The Truth about Mormons

[JakeStarkey]

Another display of Jokey dishonesty.

I have never shared the views of Turdel or Id-eots.

But, still, at least Jokey's dishonesty serves as a bump.

But you, L, have been as silly as they have in defending undefendable positions.

Which position have I taken that indefensible?(correct usage provided by grammarnazi.com)

The conservative LDS position normally.

 

[Truthspeaker]

But you, L, have been as silly as they have in defending undefendable positions.

Which position have I taken that indefensible?(correct usage provided by grammarnazi.com)

The conservative LDS position normally.

humor me with a specific.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One specific, then. Research what Spencer Kimball did with the 1978 Declaration in relationship to Stapley and Peterson. Think about that. Then go research Rudger Clawson and the "less valiant" argument. Then ponder.

 

[Truthspeaker]

One specific, then. Research what Spencer Kimball did with the 1978 Declaration in relationship to Stapley and Peterson. Think about that. Then go research Rudger Clawson and the "less valiant" argument. Then ponder.

No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together.

Fair enough?

 

[JakeStarkey]

One specific, then. Research what Spencer Kimball did with the 1978 Declaration in relationship to Stapley and Peterson. Think about that. Then go research Rudger Clawson and the "less valiant" argument. Then ponder.

No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together.

Fair enough?

Yeah, it does work that way. Because, TS, you simply are very ignorant about your own religion, its history, and its personalities. You have a very hard time holding your own.

Once again, folks, go the Neal A. Maxell Institute of Religious Studies or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you want a clear position on what the official LDS policies and beliefs are.

 

[Avatar4321]

So, if there are among those countless planets some with intelligent life that is say, 1 or 2 millennia or so more advanced than we are, why couldn't they have come to visit us? Is that so far fetched?

Perhaps they aren't allowed to. Perhaps they have more important things to do than visit backwater planets. Perhaps the odds of meeting are so astronomical that it would be unlikely to happen. Who knows? I guess you could ask God.

Maybe the real problem is that Bill and Ted failed their history exam on this world.

 

[Truthspeaker]

One specific, then. Research what Spencer Kimball did with the 1978 Declaration in relationship to Stapley and Peterson. Think about that. Then go research Rudger Clawson and the "less valiant" argument. Then ponder.

No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together.

Fair enough?

Yeah, it does work that way. Because, TS, you simply are very ignorant about your own religion, its history, and its personalities. You have a very hard time holding your own.

Once again, folks, go the Neal A. Maxell Institute of Religious Studies or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you want a clear position on what the official LDS policies and beliefs are.

At least you are consistent, even if consitently bad. You consistently refuse to point out which specific issues the church and I differ on. Here's to old faithful.

 

[Truthspeaker]

So, if there are among those countless planets some with intelligent life that is say, 1 or 2 millennia or so more advanced than we are, why couldn't they have come to visit us? Is that so far fetched?

Perhaps they aren't allowed to. Perhaps they have more important things to do than visit backwater planets. Perhaps the odds of meeting are so astronomical that it would be unlikely to happen. Who knows? I guess you could ask God.

Maybe the real problem is that Bill and Ted failed their history exam on this world.

As an off topic sidenote, I still need to see that movie they made about you. Was it any good?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together.

Fair enough?

Yeah, it does work that way. Because, TS, you simply are very ignorant about your own religion, its history, and its personalities. You have a very hard time holding your own.

Once again, folks, go the Neal A. Maxell Institute of Religious Studies or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you want a clear position on what the official LDS policies and beliefs are.

At least you are consistent, even if consitently bad. You consistently refuse to point out which specific issues the church and I differ on. Here's to old faithful.

I have diligently, nay, quite efficiently, shown your errors with evidence and critical thinking, continually showing you the errors of your way.

You? You say you don't believe it. OK. I am not going away, not too worry. When you err again, I will point out. In the meantime, folks, try www.lds.org.

 

[IDSSTING39]

Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stalin's USSR and Mao's China were atheist states, killing tens of millions.

 

[Liability]

Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".

Catholics ARE Christians. Mormons ARE Christians.

Religious freedom, which America insisted upon at its inception, permits you to be an agnostic or an atheist.

Religious faith has been a good thing in history as well as sometimes being misused and abused.

There is no necessary correlation between "religion" and "mind control."

And being unnecessarily rude and dismissive about those who harbor religious faith does not make you more intelligent. It just makes you petty.

 

[Avatar4321]

Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".

Encouraging people to be honest, seek knowledge, have patience, temperance, control anger, be morally chaste, etc is poison and crazy? Seems like good common sense to me. Or what's left of it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".

Catholics ARE Christians. Mormons ARE Christians.

Religious freedom, which America insisted upon at its inception, permits you to be an agnostic or an atheist.

