Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)

Religions > Atheism > Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 5

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Kevin Simonson"
Date:	02 Dec 2003 04:06:31 PM
Object:	Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)

(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message
news:<6dfb1603.0311151755.752640ce@posting.google.com>...
=> Furthermore, in my last post I expressed a reason why I was
=> _skeptical_ that your plan would work.
=
=Now, if you could only learn to be _skeptical_ about the Church of
=Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Duwayne, do you think that I'm _not_ skeptical about the LDS
Church?
Do you think that when I read the Book of Mormon (my wife, kids,
and I are going through 3 Nephi right now, the story of the coming of
Jesus to the Americas), that I _don't_ sometimes wonder if Joseph
Smith didn't make the whole thing up, instead of translating it from
ancient records with divine help? Do you think that when I've heard
about the Kinderhook incident that I'm _not_ skeptical about Joseph
Smith's ability to discern a hoax from a genuine spiritual document?
Of course it doesn't stop there. It's very interesting that the
New Testament's two Christmas stories, Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 both
name Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth, and yet they
disagree on where Mary and Joseph came from before Jesus' birth, they
disagree on where the three of them went after Jesus' birth, and they
disagree on what historical events were happening at the same time as
Jesus' birth. I'm _very_ skeptical about the Christmas story as de-
picted by the Bible.
I'm skeptical about the story of David's fight with Goliath.
Look at 1 Samuel closely. Why are there _two_ stories about how David
met Saul? One story has the two meeting because David wanted to fight
Goliath; the other has the two meeting because David is a good harp
player. Is it really all that likely that both those stories are
true?
Yes, the Book of Mormon is sometimes hard to take seriously. But
the hardest part of the Book of Mormon to believe is the story of the
Jaredites, and the hardest part of the story of the Jaredites to be-
lieve is that there _was_ a Tower of Babbel that they could have come
out of. Evangelicals make such loud noises about the archaeological
evidence in favor of the Bible. Where, then, is the archaeological
(and linguistical) evidence for a building built to reach to heaven,
with all of humanity speaking one language before the building was
started, and all of them speaking different languages when the build-
ing was abandoned?
I'm skeptical about the story of Joseph (son of Jacob) who was
sold by his brothers into slavery in Egypt. I'm skeptical about the
story of a flood that covered the tops of the mountains (when there's
no geological evidence of such a flood). I'm skeptical about all of
humanity descending from one couple, Adam and Eve, and about their
fall from God's grace simply because they ate two pieces of fruit.
Sometimes when I really, really, want something very bad, and
plead to God for God to please, please, let me have it, I think to my-
self that if it turns out that there isn't a deity after all, then my
pleadings would basically be a waste of time.
I think about all these doubtings, and many, many more, and I see
a lot of skepticism, Duwayne.
I've got a brain that can doubt. _I've also got a conscience_
that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.
With all my doubts, with all my cynicism, I'm still at my core an
optimist. Each person in this world needs to decide for herself/him-
self whether or not s/he believes in a deity. In spite of my doubts,
and because of my optimism, I have chosen to believe in a deity, and
even one who loves me and wants to communicate with me. When my three
children get old enough to hear what critics have to say about God,
I'm going to explain to them that in spite of everything the critics
say, an optimist will still believe in that type of a God, and we are
a family of optimists. And a faith in that type of deity leads di-
rectly to the central challenge of the LDS Church--once you believe in
that type of God you need to _go to that deity in prayer_, and ask
that deity if that deity supports the LDS Church.
So in spite of all my skepticism about the truthfulness of the
message that Joseph Smith brought to the world, I'm forced back to a
decision I made a long time ago, a decision that plants me firmly in
the very faith that I sometimes doubt. After all, for a man of con-
science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
he started with, what's the alternative?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Duwayne Anderson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	04 Dec 2003 10:13:04 PM

(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message news:<6dfb1603.0312021406.6ae9259@posting.google.com>...
<snip>

Duwayne, do you think that I'm _not_ skeptical about the LDS
Church?

<snip>
Not skeptical enough.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
.

User: "Garrison Hilliard"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	05 Dec 2003 12:53:21 PM

(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message news:<6dfb1603.0312021406.6ae9259@posting.google.com>...

Then believe neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible and think for yourself.
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	27 Dec 2003 09:40:41 PM

(Garrison Hilliard) wrote in message
news:<d01cae46.0312051053.14b54da8@posting.google.com>...
=> Do you think that when I read the Book of Mormon (my wife, kids,
=> and I are going through 3 Nephi right now, the story of the coming of
=> Jesus to the Americas), that I _don't_ sometimes wonder if Joseph
=> Smith didn't make the whole thing up, instead of translating it from
=> ancient records with divine help? Do you think that when I've heard
=> about the Kinderhook incident that I'm _not_ skeptical about Joseph
=> Smith's ability to discern a hoax from a genuine spiritual document?
=>
=> Of course it doesn't stop there. It's very interesting that the
=> New Testament's two Christmas stories, Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2 both
=> name Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus of Nazareth, and yet they
=> disagree on where Mary and Joseph came from before Jesus' birth, they
=> disagree on where the three of them went after Jesus' birth, and they
=> disagree on what historical events were happening at the same time as
=> Jesus' birth. I'm _very_ skeptical about the Christmas story as de-
=> picted by the Bible.
=
=Then believe neither the Book of Mormon nor the Bible and think for yourself.
Thinking for myself, I read the tenth chapter of Moroni and came
to the conclusion that _if there really was a God_ in this universe,
then that chapter made sense, regardless of the divine inspiration (or
lack thereof) of the rest of the book. Since I have chosen to believe
that there is a God in this universe, and since I got an affirmative
answer from God when I asked God if Spencer Kimball was divinely in-
spired back in Autumn 1976, that places me firmly within the LDS
Church.
By the way, I still think for myself. Too much, my wife would
tell you. But I can't help it.
I just can't divorce myself from the idea of a current, loving
God that wants to communicate with me. You can't take that idea away
from me, any more than you could take capitalism away from Alan Green-
span, or music away from Wolfgang Mozart. And that idea led me di-
rectly to (originally hesitant) support of Ezra Benson as God's chosen
mouthpiece to the world, and later more enthusiastic support for his
two successors, Hunter and Hinckley.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Duwayne Anderson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	04 Dec 2003 07:51:04 PM

(Kevin Simonson) wrote in message news:<6dfb1603.0312021406.6ae9259@posting.google.com>...

Not skeptical enough.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	18 Dec 2003 05:11:05 PM

(Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0312041751.4072e65a@posting.google.com>...
=> => Furthermore, in my last post I expressed a reason why I was
=> => _skeptical_ that your plan would work.
=> =
=> =Now, if you could only learn to be _skeptical_ about the Church of
=> =Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
=>
=> Duwayne, do you think that I'm _not_ skeptical about the LDS
=> Church?
=
=Not skeptical enough.
Duwayne, are you saying that I can only make you happy if I'm
skeptical enough about the LDS Church to resign? Is that what you're
saying?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	04 Dec 2003 12:06:46 PM

(Kevin Simonson) wrote:

_I've also got a conscience_
that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.

