Interesting....

[snerkel]

Thank you for making my point about the lack of regard for accuracy, accountability and respect that infects this forum.

I made no point for you, I refuted your claim that people are plagiarizing LDS works.

Nice meeting you all. Please do stay together in one place.

TA

 

[calgal]

Juliann:

Please get help. The anger burning inside you will eat you alive.

 

[twhite982]

Juliann,

If you see something inaccurate, the best way to address it is to substantiate your perspective with solid, verifiable evidence - don't just tell us that we are wrong. I know that I, for one, would appreciate input on anything that you see where my sources are inaccurate - but I don't just take the word of indidviduals for it, because that is one of the greatest potential sources of error, Rather I check these things out by going to the sources wherever possible. That is why you will see me so often reference the Bible, or when trying to accurately show Mormon teachings, I go to the LDS website, FAIRLDS website or FARMS website, aomngst others, as well as Mormon publications. So if you see inaccuracies, I for one encourage you to identify them and provide the verifiable evidence of that error and the source by which we can see the truth.

If you use this approach, you will do much to add value to these discussions.

Consider.

Tom

This doesn't have anything to do with plagiarizing, but I wanted to make a point that ALL LDS posters here have been stressing over and over.

We have defined numerous times what actually is official LDS doctrine, yet for one reason or another the poster who posts quotes outside of that official doctrinal realm will not accept that possibly this is not LDS doctrine, whether taught by the prophet or not. My guess is that if they were to stay within the guidelines of official LDS doctrine then just maybe we would see that the gap isn't as wide as was thought.

We do of course have differences held within our official LDs doctrine, but we can support and live by those things that ALL LDS have agreed to let govern their lives as members of the CofJCofLDS.

We allow all to have their assumptions, theories, pressumpisitions, beliefs of what they consider doctrine, but when it comes to that doctrine that actually governs the CofJCoLDS as a whole, then the list gets much thinner and reliable.

Could we please keep to official doctrine when telling us what we believe?

Its OK to say that maybe the common belief during Brigham Young's day was ... or Joseph may have felt that .... was true, but to state that it applies to all the church then and now is a false and dishonest tactic.

I came to this site to hopefully learn about what my brothers and sisters of other faiths believed, but I haven't had too much time to do this since the majority of the time I spend here is trying to set straight to some mis-informed posters what I and the church actual believes.

Wouldn't it be easier to ask, hey do you or your church believe this? Then just accept the answer given rather than argue that they actually do.

Why even ask if you're mind is already set on what the LDS believe?

TW

 

[drstevej]

This doesn't have anything to do with plagiarizing, but I wanted to make a point that ALL LDS posters here have been stressing over and over.

We have defined numerous times what actually is official LDS doctrine, yet for one reason or another the poster who posts quotes outside of that official doctrinal realm will not accept that possibly this is not LDS doctrine, whether taught by the prophet or not. My guess is that if they were to stay within the guidelines of official LDS doctrine then just maybe we would see that the gap isn't as wide as was thought.

We do of course have differences held within our official LDs doctrine, but we can support and live by those things that ALL LDS have agreed to let govern their lives as members of the CofJCofLDS.

We allow all to have their assumptions, theories, pressumpisitions, beliefs of what they consider doctrine, but when it comes to that doctrine that actually governs the CofJCoLDS as a whole, then the list gets much thinner and reliable.

Could we please keep to official doctrine when telling us what we believe?

Its OK to say that maybe the common belief during Brigham Young's day was ... or Joseph may have felt that .... was true, but to state that it applies to all the church then and now is a false and dishonest tactic.

I came to this site to hopefully learn about what my brothers and sisters of other faiths believed, but I haven't had too much time to do this since the majority of the time I spend here is trying to set straight to some mis-informed posters what I and the church actual believes.

Wouldn't it be easier to ask, hey do you or your church believe this? Then just accept the answer given rather than argue that they actually do.

Why even ask if you're mind is already set on what the LDS believe?

TW

I never said Adam-God was current LDS doctrine. But Brigham taught it as did other early leaders, right?

And if Brigham Young taught Adam was God and Adam sinned you have one weird prophet, revelator and seer.

