | Proverbs2:4)


She is one of the hidden treasures.


She is not openly talked about for the same reason that temple things are not openly talked about. Not all the the stuff in the temple is in the scripts either... actually She is in the scripts, you just have to know what names She goes by... She is "the love of God" She is "Wisdom" She is "Charity" She is the "tree of life" She is the "staff" / rod ... Just as Jesus has many names (Good Shepherd, Jehovah, Lamb of God, Light, etc.) She has many names. Just a hint for those who want to find Her.... It is a personal quest though, I would not deprive anyone from the joy of personal discovery if they so choose to pursue it.


Everyone knows this script:
7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
(New Testament | Matthew7:7 - 8)

Before we are told to ask, we are told
6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
(New Testament | Matthew7:6)


1 MY son, if thou wilt receive my words, and hide my commandments with thee...
(Old Testament | Proverbs2:1)

some things are kept hidden. Some people seek for things that are hidden, others do not... some people miss out on a lot of what is out there.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God(s) created man in his/her own image, in the image of God(s) created he/she him/them; male and female created he/she them.
(Old Testament | Genesis1:26 - 27)

see orig Hebrew... the image of God is "male and female"

Idea, that's hardly central. You've taken you personal interpretation of those verses and applied them to "Heavenly Mother." Please cite the lesson manuals that talk about Heavenly Mother or explain how the principles of the gospel or the ordinances of the priesthood fail without this "Heavenly Mother" teaching.

 

[Riverwolf]

Richard...

I've never heard of you before reading this thread. Therefore I will not say anything about what you believe or what you've said or what others have said about you. I don't care about any of that.

However, you have said here that your articles aren't anything compared to your books... and that's how you should approach Mormonism. Don't worry about what is not taught in modern Mormon schools and services. Attend some to learn what is considered central. Don't limit yourself to their books, and don't bother reading non-canonical books for information on "central beliefs": those only describe what that individual author believes.

And I'd also like to say that, like with every other religion, beliefs change within the Mormon Church; I can say with pretty good certainty that many Mormons do not believe all that Joseph Smith believed.

I'd also like to point out that what the Mormon leaders believe is not always exactly what actual members believe. I don't know much about Mormonism, but I have gathered from what I've read here on this forum that LDS followers don't have to follow the current leaders.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Ok, this thread is just going nowhere - anything we (whether mormon or not) say, richard abanes claims it is a "predictable" answer. Everything he says is predictable ie keeps directing people to his books which are anti-mormon or books written by people who used to be mormon and are now anti-mormon. Of course if you look at critics writings you are going to find stuff which says everything richard is talking about. I can direct everyone to a youtube video which will clarify everything he has said, but I am not going to, because I know half of it is bs.

For anyone reading this - a neutral piece of information. If you trully want to find out things about mormonism - go onto MormonWiki, mormon.org among a few others. You can use the search engine in google (just make sure it is written by mormons, critics come up with some bizarre stuff.) EVERYTHING about mormonism is on the net, nothing is hidden. Yes there are beliefs and practises in mormonism which I cannot get my head around and do not agree with, hence why I am leaving - but nothing is hidden, it is there to see. Ask a mormon, they will talk to you about things. First time I met the missionaries, I asked about Kolob - they answered! There is one exception and thats things in the temple because they hold them to be sacred and shouldnt speak about them, but again, this is actually on the internet (and is not written by a critic!)

rabanes - going back to the example I gave you, it has got something to do with what was being said, because it was showing that not everyone is truthful about mormonism once they leave. Some people are, yes, I read that! But interestingly critics only seem to be interested in those which make stuff up....and they could be the Queen of England, they can still make stuff up! Noone is perfect! If you are coming to a conclusion on something, you have to way up both sides, otherwise it is invalid!

You still havent fully answered the question on why mormonism? Ok, you are a religion writer, but you only seem to write about mormons? Why? Why not catholics? methodists? buddhist? Muslims?