So your sense of responsibility leads you to choose a path that
absolves you, and them, of all responsibility: you just pass the buck
to some god in which you "choose" to believe. And you don't have even
to concern yourself with actually putting out any effort to make this
world a better place for them, because it's only a prelude to
something better.
Out of curiosity, why even bother giving them a university education?
In a hundred years they'll be dead and gone to Heaven, or whatever
wonderful place your particular flavor of religion says you go after
you die, so what's the point?

In spite of my doubts,
and because of my optimism, I have chosen to believe in a deity, and
even one who loves me and wants to communicate with me.

A long time ago humans invented gods to protect them from big bad
scary thunder. You made up a god - or more accurately, chose to
believe in a god that someone else made up - to protect you from a big
bad scary decaying universe. This isn't optimism, it's a security
blanket. And even if the security blanket has some holes in it, it
still protects you from the big bad scary thing.

After all, for a man of con-
science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
he started with, what's the alternative?

Maybe by taking some PERSONAL responsibility and figuring out how YOU
can work to achieve a better world? And maybe even <gasp> teaching
your children to do the same? Instead of just showing them the warm
safe spot in the back of the family cave where they can huddle all
their lives?
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	27 Dec 2003 03:13:33 PM

wrote in message
news:<3fcf7510.43739078@news.comcast.giganews.com>...
=> _I've also got a conscience_
=>that gives me a sense of responsibility. I've got three small chil-
=>dren. I owe them something more than a university education and their
=>share of a universe one generation closer to its inevitable decay.
=
=So your sense of responsibility leads you to choose a path that
=absolves you, and them, of all responsibility: you just pass the buck
=to some god in which you "choose" to believe. And you don't have even
=to concern yourself with actually putting out any effort to make this
=world a better place for them, because it's only a prelude to
=something better.
My path doesn't absolve me from any responsibility at all. This
life is an opportunity for us to learn how to be of service one to
another; that's our responsibility, and just because we believe a God
exists doesn't change the fact that we owe it to our fellow human be-
ings to be of service to them.
=Out of curiosity, why even bother giving them a university education?
=In a hundred years they'll be dead and gone to Heaven, or whatever
=wonderful place your particular flavor of religion says you go after
=you die, so what's the point?
General LDS thought (which is supported to some extent by offi-
cial LDS theology) has it that Heaven is such a special place not be-
cause of any physical characteristics of the locale, but rather be-
cause everybody there has perfected the art of serving each other.
Everybody there will be trying to help out everybody else there, and
because of that atmosphere it will be Heaven. So you can't cut out
the middle step, earthly existence, because that time is what teaches
us _how_ to be of best service to everyone else.
There's a joke I kind of like about this guy who dies and goes to
Heaven. St. Peter informs him that he can go ahead and go to Heaven,
but the guy tells him that first he's curious what Hell looks like.
Peter tells him that Hell is a pretty awful place, but if he really,
really wants to see it, he can take yonder door, go down a long pas-
sageway, and take the first door on his left, and from the doorway he
can see Hell. The guy takes the proscribed course. Thirty minutes
later he comes rushing back. "It's so beautiful down there!" he ex-
claims. "It's all green, with flowing water, planted fields of crops;
it just looks like a wonderful place to live!"
"What?" Peter cries. He leaps to the door with the guy coming
behind him, opens it, runs down the long corridor, throws open the
down the door on the left, and looks out, and sure enough, it looks
all green and beautiful. "Confound it," St. Peter exlaims, "those
@%*$!# Mormons have been irrigating again!"
=>In spite of my doubts,
=>and because of my optimism, I have chosen to believe in a deity, and
=>even one who loves me and wants to communicate with me.
=
=A long time ago humans invented gods to protect them from big bad
=scary thunder. You made up a god - or more accurately, chose to
=believe in a god that someone else made up - to protect you from a big
=bad scary decaying universe. This isn't optimism, it's a security
=blanket. And even if the security blanket has some holes in it, it
=still protects you from the big bad scary thing.
It's a foolish man who attempts to solve major problems in his
life without first asking around to see if friends and associates
might have faced the same problem, or might know of people who have,
so they can give him input on how he should deal with the major pro-
blems. That's all that our relationships with God are, attempts to
see if someone has experience with eternal issues, and what that some-
one's input to us on those eternal issues are.
=>After all, for a man of con-
=>science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
=>he started with, what's the alternative?
=
=Maybe by taking some PERSONAL responsibility and figuring out how YOU
=can work to achieve a better world? And maybe even <gasp> teaching
=your children to do the same? Instead of just showing them the warm
=safe spot in the back of the family cave where they can huddle all
=their lives?
I'm all in favor of taking some personal "responsibility and fi-
guring out how [I] can work to achieve a better world." I'm planning
on teaching my children to do the same. But in all my efforts (and in
all their efforts if they follow my wife's and my lead) I'm going to
stay receptive to any advice God chooses to give me along the way, and
at the very least each morning and each evening I'm going to explicit-
ly ask God for guidance on the decisions I'm going to make, to show
God that I'm open to God's promptings to direct my life in such a way
that I work for God's eternal purposes.
I don't see anything in this as analogous to showing my children
"the warm safe spot in the back of the family cave where they can hud-
dle all their lives."
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Harry Palms"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	05 Dec 2003 09:48:20 AM

So in spite of all my skepticism about the truthfulness of the
message that Joseph Smith brought to the world, I'm forced back to a
decision I made a long time ago, a decision that plants me firmly in
the very faith that I sometimes doubt. After all, for a man of con-
science, a man who feels he owes his children a better world than what
he started with, what's the alternative?

---Kevin Simonson

I think this sums up all religious belief. I'm sure all religious
people are skeptical at times of their leaders and their church's
claims. I'm sure many Branch Dividians started having doubts during
the Waco Siege. But it all comes back to faith. Faith is a belief that
whatever you were taught as a child is true, regardless of the
evidence.
.

User: "Jerry Sturdivant"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	06 Dec 2003 08:10:24 PM

"Harry Palms"

Faith is a belief that whatever you were taught as a child
is true, regardless of the evidence.

Or, in another way:
Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
Jerry Sturdivant
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	27 Dec 2003 09:39:25 PM

"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<M_vAb.27897$Bk1.26774@fed1read05>...
=> Faith is a belief that whatever you were taught as a child
=> is true, regardless of the evidence.
=
=Or, in another way:
=
=Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
=Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
A lot of people think the LDS Church is the epitome of an organi-
zation where people do "what [they] are told no matter what is right,"
but that's really not the case. LDS Church leaders say that if people
want to know whether they are acting with divine inspiration, those
people should go to God in sincere prayer and ask God if those people
are acting with divine inspiration. There's a big difference between
that admonition and one admonishing its people to just do what they
are told.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Jerry Sturdivant"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	28 Dec 2003 09:40:57 AM

"Kevin Simonson"

Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

A lot of people think the LDS Church is the epitome of an
organization where people do "what [they] are told no matter
what is right," but that's really not the case.

