False enough for me

[_mentalgymnast]

Well...not completely. I originally said, "give them a guidebook to begin with" and then let them run with it. The guidebook is one of God's "fingerprints" which would provide some evidence that the church is not wholly man made in its totality. This guidebook may not be the only fingerprint. But these fingerprints are only observable, it seems, by those that have eyes to see and ears to hear. Similarly, fingerprints left behind in a room are only detectable by those who have the tools to retrieve them. If all of the fingerprints that were left in a room were directly observable, one would not have to have faith that they are there. After all, it would be possible that there weren't any finger prints in the room, period. But, they either are or aren't. It is just as possible that there are...or aren't... any of God's finger prints on the LDS church. If these purported prints are invisible to the naked eye, it would take special apparatus to see that they really are there. The fingerprints that show God's handiwork in the LDS church may literally be invisible to those that do not have the apparatus to observe them, or are unwilling to use said tools.

As a result the church could, in a very real sense, appear to be completely and exclusively man made.

That is how you and others see it. I think it is possible to have at least a partial understanding of why that may be the case.

No. You’re talking nonsense. The only reason you don’t recognize it as such is because you’ve completely immersed yourself in your “choice” to believe.

You're making my point, Beastie. If the LDS church is true, you literally can't see it.

And no, I haven't "completely immersed [myself] in [my] “choice” to believe." You may see this to be so from your vantage point...but it just ain't so. I'm totally open to the possibility of being wrong. I've mentioned this a number times on this board. I think I've mentioned as much on this thread, or the other recent one dealing with skepticism.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Describe what a God's "true" church would look like. In detail. Assuming of course for a moment, that God exists and made/makes a church and/or churches. You seem to be somewhat of an expert on man-made churches. <g> What would a God made church be? Do you think God would even have a church?

What WOULD God's church look like?

How would I know? I'm an atheist. in my opinion, any depiction of a god that intervenes with human-kind ends up being riddled with inconsistencies and illogic.

But I will say that IF God's "one true church" really WAS based on "personal revelation" that provided a pipeline for God to share "plain and precious" things important for human beings to know, then it WOULDN'T look like the LDS church. The historical confusion within the LDS church eliminates that possibility.

I mean, really, MG. Are you actually saying that if, for one example, God had actually been CLEAR and CONSISTENT with what he "revealed" to his prophets about, for example, African-Americans, then it would be a problem because "The Truth" would be SOOOOO obvious that no one would need to have faith, and all would be compelled to believe???? Come on! Or if, say, he'd been CLEAR and CONSISTENT and EXPLANATORY about polygamy???? Or even HIS OWN FREAKING NATURE?

What I hear you saying is that you don't know. Well, at least that opens things up a bit to the possibilities.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

God:

Let me see, there are a thousand belief systems on the Earth and I don't want to give folks any clues that will help them figure out which is the one and only true one, so I'm going to make my one "true" church look like all the others...

~dancer~

But it doesn't look like the others. Thus, this board and others like it arguing/discussing its truth claims. Evangelicals and other Christian faiths (and non-Christian for that matter) don't want to have anything to do with Mormon baptisms. The truth claims differentiate it a great deal from "the others". Mormons are a peculiar people...as a result of belonging to a church that doesn't just "look like all the others".

Regards,
MG

Why do you think the LDS church doesn't look like all the others? Maybe LDS folks dress differently than say, Muslims in Pakistan, or maybe they believe God looks differently than a Hindu in India, or maybe their temple ceremony looks more like Mason rituals than Jewish, but the underlying church looks exactly like every other religion.

Any church could suggest their unique clothing style, music, rules, stories, rituals, ceremonies, or beliefs are unique and show the fingerprint of God; the problem is, how could anyone tell what the fingerprint of God looked like? God didn't give a clue. Faith? How would one know in which religion to have faith? Look at the fingerprints? But who knows what sort of equipment is the right equipment to discover the fingerprint? Maybe you do not have the correct equipment to see the fingerprint of God in Buddhism? Or Islam? Or the FLDS? Or the JWs?

Mormons may be a peculiar people to those who are not Mormon just like Scientologists may be a peculiar people to non-Scientologists, or Zarathustrians may be peculiar to non-Zarathustrians. The point being, every church looks different to each other church.

Specific beliefs, clothing, rituals, myths, rules, may all be different but the bottom line is, virtually all religions believe they are the correct ones, and if you have faith you will realize and know the truth.

But here is the thing... this is all so convoluted, confusing, mixed up and ridiculously nonsensical that, surely it can't be the mind of a loving, knowledgeable, honest, decent God. Or, maybe it is and God is just totally trying to mess with humans? Or maybe the fingerprint of God is to know that the more messy, confusing, and crazy a belief the more true?

:-)

~dancer~

The truth claim that one must be baptized into the kingdom of God in order to return to his presence is rather significant, wouldn't you say? The truth claim that in order to be potentially exalted to a condition of godlike capabilities and characteristics one must receive and make covenants in the temple is rather significant, wouldn't you say?

The church makes the claim of having the ONLY authoritative baptism (and the keys necessary for that to be so) that will act as an entryway/conduit into the kingdom of God.

That IS rather significant.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Statements about how Joseph new more about God and the Godhead after he walked out of the grove than all the 1800 years of Christianity presents to us are frequent.

I think we need to go straight to what Joseph Smith said...and not what ANYONE else said. Also, it is important to look at when he said it and who recorded it. