For LDS: Why should I convert to Mormonism?

[Jin-Roh]

I had this thought last night.
Awhile ago (I don't remember who) a bonafied LDS said that the majority of new LDS converts come from Protestant Christianity. This is odd since LDSers swear up and down that they're Christians, just like all everyone else.

So why should, as a Christian, consider converting to Mormonism. Please don't say that LDSers don't hope to convert Christians. That would kill any discussion to quickley.

[Xmansmommy]

Jin, would you be interested in hearing a former Mormon's (typical Mormon) response or shall we just wait for the Mormons to respond?

[Jin-Roh]

I know the genuine LDS are scarce (which is sad) and I'm counting on a John Mormon Reply anyway. So please. :smile:

[Leroy]

Jin-Roh,

Good question, why not just have them put you on the list for the "baptism of the dead" ritual!

:eek:

[Mujibur]

That's a good question, Jin.

About half a year ago, I had two Mormon missionaries come to my door, and ask me if I would like to hear about their church. I told them that I already go to church, and then they asked me which one. I told them that I went to the Mennonite Brethren church nearby, and they said that was great, but would I like to hear about theirs? Unfortunately I did not have the time to talk with them but they gave me a pamphlet to answer my questions and their website to go to, www.lds.org (http://www.lds.org), and it has this to say on whether or not Mormons are Christians:


Question:
Are you Christians?

Answer:
Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:


"We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ."

"We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior. The dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God. He is our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life." "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ. He is the center of our faith and the head of our Church. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement."

Source: http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-55-16,00.html


Sounds like they would call themselves christians too. But then, why would they come to my door and suggest I join their church when I already said I was a member of another Christian church. When I talk to someone else who is a member of a baptist, anglican, or any other denominational church, I don't suggest that they quit their church and come to mine. Seems to me that the Mormon church is wanting to pass itself off as part of a group that they do not really care to be part of.

[Jin-Roh]

Yeah that is strange. LDS good doublespeak.

I'd rather not deal with the Christian/non-Christian issue. This thread is actually more about curiousity than anything else.

[John Powell]

JIN-ROH:
I had this thought last night.
Awhile ago (I don't remember who) a bonafied LDS said that the majority of new LDS converts come from Protestant Christianity. This is odd since LDSers swear up and down that they're Christians, just like all everyone else.

So why should, as a Christian, consider converting to Mormonism. Please don't say that LDSers don't hope to convert Christians. That would kill any discussion to quickley.


JOHN MORMON:
Because, despite being a Christian, you still have important religious questions that have not been adequately answered by your religion such as where did we come from, why are we here, where will we go when we die, is God really a complicated 3-in-1 thing, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles, why don't we have prophets, apostles, new revelations, and such like God's ancient people had, etc.

That's a good reason to consider converting, i.e. sincerely listening to the message.

The reasons you should convert is because the answers given by Mormonism make a lot better sense to you than what you've been taught in your church and because you read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it, and got a confirmation that it's true.

John Powell

[Jin-Roh]

JOHN MORMON:
Because, despite being a Christian, you still have important religious questions that have not been adequately answered by your religion

I do?

such as where did we come from,

Check.

why are we here,

Got that one too.

where will we go when we die,

Clear enough on this one.

is God really a complicated 3-in-1 thing,

Well it works for me. Yes its abstract, but I don't that if something is easier to grasp then it is some how more true.

why has God ceased to be a God of miracles,

I don't believe that God has ceased to do miracles. I don't believe they're normative, but I don't think they where normative -except in times of incredibly crucial events- in the Bible either.

why don't we have prophets, apostles, new revelations, and such like God's ancient people had, etc.

How often did God's ancient people have these things? There was four hundred years between the last book of the OT and Christ correct?

That's a good reason to consider converting, i.e. sincerely listening to the message.

I'll entertian it.
What's the Mormon perspective on the things you've given here?

The reasons you should convert is because the answers given by Mormonism make a lot better sense to you than what you've been taught in your church and because you read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it, and got a confirmation that it's true.

Is the prayer test really consistant with the practice of the OT prophets and the NT apostles?

John Powell

(Thanks again John. I knew I could count on you.) :smile:

[Xmansmommy]

I had this thought last night.
Awhile ago (I don't remember who) a bonafied LDS said that the majority of new LDS converts come from Protestant Christianity. This is odd since LDSers swear up and down that they're Christians, just like all everyone else.

So why should, as a Christian, consider converting to Mormonism. Please don't say that LDSers don't hope to convert Christians. That would kill any discussion to quickley.

While John did an excellent job of answering your question Jin, I would like to add that Mormons claim that they have very vital truths that Christianity has lost and since God restored His true church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) these truths are now available for you to partake of as a member of the church. Without these truths you are left with only a portion of truth (the Bible) as far as it is translated correctly. The church can offer you higher truths, higher laws and special covenants that Christianity cannot. And of course you can be a Melchisidek(sp?) or Aaronic priesthood holder. Or both (since you are a male :wink:) Oh, and I better not forget they offer a living prophet who speaks for God today in our time, revealing truths imperative to our understanding of God and the world in which we live today. Man, I keep forgetting to add those things that they appeal to :doh:! Let's see, living forever in eternity with your family. Exaltation to godhood. Creating and maintaining your own planet. Did I miss anything? If so, I'm sure I'll remember after I post. :teeth:

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Because, despite being a Christian, you still have important religious questions that have not been adequately answered by your religion . . .


JIN-ROH:
I do?

JOHN MORMON:
. . . such as where did we come from, . . .


JIN-ROH:
Check.

JOHN MORMON:
. . . why are we here, . . .


JIN-ROH:
Got that one too.

JOHN MORMON:
. . . where will we go when we die, . . .


JIN-ROH:
Clear enough on this one.

JOHN MORMON:
. . . is God really a complicated 3-in-1 thing, . . .


JIN-ROH:
Well it works for me. Yes its abstract, but I don't that if something is easier to grasp then it is some how more true.

JOHN MORMON:
. . . why has God ceased to be a God of miracles, . . .


JIN-ROH:
I don't believe that God has ceased to do miracles. I don't believe they're normative, but I don't think they where normative -except in times of incredibly crucial events- in the Bible either.

JOHN MORMON:
. . . why don't we have prophets, apostles, new revelations, and such like God's ancient people had, etc. . . .


JIN-ROH:
How often did God's ancient people have these things? There was four hundred years between the last book of the OT and Christ correct?


JOHN MORMON:
Well, a millenium or so was an even longer time to go without a prophet, but if Mormonism is true then there are prophets again.

JOHN MORMON:
That's a good reason to consider converting, i.e. sincerely listening to the message.


JIN-ROH:
I'll entertian it.
What's the Mormon perspective on the things you've given here?


JOHN MORMON:
Briefly without scriptures:

1. Where did we come from? The presence of God.

2. Why are we here? To be tested to see if we're worthy to be Gods.

3. Where are we going? To spirit paradise or spirit prison depending on our obedience and then a final judgment when we resurrect.

4. Is God really a complicated 3-in-1 thing? No. There are three Gods united in purpose, not substance, with Heavenly Father being the supreme God.

5. Why has God ceased to be a God of miracles? Miracles like prophecies, healings, speaking in tongues, and such things exist once more.

6. Why don't we have prophets, apostles, new revelations, and such like God's ancient people had? Now we do again.


JOHN MORMON:
The reasons you should convert is because the answers given by Mormonism make a lot better sense to you than what you've been taught in your church and because you read the Book of Mormon, prayed about it, and got a confirmation that it's true.


JIN-ROH:
Is the prayer test really consistant with the practice of the OT prophets and the NT apostles?


JOHN MORMON:
Sure. Didn't they pray to get answers?

John Powell

[Tenshi]

As an actual, currently believing mormon, unlike JP (no offence or anything), I feel I ought to chime in here. Really, you should listen to the missionaries at least, and give their suggestions a try (reading the BoM, praying about it, attending church services, etc.), and go from there. It should be a very personal decision (as all changes of religion should be), and you should be fairly sure, because you will be exposed to lots of negative criticism of the church. My advice there would be to get a balanced opinion on each issue - in other words, let each side have its say. This might be a good place to do that. (Although I rather prefer the fairlds.com boards, they tend to have more balanced proportions of members to non-members). Just some general advice.

God be with you,

Tenshi

[John Powell]

TENSHI:
As an actual, currently believing mormon, unlike JP (no offence or anything), I feel I ought to chime in here. . .


POWELL:
No offense taken, Tenshi. It's my hope that true believing Mormons will answer the questions of their critics here at TWEB so that I can spend my time in Apologetics where I really belong.

John Powell

[Jin-Roh]

As an actual, currently believing mormon, unlike JP (no offence or anything), I feel I ought to chime in here.

Thank you very much. Its appreicated. Pearls by the way.

Really, you should listen to the missionaries at least, and give their suggestions a try (reading the BoM,

Oh I'm planning on it. But since I don't read my Bible without a very careful eye, don't expect me to otherwise about the BOM.

praying about it,

I'm sorry. Prayer comes after faith, not before. Besides if even one person prayed about it and felt that God told them it was false, then it means that we need independent criteria to judge the BOM by.

attending church services, etc.),

I've watched BYU TV every once in awhile. Does that count?

and go from there. It should be a very personal decision (as all changes of religion should be),

I don't think I really disagree here. With perhaps both agree that a conversion (either way) is between a person and God and no one else?

and you should be fairly sure, because you will be exposed to lots of negative criticism of the church.

I already have.
I have also been exposed to negative Criticism of Christianity.

My advice there would be to get a balanced opinion on each issue - in other words, let each side have its say. This might be a good place to do that. (Although I rather prefer the fairlds.com boards, they tend to have more balanced proportions of members to non-members). Just some general advice.

I actually do wish that more genuine LDSers would stick around. There's only been one that I wasn't fond of, and that's becuase I thought he used underhand debate techniques. Of course, I wasn't totally fond of Exmo's venom either.

Most of the LDSers I've noticed tend to cringe when challenged or when people start talking about temple ceremony's etc etc

God be with you,

Tenshi

And you.

So specifically from a real LDS: Why should I (or any other Christian on TWEB) convert to Mormonism?

[Tenshi]

Thank you very much. Its appreicated. Pearls by the way.
This may seem like a newbie question, but then, I'm a newbie, so... What do pearls do, anyway? Thanks, in any case.


Oh I'm planning on it. But since I don't read my Bible without a very careful eye, don't expect me to otherwise about the BOM.
I don't ask for a careless reading. I ask for a fair reading - i.e., don't go into the book sure that it's wrong, and looking only to prove it.


I'm sorry. Prayer comes after faith, not before. Besides if even one person prayed about it and felt that God told them it was false, then it means that we need independent criteria to judge the BOM by.
Why pray if you don't have some faith that it would have some effect? Atheists don't pray because they don't believe it does anything - in other words, they don't have faith in the power of prayer. Where else would faith come from, if not prayer? Scientific evidence? But there, I think, the atheists have it. (I could be wrong. I haven't go into theism vs. atheism that deeply, but on the face of things, atheists have the backing of modern science)


I've watched BYU TV every once in awhile. Does that count?
Depends. Was it the football games? :wink: The devotionals certainly do.


I already have.
I have also been exposed to negative Criticism of Christianity.
Of course. But on the LDS side, the apologetics movement is not nearly as strong as it is for many other faiths. There's only a few of us out there, and it can be tough.


I actually do wish that more genuine LDSers would stick around. There's only been one that I wasn't fond of, and that's becuase I thought he used underhand debate techniques. Of course, I wasn't totally fond of Exmo's venom either.

Most of the LDSers I've noticed tend to cringe when challenged or when people start talking about temple ceremony's etc etc
Yeah, most of us aren't big on confrontation. It's really counter productive, if you're trying to convert people. I, on the other hand, just like to argue. :wink:


So specifically from a real LDS: Why should I (or any other Christian on TWEB) convert to Mormonism? Well, there is, of course, two ways of looking at it. From our point of view, there was an apsotacy a short while after Christ (within a century or two, certainly before the neoplatonic influence on Christianity got too strong) and that much of the truth, and the priesthood, were lost. While the reformation was a good attempt to bring the church back into line with it's biblical foundations, it was not, nor did it ever claim to be (AFAIK), divinely inspired, and was therefore subject to the same fallacies of men that let to the apostacy in the first place. That's not to say that they didn't have sincere intetions, they did the best they could, merely that 1400 years worth of apostacy is hard to get rid of. By that time, most of the original truth was lost. Certainly they restored the parts they could find, but in some cases, the apostate, neoplatonic influence (such as that seen in the doctrine of the Trinity) remained. Thus, while the protestant churches are good churches with much of the truth, they don't have the full truth. That is why a restoration was necessary. We believe that this church is the product of that restoration, and thus that we have more truth than any other church on the planet, and that it is only through this church that we can gain entrance into the highest Kingdom of God. (which, I should note, is NOT to say that we believe that everybody else will go to hell) So, since we want as many of our brothers and sisters to be saved with us in the Kingdom of God, to share in our joy with the Lord, we seek out converts. That's our reasons for this missionary work.

The reason why a more mainstream Christian will join our church are, really, as many and varied as there are people. Eventually, I think, most of them join because the have come to believe that it is the true church of God. That's certainly the case with the converts I know personally. The reasons for the initial investigations vary, of course, with each person, but common reasons people become interested are: Modern day prophets, eternal marriage and families, temples and temple work, lay clergy, priesthood for all worthy males, etc. Again, there are really as many resons as people.

God be with you,

Tenshi

[Jin-Roh]

This may seem like a newbie question, but then, I'm a newbie, so... What do pearls do, anyway? Thanks, in any case.

Pearls are just things we hand out to people we like. You start at 200. I just gave you three of mine, so now you're at 203.

I don't ask for a careless reading. I ask for a fair reading - i.e., don't go into the book sure that it's wrong, and looking only to prove it.

If I was "looking only to prove it" that would be a one-sided reading. Besides, what I'm specifically dealing with would be issues of doctrine and such.

Why pray if you don't have some faith that it would have some effect?

You don't.

Atheists don't pray because they don't believe it does anything - in other words, they don't have faith in the power of prayer. Where else would faith come from, if not prayer?

This is how I think of faith. Faith is trust and fidelity to a Lord who has shown himself worthy of that trust and fidelity. Tektonics had a good article on it awhile back. Think of all those parables that involved the absentee Land-owner and his servants in the Gospels. They trusted their Lord becuase they where clients of a worthy patron.

Faith comes from God when he shows himself worthy of this trust. This is why you can't pray first. If I pray, then I have that trust and fidelity already in whatever it is I'm praying to first.

This is why I can't pray about the Book of Mormon being true. If the BOM is ture, then I can put my faith in it, but I must exercise faith in it before I know its true.

Scientific evidence? But there, I think, the atheists have it. (I could be wrong. I haven't go into theism vs. atheism that deeply, but on the face of things, atheists have the backing of modern science)


Off topic, I could recommend some excellent literture on this subject. Espiecally the science part. I know JW's aren't encouraged to read Christian literture though, does the LDS church have any similiar hang ups?

Depends. Was it the football games? :wink: The devotionals certainly do.

Well, its been awhile, but what I've seen mostley is BYU theologians lecturing or discussing.
I don't like football. :teeth:

Of course. But on the LDS side, the apologetics movement is not nearly as strong as it is for many other faiths. There's only a few of us out there, and it can be tough.

Then I'm curious, how does one deal with opposition? BTW, apologetics is something that's been done in Christianity for centuries, but in mainstream churchs, espiecally the Denom I'm in, most people haven't heard the term.

Yeah, most of us aren't big on confrontation.

