what would be your biggest reason for not joining the LDS??

[McBell]

And your vapid quips lack substantive rebuttal, nor lend any insight of continued discussion or interest...

*offers a free cup of coffee*

Perhaps we may yet have the opportunity to determine whom of us is quicker and more opportune to more effectively bore greater masses at once with searing tedium, on you part further abetted and predictably diminished by seriously empty banalities of lacking argumentative debate, and your extended inconsequential interactions of pointless and vacuous claims of grandiosely overreaching testimonial bunk ...

Science is not a "conspirator to "deny God", it's just a methodology of inquiry that roots out the blatantly stupid from the forces of powerful and group-think focused wishful rationalizations and lamp-rubbing to evoke or manifest a personal smoke-shrouded genie...

I'll always wager that nuance, intellectual reflection, and honest evaluations of scientifically derived discoveries, theory confirmations (especially tricky to avoid), and non=partisan data will always place me within the most favorable odds...

I'm gonna be bold and place my wagers on me first...

Then again, with my conspirator "brain-washed" techniques of self-deception fully in effect, perhaps you may yet convince me that fairies swap money for lost teeth as prime example and evidence of pre-school "mind control, and then debate why Santa brings gifts, and Jesus is just a cheapskate......

"I can bore Mystenia in four consonants or less...

... what's your bid?

Wow.
You go to such great lengths to avoid answering a simple question...

 

[s2a]

Wow.
You go to such great lengths to avoid answering a simple question...

Seriously? You wish "answer" to your sophomoric "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question, which is more simpleton than simple...

No, Mestemia flat out asked why YOU would align YOURSELF with those in Quagmires post.
Which is exactly what you have done.

That's the grand and brilliant retort you wish to support and laud as "unanswered"?

Really?

I thought it so absurd and unworthy (even coming from you) that only satire was appropriate in reply...

...but lest you feel "unanswered" and unfulfilled...fine...*rolls eyes*

No, I've never beat my wife, and no, I've never "aligned myself with those in Quagmire's post". (beyond your singular allegation that I have done so)...

*sigh*

Is it your only defense to become infinitely dense and tiresome until our sun burns out it's supply of hydrogen?

Really?

 

[InChrist]

[/quote]

There's absolutely nothing in Joseph Smith's statement that states that Jesus is a procreated being; that's your interpretation of what he said. The Bible clearly refers to all of us as being God's offspring and of Him being the Father of our spirits. The fact that He (Christ) spoke of God the Father as being both His Father and our Father proves that Christ is the spirit Son of the Father, just as we are. Unlike us, though, He is God's Only Begotten Son in the flesh.

Was it not the teaching of Joseph Smith and subsequent church prophet/presidents and isn’t it still the teaching of Mormon church that God or Heavenly Father was once human and is now an exalted man? An exalted man who along with his exalted wife(s) procreated spirit children of which Jesus was the first?

“The Father has a body of flesh and bones… but the [FONT=&quot]Holy Ghost[/FONT] has [FONT=&quot]not a body[/FONT] of flesh and bones, but is a [FONT=&quot]personage of Spirit[/FONT].” —D&C 130:22

“I will preach on the plurality of Gods… Our text says, ‘And hath made us kings and priests [FONT=&quot]unto God and His Father[/FONT].’ The Apostles have discovered that [FONT=&quot]there were Gods above[/FONT]… My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, [FONT=&quot]there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ[/FONT].” — [FONT=&quot]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,[/FONT] p. 370

“In the Heaven where our spirits were born, [FONT=&quot]there are many gods,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]each one of whom has his own wife or wives[/FONT]which were given to him previous to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state. [FONT=&quot]Each God, through his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters[/FONT]; ...for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and ever. [FONT=&quot]As soon as each god has begotten many millions of male and female spirits[/FONT] ...he, in connection with his sons, [FONT=&quot]organizes a new world[/FONT], ...where he sends both the male and female spirits to inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones. [FONT=&quot]Thus each God forms a world for the accommodation of his own sons and daughters[/FONT]... The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and worship their own personal father who dwells in the heaven which they formerly inhabited.” —LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, [FONT=&quot]The Seer[/FONT], 1853 (1990 ed.), vol. 1, p. 37