And I believe it is. And not just the LDS but all churches. Let's take the
homosexual issue for example. They church says it's wrong, so the followers
say it's wrong. When the followers are questioned as to why they think it
wrong, they go lock-step with the church and spout chapter and verse. Ergo,
church doctrine, regardless of the morality of treating others badly.

LDS Church leaders say that if people want to know whether
they are acting with divine inspiration, those people should
go to God in sincere prayer and ask God if those people are
acting with divine inspiration.

So the church says, "Talk to god and see what he says." This requires them
to attempt to listen for a voice, right? ("No matter what they're told").
And if a parishioner comes back and says, "We are wrong. God just told me we
should treat homosexuals as good and equal people!"
What do you think happens next?
Jerry Sturdivant
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	31 Dec 2003 01:42:03 PM

"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<cQCHb.31685$gN.2758@fed1read05>...
=>> Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
=>> Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
=> A lot of people think the LDS Church is the epitome of an
=> organization where people do "what [they] are told no matter
=> what is right," but that's really not the case.
=
=And I believe it is. And not just the LDS but all churches. Let's take the
=homosexual issue for example. They church says it's wrong, so the followers
=say it's wrong. When the followers are questioned as to why they think it
=wrong, they go lock-step with the church and spout chapter and verse. Ergo,
=church doctrine, regardless of the morality of treating others badly.
Well, Latter-day Saints do what _God_ tells them to do. I took
the original poster's statement as labeling Latter-day Saints as peo-
ple who did what _people_ (church leaders) told them to do.
I look at gays and lesbians about how I look at tobacco-users.
When God first told Joseph Smith that God didn't want us using tobac-
co, scientists didn't know what we know now about the high correlation
between tobacco use and cancer. Still, Latter-day Saints didn't
smoke, and even back then that was the right decision to make, even
though scientists didn't know about the health benefits of the prac-
tice.
Right now, as far as I'm aware, there are no known benefits of
abstaining from the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Even so, God has re-
vealed to Gordon Hinckley (and other LDS leaders) that God doesn't
want us living that lifestyle. Maybe in the years to come, after more
studies of the consequences of living that lifestyle are completed, we
will learn just why God made that prohibition.
By the way, I am somewhat left of center, relative to most Lat-
ter-day Saints, when it comes to gay rights. The way I see it, the
LDS Church is perfectly within its rights to prohibit the gay life-
style for its members. But when it comes to the state finding adop-
tive parents for children, there will be some times when it should
choose gay couples. I don't think gay couples should have _as much_
of a right to adopt children as straight couples; nor do I think, as
my wife does, that they should be prohibited from adopting entirely.
In my opinion, the policy of the state of Texas is a good compromise.
In Texas, when the state finds a child that needs an adoptive parent,
the child is placed with a straight couple if one can be found that is
willing to adopt the child. If one cannot be found, then the state
lets a gay couple adopt the child.
I've also struck what looks to me like a nice compromise when it
comes to gay marriage. Let me point out that gays, lesbians, and bi-
sexuals are not the only sexual minorities who want to be granted the
special status of legal marriage. Legalizing marriage for gay couples
and lesbian couples would be like passing civil rights legislation
that benefited blacks and Asians, but that still left discrimination
against Native Americans perfectly legal.
What I'm talking about are polygamous groups. If the USA gets
around to legalizing gay marriage, it would be _extremely_ hypocriti-
cal if it didn't at the same time legalize polygamous marriage. When
it made such marriages illegal back in the 1800's, that decision was
based on an appeal to the Victorian value system, that condemned homo-
sexuality just as much as it condemned bigamy. If we're going to
overthrow the Victorian value system, then we need to repeal the poly-
gamy laws too. _I would vote for_ an "alternative marriage" law, that
granted legal sanction to marriages both between couples of the same
gender and between polygamous groups. I would vote _against_ a law
that legalized gay marriage but left the laws against bigamy standing.
Let me rush to say that I am _not_ saying this because I want the
LDS Church to return to the polygamous days of its past. I don't
think that will ever happen. The legislation I'm proposing would only
benefit the so-called "fundamentalist" LDS break-offs of rural Utah.
What I want for the main-line LDS Church is simply vindication. The
recognition by the law that its polygamous days in the 1800's were
really perfectly legal, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights' promise
of freedom of religion.
=> LDS Church leaders say that if people want to know whether
=> they are acting with divine inspiration, those people should
=> go to God in sincere prayer and ask God if those people are
=> acting with divine inspiration.
=
=So the church says, "Talk to god and see what he says." This requires them
=to attempt to listen for a voice, right? ("No matter what they're told").
=And if a parishioner comes back and says, "We are wrong. God just told me we
=should treat homosexuals as good and equal people!"
=
=What do you think happens next?
If the person who asked God this question and got that answer has
thought the matter through at all, then that person will leave the LDS
Church and start a new religion, one that teaches that "we should
treat homosexuals as good and equal people."
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Jerry Sturdivant"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	31 Dec 2003 04:05:03 PM

"Kevin Simonson"

And not just the LDS but all churches. Let's take the
homosexual issue for example. They church says it's
wrong, so the followers say it's wrong. When the followers
are questioned as to why they think it wrong, they go
lock-step with the church and spout chapter and verse.
Ergo, church doctrine, regardless of the morality of
treating others badly.

Well, Latter-day Saints do what _God_ tells them to do. I
took the original poster's statement as labeling Latter-day
Saints as people who did what _people_ (church leaders) told
them to do.

Nice try. Everybody gets together and listens to god talk to them? I don't
think so. The church leaders tell their flock what god says. It's how
religion works. Unless, of course, you're saying that people are hearing
voices..
Read your bible as to the punishment for "Laying with a man as a woman."
Then look up the penalty for a farmer that grows more than one kind of crop.
The farmer is sentenced to death for his punishment.
Obviously the gay theme is a higher profile and more fun to point a finger
at. Look at the punishments for violations of the majority of the Ten
Commandments: Death.
I guess we see which is the hot-button issue here.

Right now, as far as I'm aware, there are no known benefits
of abstaining from the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Even so,
God has revealed to Gordon Hinckley (and other LDS leaders)
that God doesn't want us living that lifestyle.

Have you ever wondered why god doesn't just come out in church and tell
everybody at the same time? (Could it be because there is no god?)

Maybe in the years to come, after more studies of the
consequences of living that lifestyle are completed, we
will learn just why God made that prohibition.

But you still don't mind that a farmer can grow more than one crop? My point
that the LDS members do what the church says still stands. As does my
statement:
Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

The way I see it, the LDS Church is perfectly within its
rights to prohibit the gay lifestyle for its members.

Yet the members can do the very sexual acts that gays do and it's okay?
(Oral sex. Anal sex, et cetera) And if they do, what is the penalty?

I've also struck what looks to me like a nice compromise
when it comes to gay marriage. Let me point out that gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals are not the only sexual minorities
who want to be granted the special status of legal marriage.
Legalizing marriage for gay couples and lesbian couples would
be like passing civil rights legislation that benefited blacks
and Asians, but that still left discrimination against Native
Americans perfectly legal.