But LDS say, the JoD is unreliable. You guys keep trying to distance yourselves from your leaders. Historical revisionism, the last resort of embarrased disciples. Sad

 

[TOmNossor]

Tom777:

TOm,

There are two things here and we need to carefully separate these. The first is what the LDS church teaches. That is clearly defined and can be found by anyone with interent access or acess to a LDS church. I also have several LDS books within arms reach of my my keyboard.

Second is what people believe. As I said to Juliann, you may not believe what the LDS has or is teaching and that is fine. If you believe something different from what the LDS teaches, then I will take your word for that at face value. But simply because you believe it does not mean that that is what the LDS church teaches. Your beliefs or that of any other Mormon do not define the doctrine of the church. If you have developed your beliefs which differ from the LDS, that means that you are capable of independnt thought - that is a good thing!

On the other hand, when those on here claim that the LDS church teaches something, challenge them to substantiate it. If they can do so, then that cann be clearly substantiated as a teaching of the LDS church. If you agree or disagree with what the chuchrc teaches that is your decision.

I spend some time on this point because too often when substantiation of a teaching of the LDS church is brought forward, a Mormon will come on and say "that is not what I believe". But what TOm or what Juliann believes is not the defining doctrine of the Mormon church, so you are mixing two potentially different things.

As for the witness that might cause you to leave the CoJCoLDS, what if it could be shown that the witness of Jesus Christ as given in the Bible was in direct contradiction to the witness of Jospeh Smith as given in the BoM, the Pearl of Great price and the D&C?

Tom

TOmNossor:



Sorry I missed this. There really is no perfect codification of LDS theology available in any book. The 4 standard works are your best bet, but they are subject to the authoritative interpretation of the general authorities (same as the Bible in the Catholic Church). So I have no idea what you have at arms reach to site, but I am immersed in the CoJCoLDS. What I believe is in accordance with the teachings of the church. I have also noticed that there is little disagreement among the LDS here. Much of what others say we believe we absolutely do not. Some of what I believe others may not, but to deny belief in most of the things put forth by critics on this board is pretty easy and I have little fear that Juliann, Twhite, DocT or others will disagree.



Charity, TOm.

 

[twhite982]

I never said Adam-God was current LDS doctrine. But Brigham taught it as did other early leaders, right?

And if Brigham Young taught Adam was God and Adam sinned you have one weird prophet, revelator and seer.

But LDS say, the JoD is unreliable. You guys keep trying to distance yourselves from your leaders. Historical revisionism, the last resort of embarrased disciples. Sad

I didn't even mention the Adam-God "theory" by Brigham Young. My poiint was there is a huge difference between any statement attributed to an LDS leader and official LDS doctrine today or in Brigham's day.

I don't have one problem with you qouted J of D, but to claim that those statements are official is decieving.

We can discuss our assumptions of what Brigham Young possibly meant, but it needs to left aside that this was official LDS doctrine.

I sound like a broken record, and can't fathom why this is so difficult to understand.

I'm not embarrassed about Brigham Young or am I trying to distance myself from him. I also don't claim that he never had some "different theories" about theology. I read a few and wonder what was going on. It may have been common thinking during that era and seems strange to us now who are of a scientifically "enlightened" era, but his views don't negate the much good I do see that he did for the church.

thanks for your thoughts,

TW

 

[Wrigley]

Tom777:



TOmNossor:



Sorry I missed this. There really is no perfect codification of LDS theology available in any book. The 4 standard works are your best bet, but they are subject to the authoritative interpretation of the general authorities (same as the Bible in the Catholic Church). So I have no idea what you have at arms reach to site, but I am immersed in the CoJCoLDS. What I believe is in accordance with the teachings of the church. I have also noticed that there is little disagreement among the LDS here. Much of what others say we believe we absolutely do not. Some of what I believe others may not, but to deny belief in most of the things put forth by critics on this board is pretty easy and I have little fear that Juliann, Twhite, DocT or others will disagree.



Charity, TOm.

There really is no perfect codification of LDS theology available in any book.

What I believe is in accordance with the teachings of the church.

Never codified means easy to deny. And to change your ever changing theology as the tide washes the sand from under it.

 

[twhite982]

[/size][/font]

Never codified means easy to deny. And to change your ever changing theology as the tide washes the sand from under it.

Not quite!

The LDS don't limit our canon to not expand and only be contained with what the Lord has revealed thus far.

Article of Faith #9

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

As such anything God wants to be revealed to us He will do it through the established order He has ordained.