God was God from all eternity, I will refute that idea.…he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself the Father of us all, [FONT=&quot]dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did[/FONT].”—Joseph Smith, 1844, [FONT=&quot]Journal of Discourses,[/FONT] vol. 6, p. 3




The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation

The Prophet explained that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens”; that “he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”; and that he “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling.”
The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: The Godhead, Mankind, and the Creation - Ensign Jan. 1989 - ensign

Perhaps this would be a good time to post the following statement issued in 2007 by the LDS Church...

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

If you can find the teachings you're referring to in any of the books of the LDS canon, please be so kind as to point them out to me.

The above statement does not make sense or excuse statements which have been made by church presidents and apostles as if they are not official church teaching. I can see that it could apply to statements of others in the Mormon Church. But those who are or were Presidents and those members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in leadership positions were/are teaching the things they say to listening members as truth, especially the President/Prophet of the church who is claiming to receive direct revelation from God and this would most certainly apply to the statements of Joseph Smith the first prophet/president.

I am curious…during fast and testimony meetings do people still usually say… "I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God” and/or "I am thankful for a living prophet today" as part of their testimony?

[FONT="]If we worship a "different" Jesus than you do, so be it. I guess the one you worship is not the one the first century Christians worshipped. Still, you've evaded my intial question: How many Jesuses are there to choose from. To us, there is only one: the Son of God who was with His Father in the beginning, the one who created our universe, the one born to a virgin in Bethlehem, the one who established His Church here on earth, called twelve Apostles and taught a gospel of mercy and love, the one who took upon Himself the sins of mankind and suffered an agonizing death so that we might be reconciled to the Father, the one who was resurrected on the third day following His death, the one who sits today on His Father's right hand, and the one who will ultimately return to earth to reign and act as our mediator with our Father in Heaven. I'd quite simply shocked to[/FONT] hear that you believe there was more than one such individual.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t believe there is more than One Jesus, but there are many false ideas, versions, and imitations of Christ promoted by individuals and groups, which sadly people believe. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it.For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.See, I have told you beforehand. Matthew 24:23-25

[/FONT] Could it be that your beliefs concerning God the Father and Jesus Christ are more in line with the Bible alone than those of the Mormon Church?

 

[InChrist]

Well, you apparently were a member in good standing, got a temple recommend and went through the temple. As far as getting an understanding of Mormon doctrine out of the experience... don't make me laugh.

When I was in the Mormon Church it was pretty clear to myself and everyone else that Mormon doctrine concerning God the Father was that he once was a man who had progressed to Godhood and procreated other spirit beings who then progressed on to godhood, as was taught Jesus his Son also did like his Father and as all mankind may also progress (but which I now believe to is completely contrary to the Bible).

[FONT=&quot]It was also understood that because the Mormon Church claims to have a living prophet that the words of the prophet were/are to be taken and accepted with as much authority as the standard works. Is that different now? An article from last year in the Church News indicates the words of the prophets are still to be believed and trusted.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]'Trust the living prophets' — Listen, learn and apply teachings
[/FONT]http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articl...ets-2--Listen-learn-and-apply-teachings.html#

 

[InChrist]

Really? Are you saying, then, that the end justifies the means? That as long as the end result is to get people to have a negative opinion of LDS doctrine, lying about what that doctrine actually is is justifiable? InChrist presented her argument by quoting statements that are not and never have been LDS doctrine. You could go to an LDS Church every week for the rest of your life and never hear Jesus Christ being referred to as "a created being who worked himself up to being God," because that's not what we believe. Furthermore, you won't find anything of the sort in any of the Church's four "Standard Works" -- i.e. the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. I could write a book and probably get somebody to publish it. I could even give it a very official sounding name (like "Mormon Doctrine -- although that one's already been taken). I could say anything I wanted to in my book. It wouldn't have to be in line with the Church's teachings at all. Then somebody could quote me and say, "See... this is what Mormonism teaches." And somebody out there would think that a good argument for rejecting Mormonism.