And while we're at it, touch on the church's previous position of marriage
of mix race. Did god suddenly shout down: "I'VE CHANGED MY MIND, IT'S OKAY
FOR MIX RACED MARRIAGES!"

Let me rush to say that I am _not_ saying this because I
want the LDS Church to return to the polygamous days
of its past. I don't think that will ever happen.

Why not? If their god first told them it's okay. Then told them it's not
okay. What's to stop him for okaying it again? (And why doesn't he keep
changing his mind? Could it be that it is MAN that doing the 'saying'?)

So the church says, "Talk to god and see what he says." This
requires them to attempt to listen for a voice, right? ("No matter
what they're told"). And if a parishioner comes back and says,
"We are wrong. God just told me we should treat homosexuals
as good and equal people!" What do you think happens next?

If the person who asked God this question and got that answer
has thought the matter through at all, then that person will
leave the LDS Church and start a new religion, one that teaches
that "we should treat homosexuals as good and equal people."

WHOA! Leave the church? Why? If the church's god talked to him and told him
it's okay; why should he leave the church? It's god statement, isn't it? Why
does it not apply for all the others in the church too? [Warning: This is a
loaded question and will say a lot about your religion]
Jerry Sturdivant
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	06 Jan 2004 01:14:33 PM

"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<fMHIb.35706$gN.24145@fed1read05>...
=> Well, Latter-day Saints do what _God_ tells them to do. I
=> took the original poster's statement as labeling Latter-day
=> Saints as people who did what _people_ (church leaders) told
=> them to do.
=
=Nice try. Everybody gets together and listens to god talk to them? I don't
=think so. The church leaders tell their flock what god says. It's how
=religion works. Unless, of course, you're saying that people are hearing
=voices..
When someone listens to the LDS missionary discussions, the mis-
sionaries challenge this someone to pray sincerely to God and to ask
God if God really has chosen to teach people God's will through the
LDS Church authorities. So God speaks to each person individually at
least once, after which, if God gives this person a yes answer, God
speaks to this someone through the LDS Church authorities. Although,
the Church teaches that this someone still has the right to inspira-
tion regarding this someone's own life and church callings, so it's
not like s/he gets to hear God's answer once and then never hear from
God again.
=Read your bible as to the punishment for "Laying with a man as a woman."
=Then look up the penalty for a farmer that grows more than one kind of crop.
=The farmer is sentenced to death for his punishment.
Your point is well taken; there are many prohibitions in the He-
brew Tanakh that don't apply to today's Christian. But people who
speak for God today, Gordon Hinckley et al, tell us today that if
someone wants to do God's will that someone will give up the gay life-
style.
=But you still don't mind that a farmer can grow more than one crop? My point
=that the LDS members do what the church says still stands. As does my
=statement:
=
=Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
=Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
There's a lot of romance in the idea that if someone just does
what he thinks is right his whole life then that someone will accom-
plish great things. That might be true, but there is also a lot of
good that can be accomplished by organizations. Sometimes it's hard
to imagine how some particular set of that good could have been accom-
plished without the organizations.
For example, one of the right things to do in this world is to
help lift the world's poor out of their poverty. A couple of years
ago Gordon Hinckley announced that the LDS Church was going to do its
share of raising people out of poverty by offering low-interest educa-
tional loans to poor Mormons in undeveloped nations. The idea is that
with university educations these people will get better jobs than they
could have had previously, and therefore would be in a very good posi-
tion to pay back the loans. The money would go back into the fund, to
be used by _other_ people trying to use education to lift themselves
out of poverty.
Note that Hinckley never told anybody how much he wanted them to
contribute to this fund, or even _that_ he wanted them to contribute
to this fund. That was left entirely up to the individual members.
Even so, without being told to, the membership contributed enough to
put literally thousands of people from these undeveloped countries
into schools throughout the world.
Could moral individuals who were just trying to do "what is right
no matter what [they were] told," accomplish as much good as the whole
LDS Perpetual Education Fund (as Hinckley called it) could do? It's
hard for me to see how.
=> The way I see it, the LDS Church is perfectly within its
=> rights to prohibit the gay lifestyle for its members.
=
=Yet the members can do the very sexual acts that gays do and it's okay?
=(Oral sex. Anal sex, et cetera) And if they do, what is the penalty?
I've been an active Latter-day Saint for 44 years, and have never
heard any prohibitions on oral or anal sex.
=> Legalizing marriage for gay couples and lesbian couples would
=> be like passing civil rights legislation that benefited blacks
=> and Asians, but that still left discrimination against Native
=> Americans perfectly legal.
=
=And while we're at it, touch on the church's previous position of marriage
=of mix race. Did god suddenly shout down: "I'VE CHANGED MY MIND, IT'S OKAY
=FOR MIX RACED MARRIAGES!"
I was not aware that the LDS Church had ever forbidden mixed race
marriages. We had a mixed race marriage in our own ward in Seattle in
the 1960's and 1970's; I certainly don't remember hearing that the
Church forbade _that_ marriage.
When Spencer Kimball announced that blacks could hold the priest-
hood in June 1978 he said that the Church still _strongly discouraged_
interracial marriages, on the grounds that _any_ big cultural differ-
ences between two prospective marriage partners made it more likely
that the marriage wouldn't survive. But members were pretty much left
on the honor system in implementing that advice. And in spite of it
interracial marriages happened, some fairly high profile. I think
Helvecio Martins married a white woman, and Mary Frances Sturlaugson
married (John?) Eyer, and wrote a best-seller about it. One major
milestone occurred about five years ago when the Church called a black
man as a mission president (over one of the west African missions) who
was married to a white woman.
=> Let me rush to say that I am _not_ saying this because I
=> want the LDS Church to return to the polygamous days
=> of its past. I don't think that will ever happen.
=
=Why not? If their god first told them it's okay. Then told them it's not
=okay. What's to stop him for okaying it again?
It certainly could happen; God can do whatever God wants to do.
But personally I would be very surprised if it happened.
= (And why doesn't he keep
=changing his mind? Could it be that it is MAN that doing the 'saying'?)
Deep sigh. I started this thread expressing my skepticism re-
garding everything from the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to the
very _existence_ of God. _Of course_ it could "be that it is MAN that
[is] doing the 'saying'"! But _if God exists_, then God has told me
that God inspires the LDS Church leaders, so since I believe God
exists, I believe that it is God "doing the 'saying.'"
=>> God just told me we should treat homosexuals
=>> as good and equal people!" What do you think happens next?
=> If the person who asked God this question and got that answer
=> has thought the matter through at all, then that person will
=> leave the LDS Church and start a new religion, one that teaches
=> that "we should treat homosexuals as good and equal people."
=
=WHOA! Leave the church? Why? If the church's god talked to him and told him
=it's okay; why should he leave the church? It's god statement, isn't it? Why
=does it not apply for all the others in the church too? [Warning: This is a
=loaded question and will say a lot about your religion]
Once someone prays to God and hears from God that s/he should
treat Hinckley as God's spokesman to the world, then that someone has
discovered that _Hinckley_ speaks to the world for God, not every
single person that ever prays to God. Each of us individually has the
right to get information from God that pertains to each of us indivi-
dually; we don't have the right to receive revelations _for other peo-
ple_ unless God has given us a calling that involves those other peo-
ple.
Think about it. I prayed and asked God if God endorsed the LDS
Church. God told me quite clearly that God _does_ endorse the LDS
Church. That includes endorsement of the LDS Church's position on ho-
mosexuality. Now Person A prays and asks God if "we should treat ho-
mosexuals as good and equal people," and (hypothetically) God tells
Person A that we _should_ treat homosexuals as "good and equal peop-
le." Person A has as much right to impose his answer from God on me
as I have a right to impose my answer from God (and its resultant pro-
hibition of homosexuality) on Person A. Should Person A trust my an-
swer from God, and assume that I'm completely on the level? Hardly!
That's why I said that each individual person needs to ask God if the
LDS Church is true; the only person that person should trust is God,
as God goes about answering that person's question. Likewise the rest
of the Church shouldn't be required to trust Person A's answer from
God. Each of us needs to go on what God has told us individually. If
God tells one of us that God has chosen Person A as God's spokesman to
the world, then Person A can certainly speak to the world; otherwise
he has as much business imposing his will on us as I have imposing my
will on Person A.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Jerry Sturdivant"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	06 Jan 2004 10:56:36 PM

"Kevin Simonson"

Unless, of course, you're saying that
people are hearing voices..

When someone listens to the LDS missionary discussions, the
missionaries challenge this someone to pray sincerely to
God and to ask God if God really has chosen to teach people
God's will through the LDS Church authorities. So God speaks
to each person individually at least once, after which, if
God gives this person a yes answer, God speaks to this someone
through the LDS Church authorities. Although, the Church
teaches that this someone still has the right to inspiration
regarding this someone's own life and church callings,
so it's not like s/he gets to hear God's answer once and
then never hear from God again.

Who makes up these rules?

Read your bible as to the punishment for "Laying with
a man as a woman." Then look up the penalty for a
farmer that grows more than one kind of crop.
The farmer is sentenced to death for his punishment.

Your point is well taken; there are many prohibitions in
the Hebrew Tanakh that don't apply to today's Christian.
But people who speak for God today, Gordon Hinckley et al,
tell us today that if someone wants to do God's will that
someone will give up the gay lifestyle.

So Gordon Hinckley cast aside the farmer's death penalty and picks up on the
gays. Who told him to do that? Did god change his biblical rules?

And while we're at it, touch on the church's previous
position of marriage of mix race. Did god suddenly
shout down: "I'VE CHANGED MY MIND, IT'S OKAY
FOR MIX RACED MARRIAGES!"

I was not aware that the LDS Church had ever forbidden mixed race

marriages.
[.]

When Spencer Kimball announced that blacks could hold
the priesthood in June 1978 he said that the Church still
_strongly discouraged_ interracial marriages

_Now_ are you aware that the church was against interracial marriage? Now
can you tell me why it's changed?

Let me rush to say that I am _not_ saying this because I
want the LDS Church to return to the polygamous days
of its past. I don't think that will ever happen.

Why not? If their god first told them it's okay.
Then told them it's not okay. What's to stop
him for okaying it again?

It certainly could happen

Same for gays too then?

Once someone prays to God and hears from God that s/he should
treat Hinckley as God's spokesman to the world, then that
someone has discovered that _Hinckley_ speaks to the world
for God, not every single person that ever prays to God.

And you don't suppose that Hinckley was the one that made that rule, do you?
Are you starting to see the light, Kevin? Are you beginning to see how
religion, and those that run it, are able to take advantage of the
uninitiated and weak religious? It's call a scam. Have you ever hear of
other religions or people doing just that? Have you heard of Adolph Hitler?
Pat Robertson? Oral Roberts? Jim Bakker? Jim Jones? David Koresh? Jimmy
Swaggart? Hale Bopp comet cult? It absolutely astounds me how people, like
you, can be taken in so easily. Those leaders simply sell you that they
talked to god and god put them in charge and only they can get the real
communications from god. And saps like you eat it up. It's just astounding..

Each of us individually has the right to get information
from God that pertains to each of us individually; we don't
have the right to receive revelations _for other people_
unless God has given us a calling that involves those other
people.

And who told you that was the rules? (Starting to get the picture?)

Think about it. I prayed and asked God if God endorsed the
LDS Church. God told me quite clearly that God _does_ endorse
the LDS Church.

Quite clearly? YOU think about it. I've just showed you could have been
mistaken. YOU even admitted you were not sure it was god talking to you.
Look back at your own writing and "Think about it, man."
[More "prayer" rules and regulations deleted]
So much proof of your errors looking you in the face; so many people trying
to help you see the fallacies of your religion; and your eyes glaze over and
you stare off into space and start chanting in lock-step with your religious
leader.
It's just astounding.
Jerry Sturdivant
Educating (some) theists since 1957
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	19 Jan 2004 07:15:28 PM

"Jerry Sturdivant" <sturdy@lvcm.com> wrote in message
news:<miMKb.47094$gN.5232@fed1read05>...
= God's will through the LDS Church authorities. So God speaks
=to each person individually at least once, after which, if
=God gives this person a yes answer, God speaks to this someone
=through the LDS Church authorities. Although, the Church
=teaches that this someone still has the right to inspiration
=regarding this someone's own life and church callings,
=so it's not like s/he gets to hear God's answer once and
=then never hear from God again.
=
=Who makes up these rules?
God speaking "to each person individually at least once" is just
plain common sense, if you think about it a little bit. Any deity
worth worshipping is going to love us enough to provide us a way of
knowing what that deity's will is for our lives. Evangelicals would
have us think that that's what the purpose of the Bible is, to let us
know what God's will is for our lives. That would be fine if we had
some way of knowing that a deity had intended the Bible for that pur-
pose, and if there was some straightforward, clearly published way to
read the Bible and discover that will. But the Bible comes with no
"How to Use this Book section." Heck, it doesn't even have a divinely
inspired Table of Contents or even a divinely inspired Title Page.
Without any of those essential components in the Bible, the ap-
proach to God that makes most sense is to go to God in prayer, with
the theology that makes the most sense to us, ready to change our
lives depending on God's answer to our question, and to then ask God
if God endorses our theology, and then wait patiently for God to an-
swer our question. I am totally confident that sooner or later God
will find a way to give us an answer that we can be sure came from
God, either endorsing our theology or opposing it.
The rest of the stuff, the bit about God speaking "through the
LDS Church authorities," and having "the right to inspiration regard-
ing this someone's own life and church callings," is only relevant if
God tells this person that God endorses the LDS Church, since it's
what the LDS Church teaches.
=So Gordon Hinckley cast aside the farmer's death penalty and picks up on the
=gays. Who told him to do that? Did god change his biblical rules?
Who told him to do that? God. Did God change his biblical
rules? Yes. There are several items in the Pentateuch that were
meant only to be kept by the Jews in the interval of time between Mo-
ses and Jesus of Nazareth.
= When Spencer Kimball announced that blacks could hold
=the priesthood in June 1978 he said that the Church still
=_strongly discouraged_ interracial marriages
=
=_Now_ are you aware that the church was against interracial marriage? Now
=can you tell me why it's changed?
Well, in one sense it _hasn't_ changed. The LDS Church has a lot
invested in giving people good advice on entering into the marriage
covenant, and it has observed that marriages between partners of simi-
lar backgrounds have a lot more chances for success than marriages be-
tween partners of different cultural backgrounds. Race is just one of
many dimensions where it's taking a risk if two people on opposite
sides of one such dimension decide they want to get married.
Is that contested? Have studies been done that show that couples
of different races who get married are no more likely to eventually
get divorced than couples of the same race who get married?
But apart from advising couples against interracial marriages,
the LDS Church certainly doesn't _forbid_ interracial marriages. As I
said before, they've happened, sometimes in high profile cases, and
I'm sure in several low profile cases, and the Church lets them do it.
=Why not? If their god first told them it's okay.
=Then told them it's not okay. What's to stop
=him for okaying it again?
=
=It certainly could happen
=
=Same for gays too then?
It is possible that God at some future point could tell Gordon
Hinckley or one of Hinckley's successors that God no longer wants ho-
mosexual sex to be grounds for excommunication from the Church. That
would surprise me, but it's possible. And for the record, if it did
happen nobody would be happier about it than I would be.
=Once someone prays to God and hears from God that s/he should
=treat Hinckley as God's spokesman to the world, then that
=someone has discovered that _Hinckley_ speaks to the world
=for God, not every single person that ever prays to God.
=
=And you don't suppose that Hinckley was the one that made that rule, do you?
=
=Are you starting to see the light, Kevin? Are you beginning to see how
=religion, and those that run it, are able to take advantage of the
=uninitiated and weak religious? It's call a scam. Have you ever hear of
=other religions or people doing just that? Have you heard of Adolph Hitler?
=Pat Robertson? Oral Roberts? Jim Bakker? Jim Jones? David Koresh? Jimmy
=Swaggart? Hale Bopp comet cult? It absolutely astounds me how people, like
=you, can be taken in so easily. Those leaders simply sell you that they
=talked to god and god put them in charge and only they can get the real
=communications from god. And saps like you eat it up. It's just astounding..
Jerry, you haven't been listening very closely. The LDS Church
does _not_ teach that only Hinckley "can get the real communications
from god." It admonishes each of us individually to go to God for di-
rect revelation from God to us telling us whether or not God endorses
the LDS Church.
Did Hitler do that, admonish his followers to go to God in prayer
to find out whether God endorsed him? Or Robertson, Roberts, Bakker,
Jones, Koresh, or Swaggart?
The LDS Church is only a scam if it turns out there is no God. A
lot of people (me among them) are willing to risk a lot on the assump-
tion that there is a God. And why not?
Each of us individually has the right to get information
from God that pertains to each of us individually; we don't
have the right to receive revelations _for other people_
unless God has given us a calling that involves those other
people.
=And who told you that was the rules? (Starting to get the picture?)
As I said above, the approach to finding out the will of God em-
bodied by Moroni 10 is nothing more than common sense combined with
faith in a loving God who wants to communicate with us.
What picture do you want me to get? Do you want me to assume
that there is no God?
= Think about it. I prayed and asked God if God endorsed the
=LDS Church. God told me quite clearly that God _does_ endorse
=the LDS Church.
=
=Quite clearly? YOU think about it. I've just showed you could have been
=mistaken. YOU even admitted you were not sure it was god talking to you.
=Look back at your own writing and "Think about it, man."
Humor me, Jerry. Show me again how I could have been mistaken.
When did I admit that I wan't "sure it was god talking to" me? I
asked God a question. I got an immediate, dramatically affirmative
response. I've had no qualms whatsoever in basing my entire theology
on it for the last 27 years.
=So much proof of your errors looking you in the face; so many people trying
=to help you see the fallacies of your religion; and your eyes glaze over and
=you stare off into space and start chanting in lock-step with your religious
=leader.
Jerry, what proof of my errors is "looking [me] in the face"?
I'm hardly "chanting in lock-step with [my] religious leader"; I don't
know how you can accuse me of that.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Rev Richard Foot"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	06 Jan 2004 09:33:26 PM

(Kevin Simonson) wrote :

Well, Latter-day Saints do
what _God_ tells them to do.

Have look at the testimony of three witnesses, at the start of your Book of
Moron: ". . . which is ONE God." How many?
Yet Mormonism claims they are three gods.

When God first told Joseph Smith that God didn't want us
using tobac- co, scientists didn't know what we know now
about the high correlation between tobacco use and cancer.

It was known to be harmful, though, and the reason for the advice, since
your Word of Wisdom is not a commandment, was only because your founder's
wife, Emma Smith, did not like having to clean up chewed tobacco, after
young Joe had held meetings with his mates.
But then as your Word of Wisdom doesn't mention cancer, either, it can
hardly have devine origin. If that's not enough, read on, tobacco's
supposed to a herb, for treating all sick cattle.
Scientists don't know about that either.

Even so, God has re- vealed to Gordon Hinckley
(and other LDS leaders) that God doesn't want
us living that lifestyle.

And this latter day revelation can be found in your scripture, can it?
No.
--

Broomleigh Baptist Church
"All the Bible, all the time"
http://church.broomleigh.org
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	19 Jan 2004 07:17:25 PM

Rev Richard Foot <jeffrey.archer@broomleigh.org.uk> wrote in message
news:<Xns946922E8E77F6richardfootbroomleig@127.0.0.1>...
= Well, Latter-day Saints do
=what _God_ tells them to do.
=
=Have look at the testimony of three witnesses, at the start of your Book of
=Moron: ". . . which is ONE God." How many?
=
=Yet Mormonism claims they are three gods.
Latter-day Saints are hardly the only theists who get caught in
that semantical game. Evangelicals do too. When they talk about God
they're usually referring to the union of the Father, Jesus, and the
Holy Spirit. Yet when Jesus talked about God He invariably was talk-
ing about His Father only. So there are two ways of using the term
God, both supported by the New Testament.
Likewise, Latter-day Saints have no problem with the Book of Mor-
mon's usage of the word God as the union of three persons, and yet
they also use the term god to refer to a person who is divine.
Wouldn't most Evangelicals admit that there are three persons who are
divine?
= Even so, God has re-
=vealed to Gordon Hinckley (and other LDS leaders) that God doesn't want
=us living that lifestyle.
=
=And this latter day revelation can be found in your scripture, can it?
=No.
Scripture is a pretty fluid thing to Latter-day Saints, so we're
not easily swayed by people opining that certain key doctrines should
be included in accepted canon in order for them to be believed. The
fact that the Proclamation on the Family is not yet part of accepted
LDS canon doesn't keep Latter-day Saints from believing in it. And
who knows? Maybe it will be part of scripture some day. When that
happens then it will be found in scripture.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Tom Moore"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	19 Jan 2004 10:40:12 PM

(Kevin Simonson) wrote :

Latter-day Saints are hardly the only theists
who get caught in that semantical game.

This is the two wrongs arguments?
Mormonism must be true, if her competitor religions can be shown to be
dishonest?
Rubbish: Mormonism is wrong (inter alia) because she is dishonest,
regardless of whether or not there is a religious alternative.

Wouldn't most Evangelicals admit that
there are three persons who are divine?

No, it's not okay to tell lies, or murder, because others tell lies, and
murder.

Scripture is a pretty fluid thing
to Latter-day Saints, [ . . . ]

Not true either. Mormonism has not had any revelations added to its
sacred canon since the century before last. A couple of entries, which
may or may not be intended to reflect the intention of God, but nothing,
as in the words of your founder Joe Smith, "this saith The Lord."
Things like that don't happen anymore (in Mormonism).
--
http://tom-moore.broomleigh.com
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	11 Feb 2004 12:25:16 PM

Tom Moore <email_for_tom_knickers@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<Xns94762F3FC58B9customerservicesbroo@127.0.0.1>...
=> Latter-day Saints are hardly the only theists
=> who get caught in that semantical game.
=
=This is the two wrongs arguments?
=
=Mormonism must be true, if her competitor religions can be shown to be
=dishonest?
Tom, your point is well taken. Establishing that the LDS Church
is in the same position as Evangelical Christianity on this matter
does not make the LDS Church true. But my point was that if Richard
Foot was aware of a way to excuse Evangelical Christianity from using
the term "God" to mean two different things, then the same method
could be used to excuse the LDS Church from using that term to mean
two different things. And such a way can be found. English (_and_
Greek, _and_ Hebrew, and almost any other language spoken by humans
that you can think of) has a long history of using terms that mean
more than one thing depending on how they're used. It does not prove
the LDS Church false if LDS theology uses one definition of "God" in
the Book of Mormon and another definition of that term elsewhere.
=Rubbish: Mormonism is wrong (inter alia) because she is dishonest,
=regardless of whether or not there is a religious alternative.
Tom, how do you come to the conclusion that Mormonism is dishon-
est?
=> Scripture is a pretty fluid thing
=> to Latter-day Saints, [ . . . ]
=
=Not true either. Mormonism has not had any revelations added to its
=sacred canon since the century before last. A couple of entries, which
=may or may not be intended to reflect the intention of God, but nothing,
=as in the words of your founder Joe Smith, "this saith The Lord."
=
=Things like that don't happen anymore (in Mormonism).
So Gordon Hinckley doesn't explicitly say, "this saith The Lord,"
so what? Does that make the Proclamation on the Family any less a re-
velation from God to man? Does that mean Hinckley wasn't inspired of
God to build smaller temples on that car ride from Colonia Juarez back
to El Paso? Does that mean God didn't direct him to start up the Per-
petual Education Fund a few years back, that will lift the poor in de-
veloping countries out of their poverty by giving them educational
loans?
There you have three extremely important revelations, the former
given to the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve while Ezra
Taft Benson was prophet, the latter two given directly to Hinckley.
It doesn't matter that the wording didn't fit the precise formula you
wanted it to, Tom. What mattered was that from 1985 to the present
God chose Benson, Hunter, and Hinckley to be His spokesmen to the
world.
Personally, I would like to see the Proclamation on the Family
added to the Doctrine and Covenants, made an official part of the LDS
Canon. But there are many Latter-day Saints who believe that all
three revelations are already part of LDS scripture, by virtue of the
fact that all three were part of conference addresses given by Hinck-
ley on occasions when he had authority given him by God to speak for
God.
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Tom Moore"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	11 Feb 2004 09:41:20 PM

(Kevin Simonson) wrote :

Tom, your point is well taken.

Kind of you to say.

It does not prove the LDS Church false if LDS theology
uses one definition of "God" in the Book of Mormon
and another definition of that term elsewhere.

Languages do assign more than one meaning to many of their words. Giving a
term two meanings, is not the same as changing its meaning.
The meaning of the term God, changes between the Book of Mormon, and the
remainder of the LdS world (theology, practice and everything else).
Using the fact orthodoxy teaches Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one person,
is hardly an excuse for an apparently non Trinitarian religion having the
same confusion. Where did that originate, if Joseph Smith did not copy it
from orthodox Christian scripture?

=Rubbish: Mormonism is wrong (inter alia) because
=she is dishonest, regardless of whether or not there
=is a religious alternative.

Tom, how do you come to the conclusion
that Mormonism is dishon-est?

Hang on a minute. If you prove orthodox Christianity has a flaw, that does
not mean LdS theology can have an equally serious flaw, without being
wrong. LdS theology must be better than orthodox Christianity, above all,
because that's what Mormonism teaches.
Dishonest: changing the meaning of the term "polygamy," to mean only
patrimonial plural marriage, to conceal early Mormonism's polyandry?
How about allowing adherents of LdS theology throughout the US and UK
preach myths, as if they were doctrine. For example, stating that LdS
tithing is 10% of gross income, when the LdS Church Handbook on Instruction
explicitly says they should not?
The LdS First Presidency stated, "the simplest statement we know of is the
statement of the Lord himself, namely that the members of the Church should
pay 'one tenth of all their interest annually,' which is understood to mean
income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this."
(page 134, CHI)

=> Scripture is a pretty fluid thing
=> to Latter-day Saints, [ . . . ]
So Gordon Hinckley doesn't explicitly
say, "this saith The Lord," so what?

It means, inter alia, that scripture is not a fluid thing to practicing
Latter-day Saints.

Does that make the Proclamation on the Family
any less a re-velation from God to man?

Who said it is?

Does that mean Hinckley wasn't inspired of
God to build smaller temples on that car
ride from Colonia Juarez back to El Paso?

It means you don't know if Hinckley was inspired when he said, or decided,
anything. LdS Prophets do not say, anymore.

There you have three extremely important revelations,
the former given to the First Presidency and Council
of the Twelve while Ezra Taft Benson was prophet, the
latter two given directly to Hinckley.

The above is your private belief, which you are fully entitled to hold,
within LdS doctrine. It does not, however, reflect LdS doctrine. LdS
doctrine does not say any of those are revelations of God.

It doesn't matter that the wording didn't fit
the precise formula you wanted it to, Tom.

My desires? If God ever directs LdS leadership, the matter is never made
public. This is in very stark contrast to Joseph Smith's Mormonism, which
did make public pronouncements, which she (Mormonism) said where from God.

What mattered was that from 1985 to the
present God chose Benson, Hunter, and
Hinckley to be His spokesmen to the world.

Even if you believe that, as LdS doctrine teaches, it does not prevent any
of those people from expressing, in LdS meetings and twice yearly
Conferences, their personal views on matters of faith. None of them were
stupid: why assign their effective decision making to God?
--
http://tom-moore.broomleigh.com
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	05 Apr 2004 12:27:44 PM

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:<g7i350lktmptu0vp60cmkrc903svi6eot6@4ax.com>...
=> I doubt very, very much that Joseph Smith knew word one about Orthodox
=> Christianity.
=
=One of my favorite blunders by Smith is the following:
=
=From:
=http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
=
="So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that
=an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about
=600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's
=original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed
='ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon.
=Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying
=the King James Version of the Bible."
=
=Notice the word "pretended" above. Another liar for the Lord, just
=like all those before him who claimed to have received special
=messages from God.
Elroy, did it ever occur to you that maybe God _wanted_ what was
written in the King James Version to be the way the Bible was trans-
lated?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Elroy Willis"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	05 Apr 2004 04:02:26 PM

(Kevin Simonson) wrote in alt.atheism

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
=> I doubt very, very much that Joseph Smith knew word one about Orthodox
=> Christianity.
= One of my favorite blunders by Smith is the following:
= From:
= http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
= "So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that
= an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about
= 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's
= original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed
= 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon.
= Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying
= the King James Version of the Bible."
= Notice the word "pretended" above. Another liar for the Lord, just
= like all those before him who claimed to have received special
= messages from God.
Elroy, did it ever occur to you that maybe God _wanted_ what was
written in the King James Version to be the way the Bible was trans-
lated?

You're joking, right?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	28 Apr 2004 06:27:12 AM

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:<r5i3701caaikj3fhtrq7vououhv0megnev@4ax.com>...
=>= One of my favorite blunders by Smith is the following:
=>= From:
=>= http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
=>= "So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that
=>= an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about
=>= 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's
=>= original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed
=>= 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon.
=>= Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying
=>= the King James Version of the Bible."
=>= Notice the word "pretended" above. Another liar for the Lord, just
=>= like all those before him who claimed to have received special
=>= messages from God.
=> Elroy, did it ever occur to you that maybe God _wanted_ what was
=> written in the King James Version to be the way the Bible was trans-
=> lated?
=
=You're joking, right?
Not at all; I'm completely serious.
God did not consider God's work completely done when God had the
prophets, apostles, and other authors write the Bible in its original
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, no matter how much Evangelical Christians
believe to the contrary. God was there helping the King James team
translate as they were working on their project. I'm not saying that
team made no mistakes as they translated the book. I'm just saying
that God guided the translation effort to such an extent that God was
happy with the result, and God was content to have Christians use that
translation as a tool for the next several hundred years.
What then is the big problem with having portions of the Book of
Mormon identical (or nearly identical) to what God inspired the King
James group to write?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Lee Paulson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	28 Apr 2004 07:07:28 AM

"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0404280327.78f3e9e6@posting.google.com...

Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:<r5i3701caaikj3fhtrq7vououhv0megnev@4ax.com>...

=>= One of my favorite blunders by Smith is the following:
=>= From:
=>= http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml
=>= "So why is Lucifer a far bigger problem to Mormons? Mormons claim that
=>= an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about
=>= 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's
=>= original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed
=>= 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon.
=>= Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying
=>= the King James Version of the Bible."
=>= Notice the word "pretended" above. Another liar for the Lord, just
=>= like all those before him who claimed to have received special
=>= messages from God.
=> Elroy, did it ever occur to you that maybe God _wanted_ what was
=> written in the King James Version to be the way the Bible was trans-
=> lated?
=
=You're joking, right?

Not at all; I'm completely serious.

God did not consider God's work completely done when God had the
prophets, apostles, and other authors write the Bible in its original
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, no matter how much Evangelical Christians
believe to the contrary. God was there helping the King James team
translate as they were working on their project. I'm not saying that
team made no mistakes as they translated the book. I'm just saying
that God guided the translation effort to such an extent that God was
happy with the result, and God was content to have Christians use that
translation as a tool for the next several hundred years.

How can you possibly know that? If you know the history of the KJV and
still maintain that assertion, then God is a mighty fickle critter.
--
Regards,
Lee the James, uM, feminist
The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence--Thomas H. Huxley
.

User: "Kevin Simonson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	01 May 2004 08:15:43 PM

"Lee Paulson" <lrpaulson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<c6o6q1$eaul6$1@ID-146277.news.uni-berlin.de>...
=> God did not consider God's work completely done when God had the
=> prophets, apostles, and other authors write the Bible in its original
=> Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, no matter how much Evangelical Christians
=> believe to the contrary. God was there helping the King James team
=> translate as they were working on their project. I'm not saying that
=> team made no mistakes as they translated the book. I'm just saying
=> that God guided the translation effort to such an extent that God was
=> happy with the result, and God was content to have Christians use that
=> translation as a tool for the next several hundred years.
=
=How can you possibly know that? If you know the history of the KJV and
=still maintain that assertion, then God is a mighty fickle critter.
Lee, feel free to educate me. What is it about the history of
the KJV that makes you think my God "is a mighty fickle critter"?
---Kevin Simonson
"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_
.

User: "Lee Paulson"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	03 May 2004 10:41:05 AM

"Kevin Simonson" <kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dfb1603.0405011715.45f53f67@posting.google.com...

"Lee Paulson" <lrpaulson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<c6o6q1$eaul6$1@ID-146277.news.uni-berlin.de>...

=> God did not consider God's work completely done when God had the
=> prophets, apostles, and other authors write the Bible in its original
=> Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, no matter how much Evangelical Christians
=> believe to the contrary. God was there helping the King James team
=> translate as they were working on their project. I'm not saying that
=> team made no mistakes as they translated the book. I'm just saying
=> that God guided the translation effort to such an extent that God was
=> happy with the result, and God was content to have Christians use that
=> translation as a tool for the next several hundred years.
=
=How can you possibly know that? If you know the history of the KJV and
=still maintain that assertion, then God is a mighty fickle critter.

Lee, feel free to educate me. What is it about the history of
the KJV that makes you think my God "is a mighty fickle critter"?

Among many things, he's had many biblical translations over the years. I
think the KJV is interesting for a few reasons. First, the version
published in 1611 included the Apochrypha. I believe all of the
"translators" were Anglicans, but I could be mistaken.
In any case, the intent behind the KJV seems to have been to supplant the
Geneva Bible commonly in use, with its notes, and to create a bible that
used the vernacular to gain popularity. It seems a bit peculiar that these
days many think the language used in the KJV is quite elegant.
We don't speak as they did in 1611, and yet God continues to insist that we
use a translation that uses words no longer in use. And despite all the
queries and differences in understanding of individual verses, God still
insists. That's fickle for a being who wants us to worship according to
standards set forth in the bible.
--
Regards,
Lee, the James, uM, feminist
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new
discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, "hmm.... that's
funny...."
.

User: "Tom Moore"
Title: Re: Skeptical about the LDS Church (WAS: Duwayne Anderson Is Not God)	03 May 2004 10:31:22 PM

"Lee Paulson" <lrpaulson@earthlink.net> wrote :

I think the KJV is interesting for a few reasons.

We call it the AV, Authorised Version. Since when we British talk about
computers, we must use t