TW

 

[Toms777]

Tom777:



TOmNossor:



Sorry I missed this. There really is no perfect codification of LDS theology available in any book. The 4 standard works are your best bet, but they are subject to the authoritative interpretation of the general authorities (same as the Bible in the Catholic Church). So I have no idea what you have at arms reach to site, but I am immersed in the CoJCoLDS. What I believe is in accordance with the teachings of the church. I have also noticed that there is little disagreement among the LDS here. Much of what others say we believe we absolutely do not. Some of what I believe others may not, but to deny belief in most of the things put forth by critics on this board is pretty easy and I have little fear that Juliann, Twhite, DocT or others will disagree.



Charity, TOm.

Actually, what I have been reading just in the past few days, I have seen a number of differences.

however, that is why we cannot go by what people believe. I have put forward what Joseph Smith specifically stated was doctrine and some LDS have said that they do not believe it.

So what I refer to is the teacgings of the LDS church and the leadership of the church, as well as what Mormons idenmtify as scripture.

Actually, now that I have your attention, since you say that there is agreement amongst Mormons, Juliann said that there are two ways to salvation and I have not been able to get her to show me where this found in the Bible. Perhaps you could help me out on that question.

 

[Toms777]

Not quite!

The LDS don't limit our canon to not expand and only be contained with what the Lord has revealed thus far.

Article of Faith #9

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

As such anything God wants to be revealed to us He will do it through the established order He has ordained.

TW

What do you do when what LDS identify as God's revelation contradict?

 

[Toms777]

This doesn't have anything to do with plagiarizing, but I wanted to make a point that ALL LDS posters here have been stressing over and over.

We have defined numerous times what actually is official LDS doctrine, yet for one reason or another the poster who posts quotes outside of that official doctrinal realm will not accept that possibly this is not LDS doctrine, whether taught by the prophet or not. My guess is that if they were to stay within the guidelines of official LDS doctrine then just maybe we would see that the gap isn't as wide as was thought.

We do of course have differences held within our official LDs doctrine, but we can support and live by those things that ALL LDS have agreed to let govern their lives as members of the CofJCofLDS.

We allow all to have their assumptions, theories, pressumpisitions, beliefs of what they consider doctrine, but when it comes to that doctrine that actually governs the CofJCoLDS as a whole, then the list gets much thinner and reliable.

Could we please keep to official doctrine when telling us what we believe?

Its OK to say that maybe the common belief during Brigham Young's day was ... or Joseph may have felt that .... was true, but to state that it applies to all the church then and now is a false and dishonest tactic.

I came to this site to hopefully learn about what my brothers and sisters of other faiths believed, but I haven't had too much time to do this since the majority of the time I spend here is trying to set straight to some mis-informed posters what I and the church actual believes.

Wouldn't it be easier to ask, hey do you or your church believe this? Then just accept the answer given rather than argue that they actually do.

Why even ask if you're mind is already set on what the LDS believe?

TW

It is hard to get Mormons to agree on official doctrine. For insatnce, when Joseph Smith says that Lorenzo Snow's doublet is gospel doctrine, there are some who say that it isn't.

Juliann told me that there are two ways to salvation. Where is that in scripture? Is that Official LDS doctrine, if so where is it found?

 

[Wrigley]

Not quite!

The LDS don't limit our canon to not expand and only be contained with what the Lord has revealed thus far.

Article of Faith #9

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

As such anything God wants to be revealed to us He will do it through the established order He has ordained.

TW

So, do most mormons believe in the theory of evolution too?

 

[rnmomof7]

This doesn't have anything to do with plagiarizing, but I wanted to make a point that ALL LDS posters here have been stressing over and over.

We have defined numerous times what actually is official LDS doctrine, yet for one reason or another the poster who posts quotes outside of that official doctrinal realm will not accept that possibly this is not LDS doctrine, whether taught by the prophet or not. My guess is that if they were to stay within the guidelines of official LDS doctrine then just maybe we would see that the gap isn't as wide as was thought.

The problem is there are two levels of Doctrine in the LDS

Their is the "official" then there is the "unofficial"
The unofficial is discussed and believability in some form by most LDS

If it is not written it can just be denied


Any talk with Mormons will find a number that believe that Adam was God because the "prophet" said it as you will find that believe that Michael was Adam or that Adam was a god from another planet .