Religious faith has been a good thing in history as well as sometimes being misused and abused.

There is no necessary correlation between "religion" and "mind control."

And being unnecessarily rude and dismissive about those who harbor religious faith does not make you more intelligent. It just makes you petty.

The right to have or not have religion is fundamental to our way of life. Whether one is agnostic or atheist or a true believer remains that individual's right, not granted, but guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Liability is absolutely correct on the point of no correlation between religious belief and mind control. Atheists have done terrible things as have religious leaders. And both have advanced the path of humanity.

To suggest otherwise denies history.

 

[emilynghiem]

Whenever I think of Mormons I think of all the other religious organizations, like Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc.... And they are all equally crazy and poison society. There is an increase in atheism and agnosticism in America and i'm glad to see that people are starting to drift away from the mind control which is "religion".

Catholics ARE Christians. Mormons ARE Christians.

Religious freedom, which America insisted upon at its inception, permits you to be an agnostic or an atheist.

Religious faith has been a good thing in history as well as sometimes being misused and abused.

There is no necessary correlation between "religion" and "mind control."

And being unnecessarily rude and dismissive about those who harbor religious faith does not make you more intelligent. It just makes you petty.

1. The way I saw it described on a Free Masonry webpage, as long as a person is not "sectarian" about religion (ie one way is right and the others are wrong), then any religion can be properly practiced.

2. As for the quote asking if Al Qaeda is not free to kill are any of us free:

We all have free will to consider any such choices; but nobody can invoke laws justifying killing without also considering the full context of the laws which would then check and balance that to prevent injustice and abuse. Otherwise by the same laws, you face the consequences of taking parts of the law out of context to violate the spirit of the contract. So when you have free will and reason, and you consider the full context and consequences, then you will moderate your own actions accordingly. You still have free will but you follow the laws by conscience so that enforcement comes equally from within.

This is similar to having free speech, but not yelling fire in a crowed theatre. The same respect for laws by which freedom of speech, or of the press, is protected also prohibit hate speech, harassment, slander or libel, fraud or other abuses of speech to violate the rights and freedoms and equal protections of other people. Even within the First Amendment, along with the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or of the press, there is the right of the people PEACEABLY to assemble, and to petition for a redress of grievances. So you cannot abuse part of the law to obstruct or deny other rights and freedoms within the same contract. Likewise with the 2nd Amendment and the 4th. You cannot abuse rights and freedoms in ways that threaten, abridge, or deny the equal right of security for all persons. Because all the articles are part of the same body of laws.

So the problem brought forth with terrorism and counterterrorism, is that the militant aggressors are not following the laws on peaceful petitioning and democratic process; but when facing prosecution, the system being applied is based on respect for civil rights and protections. So the real issue is setting up a system of laws that the parties agree to follow. If they only answer to Islamic laws, then that authority must be used which would condemn attackers as infidels for not making peace before making offerings to God; if the victims of the violence are under Constitutional laws, then they have the right to petition under that to redress grievances, but not necessarily those who refuse to obey these laws.

Since you cannot invoke or enforce laws that you are violating, any such actions void the contract. So until you make good on the terms, you cannot demand the same protections.

The reason our politicians are not able to demand Constitutional enforcement by such consistent standards, is that most of them are taking liberties and abusing political majority to bypass the spirit of the law which is based on consent of the governed. So as with the terrorist attackers, if our own politicians show no respect for Constitutional laws on equal protection of interests and democratic due process, they are in no position to enforce and demand the same of others. So this is the real issue that is being challenged.

 

[emilynghiem]

No it doesn't work that way. When I ask for a specific, it's up to YOU to provide the quotes. Not me. I've read them all. We can finally have a discussion on this when you present a quote and we examine it together.

Fair enough?

Yeah, it does work that way. Because, TS, you simply are very ignorant about your own religion, its history, and its personalities. You have a very hard time holding your own.

Once again, folks, go the Neal A. Maxell Institute of Religious Studies or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints if you want a clear position on what the official LDS policies and beliefs are.

At least you are consistent, even if consitently bad. You consistently refuse to point out which specific issues the church and I differ on. Here's to old faithful.

Dear Truthseeker: I think the Mormons are credited with introducing the idea that Jesus appeared to the Native Americans as the Great Manito, so that they have received the Holy Spirit, and the Native Americans living by natural laws are as Gentiles that Jesus governs under those laws parallel to how the churched people are governed under Biblical laws.
So the Native American Gospel was given to them differently, but the same spirit of God fulfills them both. Is this close enough?