I am simply saying: Reject Mormon doctrine if you like. Just know what it is you're rejecting. Know what we really believe before you attack it as false. Don't attribute beliefs to us that aren't ours. Fair enough?

[FONT=&quot]Doesn’t it make any difference if the one being quoted was the living prophet, seer, and revelator of the Mormon Church?[/FONT]

 

[InChrist]

No. You are not disagreeing with the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church. You are misrepresenting the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon Church. There is a BIG difference.

I am not trying to nor believe I am misrepresenting LDS doctrine or bringing up obscure teachings with any of the statements I’ve quoted. I honestly believe that these quotes express consistent teachings through the history of the Mormon Church on some important issues. All the Mormons I knew (including friends, elders, home, visiting, and Sunday school teachers, bishops, and higher leadership) believed them to be in line with church doctrine, believed these things themselves, discussed them, and in many cases taught these things. So I find it very confusing that you don’t even seem to believe the things Joseph Smith and others in leadership taught and yet consider yourself a Mormon.
If you prefer to discuss only LDS standard works rather than the quotes or teachings of the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator or those who the church considers Apostles, I do have one or two questions about the Book of Mormon and one of the LDS church articles of faith which I will put in another post when I have the opportunity.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

opcorn:......InChrist...Kudos.....!:clap

 

[Muffled]

impossible to believe would be my call...

I no longer belong to myself but to Jesus. I go where He wants me to go and bbecome a member when He wishes. So even though I currently attend an SBC church, Jesus has not suggested that I become a member.

 

[Muffled]

That it's Christianity and I don't believe in that particular mythology.

You already hold a false belief in believing that it is mythology. You might as well believe that the moon is made of green cheese.

That seems to be a poor excuse. That is like saying that I don't believe in Obama is president because he is black.

Do you believe in right and wrong?
Do you believe everything you do is right?
How will you be saved from yourself?

 

[Muffled]

I don't know what would be my biggest reason for not joining, but the biggest reasons I would want to join the LDS are the emphasis on family, charity, and striving to make the most out of this life.

That isn't so strange. Most people don't get to the level of examining whether doctrine is seriously in error, so the externals tend to mean a lot.

 

[Katzpur]

The above statement does not make sense or excuse statements which have been made by church presidents and apostles as if they are not official church teaching. I can see that it could apply to statements of others in the Mormon Church. But those who are or were Presidents and those members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in leadership positions were/are teaching the things they say to listening members as truth, especially the President/Prophet of the church who is claiming to receive direct revelation from God and this would most certainly apply to the statements of Joseph Smith the first prophet/president.

It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to you or not. It is what it is. Many of the Church's prophets have come out and said the same thing -- that even though they are prophets, everything that they say is not to be considered "doctrine." That's why we have "the Standard Works." They are the "standard" against which every teaching is to be measured. Joseph Smith once told someone who assumed that everything he said was revealed by God, "A prophet is a prophet only when acting as such." Harold B. Lee taught that if anyone—regardless of position—taught a doctrine that was not supported by the standard works, then "you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion."

I am curious…during fast and testimony meetings do people still usually say… "I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God” and/or "I am thankful for a living prophet today" as part of their testimony?

Yes, some do.

Could it be that your beliefs concerning God the Father and Jesus Christ are more in line with the Bible alone than those of the Mormon Church?

Good grief. My beliefs are entirely in line with what is taught in the Bible. They are not, however, in line with "the Bible alone." Why should they be? The Bible is a book. It's a wonderful book, but it doesn't even claim to be the only record of God's dealings with mankind. As a matter of fact, the Bible specifically states that Jesus Christ said and did so many things during His ministry that all of the books in the world couldn't possibly contain them. You seem to believe that He said and did nothing of importance that didn't find its way into the Bible. Besdies, none my beliefs about God the Father and Jesus Christ contradict anything the Bible has to say about them. You will not find one single solitary thing taught in the Bible about God the Father and Jesus Christ that Mormons do not fully believe.

 

[Katzpur]

When I was in the Mormon Church it was pretty clear to myself and everyone else that Mormon doctrine concerning God the Father was that he once was a man who had progressed to Godhood and procreated other spirit beings who then progressed on to godhood, as was taught Jesus his Son also did like his Father and as all mankind may also progress (but which I now believe to is completely contrary to the Bible).

[FONT=&quot]It was also understood that because the Mormon Church claims to have a living prophet that the words of the prophet were/are to be taken and accepted with as much authority as the standard works. Is that different now? An article from last year in the Church News indicates the words of the prophets are still to be believed and trusted.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]'Trust the living prophets' — Listen, learn and apply teachings[/FONT]
LDS Church News - 'Trust the living prophets' — Listen, learn and apply teachings

Of course the words of the propehts are to be believed as trusted -- as long as they don't contradict what is taught in the Standard Works.

 

[Katzpur]

[FONT=&quot]Doesn’t it make any difference if the one being quoted was the living prophet, seer, and revelator of the Mormon Church?[/FONT]

No. Prophets are human beings. Human beings have opinions. Sometimes their opinions are wrong. That's why there is a very specific process by which a "revelation" becomes "doctrine."

 

[Katzpur]

So I find it very confusing that you don’t even seem to believe the things Joseph Smith and others in leadership taught and yet consider yourself a Mormon.

Why would you be confused? Of course I consider myself a Mormon. I was baptized a Mormon and I believe in the scriptures of the Church. Besides, I never said I don't believe the things Joseph Smith taught. I definitely believe most of what I am aware that he taught. On the other hand, since much of it is not doctrinally binding on the members of the Church, it would be more accurate for me to say that I have many opinions in common with Joseph Smith than it would be for me to say that all of these things are "Mormon doctrine" when they clearly aren't. I'm sure he taught many truths that were never actually canonized. I'm sure that someday I'll find out which ones were revealed by God (but never made official doctrine) and which ones were just his opinion. I figure that if it's important that a certain teaching be doctrinally binding, the Church's leadership will make sure it gets added to the D&C at the appropriate time. Meanwhile, I'm not going to go around saying certain things are doctrinal when they aren't.

If you prefer to discuss only LDS standard works rather than the quotes or teachings of the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator or those who the church considers Apostles, I do have one or two questions about the Book of Mormon and one of the LDS church articles of faith which I will put in another post when I have the opportunity.

I don't mind "discussing" things other than the Standard Works. I just don't like out-of-context statements that CARM and other anti-Mormon websites put their own creative spin on. To give you an analogy... Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transsubstantiation, meaning that the bread and wine served as part of Communion literally become the body and blood of jesus Christ (as opposed to being symbolic of His body and blood). An anti-Catholic website would probably say that Catholics are cannibals. Every Sunday, they go to Mass to eat Jesus' body and drink His blood. I don't believe in the Transsubstantiation, but I would find that description of Catholic doctrine as being extremely offensive -- because it is meant to be offensive. I have zero tolerance for posts which intentionally tweek a statement by an LDS leader just enough to make it offensive, and quite frankly, you seem to love to do that. If you would like to discuss non-doctrinal -- but commonly believed -- teachings with me, I suggest we do so in a One-on-One debate instead of further derailing this thread.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

Damn! That makes it a whole lot harder. Where's the love in that?

Hmm why not address how silly this argument is rather than placate? I am sensing a fondness in you for Mormonism or for Katzpur... not sure which.

I am simply saying: Reject Mormon doctrine if you like. Just know what it is you're rejecting. Know what we really believe before you attack it as false. Don't attribute beliefs to us that aren't ours. Fair enough?

Just as Katzpur has done for every religion on the planet and has thoughtfully and logically considered before she declared all of them false and settled on mormonism. Learning countless languages and their cultural beliefs of god was hard but ultimately the answer was clear... All the other faiths were false and Joseph Smith and his golden plates was true and everything else is obviously false... Why? Well just ask... Her argument is to know what you are rejecting while she can not obviously know everything she is rejecting by embracing mormonism. This is logically impossible and silly and just her preaching mormonism and advertising her own beliefs and challenging you to a task she never could logically undertake. She can not know all other faiths but by asserting mormonism as true is implying that many other faiths are false and challenging you to understand mormonism prior to rejecting while never considering all other faiths prior to rejecting them in favor of mormonism.

I'll be blunt. Its a silly argument.

 

[McBell]

Just as Katzpur has done for every religion on the planet and has thoughtfully and logically considered before she declared all of them false and settled on mormonism. Learning countless languages and their cultural beliefs of god was hard but ultimately the answer was clear... All the other faiths were false and Joseph Smith and his golden plates was true and everything else is obviously false... Why? Well just ask... Her argument is to know what you are rejecting while she can not obviously know everything she is rejecting by embracing mormonism. This is logically impossible and silly and just her preaching mormonism and advertising her own beliefs and challenging you to a task she never could logically undertake. She can not know all other faiths but by asserting mormonism as true is implying that many other faiths are false and challenging you to understand mormonism prior to rejecting while never considering all other faiths prior to rejecting them in favor of mormonism.

I'll be blunt. Its a silly argument.

Your reading comprehension needs some serious work.

Or you are merely trolling....

 

[Katzpur]

Just as Katzpur has done for every religion on the planet and has thoughtfully and logically considered before she declared all of them false and settled on mormonism. Learning countless languages and their cultural beliefs of god was hard but ultimately the answer was clear... All the other faiths were false and Joseph Smith and his golden plates was true and everything else is obviously false... Why? Well just ask... Her argument is to know what you are rejecting while she can not obviously know everything she is rejecting by embracing mormonism. This is logically impossible and silly and just her preaching mormonism and advertising her own beliefs and challenging you to a task she never could logically undertake. She can not know all other faiths but by asserting mormonism as true is implying that many other faiths are false and challenging you to understand mormonism prior to rejecting while never considering all other faiths prior to rejecting them in favor of mormonism.

I have never claimed to study every religion on the planet in depth. I have never stated that I know any language except the one I'm posting in. I am not preaching Mormonism; I didn't even assert that it is true. I have made no comment whatsoever with respect to the truthfulness of any other religion. Anybody who has actually read my posts can see that. In the future, you might want to consider using the quote function instead of attempting to paraphrase me, because you seriously suck at doing that.

All I have said is that if you wish to reject Mormonism, reject it on the basis of what it does teach, not on the basis of what its enemies say it teaches. That isn't an unreasonable request.

 

[InChrist]

I don't mind "discussing" things other than the Standard Works. I just don't like out-of-context statements that CARM and other anti-Mormon websites put their own creative spin on. To give you an analogy... Catholics believe in the doctrine of Transsubstantiation, meaning that the bread and wine served as part of Communion literally become the body and blood of jesus Christ (as opposed to being symbolic of His body and blood). An anti-Catholic website would probably say that Catholics are cannibals. Every Sunday, they go to Mass to eat Jesus' body and drink His blood. I don't believe in the Transsubstantiation, but I would find that description of Catholic doctrine as being extremely offensive -- because it is meant to be offensive. I have zero tolerance for posts which intentionally tweek a statement by an LDS leader just enough to make it offensive, and quite frankly, you seem to love to do that. If you would like to discuss non-doctrinal -- but commonly believed -- teachings with me, I suggest we do so in a One-on-One debate instead of further derailing this thread.

Thank you for your responses. Although, I disagree with Mormon doctrine I do appreciate hearing and trying to understand your perspective. I was raised a Catholic so I understand what you are saying about transubstantiation and I think that those who call it cannibalism are out in left field and really missing the opportunity to address the issue from the biblical perspective. But this offends me far less than the Catholic doctrine that "Jesus is literally present in the physical host and wine" being repeatedly sacrificed each time mass takes place when the scriptures clearly say that He died once for the sins of mankind.
For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. (Romans 6:10)
...so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.(Hebrews 9:28)
But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:12-14)

I don't believe that I have posted any quotes by LDS leaders that are intentionally or twisted at all or taken out of context to say anything other than what they clearly say. I believe many of the beliefs, either official doctrines or things many church members believeare in contradiction to the Bible. The biblical scriptures claim to be sufficient for all that is necessary in leading one to faith and life in Christ. Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3) The words once for all in the Greek literally translates: one time for all time. [FONT=&quot]The Book of Mormon and other LDS works are in direct contradiction to God's Word in the Bible. I don't bring up these points because I love to take quotes by Mormon leaders and tweek them so as to make them offensive, as you have accused me of doing. I address what I believe to be false teachings for two reasons: 1) teachings that distort the nature of the true God and Creator I find offensive and 2) I believe whether a spiritual teaching or doctrine is true or not is very important because it will have eternal impact on one's life.

As I said I do have a few specific questions about the Book of Mormon and specifically one of the Articles of Faith. I may be interested in a one on one discussion/debate, but I think I'll have to put it on hold. I'm only going to be around for a couple more days and then will be too busy to use the internet much, if at all. So for now you'll have a break from me. I hope you enjoy the rest of your summer, Katspur.
Love, inChrist
[/FONT]

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you for your responses. Although, I disagree with Mormon doctrine I do appreciate hearing and trying to understand your perspective. I was raised a Catholic so I understand what you are saying about transubstantiation and I think that those who call it cannibalism are out in left field and really missing the opportunity to address the issue from the biblical perspective. But this offends me far less than the Catholic doctrine that "Jesus is literally present in the physical host and wine" being repeatedly sacrificed each time mass takes place when the scriptures clearly say that He died once for the sins of mankind.
For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. (Romans 6:10)
...so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.(Hebrews 9:28)
But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:12-14)

I don't believe that I have posted any quotes by LDS leaders that are intentionally or twisted at all or taken out of context to say anything other than what they clearly say. I believe many of the beliefs, either official doctrines or things many church members believeare in contradiction to the Bible. The biblical scriptures claim to be sufficient for all that is necessary in leading one to faith and life in Christ. Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3) The words once for all in the Greek literally translates: one time for all time. [FONT=&quot]The Book of Mormon and other LDS works are in direct contradiction to God's Word in the Bible. I don't bring up these points because I love to take quotes by Mormon leaders and tweek them so as to make them offensive, as you have accused me of doing. I address what I believe to be false teachings for two reasons: 1) teachings that distort the nature of the true God and Creator I find offensive and 2) I believe whether a spiritual teaching or doctrine is true or not is very important because it will have eternal impact on one's life.

[FONT=&quot]As I said I do have a few specific questions about the Book of Mormon and specifically one of the Articles of Faith. I may be interested in a one on one discussion/debate, but I think I'll have to put it on hold. I'm only going to be around for a couple more days and then will be too busy to use the internet much, if at all. So for now you'll have a break from me. I hope you enjoy the rest of your summer, Katspur. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Love, inChrist[/FONT]
[/FONT]

I'll be here. We can discuss this post at that time.

 

[InsurgoInsurgiInsurrect]

I have never claimed to study every religion on the planet in depth. I have never stated that I know any language except the one I'm posting in. I am not preaching Mormonism; I didn't even assert that it is true. I have made no comment whatsoever with respect to the truthfulness of any other religion. Anybody who has actually read my posts can see that. In the future, you might want to consider using the quote function instead of attempting to paraphrase me, because you seriously suck at doing that.

All I have said is that if you wish to reject Mormonism, reject it on the basis of what it does teach, not on the basis of what its enemies say it teaches. That isn't an unreasonable request.

Its not unreasonable? You just stated you have believe mormonism as fact despite knowing what other religions offer but contend I must learn what mormonism teaches before rejecting it. Ok... show me the gold plates and the translation devices and demonstrate scientifically how they work and I will start considering the facts rather than the contrived society and works of fiction that the mormon faith relies on.

Before you reject Muslims, Hindu's and Westboro as I have done being a devout mormon you should at least reject them based on what they say not as their enemies teach? Really? Am I an enemy of mormonism if I don't accept it for what it teaches?

What if I was a mormon and am no longer... is that more reasonable?

You claim to have never studied every religion but that you accepted mormonism over them despite that fact and ask me who knows a great deal about mormonism to at least reject mormonism based on what it teaches despite that?

Really?