Ask how jesus was conceived and you will get many that believe that the father had a sexual union with her because a prophet.

What was taught as firm doctrine by Smith and Young was changed for political purposes and many LDS know this.

There are many that still believe that polygamy is necessary and correct and was changed for political reasons ..so you have some Mormons that are hoping to see it return..and some that have left the LDS seeing you all as apostate.

There is a principle to put as little on paper as possible so there is plausible deniability

 

[twhite982]

The problem is there are two levels of Doctrine in the LDS

Their is the "official" then there is the "unofficial"
The unofficial is discussed and believability in some form by most LDS

If it is not written it can just be denied


Any talk with Mormons will find a number that believe that Adam was God because the "prophet" said it as you will find that believe that Michael was Adam or that Adam was a god from another planet .

Ask how jesus was conceived and you will get many that believe that the father had a sexual union with her because a prophet.

What was taught as firm doctrine by Smith and Young was changed for political purposes and many LDS know this.

There are many that still believe that polygamy is necessary and correct and was changed for political reasons ..so you have some Mormons that are hoping to see it return..and some that have left the LDS seeing you all as apostate.

There is a principle to put as little on paper as possible so there is plausible deniability

The point of your statement only shows the need to recognize what is official church doctrine.

We allow all to have their opinion on whatever subject.

You're right some of the unofficial doctrine is discussed, but it needs to be understood that this is indeed unofficial and we can only speculate on those matters.

TW

 

[twhite982]

It is hard to get Mormons to agree on official doctrine. For insatnce, when Joseph Smith says that Lorenzo Snow's doublet is gospel doctrine, there are some who say that it isn't.

We have also stated where our official doctrine lies. If Joseph did indeed state this, but it has not been "incorporated" as official doctrine then its outside of that realm and is not included, whether Joseph stated it or not.

There are many truths outside of LDS doctrine, but they are not binding upon the church as a whole and accepted as such.

Juliann told me that there are two ways to salvation. Where is that in scripture? Is that Official LDS doctrine, if so where is it found?

You'll have to ask Jullian, since I don't know what she said.

TW

 

[Wrigley]

You're right some of the unofficial doctrine is discussed, but it needs to be understood that this is indeed unofficial and we can only speculate on those matters.

Is it your position that these unofficial doctrines aren't believed, just speculated about?

 

[rnmomof7]

The point of your statement only shows the need to recognize what is official church doctrine.

We allow all to have their opinion on whatever subject.

You're right some of the unofficial doctrine is discussed, but it needs to be understood that this is indeed unofficial and we can only speculate on those matters.

TW

Here is the point TW..that is the foundation of your church.

It is discussed because men that claimed a pipeline to god taught it.

How was it decided not to add that to the other doctrine..how was it decided that it was not from God?

 

[twhite982]

[quote tw]You're right some of the unofficial doctrine is discussed, but it needs to be understood that this is indeed unofficial and we can only speculate on those matters.

Is it your position that these unofficial doctrines aren't believed, just speculated about?[/QUOTE]I can only tell you what I believe.

If I hear things that are speculated about that contradicts what we know as our official doctrine then I say something about it.

Of course they could be believed and that is why we assemble as a body to unite in the faith and ground ourselves within our established doctrine, not to be tossed around with every whim of speculation.

Every church has a wide spectrum of beliefs, but at the same time they have doctrine which is established and any attempts to go beyond that is speculation.

Same in the LDS church.

TW

 

[twhite982]

Here is the point TW..that is the foundation of your church.

It is discussed because men that claimed a pipeline to god taught it.

How was it decided not to add that to the other doctrine..how was it decided that it was not from God?

It may be discussed, but to place those teachings as doctrine should not happen until they are established by the church as such.

There are a myriad of different circumstances life offers us and everyone wants answers to their own personal question.

The fact of the matter is that we don't have all the answers and that is not good enough for some people, and I don't blame them at all for that.

I would want answers too! But to state that whatever is discussed applies to the entire church is incorrect.

TW

 

[rnmomof7]

[/size][/font]


Is it your position that these unofficial doctrines aren't believed, just speculated about?

I can only tell you what I believe.[/quote]

Do you believe that as an observant Mormon , living an obedient life that in eternity you may be a god of your own planet?

Do you believe that you may have additional wives in heaven?