My question is do you or other Mormons also recognize that Buddha's vision and teaching is in line with God's laws, but given in a natural way in terms of spiritual wisdom about human nature and life. Are you okay with the idea that Buddha's prophesies about later fulfillment and spiritual maturity point to the coming and return of Jesus with the Holy Spirit, so that the same Christian concepts of reuniting man and God fulfill Buddhism also.

And are you okay with teaching that Buddha, like Moses, was a true prophet because both serve as witnesses to Christ Jesus who fulfills both the laws of God and the laws of man as one. Do you also see the founding fathers who lay down the Constitutional laws as inspired by the same God, so that these secular/civil laws are also fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

Yours truly,
Emily

 

[Liability]

Do you people see why I like this thread?

 

[JakeStarkey]

As you may know, the First Presidency of your church issued a formal statement on November 14, 2008 condemning public protests against those who participate in the democratic process of our government. Specifically, the First Presidency defined such protests as acts of "intimidation" and "hostile response," which are "not worthy of the democratic ideals of our nation." They went on to declare that such acts have "no place in civil discourse over controversial issues," and that such a response to governmental process "should be deplored by people of goodwill [sic] everywhere." Knowing how seriously you take the counsel of the First Presidency as the inspired word of deity, do you think that this is an inspired reference about the coming actions of the Tea Party in the Town Hall meetings last summer?

 

[TheSuaveOne]

And are you okay with teaching that Buddha, like Moses, was a true prophet because both serve as witnesses to Christ Jesus who fulfills both the laws of God and the laws of man as one. Do you also see the founding fathers who lay down the Constitutional laws as inspired by the same God, so that these secular/civil laws are also fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

Yours truly,
Emily

The church is fine with other teachings. They don't agree that they are teaching the word of God as the Mormons believe they are "The One True Church". The problem I always had with other Christian religions was how they actually spent time teaching their followers how to help convert Mormons, and taught them how Mormons were not Christians.

-TSO

 

[Truthspeaker]

Dear Truthseeker:

I always do seek for truth at all times, but that is not my handle

I think the Mormons are credited with introducing the idea that Jesus appeared to the Native Americans as the Great Manito, so that they have received the Holy Spirit, and the Native Americans living by natural laws are as Gentiles that Jesus governs under those laws parallel to how the churched people are governed under Biblical laws.
So the Native American Gospel was given to them differently, but the same spirit of God fulfills them both. Is this close enough?

Let me clarify....

We have a book that is a copy of an ancient collection of documents which describe one of Jesus' visits to the new world. This was his most famous visit. In this book we read of the words Jesus gave them. The same principles he taught in the Bible are to be found in the Book of Mormon, except in clearer detail on several occasions.
It was not a different gospel than the one preached in Jerusalem. It was the same gospel but with a personal touch for those people in those times, with parables they could relate to just like when Jesus spoke in parables the Jews could understand.
The native americans are also of the house of Israel and the book describes the european settlers as the gentiles.
There are also different contexts to be considered when using the word gentile. They have several different meanings.
And by the way there is no such thing as a "biblical law". The laws of God come from Him and not from a book. The book is a medium of communication, not a law unto itself. Just as Jesus said "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath."; He would also say "The Bible was made for man, not man for the Bible."

My question is do you or other Mormons also recognize that Buddha's vision and teaching is in line with God's laws,

From what I understand of Buddhism, most of their teachings are Christian, others we don't believe are inspired of God.

but given in a natural way in terms of spiritual wisdom about human nature and life.

I hope your not saying Christian teachings are unnatural. I'm not sure what you mean by "a natural way".

Are you okay with the idea that Buddha's prophesies about later fulfillment and spiritual maturity point to the coming and return of Jesus with the Holy Spirit, so that the same Christian concepts of reuniting man and God fulfill Buddhism also.

I am not aware of Buddha prophesying of the coming of Christ. If so then he was a Christian.

And are you okay with teaching that Buddha, like Moses, was a true prophet because both serve as witnesses to Christ Jesus who fulfills both the laws of God and the laws of man as one.

You're really making a case that Buddha was Christian. Can you provide me some quotes where Buddha prophesied anything, especially in relation to Christ?

In light of the information I currently hold about Buddha, I am not ok with calling him a true prophet like Moses just yet. I believe he was a great philosopher and good person and if he lived his teachings of peace and kindness, he'll be alright on the other side when he meets Jesus. But I haven't heard enough from him to call him an oracle of God. Some of his teachings I just can't accept.

Do you also see the founding fathers who lay down the Constitutional laws as inspired by the same God, so that these secular/civil laws are also fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

Like Buddha, I believe the founding fathers of our country were inspired by God when they did good things. That doesn't make them prophets but I believe God helped them form our country. God did not however assist in any sins or crimes they may have committed.

Thank you so much for the excellent and thought provoking questions. We need to hear more of you on this board.