Nor am I usually.

It's really counter productive, if you're trying to convert people.

Well it can be. But Christians convert no one.

I, on the other hand, just like to argue. :wink:

So you won't run away? :smile:

Well, there is, of course, two ways of looking at it. From our point of view, there was an apsotacy a short while after Christ (within a century or two, certainly before the neoplatonic influence on Christianity got too strong) and that much of the truth, and the priesthood, were lost. While the reformation was a good attempt to bring the church back into line with it's biblical foundations, it was not, nor did it ever claim to be (AFAIK), divinely inspired, and was therefore subject to the same fallacies of men that let to the apostacy in the first place.

Just becuase someone claims to be divinely inspired does not meant that they are. So anyone who claims to be divinely inspired is subject to the same fallacies until they can show that when they speak on behalf of God they really are speaking on behalf of God.

I don't take all the words and views of the reformers as infallabile anyway.

That's not to say that they didn't have sincere intetions, they did the best they could, merely that 1400 years worth of apostacy is hard to get rid of. By that time, most of the original truth was lost.

I'm somewhat familiar with this belief. A discussion thereof would probably require another thread.

Certainly they restored the parts they could find, but in some cases, the apostate, neoplatonic influence (such as that seen in the doctrine of the Trinity) remained. Thus, while the protestant churches are good churches with much of the truth, they don't have the full truth. That is why a restoration was necessary. We believe that this church is the product of that restoration, and thus that we have more truth than any other church on the planet, and that it is only through this church that we can gain entrance into the highest Kingdom of God. (which, I should note, is NOT to say that we believe that everybody else will go to hell) So, since we want as many of our brothers and sisters to be saved with us in the Kingdom of God, to share in our joy with the Lord, we seek out converts. That's our reasons for this missionary work.

I understand the motivations of the LDS church. For the most part, I do find them sincere.

The reason why a more mainstream Christian will join our church are, really, as many and varied as there are people. Eventually, I think, most of them join because the have come to believe that it is the true church of God. That's certainly the case with the converts I know personally. The reasons for the initial investigations vary, of course, with each person, but common reasons people become interested are: Modern day prophets, eternal marriage and families, temples and temple work, lay clergy, priesthood for all worthy males, etc. Again, there are really as many resons as people.

True. But I was more curious about why an LDS would seek to convert Christians.

God be with you,

Tenshi

And you.

[Menachem]

As an actual, currently believing mormon, unlike JP (no offence or anything), I feel I ought to chime in here. Really, you should listen to the missionaries at least, and give their suggestions a try (reading the BoM, praying about it, attending church services, etc.), and go from there. It should be a very personal decision (as all changes of religion should be), and you should be fairly sure, because you will be exposed to lots of negative criticism of the church. My advice there would be to get a balanced opinion on each issue - in other words, let each side have its say. This might be a good place to do that. (Although I rather prefer the fairlds.com boards, they tend to have more balanced proportions of members to non-members). Just some general advice.

God be with you,

Tenshi


Funny the "Jews for Jesus" missionaries said the same thing to me about jesus "give'em a try or you dont know until you try...etc.".... I told them that they were loony and needed to go about their business(after two hours worth of Argumentation that I won....teehee)... They got mad......Temper, Temper....

[freelight]

Hello all,

As shared so far,....there are varied reasons and appeals that inspire 'christians' to become mormons. I think primarily it is the romance of being sold on the BoM story, the mystique of JS, the idea of the true church being restored, priesthood rights, the familial/social benefits within the cult-ure, its image, its ammenities, etc. Its fraternal aspects are central to its general appeal - I grew up in a small southern Utah town and the 'church' was the nucleus of our social life. So...it obviously has its appeal. It depends on ones investments....and relationships.

Mormons are 'christians' per their definition. Orthodox christians would say otherwise per their original definition. Of course the theology and cosmologies are very distinct from one another although employing similar terms/ideologies...within a judeo-christian matrix.



paul

[Leroy]

Mormons are 'christians' per their definition. Orthodox christians would say otherwise per their original definition. Of course the theology and cosmologies are very distinct from one another although employing similar terms/ideologies...within a judeo-christian matrix.



paul

What would you say they are?

[freelight]

What would you say they are?

'Mormons' or 'lds'. While 'christian' may apply meaning believers in Christ....it does not apply in the orthodox sense.



paul

[Leroy]

'Mormons' or 'lds'. While 'christian' may apply meaning believers in Christ....it does not apply in the orthodox sense.



paul


even the demons believe in Christ, wouldn't it be followers of the teachings of Christ?

[freelight]

even the demons believe in Christ, wouldn't it be followers of the teachings of Christ?

Its a matter of definition isnt it. I suppose one can presume that a true christian is one who practices the teachings of Christ in the spirit of Christ.

paul

[Leroy]

Its a matter of definition isnt it. I suppose one can presume that a true christian is one who practices the teachings of Christ in the spirit of Christ.

paul

Definition is critical.

[scholasticus]

Dear Ten-Shi,

So... from an extremely blunt point of view, there was basically no Church worth speaking of for the best part of 2000 years until Mr Smith came upon those Golden Plates?

Also, could you explain (purely out of interest on my part) what the moral teachings of the LDS are, and what is their basis?

Peace

Keir

[Jin-Roh]

Did he run away? Perhaps I should just sign up on an LDS board.

[Krusader]

I've asked Mormon missionaries why I should convert to Mormonism and leave my Christian Church for theirs. One answer was that, "Christians have part of the map, but Mormons have the other half....and you need their half to get you home."

Interesting reply designed to lure the unsuspecting to the gospel of Smith, but totally erroneous!

We already know the way home - it's by faith in Jesus Christ. And by Jesus, I mean the incarnate, only Son of God, God in the flesh, the Second Person of the Trinity.

The Mormon Jesus will never save a soul because he does not exist. The Mormon Jesus, who is the spirit brother of Lucifer, and the product of an incestuous sexual relationship between his father, Elohim, and one one Elohim's spirit daughters, Mary, is the product of Smith's fertile imagination.

Whenever you encounter Mormons, keep in mind that the Christian Jesus is not the one being pesented by the Mormons on your doorstep.

[just Johnna]

The Mormon Jesus will never save a soul because he does not exist. The Mormon Jesus, who is the spirit brother of Lucifer, and the product of an incestuous sexual relationship between his father, Elohim, and one one Elohim's spirit daughters, Mary, is the product of Smith's fertile imagination.

This is so not what mormons believe.

Johnna

[Xmansmommy]

Which portion of his statement Johnna? Surely you know it's taught that Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers? Also that it was a physical "relation" between God the Father and Mary, that conceived Jesus? While not exactly taught in SS, those are some of the more obscure LDS teachings for certain. :eh:

[John Powell]

CRUSADER:
I've asked Mormon missionaries why I should convert to Mormonism and leave my Christian Church for theirs. One answer was that, "Christians have part of the map, but Mormons have the other half....and you need their half to get you home."


POWELL:
I'll let my Mormon alterego answer.

JOHN MORMON:
That was a nice reply the missionaries gave you.

CRUSADER:
Interesting reply designed to lure the unsuspecting to the gospel of Smith, but totally erroneous!


JOHN MORMON:
So you say.

CRUSADER:
We already know the way home - it's by faith in Jesus Christ. And by Jesus, I mean the incarnate, only Son of God, God in the flesh, the Second Person of the Trinity.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons aren't asking you to discard the truths of the Bible. We're offering you more. God CAN give you more scripture, so why won't you accept it? You seem like the Jews who would not accept the New Testament because it wasn't part of their Tanakh.

CRUSADER:
The Mormon Jesus will never save a soul because he does not exist. The Mormon Jesus, who is the spirit brother of Lucifer, and the product of an incestuous sexual relationship between his father, Elohim, and one one Elohim's spirit daughters, Mary, is the product of Smith's fertile imagination.


JOHN MORMON:
Won't you be surprised when you get to the other side!

CRUSADER:
Whenever you encounter Mormons, keep in mind that the Christian Jesus is not the one being pesented by the Mormons on your doorstep.


JOHN MORMON:
Then, apparently, the Jesus being presented by the trinitarians isn't the Jesus that exists.

John Powell
A former believer in Mormonism.
Now a strong atheist.

[Trout]

JOHN MORMON:
Mormons aren't asking you to discard the truths of the Bible. We're offering you more. God CAN give you more scripture, so why won't you accept it?


Interesting!

But shouldn't there be a comma between Bible and We're, instead of a period?

And I think that there should be a semi-colon between scripture and so, instead of a period.

:thumb: Kudos for the double space at the end of the sentences.

To answer your question; we don't accept it as scripture for much the same reason we don't accept the LOtR Trilogy, we believe the extra-biblical scripture of the LDS Church to be a work of fiction.

[just Johnna]

Which portion of his statement Johnna? Surely you know it's taught that Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers? Also that it was a physical "relation" between God the Father and Mary, that conceived Jesus? While not exactly taught in SS, those are some of the more obscure LDS teachings for certain.
What's taught is that we are all children of God, but we are never equated with Christ. No one talks about how they are going to go atone for others' sin in the next life. The particularly LDS Book of Abraham in describing the premortal existence calls Christ "like unto the Son of Man," and D&C 93:21 says he "was in the beginning with the Father," and is "the Firstborn." He is the perfect image of the Father, and in perfect accord with the Father, in a way we are not and have not been.

Even when some people speculate out to the edges about what it means to be a son or daughter of God and be like him,

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
they don't think they will have the role of Jesus Christ. Exaltation is in terms of serving God.

You already know angels are not a separate creature--so Lucifer was like us but rebelled against God.


As far as the condescension of Christ, I'm pretty happy with how Luke describes it. Mary was his mother, The Most High was his father. It's not like you think Joseph was his father.


I don't think any of this is obscure. As it's salvific to know Jesus is God, it's well covered in Sunday School.


It just seems like if someone's going to sum up why we should watch out for Mormons, the examples should fit better.

My other pet peeve is when people say the Christ I love has nothing to do with their christianity, their christianity looks pretty worthless.

just Johnna

[John Powell]

Interesting!

But shouldn't there be a comma between Bible and We're, instead of a period?


POWELL:
I don't think what I did was incorrect, but I think what you suggest would be a slight improvement.

TROUTK:
And I think that there should be a semi-colon between scripture and so, instead of a period.


POWELL:
Maybe you're right. My punctuation could use some improvement. Rather than taking Freshman English, I tested out of it.

TROUTK:
:thumb: Kudos for the double space at the end of the sentences.


POWELL:
Actually, they aren't needed anymore. I do it out of habit and because it's not much harder than putting a single space.

TROUTK:
To answer your question; we don't accept it as scripture for much the same reason we don't accept the LOtR Trilogy, we believe the extra-biblical scripture of the LDS Church to be a work of fiction.


POWELL:
How shamelessly provocative of you to compare them with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy! At least the Doctrine of Covenants and Pearl of Great Price include some real history and refer to persons you believe have existed (like Joseph Smith, Moses, Abraham, and God). At least the Book of Mormon refers to a real land mass, not some "Middle Earth" that doesn't exist.

I suppose it won't surprise you to learn that atheists think that, not only the Mormon scriptures, but also the Christian New Testament, and the Jewish Tanakh, and the Muslim Koran are largely fictional. That discussion, however, belongs in another forum.

John Powell

[Trout]

POWELL:
I don't think what I did was incorrect, but I think what you suggest would be a slight improvement.

Perhaps, but then it could lack a certain individuality, by which your posts are easily recognized.


POWELL:
Maybe you're right. My punctuation could use some improvement. Rather than taking Freshman English, I tested out of it.

Wise choice! There is nothing less stimulating than grammar.


POWELL:
Actually, they aren't needed anymore. I do it out of habit and because it's not much harder than putting a single space.

:huh: I must have missed that memo. When did double spaces cease to be necessary?


POWELL:
How shamelessly provocative of you to compare them with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy! At least the Doctrine of Covenants and Pearl of Great Price include some real history and refer to persons you believe have existed (like Joseph Smith, Moses, Abraham, and God). At least the Book of Mormon refers to a real land mass, not some "Middle Earth" that doesn't exist.


Forgive me, I didn't mean to shame or provoke, I simply meant to express an idea. The BoM does seem to have more roots in reality than does the LOtR Trilogy. The idea being that, I believe the BoM to be a work of fiction.


John Powell:
I suppose it won't surprise you to learn that atheists think that, not only the Mormon scriptures, but also the Christian New Testament, and the Jewish Tanakh, and the Muslim Koran are largely fictional. That discussion, however, belongs in another forum.


Do you feel confident that in fact you speak for the majority of atheists when you make those claims?

[John Powell]

XMANSMOMMY:
Which portion of his statement Johnna? Surely you know it's taught that Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers? Also that it was a physical "relation" between God the Father and Mary, that conceived Jesus? While not exactly taught in SS, those are some of the more obscure LDS teachings for certain.


JUSTJOHNNA:
What's taught is that we are all children of God, but we are never equated with Christ.


JOHN MORMON:
Well not exactly equal. Jesus was the first. Others like Lucifer and Michael came later. You and I probably came later than that. Jesus was more intelligent than the rest of us. The difference was one of degree, not kind.

JUSTJOHNNA:
No one talks about how they are going to go atone for others' sin in the next life.


JOHN MORMON:
We don't need to. If we become Gods like our Father in Heaven then one of our spirit sons will do that for our spirit children.

JUSTJOHNNA:
The particularly LDS Book of Abraham in describing the premortal existence calls Christ "like unto the Son of Man," . . .


JOHNJOHNNA:
Huh? Maybe you better quote that since Jesus IS the Son of Man where "Man" means "Man of Holiness," a name for Elohim.

JUSTJOHNNA:
. . . and D&C 93:21 says he "was in the beginning with the Father," and is "the Firstborn."


JOHN MORMON:
Well there are a number of "beginnings." Jesus was the first spirit child of the Father, so He was there before we were spiritually born.

JUSTJOHNNA:
He is the perfect image of the Father, . . .


JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so Jesus looks more like the Father than I do. I can live with that.

JUSTJOHNNA:
. . . and in perfect accord with the Father, in a way we are not and have not been.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, we weren't as intelligent as Jesus was. I guess it takes us longer to get up to God speed.

JUSTJOHNNA:
Even when some people speculate out to the edges about what it means to be a son or daughter of God and be like him, . . .


JOHN MORMON:
That's right, because the knowledge and intelligence we acquire in this life will rise with us in the afterlife. If we don't learn it now we'll have to learn it later.

JUSTJOHNNA:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.


JUSTJOHNNA:
they don't think they will have the role of Jesus Christ. Exaltation is in terms of serving God.


JOHN MORMON:
Eternal Life means to have a life like God's life, for one of the names of God is "Eternal". It means the potential to have spirit children and create worlds. Until they become independent, exalted beings will probably willingly serve Elohim. For all we know, Elohim still serves His father in some role or other.

JUSTJOHNNA:
You already know angels are not a separate creature--so Lucifer was like us but rebelled against God.


JOHN MORMON:
Yep. Lucifer was almost as high as Jesus.

POWELL (my atheist self):
Perhaps Lucifer rebelled because Lucifer's plan was better: fewer souls would end up in Outer Darkness, the Telestial kingdom, and Terrestrial kingdom (none) and more would achieve Celestial glory (all), but God wouldn't accept the improved idea.

JUSTJOHNNA:
As far as the condescension of Christ, I'm pretty happy with how Luke describes it. Mary was his mother, The Most High was his father. It's not like you think Joseph was his father.


JOHN MORMON:
Right. Elohim was both the spiritual and physical father of Jesus. Whether Elohim had sex with Mary or used genetic engineering or something like that, I don't know. It wouldn't bother me either way.

JUSTJOHNNA:
I don't think any of this is obscure. As it's salvific to know Jesus is God, it's well covered in Sunday School.


JOHN MORMON:
Always remember, JustJohnna, if it wasn't taught in Sunday School or the Temple then it's probably not ESSENTIAL to salvation, but it might put you ahead in the afterlife.

JUSTJOHNNA:
It just seems like if someone's going to sum up why we should watch out for Mormons, the examples should fit better.

My other pet peeve is when people say the Christ I love has nothing to do with their christianity, their christianity looks pretty worthless.

just Johnna


POWELL:
Cheers.

John Powell
P.S. Wasn't Bucharoo's wife's name "Peggy, Queen of the Netherlands" or "Penny Pretty" or something like that?

[Xmansmommy]

What's taught is that we are all children of God, but we are never equated with Christ.

The point was however, that the LDS teach that Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers in the pre-existance. I don't believe it was mentioned at all that he or we are/were equal.

No one talks about how they are going to go atone for others' sin in the next life. The particularly LDS Book of Abraham in describing the premortal existence calls Christ "like unto the Son of Man," and D&C 93:21 says he "was in the beginning with the Father," and is "the Firstborn." He is the perfect image of the Father, and in perfect accord with the Father, in a way we are not and have not been.

Even when some people speculate out to the edges about what it means to be a son or daughter of God and be like him,

Again, I don't believe these were issues that were addressed by Crusader that you said you took issue with. Perhaps you read something into his comments that I personally didn't see, I dunno. :nsm:

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
they don't think they will have the role of Jesus Christ. Exaltation is in terms of serving God.

Johnna, forgive me for not seeing the relevance of this.

You already know angels are not a separate creature--so Lucifer was like us but rebelled against God.

Was Lucifer and Jesus brothers in the pre-existance? I know that Lucifer rebelled against God but that wasn't exactly the issue here either.

As far as the condescension of Christ, I'm pretty happy with how Luke describes it. Mary was his mother, The Most High was his father. It's not like you think Joseph was his father.

I agree with you Johnna. And I think this is an issue for Christians as well, whether they ever choose to address it or not. Basically they claim that it was supernatural but they have no support for that either. In a nutshell, nobody has the answers to this dilemma as it is a "mystery."


I don't think any of this is obscure. As it's salvific to know Jesus is God, it's well covered in Sunday School.

:eh:


It just seems like if someone's going to sum up why we should watch out for Mormons, the examples should fit better.

Agreed. Some of the arguments Christians use against Mormonism is quite lacking, I admit.

My other pet peeve is when people say the Christ I love has nothing to do with their christianity, their christianity looks pretty worthless.

just Johnna

Johnna, I'm not trying to knock you or Mormonism. Matter of fact, I happen to leave judgment of faith in the hands of our Mighty God. The only reason I even asked the question is b/c you seemed a bit upset about the claims that Crusader made. So, perhaps you aren't aware that it is taught that Jesus and Lucifer were spirit brothers. Perhaps your local ward hasn't taught you that God the Father had sexual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus. I'll give the benefit of the doubt. And perhaps those aren't very good arguements (in some people's opinions) against Mormonism. But if you aren't aware, you might want to look into the claims. And if you are aware, I'm not sure why you'd be so upset with Crusader for making the claims that they are LDS teachings. That's all.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I don't think what I did was incorrect, but I think what you suggest would be a slight improvement.


TROUTK:
Perhaps, but then it could lack a certain individuality, by which your posts are easily recognized.

POWELL:
Maybe you're right. My punctuation could use some improvement. Rather than taking Freshman English, I tested out of it.


TROUTK:
Wise choice! There is nothing less stimulating than grammar.

POWELL:
Actually, they aren't needed anymore. I do it out of habit and because it's not much harder than putting a single space.


TROUTK:
I must have missed that memo. When did double spaces cease to be necessary?


POWELL:
When we started using word processors.

POWELL:
How shamelessly provocative of you to compare them with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy! At least the Doctrine of Covenants and Pearl of Great Price include some real history and refer to persons you believe have existed (like Joseph Smith, Moses, Abraham, and God). At least the Book of Mormon refers to a real land mass, not some "Middle Earth" that doesn't exist.


TROUTK:
Forgive me, I didn't mean to shame or provoke, I simply meant to express an idea. The BoM does seem to have more roots in reality than does the LOtR Trilogy.


POWELL:
Ok then. That's better. I forgive you.

TROUTK:
The idea being that, I believe the BoM to be a work of fiction.


POWELL:
I see.

POWELL:
I suppose it won't surprise you to learn that atheists think that, not only the Mormon scriptures, but also the Christian New Testament, and the Jewish Tanakh, and the Muslim Koran are largely fictional. That discussion, however, belongs in another forum.


TROUTK:
Do you feel confident that in fact you speak for the majority of atheists when you make those claims?


POWELL:
Usually yes. In this case, I'd be extra confident if I changed "largely" to "at least partly."

John Powell

[just Johnna]

Was Lucifer and Jesus brothers in the pre-existance? I know that Lucifer rebelled against God but that wasn't exactly the issue here either.
This is like saying Hitler's our brother. Or titling a thread "Christopher Reeves is burning in hell." It's designed to sound like I think Jesus and Satan are Odin and Loki. It's just dorky.
I think I came in trailing irritation from an entirely different thread.

Nah, there isn't any mormonism that I'm not aware of, nor are there probably any misrepresentations I haven't heard before. But thanks for checking.

And if you are aware, I'm not sure why you'd be so upset with Crusader for making the claims that they are LDS teachings. That's all.It's just the kind of thing one repeats without knowing better, or says to make faith look ridiculous.

just Johnna

[Xmansmommy]

This is like saying Hitler's our brother. Or titling a thread "Christopher Reeves is burning in hell." It's designed to sound like I think Jesus and Satan are Odin and Loki. It's just dorky.
I think I came in trailing irritation from an entirely different thread.

You would be the best judge of that, so I'll leave that one alone. :smile:

Nah, there isn't any mormonism that I'm not aware of, nor are there probably any misrepresentations I haven't heard before. But thanks for checking.

Are you suggesting I misrepresented the LDS beliefs? :eh:

It's just the kind of thing one repeats without knowing better, or says to make faith look ridiculous.

just Johnna

While I have no way of judging the intent of Crusaders comments, they were valid LDS teachings are they not? You claimed he misrepresented which I don't personally believe he did. Even if you knew his intentions, his claims are not misrepresentative of the LDS doctrine.

[just Johnna]

JOHN MORMON:
Well not exactly equal. Jesus was the first. Others like Lucifer and Michael came later. You and I probably came later than that. Jesus was more intelligent than the rest of us. The difference was one of degree, not kind.

JOHNNA
Ewwww... you cartoonized it. I hate it when people do that.
How many degrees was the difference, say four or five?


JOHN MORMON:
We don't need to. If we become Gods like our Father in Heaven then one of our spirit sons will do that for our spirit children.

JOHNNA:
Hmmm, something for nothing: sounds like a Lucifer plan to me. What about the idea that everything Christ does is patterned after the Father? Usually tied to John 5:19

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but that he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise

Surely the atonement is some type after the work of the Father. So we couldn't qualify as a pattern for a spirit child to make atonement.

JOHN:
Huh? Maybe you better quote that since Jesus IS the Son of Man where "Man" means "Man of Holiness," a name for Elohim.

And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

Yes, Son of Man is Jesus' title--so is he like unto himself here? I've been giving a sloppy reading, to say the least.

Actually, assigning "Elohim" to God the Father as a personal name, widely done, is irritatingly sloppy and inconsistent to the title itself.


JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so Jesus looks more like the Father than I do. I can live with that...
Well, we weren't as intelligent as Jesus was. I guess it takes us longer to get up to God speed.

JOHNNA:
yeah, but we never catch up. And he has the divine nature, we only get it through him.


JOHN MORMON:
That's right, because the knowledge and intelligence we acquire in this life will rise with us in the afterlife. If we don't learn it now we'll have to learn it later.

JOHNNA:
...and we'll rise with the same character we have now. So on the one hand there's talk of learning, and on the other there's talk of receiving Christ's identity, nature, name, image, a mighty change of heart.


JOHN MORMON:
Eternal Life means to have a life like God's life, for one of the names of God is "Eternal". It means the potential to have spirit children and create worlds. Until they become independent, exalted beings will probably willingly serve Elohim. For all we know, Elohim still serves His father in some role or other.

JOHNNA:
I love that one of his names is "Eternal." That takes on such a life of its own. But I think the potential to have spirit children and create worlds is to the glory of God. I don't really see the becoming independent part...and the father of Elohim is getting speculative indeed, though I thought that was kewl when I was a kid. Very "Elephants all the way down."

You're representing classic Fielding Smith East Bench overextended systematic theology. I think it's a bummer everyone forgets Joseph was against theology. Maxine Hanks worries why women aren't authoring the theology, and I worry how we can keep everyone from gumming up the works with theology.

POWELL (my atheist self):
Perhaps Lucifer rebelled because Lucifer's plan was better: fewer souls would end up in Outer Darkness, the Telestial kingdom, and Terrestrial kingdom (none) and more would achieve Celestial glory (all), but God wouldn't accept the improved idea.

JOHNNA:
Yeah, I saw you wanting someone to debate this with, on some old thread. I'd love to see that completely developed, and I'd love knock it down, but I doubt I could adequately advocate the standard view bring out your full expression. Let alone meet fluency and cleverness.

The Satan's innovation theory gives up the idea there is something essential gained in the walk by faith and the actual experience of choice. Also, with no sin, the suffering to bring about the atonement is exactly zero, so it's very cheap godhood Satan wins. It's an entirely impoverished system.


JOHN MORMON:
Always remember, JustJohnna, if it wasn't taught in Sunday School or the Temple then it's probably not ESSENTIAL to salvation, but it might put you ahead in the afterlife.

JOHNNA:
So, get out the Franklin planners?



John Powell
P.S. Wasn't Bucharoo's wife's name "Peggy, Queen of the Netherlands" or "Penny Pretty" or something like that?

Yes what a good memory you have. My husband is a neurologist/guitar player/enterpreneur, and I've been joking he's Buckaroo Banzai for years. I always loved the movie, which finally got through legal and is out on dvd. "Queen of the Netherlands" is a title Buckaroo gave his wife Peggy; remember she's actually from Wyoming. Of course, as a teen I identified with Penny Priddy, her long lost twin sister and Buckaroo's current love interest, and not the dead wife. Today I'm sure to be an Lectroid.

Thanks for the chat, Johnna

[just Johnna]

Are you suggesting I misrepresented the LDS beliefs? :eh:
Of course not.

[Xmansmommy]

Ok, cool! :hug:

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Well not exactly equal. Jesus was the first. Others like Lucifer and Michael came later. You and I probably came later than that. Jesus was more intelligent than the rest of us. The difference was one of degree, not kind.


JUST JOHNNA
Ewwww... you cartoonized it. I hate it when people do that.

How many degrees was the difference, say four or five?


JOHN MORMON:
You have a progression of intelligences from the Father all the way down to the least intelligent thing there is, maybe something comparable to an electron. In an analogous way there exist spinning orbs of differing spin rate from those that spin in fractions of a second (pulsars) to as slow as Kolob that takes 1000 years. This is basically the analogy that God gave to Abraham.

The reason that Elohim is God is because He's more intelligent than the rest of us.

As to how many degrees, it depends on who you're talking about. Comparing us to Jesus is like comparing your physics knowledge with that of the smartest physicist of all time, let's say Einstein. Some scientists, however, are about as smart Einstein, like Newton. Michael/Adam was just below Jesus in the intelligence category. I assume that if Jesus did not exist then Michael would have been Elohim's second hand man. Lucifer was up there pretty high, maybe higher than Michael, although not necessarily.

If this weren't the case, Johnna, then it wouldn't make much sense to think that we could ever become Gods ourselves. The best we could reasonably hope for would be angel servants.

JOHN MORMON:
We don't need to. If we become Gods like our Father in Heaven then one of our spirit sons will do that for our spirit children.


JUST JOHNNA:
Hmmm, something for nothing: sounds like a Lucifer plan to me.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, we didn't do something that required that God make a world for us and for Jesus to do the Atonement, did we? Looks like we've gotten a lot of grace, a lot of something for nothing.

POWELL (my atheist self):
Apparently, Lucifer's plan was superior to the Father's. It had a much greater return rate. Everyone would achieve Celestial glory without fail.

JUST JOHNNA:
What about the idea that everything Christ does is patterned after the Father? Usually tied to John 5:19

John 5:19:
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but that he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise



JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, that's because Elohim was a Savior on a different planet for His spiritual brothers and sisters (our uncles and aunts). Jesus followed the same basic pattern for us.

JUST JOHNNA:
Surely the atonement is some type after the work of the Father. So we couldn't qualify as a pattern for a spirit child to make atonement.


JOHN MORMON:
You're right that a mere spirit child couldn't do it. However, a spirit child that obtains a physical body can become a Savior like that. Apparently, that's what Elohim did and that's what Jesus did and that's what will happen on future worlds.

JOHN MORMON:
Huh? Maybe you better quote that since Jesus IS the Son of Man where "Man" means "Man of Holiness," a name for Elohim.


JUST JOHNNA:

Abraham 3:27
And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.



JOHN MORMON:
I see. The phrase "like unto the Son of Man" probably means that Abraham saw someone in his vision who looks like Jesus. It was Jesus. Abraham was not claiming there that it WAS Jesus, but that's who He thought he was seeing.

JUST JOHNNA:
Yes, Son of Man is Jesus' title--so is he like unto himself here? I've been giving a sloppy reading, to say the least.


JOHN MORMON:
Yes, Jesus is like Himself. In fact, He is Himself.

JUST JOHNNA:
Actually, assigning "Elohim" to God the Father as a personal name, widely done, is irritatingly sloppy and inconsistent to the title itself.


JOHN MORMON:
God has a lot of names. Do you think "I am" is also an irritating name? You think "Elohim" is a bad name, but you accept "Eternal" as a good name. That seems inconsistent to me.

JOHN MORMON:
Ok, so Jesus looks more like the Father than I do. I can live with that...

. . .

Well, we weren't as intelligent as Jesus was. I guess it takes us longer to get up to God speed.


JUST JOHNNA:
yeah, but we never catch up.


JOHN MORMON:
True, but we may be able to reach levels of progression where He used to be, just like eventually (probably not until the afterlife) you can know as much physics as Einstein knew on Earth. Presumably, Einstein is way further along in his physics knowledge now.

JUST JOHNNA:
And he has the divine nature, we only get it through him.


JOHN MORMON:
Aren't we lucky to have such a loving and intelligent brother? Besides, apparently Jesus could only get it through the Father, so there. It's a family thing, Johnna. We all need each other.

JOHN MORMON:
That's right, because the knowledge and intelligence we acquire in this life will rise with us in the afterlife. If we don't learn it now we'll have to learn it later.


JUST JOHNNA:
...and we'll rise with the same character we have now. So on the one hand there's talk of learning, and on the other there's talk of receiving Christ's identity, nature, name, image, a mighty change of heart.


JOHN MORMON:
Eternal progression. These things take time.

JOHN MORMON:
Eternal Life means to have a life like God's life, for one of the names of God is "Eternal". It means the potential to have spirit children and create worlds. Until they become independent, exalted beings will probably willingly serve Elohim. For all we know, Elohim still serves His father in some role or other.


JUST JOHNNA:
I love that one of his names is "Eternal." That takes on such a life of its own. But I think the potential to have spirit children and create worlds is to the glory of God. I don't really see the becoming independent part...and the father of Elohim is getting speculative indeed, though I thought that was kewl when I was a kid. Very "Elephants all the way down."


JOHN MORMON:
I think it's Mormon doctrine that Elohim had a father, but beyond that it's speculation. Perhaps our spiritual Grandfather was the first of all Gods ever. I concede that maybe the underling Gods never do become entirely independent from the first God.

About the "glory of God" statement: When your child has a child then it brings glory to you as well as to the parents, yes?

JUST JOHNNA:
You're representing classic Fielding Smith East Bench overextended systematic theology. I think it's a bummer everyone forgets Joseph was against theology. Maxine Hanks worries why women aren't authoring the theology, and I worry how we can keep everyone from gumming up the works with theology.


POWELL (my atheist self):
You seem to have a lot of free thinker in you, Johnna.

POWELL (my atheist self):
Perhaps Lucifer rebelled because Lucifer's plan was better: fewer souls would end up in Outer Darkness, the Telestial kingdom, and Terrestrial kingdom (none) and more would achieve Celestial glory (all), but God wouldn't accept the improved idea.


JUST JOHNNA:
Yeah, I saw you wanting someone to debate this with, on some old thread. I'd love to see that completely developed, and I'd love knock it down, but I doubt I could adequately advocate the standard view bring out your full expression. Let alone meet fluency and cleverness.


POWELL:
I wish you would try. Give it serious thought. :yes:

JUST JOHNNA:
The Satan's innovation theory gives up the idea there is something essential gained in the walk by faith and the actual experience of choice.


POWELL:
Sort of. Since retarded adults and children seem to do just fine in the eternities as celestial beings, then why can't that be the case for those of us that otherwise would be destined for something less than the Celestial kingdom if we were to live normal adult lives?

JUST JOHNNA:
Also, with no sin, the suffering to bring about the atonement is exactly zero, so it's very cheap godhood Satan wins. It's an entirely impoverished system.


POWELL:
The value is that it has a perfect return. Everyone achieves Celestial glory. What we lack for missing out on life as a normal adult apparently can be made up for somehow. Maybe we could have virtual reality experiences in the afterlife.

In fact, if Jesus believed that this new plan would cause Him to miss out on a progression opportunity of feeling infinite pain, maybe some virtual reality experiences could partially make up for that.

Satan probably should have replaced Elohim since it was Satan's plan and apparently Elohim was too stupid to see the advantages. If you think having Satan as our God is unthinkable, imagine if Elohim were kicked out of His position and got really mad at us. Oh boy!

:ponder:

JOHN MORMON:
Always remember, JustJohnna, if it wasn't taught in Sunday School or the Temple then it's probably not ESSENTIAL to salvation, but it might put you ahead in the afterlife.


JUST JOHNNA:
So, get out the Franklin planners?


JOHN MORMON:
Those were a great innovation!

John Powell
P.S. Wasn't Bucharoo's wife's name "Peggy, Queen of the Netherlands" or "Penny Pretty" or something like that?


JUST JOHNNA:
Yes what a good memory you have.


POWELL:
"Blade Runner" is another movie that we both like very much.

JUST JOHNNA:
My husband is a neurologist/guitar player/enterpreneur, and I've been joking he's Buckaroo Banzai for years. I always loved the movie, which finally got through legal and is out on dvd. "Queen of the Netherlands" is a title Buckaroo gave his wife Peggy; remember she's actually from Wyoming.


POWELL:
Was it Cody, Wyoming? I suspect that the title was supposed to be genuine. In other words, the implication is that twin girls born in Wyoming were separated at birth, one eventually became the Queen of the Netherlands, while the other had a less glamorous life.

JUST JOHNNA:
Of course, as a teen I identified with Penny Priddy, her long lost twin sister and Buckaroo's current love interest, and not the dead wife. Today I'm sure to be an Lectroid.


POWELL:
Of course you would. As would I (if I were female). However, I assumed it was "Pretty" instead of "Priddy" and "electroid" instead of "lectroid."

JUST JOHNNA:
Thanks for the chat, Johnna


POWELL:
Likewise.

John Powell
No matter where you go, there you are.---Buckaroo Banzai (and others earlier).

[Krusader]

This is so not what mormons believe.

JohnnaJohanna, I've studied Mormonism inside and out, and probably know more about it than any missionary you will meet. If you are a Mormon, then you don't know your doctrine very well. If you are not a Mormon, then spend some time researching the issue.

According to Mormon doctrine:

Elohim, their God, is an exalted man, having become God through eons of eternal progression.

Elohim and his spirit wife or wives had millions of spirit children who came to earth and took on bodies of flesh and bone. You, Johanna, according to the Mormon Gospel, once lived as a spirit with your "heavenly father" Elohim and his wives. According to your efforts in the pre-mortal existence, you were assigned a body here on earth. The most valiant spirits get to be born as Mormons (and they most likely will live in Utah)!

The first spirit child of Elohim and his wife was Jesus. He is the firstborn son. Somehow he attained godhood in his pre-existent life without becoming a human being. The second son born to Elohim in the pre-mortal world was Lucifer (who became Satan). He is Jesus' spirit brother. Satan resisted Elohim's plan for salvation and was cast out of heaven. However, he is still Jesus' spirit brother.

Jesus was assigned the task of coming to earth in order to provide the atonement for sin. In order to provide him with a physical body, Elohim came to earth and had sexual intercourse with Mary (who was also his spirit-daughter in pre-existence). Thus, Jesus was the offspring of Mary through a sexual relationship with her heavenly father. This relationship, of course, was incestuous.

All of the above is verified by the Book of Abraham, and by the words of Brigham Young, who said that he never preached a sermon that could not be considered Scripture!

If you want references, I'll be glad to provide them.

[Trout]

Johanna, I've studied Mormonism inside and out, and probably know more about it than any missionary you will meet. If you are a Mormon, then you don't know your doctrine very well. If you are not a Mormon, then spend some time researching the issue.

According to Mormon doctrine:

Elohim, their God, is an exalted man, having become God through eons of eternal progression.

Elohim and his spirit wife or wives had millions of spirit children who came to earth and took on bodies of flesh and bone. You, Johanna, according to the Mormon Gospel, once lived as a spirit with your "heavenly father" Elohim and his wives. According to your efforts in the pre-mortal existence, you were assigned a body here on earth. The most valiant spirits get to be born as Mormons (and they most likely will live in Utah)!

The first spirit child of Elohim and his wife was Jesus. He is the firstborn son. Somehow he attained godhood in his pre-existent life without becoming a human being. The second son born to Elohim in the pre-mortal world was Lucifer (who became Satan). He is Jesus' spirit brother. Satan resisted Elohim's plan for salvation and was cast out of heaven. However, he is still Jesus' spirit brother.

Jesus was assigned the task of coming to earth in order to provide the atonement for sin. In order to provide him with a physical body, Elohim came to earth and had sexual intercourse with Mary (who was also his spirit-daughter in pre-existence). Thus, Jesus was the offspring of Mary through a sexual relationship with her heavenly father. This relationship, of course, was incestuous.

All of the above is verified by the Book of Abraham, and by the words of Brigham Young, who said that he never preached a sermon that could not be considered Scripture!

If you want references, I'll be glad to provide them.

Greetings Crusader,

I would like a reference.

Where does it say that an LDS person must believe these doctrines that you've outlined?

[Krusader]

Greetings Crusader,

I would like a reference.

Where does it say that an LDS person must believe these doctrines that you've outlined?
Here are some references regarding the Mormon teaching that Jesus resulted from a sexual relationship between Elohim and Mary:

Orson Pratt, The Seer, pg. 158
Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18
Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, Vol 1:50-51
Journal of Discourses 8:115, 211
The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 7, 57
Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pgs. 546, 742-743

Some of these are modern references, especially Benson's and McConkie's. It would appear this is still standard Mormon teaching - although admittedly, the missionaries aren't apt to share this with potential converts. However, when shown documentation, they will admit it.

[Trout]

Here are some references regarding the Mormon teaching that Jesus resulted from a sexual relationship between Elohim and Mary:

Orson Pratt, The Seer, pg. 158
Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18
Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, Vol 1:50-51
Journal of Discourses 8:115, 211
The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg. 7, 57
Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pgs. 546, 742-743

Some of these are modern references, especially Benson's and McConkie's. It would appear this is still standard Mormon teaching - although admittedly, the missionaries aren't apt to share this with potential converts. However, when shown documentation, they will admit it.

OK, now can you give me a reference declaring those varied writings to be LDS scripture?

[Bill the Cat]

Trout,

As you probably know, that's the slippery part of LDS doctrine. They teach these things, but when called on them, they use the "it's not scripture" excuse. Whatever happened to Peter's admonition, "When you speak, speak as the ordinances of God"?

[Krusader]

OK, now can you give me a reference declaring those varied writings to be LDS scripture?
Young and Benson were PROPHETS according to the Mormons. If what they taught was untrue, then they are false prophets, are they not?

If a Mormon disagrees with the teachings of Young and Benson, then they are also saying that these guys weren't prophets at all.

Mormons either have to believe that they really have prophets leading their church, or that these men a pseudo-prophets and nobody should believe a word that comes out of their mouths.

In which case, why should Joseph Smith be believed?

[Trout]

Young and Benson were PROPHETS according to the Mormons. If what they taught was untrue, then they are false prophets, are they not?

If a Mormon disagrees with the teachings of Young and Benson, then they are also saying that these guys weren't prophets at all.

Mormons either have to believe that they really have prophets leading their church, or that these men a pseudo-prophets and nobody should believe a word that comes out of their mouths.

In which case, why should Joseph Smith be believed?

So the references you gave weren't LDS scripture. What makes an LDS person obligated to believe sources such as, "The Seer"?

[Krusader]

So the references you gave weren't LDS scripture. What makes an LDS person obligated to believe sources such as, "The Seer"?
Let's see: the pope has declared that Mary was taken body and soul to heaven. He has declared that this is dogma for Catholics. To fail to believe it places you outside of Catholicism. This doctrine is NOT found in the Scriptures.

Mormonism teaches that you must follow the prophet. Revelation is ongoing. Young and Benson (not to mention the others cited) had revelations - they are not written in the Standard Works, but the Standard Works are not all the "revelation" of Mormonism. Therefore, if you fail to believe what the prophets say, you are not a true blue Mormon.

Mormons remind me of that old tune, "Slip Sliding away."

[Trout]

Let's see: the pope has declared that Mary was taken body and soul to heaven. He has declared that this is dogma for Catholics. To fail to believe it places you outside of Catholicism. This doctrine is NOT found in the Scriptures.

But it's found in the catechism of the Catholic Church.


Mormonism teaches that you must follow the prophet. Revelation is ongoing. Young and Benson (not to mention the others cited) had revelations - they are not written in the Standard Works, but the Standard Works are not all the "revelation" of Mormonism. Therefore, if you fail to believe what the prophets say, you are not a true blue Mormon.

Mormons remind me of that old tune, "Slip Sliding away."

But not everything Young and Benson said was directly from the Lord; right Crusader?

[Krusader]

But it's found in the catechism of the Catholic Church.



But not everything Young and Benson said was directly from the Lord; right Crusader?
The catechism of the RC church is not Scripture. It is similar to many of the official teaching publications of the church; Journal of Discourses, "The Teachings of Ezra Benson," and Doctrines of Salvation, would be similar.

[John Powell]

JUSTJOHNNA:
This is so not what mormons believe.


CRUSADER:
Johanna, I've studied Mormonism inside and out, and probably know more about it than any missionary you will meet. If you are a Mormon, then you don't know your doctrine very well. If you are not a Mormon, then spend some time researching the issue.


JOHN MORMON:
Big words.

CRUSADER:
According to Mormon doctrine:

Elohim, their God, is an exalted man, having become God through eons of eternal progression.


JOHN MORMON:
So, Elohim is NOT your God and is NOT an exalted being, and man was NOT created in the image of your God? Curious.

So, you don't believe in eternal progression? You think that at some point you stop learning? How sad.

CRUSADER:
Elohim and his spirit wife or wives had millions of spirit children who came to earth and took on bodies of flesh and bone.


JOHN MORMON:
Shouldn't you say "billions"?

CRUSADER:
You, Johanna, according to the Mormon Gospel, once lived as a spirit with your "heavenly father" Elohim and his wives. According to your efforts in the pre-mortal existence, you were assigned a body here on earth. The most valiant spirits get to be born as Mormons (and they most likely will live in Utah)!


JOHN MORMON:
Well, God is the father of spirits. Don't you agree?

Well, God knew Jeremiah and Jesus before they were born, so didn't God know you and me?

Don't you think God made plans as to the posterity of Adam and Eve? For example, didn't God decide beforehand who would be the mother of Jesus? So, why not for the rest of us? Didn't He love us too?

CRUSADER:
The first spirit child of Elohim and his wife was Jesus. He is the firstborn son. Somehow he attained godhood in his pre-existent life without becoming a human being.


JOHN MORMON:
Why would that surprise you? You believe God was a God without needing to be a human being.

CRUSADER:
The second son born to Elohim in the pre-mortal world was Lucifer (who became Satan).


JOHN MORMON:
Who claimed that? I understand that Lucifer was one of the earliest, maybe second, but I didn't know that it was certain that he was the second after Jesus.

CRUSADER:
He is Jesus' spirit brother. Satan resisted Elohim's plan for salvation and was cast out of heaven. However, he is still Jesus' spirit brother.


JOHN MORMON:
Yep.

CRUSADER:
Jesus was assigned the task of coming to earth in order to provide the atonement for sin. In order to provide him with a physical body, Elohim came to earth and had sexual intercourse with Mary (who was also his spirit-daughter in pre-existence). Thus, Jesus was the offspring of Mary through a sexual relationship with her heavenly father. This relationship, of course, was incestuous.


JOHN MORMON:
Elohim was not the PHYSICAL father of Mary so it was not PHYSICAL incest.

Maybe Elohim had sex with Mary. That's possible, but I suppose it could have been accomplished either by artificial insemination or genetic engineering or by some other method that we don't understand. Is your God incapable of sex? Is your Jesus impotent?

THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS IMPOTENT?

I guess you don't think Jesus is REALLY the Son of God except in some kind of poetic / philosophical sense.

POWELL (my atheist self):
In that case, maybe your Jesus wasn't really God either except in some kind of poetic / philosophical sense. Maybe your Jesus never died on the cross or even lived except in some kind of poetic sense.

CRUSADER:
All of the above is verified by the Book of Abraham, and by the words of Brigham Young, who said that he never preached a sermon that could not be considered Scripture!


JOHN MORMON:
Brigham Young allegedly said some things that I don't consider to be true. Perhaps there are some things in the Bible that you don't consider to be true.

CRUSADER:
If you want references, I'll be glad to provide them.


JOHN MORMON:
It would be nice if you'd quote the sources and what you think they mean rather than merely listing them. That would take a lot of effort on your part.

As much as possible I suggest you stick with the four standard works. The rest has not been accepted as binding to the same degree.

John Powell

[Trout]

The catechism of the RC church is not Scripture. It is similar to many of the official teaching publications of the church; Journal of Discourses, "The Teachings of Ezra Benson," and Doctrines of Salvation, would be similar.

The tenets of the catechism are agreed to by the members of the Catholic Church. Much like some branches of the Presbyterian Church require one to affirm the Westminster Confession. The writings you have mentioned carry no such claim, an LDS convert isn't required to affirm the words of "The Seer" in order to become a Mormon.

[Trout]

John Powell,

Am I witnessing "Eternal Progression" in the changing of your Avatar? Or perhaps evolution?

[Krusader]

The tenets of the catechism are agreed to by the members of the Catholic Church. Much like some branches of the Presbyterian Church require one to affirm the Westminster Confession. The writings you have mentioned carry no such claim, an LDS convert isn't required to affirm the words of "The Seer" in order to become a Mormon.
Words spoken by Ezra Benson, 13th Mormon prophet:

"The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works......The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet......The prophet will never lead the Church astray......"

So, I suppose for those Mormons living in Young's era, his words were true. Then, Benson's words were true for those living when he was Prophet.

If the living prophets words are more vital to Mormons that the Standard works, wouldn't you agree that there was a time for Mormons when the quotes given (of Young and Benson's view on the conception of Christ) were true at that time?

Sorry, Mormonism is built on sand, and what you believe today might not be true tomorrow.

As a Christian, I'm so glad that "the Word of God stands forever."

[Krusader]

JOHN MORMON:
Big words.



JOHN MORMON:
So, Elohim is NOT your God and is NOT an exalted being, and man was NOT created in the image of your God? Curious.

So, you don't believe in eternal progression? You think that at some point you stop learning? How sad.



JOHN MORMON:
Shouldn't you say "billions"?



JOHN MORMON:
Well, God is the father of spirits. Don't you agree?

Well, God knew Jeremiah and Jesus before they were born, so didn't God know you and me?

Don't you think God made plans as to the posterity of Adam and Eve? For example, didn't God decide beforehand who would be the mother of Jesus? So, why not for the rest of us? Didn't He love us too?



JOHN MORMON:
Why would that surprise you? You believe God was a God without needing to be a human being.



JOHN MORMON:
Who claimed that? I understand that Lucifer was one of the earliest, maybe second, but I didn't know that it was certain that he was the second after Jesus.



JOHN MORMON:
Yep.



JOHN MORMON:
Elohim was not the PHYSICAL father of Mary so it was not PHYSICAL incest.

Maybe Elohim had sex with Mary. That's possible, but I suppose it could have been accomplished either by artificial insemination or genetic engineering or by some other method that we don't understand. Is your God incapable of sex? Is your Jesus impotent?

THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS IMPOTENT?

I guess you don't think Jesus is REALLY the Son of God except in some kind of poetic / philosophical sense.

POWELL (my atheist self):
In that case, maybe your Jesus wasn't really God either except in some kind of poetic / philosophical sense. Maybe your Jesus never died on the cross or even lived except in some kind of poetic sense.



JOHN MORMON:
Brigham Young allegedly said some things that I don't consider to be true. Perhaps there are some things in the Bible that you don't consider to be true.



JOHN MORMON:
It would be nice if you'd quote the sources and what you think they mean rather than merely listing them. That would take a lot of effort on your part.

As much as possible I suggest you stick with the four standard works. The rest has not been accepted as binding to the same degree.

John Powell
Well, John, I believe that Jesus was always God, not that He had to somehow "attain" to godhood.

God is the Father of spirits, for he creates a spirit within man at conception - not in some mythical pre-mortal existence. He certainly doesn't need a wife to do so.

My main problem with Mormons is not with what they believe - I don't care if you believe Elohim rides around in a pink Cadillac and sings Elvis Presley songs all day - what I care about is that you call your absurd belief system "Christian."

The Mormon Jesus is Another Jesus, of whom Paul warned. Mormons go door to door trying to confuse Christians into believing that the charlatan Smith restored the Church (which was never lost in the first place), and that all other Churches are an abomination to God.

Frankly, I take exception to that!

[Trout]

Words spoken by Ezra Benson, 13th Mormon prophet:

"The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works......The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet......The prophet will never lead the Church astray......"

So, I suppose for those Mormons living in Young's era, his words were true. Then, Benson's words were true for those living when he was Prophet.

If the living prophets words are more vital to Mormons that the Standard works, wouldn't you agree that there was a time for Mormons when the quotes given (of Young and Benson's view on the conception of Christ) were true at that time?

Sorry, Mormonism is built on sand, and what you believe today might not be true tomorrow.

As a Christian, I'm so glad that "the Word of God stands forever."



So it seems your task is stated; where has the current living prophet (Gordon B. Hinckley) declared the words found in the Seer to be on par with the Standard Works?

[Krusader]

So it seems your task is stated; where has the current living prophet (Gordon B. Hinckley) declared the words found in the Seer to be on par with the Standard Works?
Has Hinkley ever said that Young and Benson were wrong? If he hasn't, then I believe their words still stand. If he disagrees with them, then let him set his church straight. Furthermore, wasn't Hinkley asked directly on the Larry King show whether or not Mormons believed that they could attain godhood, and he failed to answer directly?

Seems to me that's a Mormon problem. Truth is relative.

[just Johnna]

As a Christian, I'm so glad that "the Word of God stands forever."

I'm grateful that the Word of God stands forever too.

There were prophets in the Old Testament. Did any of them take away from the prophets before?

Peter, as leader of the early Christian church, had the right of prophecy to the early saints. Did he contradict what earlier prophets said?

The prophet declares doctrine. He call us to repent, as did the prophets of the Old Testament. He clarifies how to follow Christ in our time--there are cultural differences between now, and the time of the New Testament. He leads us very much in harmony with the Word of God.

anyway, that's how mormons like me think about it.

just Johnna

[Krusader]

I'm grateful that the Word of God stands forever too.

There were prophets in the Old Testament. Did any of them take away from the prophets before?

Peter, as leader of the early Christian church, had the right of prophecy to the early saints. Did he contradict what earlier prophets said?

The prophet declares doctrine. He call us to repent, as did the prophets of the Old Testament. He clarifies how to follow Christ in our time--there are cultural differences between now, and the time of the New Testament. He leads us very much in harmony with the Word of God.

anyway, that's how mormons like me think about it.

just Johnna
Johanna, please provide an example of where the Apostle Peter CONTRADICTED Old Testament prophets.

Christianity fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. There's a big difference between contradiction and fulfillment.

If you believe that Mormons are being led in harmony with the Bible, you are clearly deceived. Mormonism teaches that it is only through obedience to the Mormon gospel and its laws that you can be saved (progress eternally). Christianity teaches, based on the Scriptures, that you are saved by grace through faith.

Either Christianity is wrong and Mormonism is right, or Joseph Smith was a charlatan. Go to the "Let's Reason Together Ministries" website and read about Mormonism. I think you need a reality check.

[Trout]

Has Hinkley ever said that Young and Benson were wrong? If he hasn't, then I believe their words still stand. If he disagrees with them, then let him set his church straight. Furthermore, wasn't Hinkley asked directly on the Larry King show whether or not Mormons believed that they could attain godhood, and he failed to answer directly?

Seems to me that's a Mormon problem. Truth is relative.

Perhaps Mr. Hinckley has expressed his displeasure with certain ideas taught by his predecessors? :nsm: Have you read everything that Gordon has written? Or listened to every word he has spoken?

I think it's far more productive when trying to communicate with the LDS, when the dialogue is somewhat limited to the words contained in the Standard Works. That's just my opinion.

[Krusader]

Trout, why should anybody even pay attention to what Hinckley has said or written - after he dies his words will just go the way of Young's and Benson's.

Mormonism has no absolute truth, does it? What you believe today, may be changed tomorrow. It's a religion of convenience. If today's revelations don't suit the world, we'll just change them until it looks better.

Just as they did with the black priesthood question - and probably what they will do to answer the Indian DNA problem.

Mormonism is built on shifting sand and it will sink with its deception.

[Trout]

Trout, why should anybody even pay attention to what Hinckley has said or written - after he dies his words will just go the way of Young's and Benson's.

All the more reason to somewhat limit the conversation to the Standard Works.


Crusader:
Mormonism has no absolute truth, does it?

I would say that to be LDS you would need to affirm the fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet.


Crusader:
What you believe today, may be changed tomorrow.

Isn't that true in most cases?


Crusader:
It's a religion of convenience. If today's revelations don't suit the world, we'll just change them until it looks better.
Just as they did with the black priesthood question - and probably what they will do to answer the Indian DNA problem.

I've yet to come across a very satisfying explanation for the DNA discrepency.


Crusader:
Mormonism is built on shifting sand and it will sink with its deception.

I think it's beginning to shrink already, at least that's what I've noticed.

[Xmansmommy]

All the more reason to somewhat limit the conversation to the Standard Works.



I would say that to be LDS you would need to affirm the fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

Yes, this is true trout. One must also affirm that the BOM is true, and that the LDS church is God's true church on earth, restored. I know when I was a Mormon, my mindset (I've heard countless Mormons say the same thing) was that if JS was a true prophet, and the LDS church was God's true church restored, then everything they taught had to be true since God isn't into deceiving His children.

This common misconception among Mormons affords them the ability to claim that, "it isn't something that the Lord has revealed to me. That doesn't make it untrue." Many Mormons have not gotten answers on various issues but they accept them as truth b/c former/current prophets in the church taught/teach it. Or like I said, b/c God hasn't revealed it to them as of yet. I'd caution anyone to accept a teaching based on what someone else taught, without studying it out. Also, I'd require someone to prove it to me biblically or else, I can't accept it as truth. But that's just me. I've come a long way in 3 and a half years. :wink:

[just Johnna]

Johnna, please provide an example of where the Apostle Peter CONTRADICTED Old Testament prophets.

Christianity fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. There's a big difference between contradiction and fulfillment.
But, I don't believe Peter ever contradicted the Old Testament prophets. That was my point.
If you believe that Mormons are being led in harmony with the Bible, you are clearly deceived. Mormonism teaches that it is only through obedience to the Mormon gospel and its laws that you can be saved (progress eternally). Christianity teaches, based on the Scriptures, that you are saved by grace through faith.
Mormons often say "it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do." But I think it would more accurately describe our experience that faith is expressed and experienced as we trust in and follow Christ. He strengthens us and perfects our insufficient efforts. I know I rely on that in my parenting. As we follow Christ, our faith and understanding increases.

I know my Bible fairly well, and in fact this year I'm taking an ecumenical Bible study for cross discipline. So far I'm not convinced by the grace reading, though I think I understand how people arrive at it. Frankly, it seems a neologism to cut works/action/living from faith, and possibly even wrests Paul. I know those are strong words, but this is an important issue, isn't it? And I was pretty shocked by people being against baptism. It has been very instructive to see how much being LDS constrains my reading, particularly I bring my specific ideas of priesthood and orderliness to the text, so that gives some credit to your point of view, fwiw.
Either Christianity is wrong and Mormonism is right, or Joseph Smith was a charlatan. Go to the "Let's Reason Together Ministries" website and read about Mormonism. I think you need a reality check.
I'm nearly 40 years old. No one escapes reality for that long. ...but I know that's not what you're trying to say. Thanks for your concern. If you want to warn nonmormons that we're wacky, I think you're on the right track. Otherwise, this approach seems unpromising.

Is this a personal ministry of yours, to post to mormon strangers? I'm working on understanding how people understand authority without a priesthood. Were you led in prayer to undertake this? If this is too person a question, for an open forum, please forgive and ignore the query.

Johnna

[just Johnna]

JOHN MORMON:
You have a progression of intelligences from the Father all the way down to the least intelligent thing there is, maybe something comparable to an electron. In an analogous way there exist spinning orbs of differing spin rate from those that spin in fractions of a second (pulsars) to as slow as Kolob that takes 1000 years. This is basically the analogy that God gave to Abraham.

JOHNNA
It's funny how this idea resembles "The Great Chain of Being." But the Great Chain was postulated to account for evil by obligating God to create beings in every degree from entirely good (himself) to entirely lacking (evil). I think the Abraham passage is more about how no two spirits are the same. I get tired of earnest theories about the moral choices of light photons.
As far as the Kolob analogy, if you're looking at Abraham 3 (http://scriptures.lds.org/abr/3) I see the comparison between our time and God's time, but I think your pulsar time is extratextual. Also, I like to cross reference to the way 1,000 is used in the Book of Revelation to indicate power, strength, or superlative greatness. Or incalculable. So there's not just a difference in the perception of time being noted, but a poetic indication the greatness of God and his environs differ from how and where we are. If the number is being used in a scientific or western way in this passage, I make that a secondary reading.

JOHN MORMON: The reason that Elohim is God is because He's more intelligent than the rest of us.

JOHNNA:
Well, he is more intelligent than us, Abraham 3:19. But intelligence can also be a technical term. It's not just that quality that put you among the cleverest people of TWeb. Intelligence is "light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one." D&C 93:36-37.

JOHN MORMON;
As to how many degrees, it depends on who you're talking about.

JOHNNA
If there are three degrees of Glory, how many degrees from the Glory of God to Outer Darkness? Four or Five is a joke, counting how many circles the teacher puts up on a primary chart. Difference in degree rhetorically suggests similarity; saying good is 180 degrees from evil doesn't sound strong enough.

JOHN MORMON
Comparing us to Jesus is like comparing your physics knowledge with that of the smartest physicist of all time, let's say Einstein. Some scientists, however, are about as smart Einstein, like Newton. Michael/Adam was just below Jesus in the intelligence category. I assume that if Jesus did not exist then Michael would have been Elohim's second hand man. Lucifer was up there pretty high, maybe higher than Michael, although not necessariy.

If this weren't the case, Johnna, then it wouldn't make much sense to think that we could ever become Gods ourselves. The best we could reasonably hope for would be angel servants.

JOHNNA:
We are truly his children, so the Father would give us all that he has. But I don't think Michael could have stepped in, let alone Lucifer. A bad mormon analogy for this is that of a function that approaches, but never reaches the asymptote. Only Christ was perfect and could make an infinite sacrifice. As close to perfection as anyone could be, the less-than-perfect are essentially limited.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, we didn't do something that required that God make a world for us and for Jesus to do the Atonement, did we? Looks like we've gotten a lot of grace, a lot of something for nothing.

JOHNNA:
But the price was real. We are bought in blood, not in bureaucracy.


POWELL (my atheist self):
Apparently, Lucifer's plan was superior to the Father's. It had a much greater return rate. Everyone would achieve celestial glory without fail.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, that's because Elohim was a Savior on a different planet for His spiritual brothers and sisters (our uncles and aunts). Jesus followed the same basic pattern for us.

JOHNNA:
Any theological sentence that begins with "apparently" warns me we're reasoning again.


JOHN MORMON:
You're right that a mere spirit child couldn't do it. However, a spirit child that obtains a physical body can become a Savior like that. Apparently, that's what Elohim did and that's what Jesus did and that's what will happen on future worlds.

JOHNNA:
but who provides the pattern for your spirit child? his uncle or grandfather, since you can't? Perhaps then Jesus would be following some pattern-maker previous to our Father, who would be the father that would matter. This violates our sense that the Father is everything that is the Son.
If you want to hold this system together, then should John Mormon enter the work of the Father in the eternities, and bring up spirit children, then when those children call upon God, they call upon The Eternal Father, not you.
The logic is fun, but reasoning beyond revealed truth is quickly ridiculous.



JOHN MORMON:
God has a lot of names. Do you think "I am" is also an irritating name? You think "Elohim" is a bad name, but you accept "Eternal" as a good name. That seems inconsistent to me.


JOHNNA: It gives up the lovely plural-ness of the title Elohim to make it a personal name. In the same stroke, you also give up reading the council of heaven into Genesis. I love "I AM" too. There's a godly quality even an objectivist can appreciate.



JOHN MORMON:
Aren't we lucky to have such a loving and intelligent brother? Besides, apparently Jesus could only get it through the Father, so there. It's a family thing, Johnna. We all need each other.

JOHNNA: Exactly, Jesus could only get it through the Father, and we are only made perfect in him. The relationship thing is intrinsic. God the Father and his Son are separate physical beings, but so one in purpose and nature and character that their oneness has at times been misunderstood by men.


JOHN MORMON:
I think it's Mormon doctrine that Elohim had a father, but beyond that it's speculation. Perhaps our spiritual Grandfather was the first of all Gods ever. I concede that maybe the underling Gods never do become entirely independent from the first God.


JOHNNA:
I argue that "Heavenly Grandfather" is not doctrine, it's been logically derived, which is not an acceptable methodology for arriving at doctrine. I do concede wide folklore on this subject.

Doctrine is that Christ's atonement is patterned after his Father's, since the Lord will do no thing except his Father has shown him. From this, by the light of reason and good intentions, good and spiritual people conclude that the Father previously lived on an earth and prayed to his Heavenly Father. They also have the Snow couplet to back them up.
Well, good and spiritual people, by logic and good intentions, read the unity/separateness passages in the New Testament and concluded the Trinity. It's not so wrong, and yet clearly not right.

will there be a warning when I exceed my character limit?

[just Johnna]

POWELL (my atheist self):
You seem to have a lot of free thinker in you, Johnna.

JOHNNA: Doesn't everyone like to think herself so?
But seriously, I think I owe you one, since you've provided me the opportunity to spit out all my boring anti-theology which no one can tolerate. And when I say anti-theology, I mean it in the best sense of anti-Nephi-Lehites.


POWELL:
I wish you would try. Give it serious thought.

JOHNNA: I am. Is that the broad outlines of your argument, that the Satan plan is superior for avoiding pain and suffering while saving and exalting everyone, and that God refused the plan not only because he's a traditionalist, but also because it would give Satan, not himself, glory, thereby conflating God's and Satan's motives into one, i.e. self-glory?

As you saw, I would question the value of a paper-mill Celestial Kingdom. The theology around the concepts of joy and free agency would be important for me to bring up, which means I have to talk about them coherently. And the stuff that's precious to me personally can be the hardest to convey. but it is an amusing idea, an art piece of a lower order.

It looks like there is more than one place here such rhetorical games are placed. Where would you put it? As a work of art, it will be reviled and misunderstood. That's so attractive.

I'm sure, as Emilio Lizardo says, in the miserable annals of the earth such a exchange would be duly enshrined.


POWELL:
Sort of. Since retarded adults and children seem to do just fine in the eternities as celestial beings, then why can't that be the case for those of us that otherwise would be destined for something less than the Celestial kingdom if we were to live normal adult lives?

JOHNNA:
What about that premortal catch-all, about some are so essentially pure and advanced that all they need of this earth is to draw a breath of air?

But I do love how you're building a theology based on avoiding responsibility.


POWELL:
The value is that it has a perfect return. Everyone achieves Celestial glory. What we lack for missing out on life as a normal adult apparently can be made up for somehow. Maybe we could have virtual reality experiences in the afterlife.

In fact, if Jesus believed that this new plan would cause Him to miss out on a progression opportunity by feeling infinite pain, maybe some virtual reality experiences could partially make up for that.

JOHNNA:
Maybe this is the virtual reality make-up.
Red pill or blue?

POWELL:
"Blade Runner" is another movie that we both like very much.

JOHNNA:
Yes, questions of what it means to be human imply questions of what it means to be divine. And the medieval death-of-the-king imagery at the end is amazing.

POWELL:
Was it Cody, Wyoming? I suspect that the title was supposed to be genuine. In other words, the implication is that twin girls born in Wyoming were separated at birth, one eventually became the Queen of the Netherlands, while the other had a less glamorous life.

JOHNNA:
Well, it's clear that they were separated at birth and that Peggy had a more happy and secure life. But Buckaroo sighs that Peggy was "Queen of the Netherlands," in answer to who she was. It looks like a wordplay, sort of "Queen of my Heart," except nether means below.
So we could work out a whole theology on this--was Peggy materially, literally a Queen, or only metaphorically? Or both. And is she reborn in Penny? All that buddhism and randomness in the movie begs to be systematically theologized.
Is it only for mormon kids that religion is not just a life, but a game?


POWELL:
I assumed it was "Pretty" instead of "Priddy" and "electroid" instead of "lectroid."

JOHNNA: It's "Priddy" in the credits, and on IMDB. But you're supposed to hear "pretty" and think "pretty penny." I think you're right about electroid.

So, provide information about this debate. Nice talkin' to you.

[John Powell]

CRUSADER:
Well, John, I believe that Jesus was always God, not that He had to somehow "attain" to godhood.

God is the Father of spirits, for he creates a spirit within man at conception - not in some mythical pre-mortal existence. He certainly doesn't need a wife to do so.


JOHN MORMON:
Mormons don't think the pre-mortal existence is mythical. Jesus and Jeremiah apparently didn't think so either since they were there. Nor did the disciples because they imagined it was possible to sin before being born.

CRUSADER:
My main problem with Mormons is not with what they believe - I don't care if you believe Elohim rides around in a pink Cadillac and sings Elvis Presley songs all day - what I care about is that you call your absurd belief system "Christian."


JOHN MORMON:
Why don't you think Mormons are Christians and why do you think they're theists (assuming you do)?

Please define "Christian" and "theist."

CRUSADER:
The Mormon Jesus is Another Jesus, of whom Paul warned.


POWELL (my atheist self):
Paul seemed to think that even if God had sent an angel who taught otherwise than what Paul had taught then it should be rejected.

CRUSADER:
Mormons go door to door trying to confuse Christians into believing that the charlatan Smith restored the Church (which was never lost in the first place), and that all other Churches are an abomination to God.

Frankly, I take exception to that!


JOHN MORMON:
I see.

John Powell

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
You have a progression of intelligences from the Father all the way down to the least intelligent thing there is, maybe something comparable to an electron. In an analogous way there exist spinning orbs of differing spin rate from those that spin in fractions of a second (pulsars) to as slow as Kolob that takes 1000 years. This is basically the analogy that God gave to Abraham.


JOHNNA
It's funny how this idea resembles "The Great Chain of Being." But the Great Chain was postulated to account for evil by obligating God to create beings in every degree from entirely good (himself) to entirely lacking (evil). I think the Abraham passage is more about how no two spirits are the same.


JOHN MORMON:
The Abraham passage explains that any two spirits will differ in intelligence and implies that we all fall on a continuum with God being the most intelligent. It effectively changes the "God is omni everything, man is nearly nothing" to "God is the most intelligent among other intelligent beings."

JOHNNA:
I get tired of earnest theories about the moral choices of light photons.

As far as the Kolob analogy, if you're looking at Abraham 3 I see the comparison between our time and God's time, but I think your pulsar time is extratextual.


JOHN MORMON:
Yes, the pulsar thing is extratextual, but it improves the match in the analogy between the smallest intelligence to the greatest.

JOHNNA:
Also, I like to cross reference to the way 1,000 is used in the Book of Revelation to indicate power, strength, or superlative greatness. Or incalculable. So there's not just a difference in the perception of time being noted, but a poetic indication the greatness of God and his environs differ from how and where we are. If the number is being used in a scientific or western way in this passage, I make that a secondary reading.


JOHN MORMON:
Ok.

JOHN MORMON:
The reason that Elohim is God is because He's more intelligent than the rest of us.


JOHNNA:
Well, he is more intelligent than us, Abraham 3:19. But intelligence can also be a technical term. It's not just that quality that put you among the cleverest people of TWeb. Intelligence is "light and truth. Light and truth forsake that evil one." D&C 93:36-37.


POWELL:
I'm the more clever one. John Mormon's brain is pretty good, but he's still hampered because his religious beliefs and his philosophical beliefs aren't sufficiently coherent. He treats scientific questions with a naturalistic rigor that he won't allow to be applied to his religious beliefs. When he finally gives up his religious beliefs, however, then that frees his mind to exercise the full power of his intellect (whatever there is).

JOHN MORMON;
As to how many degrees, it depends on who you're talking about.


JOHNNA:
If there are three degrees of Glory, how many degrees from the Glory of God to Outer Darkness? Four or Five is a joke, counting how many circles the teacher puts up on a primary chart.

JOHN MORMON:
There are three kingdoms and three degrees within the Celestial kingdom. I don't know how many ways the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdoms are divided except that there's supposed to be a lot of variation in the Telestial Kingdom like different stars differ in brightness.

The Celestial kingdom is likened to the Sun, the Terrestrial kingdom to the Moon, and the Telestial kingdom to the stars. The Sun is millions of times brighter than the Moon which is millions of times brighter than the stars. So, perhaps Celestial persons would be billions of times more glorious than Telestial persons.

JOHNNA:
Difference in degree rhetorically suggests similarity; saying good is 180 degrees from evil doesn't sound strong enough.


JOHN MORMON:
Would you prefer 360 degrees? He he.

The Mormon concept of Godhead depends on us being sufficiently similar to Jesus. If you give that up then you philosophically give up Godhood and you're left with angelhood.

JOHN MORMON:
Comparing us to Jesus is like comparing your physics knowledge with that of the smartest physicist of all time, let's say Einstein. Some scientists, however, are about as smart Einstein, like Newton. Michael/Adam was just below Jesus in the intelligence category. I assume that if Jesus did not exist then Michael would have been Elohim's second hand man. Lucifer was up there pretty high, maybe higher than Michael, although not necessariy.

If this weren't the case, Johnna, then it wouldn't make much sense to think that we could ever become Gods ourselves. The best we could reasonably hope for would be angel servants.


JOHNNA:
We are truly his children, so the Father would give us all that he has. But I don't think Michael could have stepped in, let alone Lucifer.


POWELL (my atheist self):
Then you're suggesting that Lucifer was proposing something that was impossible?

JOHNNA:
A bad mormon analogy for this is that of a function that approaches, but never reaches the asymptote. Only Christ was perfect and could make an infinite sacrifice. As close to perfection as anyone could be, the less-than-perfect are essentially limited.


JOHN MORMON:
If Elohim could do it and Jehovah could do it and others are going to do it then others should have been able to do it.

I see you flirting with more orthodox Christianity rather than fully embracing the Mormon concept. What did Jesus, the intelligence, have that when He became a spirit made Him not just slightly better than Michael but so much better that Michael could never fill His shoes like an asymptotic function can't reach the asymptote until infinity?

If there is something that compels that conclusion then how can it be that we become Gods and have children who achieve the same kinds of things that Jesus achieved yet WE aren't currently up to Michael's stature?

JOHN MORMON:
Well, we didn't do something that required that God make a world for us and for Jesus to do the Atonement, did we? Looks like we've gotten a lot of grace, a lot of something for nothing.


JOHNNA:
But the price was real. We are bought in blood, not in bureaucracy.

POWELL (my atheist self):
Apparently, Lucifer's plan was superior to the Father's. It had a much greater return rate. Everyone would achieve celestial glory without fail.

JOHN MORMON:
Apparently, that's because Elohim was a Savior on a different planet for His spiritual brothers and sisters (our uncles and aunts). Jesus followed the same basic pattern for us.


JOHNNA:
Any theological sentence that begins with "apparently" warns me we're reasoning again.


JOHN MORMON:
Didn't God say something like "Let us reason"?

JOHN MORMON:
You're right that a mere spirit child couldn't do it. However, a spirit child that obtains a physical body can become a Savior like that. Apparently, that's what Elohim did and that's what Jesus did and that's what will happen on future worlds.


JOHNNA:
but who provides the pattern for your spirit child? his uncle or grandfather, since you can't?


JOHN MORMON:
Presumably, by the time I have spirit children then I'll have the right stuff, but that wouldn't mean that it would be useless to watch how Jesus did it.

JOHNNA:
Perhaps then Jesus would be following some pattern-maker previous to our Father, who would be the father that would matter. This violates our sense that the Father is everything that is the Son.


JOHN MORMON:
What do you mean our sense that the Father is everything that is the Son?

JOHNNA:
If you want to hold this system together, then should John Mormon enter the work of the Father in the eternities, and bring up spirit children, then when those children call upon God, they call upon The Eternal Father, not you.


JOHN MORMON:
I don't see why they would do that since I would be the one answering their prayers, not Elohim.

JOHNNA:
The logic is fun, but reasoning beyond revealed truth is quickly ridiculous.


JOHN MORMON:
Not if you're sufficiently careful.

JOHN MORMON:
God has a lot of names. Do you think "I am" is also an irritating name? You think "Elohim" is a bad name, but you accept "Eternal" as a good name. That seems inconsistent to me.


JOHNNA:
It gives up the lovely plural-ness of the title Elohim to make it a personal name. In the same stroke, you also give up reading the council of heaven into Genesis. I love "I AM" too. There's a godly quality even an objectivist can appreciate.

JOHN MORMON:
Aren't we lucky to have such a loving and intelligent brother? Besides, apparently Jesus could only get it through the Father, so there. It's a family thing, Johnna. We all need each other.


JOHNNA:
Exactly, Jesus could only get it through the Father, and we are only made perfect in him. The relationship thing is intrinsic. God the Father and his Son are separate physical beings, but so one in purpose and nature and character that their oneness has at times been misunderstood by men.

JOHN MORMON:
I think it's Mormon doctrine that Elohim had a father, but beyond that it's speculation. Perhaps our spiritual Grandfather was the first of all Gods ever. I concede that maybe the underling Gods never do become entirely independent from the first God.


JOHNNA:
I argue that "Heavenly Grandfather" is not doctrine, it's been logically derived, which is not an acceptable methodology for arriving at doctrine. I do concede wide folklore on this subject.

Doctrine is that Christ's atonement is patterned after his Father's, since the Lord will do no thing except his Father has shown him. From this, by the light of reason and good intentions, good and spiritual people conclude that the Father previously lived on an earth and prayed to his Heavenly Father. They also have the Snow couplet to back them up.

Well, good and spiritual people, by logic and good intentions, read the unity/separateness passages in the New Testament and concluded the Trinity. It's not so wrong, and yet clearly not right.


JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you're right that I shouldn't call it doctrine, but I thought it was a safe claim. It's taught in the King Follett Discourse, but that's not one of the standard works.

JOHNNA:
will there be a warning when I exceed my character limit?


JOHN MORMON:
When you try to preview or post, yes.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL (my atheist self):
You seem to have a lot of free thinker in you, Johnna.


JOHNNA:
Doesn't everyone like to think herself so?


POWELL:
Not so many religious people exhibit the defining characteristics.

JOHNNA:
But seriously, I think I owe you one, since you've provided me the opportunity to spit out all my boring anti-theology which no one can tolerate. And when I say anti-theology, I mean it in the best sense of anti-Nephi-Lehites.


POWELL:
I'm quite tolerant about such spitting.

POWELL:
I wish you would try. Give it serious thought.


JOHNNA:
I am. Is that the broad outlines of your argument, that the Satan plan is superior for avoiding pain and suffering while saving and exalting everyone, and that God refused the plan not only because he's a traditionalist, but also because it would give Satan, not himself, glory, thereby conflating God's and Satan's motives into one, i.e. self-glory?


POWELL:
Right now I would prefer something like "The Plan of Salvation presented by Jehovah in the pre-existence is superior to the one presented by Satan" if you were to affirm (and go first) or replacing Lucifer with Jehovah and I were to affirm and go first. By "superior" I mean better for those who would live under the plan.

Based on your comments, perhaps you have something else in mind.

JOHNNA:
As you saw, I would question the value of a paper-mill Celestial Kingdom. The theology around the concepts of joy and free agency would be important for me to bring up, which means I have to talk about them coherently. And the stuff that's precious to me personally can be the hardest to convey. but it is an amusing idea, an art piece of a lower order.


POWELL:
You'd get a nifty wrestling championship like icon that appears next to your name just for surviving the ordeal.

JOHNNA:
It looks like there is more than one place here such rhetorical games are placed. Where would you put it? As a work of art, it will be reviled and misunderstood. That's so attractive.


POWELL:
That's for you to decide.

JOHNNA:
I'm sure, as Emilio Lizardo says, in the miserable annals of the earth such a exchange would be duly enshrined.


POWELL:
That was the mouth of Dr. Lizardo controlled by the mind of John Whorfin, yes?

One of the funniest lines was Whorfin's peptalk that ended with the red electroids saying "Real soon."

POWELL:
Sort of. Since retarded adults and children seem to do just fine in the eternities as celestial beings, then why can't that be the case for those of us that otherwise would be destined for something less than the Celestial kingdom if we were to live normal adult lives?


JOHNNA:
What about that premortal catch-all, about some are so essentially pure and advanced that all they need of this earth is to draw a breath of air?


POWELL:
Yep. However, it's not clear that only those excessively righteous spirits are the ones who die young or die mentally handicapped unless you're prepared to claim that child killers don't have free agency.

JOHNNA:
But I do love how you're building a theology based on avoiding responsibility.


POWELL:
It's only temporary. There's the rest of eternity to be responsible.

POWELL:
The value is that it has a perfect return. Everyone achieves Celestial glory. What we lack for missing out on life as a normal adult apparently can be made up for somehow. Maybe we could have virtual reality experiences in the afterlife.

In fact, if Jesus believed that this new plan would cause Him to miss out on a progression opportunity by feeling infinite pain, maybe some virtual reality experiences could partially make up for that.


JOHNNA:
Maybe this is the virtual reality make-up.
Red pill or blue?


POWELL:
You're rising in my estimation. You are a thinker. Given that possibility, what we experience here might not be "real" anyway.

POWELL:
"Blade Runner" is another movie that we both like very much.


JOHNNA:
Yes, questions of what it means to be human imply questions of what it means to be divine. And the medieval death-of-the-king imagery at the end is amazing.


POWELL:
You mean the death of Roy where he could have killed Deckard, his assassin, but chose to save him instead because he had come to find life so valuable?It was poignant, but it seemed incongruent with his earlier killing of Tyrell and J.F. Sebastian. Maybe Roy had changed enough in that short of time. (I had to look up some of these names since I forgot them).

One of the things I liked about Blade Runner is it was an early film that really put you into a coherent novel futuristic world rather than relying so much on the standard futures that had been previously developed. Another movie that I value for similar reasons is Starship Troopers. It used a coherent society model that is quite different from our own and quite different from those generally used.

POWELL:
Was it Cody, Wyoming? I suspect that the title was supposed to be genuine. In other words, the implication is that twin girls born in Wyoming were separated at birth, one eventually became the Queen of the Netherlands, while the other had a less glamorous life.


JOHNNA:
Well, it's clear that they were separated at birth and that Peggy had a more happy and secure life. But Buckaroo sighs that Peggy was "Queen of the Netherlands," in answer to who she was. It looks like a wordplay, sort of "Queen of my Heart," except nether means below.

So we could work out a whole theology on this--was Peggy materially, literally a Queen, or only metaphorically? Or both. And is she reborn in Penny? All that buddhism and randomness in the movie begs to be systematically theologized.

Is it only for mormon kids that religion is not just a life, but a game?


POWELL:
Given the kind of weird things that were considered natural in that movie, I suspect that Peggy was supposed to have really been the Queen of the Netherlands. Banzai got around, you see.

POWELL:
I assumed it was "Pretty" instead of "Priddy" and "electroid" instead of "lectroid."


JOHNNA:
It's "Priddy" in the credits, and on IMDB. But you're supposed to hear "pretty" and think "pretty penny." I think you're right about electroid.


POWELL:
You seem to be correct about "Priddy." Now I'm not so sure about "electroid" either.

JOHNNA:
So, provide information about this debate. Nice talkin' to you.


POWELL:
Likewise.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you're right that I shouldn't call it doctrine, but I thought it was a safe claim. It's taught in the King Follett Discourse, but that's not one of the standard works.


Here is an inherent problem with LDS belief IMO. So many teachings and so little scriptural backup (and by Scripture, I refer to the 4 standard works for discussion's sake) has occurred that one has to wonder when a speaker is speaking doctrine and when it is idle speculation, and by extension, contrary to Peter's admonition I quoted earlier.

Joseph was extremely confident when he proclaimed the King Follett discourse. He gave no indication that he was doing anything other than speaking as the prophet. Why is the Discourse not scripturalized in the D&C anyway?

:btc2:

[just Johnna]

Hi Bill the Cat (is that as in Bloomsbury?)

Intrigued by your remarks, I went back and looked at the King Follet sermon, (HoC version, tanner site) which I haven't looked at in years.

Why not canonize? King Follet was funeral oratory. Although it is also teaching (indeed, he does say he is teaching) the speech doesn't have the quality of scripture, it's full of remarks specific to the time and place, and even a sense of persecution. Also, the sermon exists in four versions.

I can see why this would frustrate you, since the King Follet sermon has been influential in how LDS interpret scripture, though it is not scripture itself.

Were you referring to the admonition of Peter in 2 Peter 1:16? I must have missed the post you made earlier.

just Johnna


Here is an inherent problem with LDS belief IMO. So many teachings and so little scriptural backup (and by Scripture, I refer to the 4 standard works for discussion's sake) has occurred that one has to wonder when a speaker is speaking doctrine and when it is idle speculation, and by extension, contrary to Peter's admonition I quoted earlier.

Joseph was extremely confident when he proclaimed the King Follett discourse. He gave no indication that he was doing anything other than speaking as the prophet. Why is the Discourse not scripturalized in the D&C anyway?

:btc2:

[Bill the Cat]

Hi Bill the Cat (is that as in Bloomsbury?)

Bloom County (close enough :wink:)

Why not canonize? King Follet was funeral oratory. Although it is also teaching (indeed, he does say he is teaching) the speech doesn't have the quality of scripture, it's full of remarks specific to the time and place, and even a sense of persecution.

As does the Word of Wisdom. The WOW was very specific to the intentional poisoning of the tea that the early LDS were drinking among other specific things.

I can see why this would frustrate you, since the King Follet sermon has been influential in how LDS interpret scripture, though it is not scripture itself.

Kind of like the Christian Creeds that LDS have such heartbrn over?

Were you referring to the admonition of Peter in 2 Peter 1:16? I must have missed the post you made earlier.

Indeed I was. Joseph never indicated that he was teaching anything other than what he believed was fact, and to quote Spider Man..."with great power comes great responsibility." Joseph never went back and retracted those statements as opinion. Those listening, and indeed as you have aptly said, those today, use the discourse as a lens to interpret scripture. Using such diametrically opposed lenses as the King follet Discourse on LDS side and the council of Nicaea on ours, it is no wonder that we have an entirely different view of God. But which lens is seeing the correct picture? And we can't both be right about this one, agreed?

:btc2:

[John Powell]

JOHN MORMON:
Maybe you're right that I shouldn't call it doctrine, but I thought it was a safe claim. It's taught in the King Follett Discourse, but that's not one of the standard works.


Bill the Cat:
Here is an inherent problem with LDS belief IMO. So many teachings and so little scriptural backup (and by Scripture, I refer to the 4 standard works for discussion's sake) has occurred that one has to wonder when a speaker is speaking doctrine and when it is idle speculation, and by extension, contrary to Peter's admonition I quoted earlier.


POWELL:
The principle is "Accept what is faith promoting." If what the speaker says builds your faith in Mormonism then you're probably safe to accept it. On the other hand, if it weakens your faith then you should probably not embrace it until you can see how it will build your faith.

The ability to add to the canon is an opportunity with risk. It's an opportunity and a risk that closed canon religions like yours don't have.

Bill the Cat:
Joseph was extremely confident when he proclaimed the King Follett discourse. He gave no indication that he was doing anything other than speaking as the prophet. Why is the Discourse not scripturalized in the D&C anyway?

:btc2:


POWELL:
I suspect the King Follett Discourse wasn't scripturalized because it was and still is too much for the tastes of the majority of the church. I don't think the fact that it was given at a particular funeral matters much. It still might be canonized in the future if the Mormon theologians think it should be. Right now, the rank and file members can use it to bolster their faith if it works that way for them, but if it causes distress then they can disregard it as non-scriptural. See how this can work as a powerful tool for preserving the faith?

The current doctrine of Mormonism is in the hands of the Mormons, especially the current leadership, not the hands of Joseph Smith or Brigham Young. There are work-arounds to what they allegedly said. Living Mormons have a greater power to change their doctrine than closed-canon churches have.

John Powell

[just Johnna]

As does the Word of Wisdom. The WOW was very specific to the intentional poisoning of the tea that the early LDS were drinking among other specific things.

Perhaps you are thinking of section 27, specific to the safety of wine for the sacrament, three years earlier?

The Word of Wisdom doesn't include off-topic remarks like how well Joseph knows German, which work great as oratory but not as something you canonize. As a text, the King Follett Discourse would need to be redacted, but it was published August 1844 in the Times and Seasons. Perhaps providently.


Using such diametrically opposed lenses as the King follet Discourse on LDS side and the council of Nicaea on ours, it is no wonder that we have an entirely different view of God. But which lens is seeing the correct picture? And we can't both be right about this one, agreed?

The Nicaean Creed is very interesting--much to my surprise, I read it mormon, and I find it very curious that I can. My only bar is homo-ousis, which I just spelled wrong. If it means, of the same substance, the way two gold bars are both made of gold, then even that fits my views, for I believe the resurrected Lord has a body equally divine as the Father's.

But this is something I can't discuss anywhere--it offends mormons and christians. I, offending everyone, like it because I would like to think the Lord would help the Nicaean Council.

I need to find the creed with the "no body parts or passions" and learn its history, or wherever the insubstantial nature of God would be written down, the text we cannot both be right about.

just Johnna

[just Johnna]

POWELL:
Right now I would prefer something like "The Plan of Salvation presented by Jehovah in the pre-existence is superior to the one presented by Satan" if you were to affirm (and go first) or replacing Lucifer with Jehovah and I were to affirm and go first. By "superior" I mean better for those who would live under the plan.
The Plan of Salvation was presented by Heavenly Father. How uncharacteristic of you to misstate that. How authoritative will the scriptures be? If you argue that history was written by the winners, the untethered debate will be less interesting. If we stay in the text, there is no plan of Satan just as there is no "Spirit of the Law."

I'm reading some debates--this looks like it will require more attention to detail than I may be able to muster. This wouldn't be a tennis court thing then?

POWELL:
You'd get a nifty wrestling championship like icon that appears next to your name just for surviving the ordeal.

JOHNNA: How is survival defined? The apple looks more interesting, what is that?


...and off-topic movie talk to the end.

POWELL:
That was the mouth of Dr. Lizardo controlled by the mind of John Whorfin, yes?

One of the funniest lines was Whorfin's peptalk that ended with the red electroids saying "Real soon."

JOHNNA: Yes, and true!
Where are we going?
Planet 10!
When are we leaving?

POWELL: It's only temporary. There's the rest of eternity to be responsible.
JOHNNA: Everyone wants to be responsible, starting later.


POWELL:
You mean the death of Roy where he could have killed Deckard, his assassin, but chose to save him instead because he had come to find life so valuable?It was poignant, but it seemed incongruent with his earlier killing of Tyrell and J.F. Sebastian. Maybe Roy had changed enough in that short of time. (I had to look up some of these names since I forgot them).

JOHNNA: Poignancy is usually incongruent.

One of the things I liked about Blade Runner is it was an early film that really put you into a coherent novel futuristic world rather than relying so much on the standard futures that had been previously developed. Another movie that I value for similar reasons is Starship Troopers. It used a coherent society model that is quite different from our own and quite different from those generally used.

JOHNNA: Starship troopers, are you kidding? The coherent society is developed in the novel and can't be derived from the film alone.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Right now I would prefer something like "The Plan of Salvation presented by Jehovah in the pre-existence is superior to the one presented by Satan" if you were to affirm (and go first) or replacing Lucifer with Jehovah and I were to affirm and go first. By "superior" I mean better for those who would live under the plan.


JOHNNA:
The Plan of Salvation was presented by Heavenly Father. How uncharacteristic of you to misstate that.


POWELL:
The wording of the proposition could say it that way if you prefer.

JOHNNA:
How authoritative will the scriptures be?


POWELL:
Significantly, but they won't be held to be infallible. Mormons don't believe the scriptures are infallible. They are subject to interpretation.

My purpose in the debate would be to show, using Mormon scriptures and logic, that Lucifer's plan was superior to God's.

JOHNNA:
If you argue that history was written by the winners, the untethered debate will be less interesting.


POWELL:
You're thinking some more, Johnna.

On the contrary. The possibility that the story we're getting from God isn't entirely accurate could prove VERY interesting. For example, if I can provide a plausible plan that basically follows what Lucifer allegedly claimed, but is better than the one that you interpret that Lucifer presented then that could be a reason to think my version is the version that Lucifer actually presented (unless you think I'm smarter than the Devil).

You see, Johnna, from my perspective I only have to outsmart Joseph Smith and his followers, not God or Satan.

JOHNNA:
If we stay in the text, there is no plan of Satan just as there is no "Spirit of the Law."


POWELL:
That won't do at all. Lucifer presented a plan. It was one in which everyone would return to the Celestial Kingdom although there would be a loss of free agency and Lucifer would get God's glory. The war in heaven was a war over which plan would be adopted.

Don't you ever hear leaders and ordinary members speak of "Satan's plan"?

Perhaps this notion that Lucifer never presented a plan is a deception that God is inspiring you to believe so that you don't seriously consider the merits of Lucifer's plan. :thumbd:

Besides, if I can propose a plan that accomplishes those goals then either I'm smarter than Lucifer or it was probably the plan that Lucifer presented or something else.

JOHNNA:
I'm reading some debates--this looks like it will require more attention to detail than I may be able to muster. This wouldn't be a tennis court thing then?


POWELL:
If we do it by tennis court then you won't get the nifty belt.

POWELL:
You'd get a nifty wrestling championship like icon that appears next to your name just for surviving the ordeal.


JOHNNA:
How is survival defined?


POWELL:
I suppose that you submit all the required posts.

JOHNNA:
The apple looks more interesting, what is that?


POWELL:
I don't know about that one. Maybe it's only for early TWEB members or it's something you get after a certain number of posts.

JOHNNA:
...and off-topic movie talk to the end.

POWELL:
That was the mouth of Dr. Lizardo controlled by the mind of John Whorfin, yes?

One of the funniest lines was Whorfin's peptalk that ended with the red electroids saying "Real soon."


JOHNNA:
Yes, and true!
Where are we going?
Planet 10!
When are we leaving?

POWELL:
It's only temporary. There's the rest of eternity to be responsible.


JOHNNA:
Everyone wants to be responsible, starting later.


POWELL:
Well, to avoid responsibility for a few decades out of an eternity does not seem to be a good example of a problem with avoiding responsibility. It looks to be a smart thing if it GUARANTEES you a glory a million or a billion times greater than you otherwise would likely get. Besides, normal adults get about 8 years of being irresponsible, yes? So, what's the big deal if we multiply that by a factor of 5 or 10 when the potential return is millions or billions of times better?

A problem I will have is explaining why we ever adopted the inferior plan. Maybe you can help. :wink:

POWELL:
You mean the death of Roy where he could have killed Deckard, his assassin, but chose to save him instead because he had come to find life so valuable?It was poignant, but it seemed incongruent with his earlier killing of Tyrell and J.F. Sebastian. Maybe Roy had changed enough in that short of time. (I had to look up some of these names since I forgot them).


JOHNNA:
Poignancy is usually incongruent.

POWELL:
One of the things I liked about Blade Runner is it was an early film that really put you into a coherent novel futuristic world rather than relying so much on the standard futures that had been previously developed. Another movie that I value for similar reasons is Starship Troopers. It used a coherent society model that is quite different from our own and quite different from those generally used.


JOHNNA:
Starship troopers, are you kidding? The coherent society is developed in the novel and can't be derived from the film alone.


POWELL:
Apparently, enough of a novel society was developed in the first film that I was able to pick it up. Whether it matches the book is unknown to me.

I was disappointed with the second movie since it had quite a different feel from the first. It was too much like another alien-parasite movie to get any novelty points from me.

John Powell

[Bill the Cat]

Perhaps you are thinking of section 27, specific to the safety of wine for the sacrament, three years earlier?

Yeah. The research I did indicated that it was especially dangerous for LDS members to get wine for sacrament from the townies.

The Word of Wisdom doesn't include off-topic remarks like how well Joseph knows German, which work great as oratory but not as something you canonize.
So why canonize something that now is not an issue. I don't think the Utah ABC board would allow poisoning LDS members. And why a strict prohibition on alcohol anyway?

As a text, the King Follett Discourse would need to be redacted, but it was published August 1844 in the Times and Seasons. Perhaps providently.

True, but many members I have talked to speak of the doctrines Joseph put forth as fact. It's a slippery thing to find out what is scripture and what is doctrine. Like John said, if it is faith promoting, typical members are all ears.

The Nicaean Creed is very interesting--much to my surprise, I read it mormon, and I find it very curious that I can. My only bar is homo-ousis, which I just spelled wrong. If it means, of the same substance, the way two gold bars are both made of gold, then even that fits my views, for I believe the resurrected Lord has a body equally divine as the Father's.

It can't really be equated to anything like gold. It means that there is only one God, not three (or many more) like the LDS believe. Also, from my studies, an LDS believes that they can attain the same substance as God is composed of, which I find extremely incorrect. God is self-sustaining and no one is above Him...gah, I'm going to start a thread on this one later. Gotta hit the BK express!

But this is something I can't discuss anywhere--it offends mormons and christians. I, offending everyone, like it because I would like to think the Lord would help the Nicaean Council.

I believe He did. I believe Nicaea more accurately reflects the nature of God than the King Follett Discourse does. The KFD seems to label God as a job instead of an entity.

[Krusader]

But, I don't believe Peter ever contradicted the Old Testament prophets. That was my point.

Mormons often say "it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do." But I think it would more accurately describe our experience that faith is expressed and experienced as we trust in and follow Christ. He strengthens us and perfects our insufficient efforts. I know I rely on that in my parenting. As we follow Christ, our faith and understanding increases.

I know my Bible fairly well, and in fact this year I'm taking an ecumenical Bible study for cross discipline. So far I'm not convinced by the grace reading, though I think I understand how people arrive at it. Frankly, it seems a neologism to cut works/action/living from faith, and possibly even wrests Paul. I know those are strong words, but this is an important issue, isn't it? And I was pretty shocked by people being against baptism. It has been very instructive to see how much being LDS constrains my reading, particularly I bring my specific ideas of priesthood and orderliness to the text, so that gives some credit to your point of view, fwiw.

I'm nearly 40 years old. No one escapes reality for that long. ...but I know that's not what you're trying to say. Thanks for your concern. If you want to warn nonmormons that we're wacky, I think you're on the right track. Otherwise, this approach seems unpromising.

Is this a personal ministry of yours, to post to mormon strangers? I'm working on understanding how people understand authority without a priesthood. Were you led in prayer to undertake this? If this is too person a question, for an open forum, please forgive and ignore the query.

Johnna
Johnna, I'm glad you are studying your Bible. Maybe, as you progress, you will see why Christians question Mormonism as a legitimate expression of the Gospel.

You might want to take a look at Ephesians 2:8-9 in reference to salvation by grace through faith.

As for priesthood authority, the Aaronic priesthood was reserved for descendents of Aaron, and had a particular ritual attached to it for those endowed with this priesthood. Since only Aaron's descendents could be Aaronic priests, it stands to reason that only Mormons who can prove they are descended from Aaron could have any claim on this priesthood - and then only if they had been ordained using the proper ritual of anointing with oil, animal sacrifices, etc.

As for the Melchizedec priesthood, please read the Book of Hebrews. It is Christ alone Who holds this priesthood. Note that Hebrews speaks of a "change" in the priesthood, as there was a change in the convenant at Christ's death. For Christians, Jesus is our High Priest Who makes intercession for us - we call no thers High Priest, nor would a Christian ever claim such a title. It belongs to Christ alone.

The Book of Revelation speaks of all Christians as priests. Why is this? Because we have direct access to the Throne of God by the Blood of Christ. This Christian "priesthood" is not to be confused with the Mormon conception of priesthood. Our authority to proclaim the Gospel and to minister in the Name of Jesus comes to us through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit - wherein we are changed into new creatures, transferred to the Kingdom of Christ, and made co-heirs with Jesus.

You will find all this, and more, as you study the Scriptures.

[just Johnna]

Johnna, I'm glad you are studying your Bible. Maybe, as you progress, you will see why Christians question Mormonism as a legitimate expression of the Gospel.
Maybe I will. There is always something new to discover in the scriptures.
You might want to take a look at Ephesians 2:8-9 in reference to salvation by grace through faith.
Yes, I love this passage and have taught it many times. I don't think it separates us from Christianity, though it is a difference between me and evangelicals.
Our authority to proclaim the Gospel and to minister in the Name of Jesus comes to us through the regeneration of the Holy Spirit - wherein we are changed into new creatures, transferred to the Kingdom of Christ, and made co-heirs with Jesus.
I'm still unclear then, on how you read Acts 6:6. Why did the apostles lay hands on the seven who were called to assist?

Why did the Samaritans not receive the Holy Ghost until Peter and John came and laid hands on them, Acts 9:18?

What's going on in Acts 13:1-3, there seems to be an orderliness in how the church receives Barnabus and Paul's call to the mission, and they lay hands there again. And Barnabus and Paul will report back after the mission is over. Do you see an informal hierarchy, or no hierarchy at all?

I was really surprised people saw Acts 13 as a transition, that Barnabus was the leader before Paphos, thought that's not stated, and that Paul takes over as leader after Paphos, though that's not stated either. Now Paul's the leader because he performed a miracle? That's not a good way to choose who to follow.

My question should have been phrased--how do you choose your leaders.

just Johnna

[Krusader]

Maybe I will. There is always something new to discover in the scriptures.

Yes, I love this passage and have taught it many times. I don't think it separates us from Christianity, though it is a difference between me and evangelicals.

I'm still unclear then, on how you read Acts 6:6. Why did the apostles lay hands on the seven who were called to assist?

Why did the Samaritans not receive the Holy Ghost until Peter and John came and laid hands on them, Acts 9:18?

What's going on in Acts 13:1-3, there seems to be an orderliness in how the church receives Barnabus and Paul's call to the mission, and they lay hands there again. And Barnabus and Paul will report back after the mission is over. Do you see an informal hierarchy, or no hierarchy at all?

I was really surprised people saw Acts 13 as a transition, that Barnabus was the leader before Paphos, thought that's not stated, and that Paul takes over as leader after Paphos, though that's not stated either. Now Paul's the leader because he performed a miracle? That's not a good way to choose who to follow.

My question should have been phrased--how do you choose your leaders.

just JohnnaJohnna: I came in to the office this morning and find that the new post you put on yesterday regarding the differences between Christians and Mormons has somehow disappeared. Where did it go?

As far as authority within the churches, the Scriptures very clearly outline two main offices after the Apostles. These were elder and bishop (episkopos - this can have a variety of translations). Christian churches do believe in commissioning those holding these offices with the laying on of hands - not that the Holy Spirit is transmitted in some mechanical, successive way, but that the church prays for the Holy Spirit's blessing upon those chosen by the church to undertake these offices.

The Apostles and Prophets formed the foundation of the church, Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. The Apostles, we believe, were a unique group, and made up of those who had been directly involved in Christ's ministry while He walked the earth. Even Paul, who was called to be an Apostle, lived at the time of Christ and was familiar with His ministry - although prior to being called He was an enemy of the Church. However, we also note that He was called directly by Christ on the Damascus road.

There is, of course, the doctrine of apostolic succession held by the Roman, Eastern and Anglican branches of Christianity. This doctrine teaches that the current bishops of those churches trace their authority directly back in succession to the apostles. This authority was mechanically passed from bishop to bishop until modern times. Of course, historically these churches have had this mechanical authority - but, I believe, this apostolic succession must be accompanied by apostolic faith, which (I believe) it has not.

For Protestants (evangelicals, that is), our primary authority comes from the written Word of God which directs our steps and shapes our doctrine. All things not in accord with the written Word of God are to be rejected. Evangelicals may disagree on some issues not directly addressed in Scripture, however we ALL agree on the essentials.

This is why a Christian is more apt to answer, when asked what his or her religion is, "I am a Christian," and not, "I am a Baptist, a Pentecostal, etc." For us, salvation is not a matter of being in a particular denomination, but a matter of being in relationship with Christ.

No Christian Church has people jumping up during testimony time saying, "the Baptist Church is the only true church on the face of the earth." Rather, you will hear people saying, "I was lost, but Jesus saved me. Praise the Lord."

Well, I could go on, but time excludes that possibility right now. If you ever find that lost thread, let me know.

[just Johnna]

Johnna: I came in to the office this morning and find that the new post you put on yesterday regarding the differences between Christians and Mormons has somehow disappeared. Where did it go?
I thought it was whiney in tone and took it down. I had made the edit before your answer, so I apologize for having erased you.

Thanks for your answer. I'll open a new thread if I follow-up.

jJ

[just Johnna]

POWELL: The wording of the proposition could say it that way if you prefer.
JOHNNA: I'd prefer; improves the signal-to-noise ratio.

POWELL: Significantly, but they won't be held to be infallible. Mormons don't believe the scriptures are infallible. They are subject to interpretation.

My purpose in the debate would be to show, using Mormon scriptures and logic, that Lucifer's plan was superior to God's.

JOHNNA: Yes, and would that all would be expert in working with and interpreting texts! And this is where I grumble that even an infallible texts must be interpreted, or it's as useful as a brick.


POWELL: On the contrary. The possibility that the story we're getting from God isn't entirely accurate could prove VERY interesting. For example, if I can provide a plausible plan that basically follows what Lucifer allegedly claimed, but is better than the one that you interpret that Lucifer presented then that could be a reason to think my version is the version that Lucifer actually presented (unless you think I'm smarter than the Devil).

You see, Johnna, from my perspective I only have to outsmart Joseph Smith and his followers, not God or Satan.

JOHNNA: Excellent reasoning. I concede you get to present your plan as the Devil's own. But I will argue once man's agency is destroyed, it's not coming back.

You have to outsmart Joseph and his followers using their material. Your challenge claims to expose and major internal contradiction in the world view. You don't get to just say "I have a new plan--we all go to heaven and sit on thrones."

I recommend to you Robert Heinlein's Job, a Comedy of Justice. You are a Heinlein fan waiting to happen.

POWELL: Don't you ever hear leaders and ordinary members speak of "Satan's plan"?
JOHNNA: Not anymore. We cleaned house.


POWELL: If we do it by tennis court then you won't get the nifty belt.
JOHNNA: The nifty belt doesn't match my shoes. Here's my plan: I'll do the debate before I leave, sometime between January and May. How many rounds do you want? You better not disappoint me and turn this into a dueling Infobases thing. I'd start throwing the poetry of Rumi at you.

POWELL: Well, to avoid responsibility for a few decades out of an eternity does not seem to be a good example of a problem with avoiding responsibility. It looks to be a smart thing if it GUARANTEES you a glory a million or a billion times greater than you otherwise would likely get. Besides, normal adults get about 8 years of being irresponsible, yes? So, what's the big deal if we multiply that by a factor of 5 or 10 when the potential return is millions or billions of times better?

A problem I will have is explaining why we ever adopted the inferior plan. Maybe you can help.

JOHNNA: It seems we will argue about the metaverse in which these plans take place. Wanting to be responsible later is a mode of never becoming responsible. Uniformitarianism is even better for religion than it is for science.


POWELL on Starship Troopers: Apparently, enough of a novel society was developed in the first film that I was able to pick it up. Whether it matches the book is unknown to me.

JOHNNA: Deriving this from the movie shows unusual powers of discernment. You might enjoy the book, which wallows in the details of a society where one must have served in the military to be considered a citizen. Another well-described alternative future society is in Moon is a Harsh Mistress, same author.

[master_mormon]

I had this thought last night.
Awhile ago (I don't remember who) a bonafied LDS said that the majority of new LDS converts come from Protestant Christianity. This is odd since LDSers swear up and down that they're Christians, just like all everyone else.

So why should, as a Christian, consider converting to Mormonism. Please don't say that LDSers don't hope to convert Christians. That would kill any discussion to quickley.
Being LDS, I sort of question the claims of that LDS person. The reason is the LDS church does not keep records of what religion or faith a new convert came from. It simply is not an important issue to the church. If I had to make a guess, I think we probably get more converts from Catholicism than Protestantism based on the places where the church grows the most in nations outside the US tend to be mostly catholic.

I use the term "christian" at its base definition which is one who believes in the teachings of Jesus. So I classify not only LDS as christian but also Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, JW, SDA, and Protestants as such even though there are doctrinal and historical distinctions between all these "christian" groups. However I do believe that having all the right doctrines are important. So I do call myself a christian but for me what is more important is being a "Latter Day Saint". So I am a Latter Day Saint who is also a Christian. That is my personal take on it

[NestorianWillie]

While John did an excellent job of answering your question Jin, I would like to add that Mormons claim that they have very vital truths that Christianity has lost and since God restored His true church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) these truths are now available for you to partake of as a member of the church. Without these truths you are left with only a portion of truth (the Bible) as far as it is translated correctly. The church can offer you higher truths, higher laws and special covenants that Christianity cannot. And of course you can be a Melchisidek(sp?) or Aaronic priesthood holder. Or both (since you are a male :wink:) ..... living forever in eternity with your family. Exaltation to godhood. Creating and maintaining your own planet. :teeth:
I'm glad that there's enough honesty here to correctly represent the doctrinal basis of Mormonism. Today's PR approach tends to make Mormons sound like mainstream Christians, but the truth is that the whole system is built upon the basis of what is expressed above: that the Bible is hopelessly corrupted, that the Church as a whole was in apostasy for the better part of recorded history, etc.
The problem is that these and most other distinctive Mormon teachings are false. Ask any Mormon, for example, to explain when, where, how the Bible was corrupted? What parts specifically? Can they point to things that shouldn't be there?.. things that should?
OR, at what point did the early church plunge into apostasy? Give an example? Give a general time period even?

You'll get nothing in response - or at best some sweeping generalizations which amount to blind stabs at something (as in, 'Well there was the Roman Catholic Church early on and that was a false church,' or something of that nature).

The problems of Mormonsim aren't that they haven't spread some nice ideas (families existing together in paradise, etc.), but that they have no authority for their truth claims. It all rests on Joseph Smith & his successors (and, notably, the works he produced). And those are demonstrably erroneous in countless ways which I'd be more than happy to demonstrate specifically upon your request. No reasonable person could look honestly at the record & conclude that Joseph was who he claimed.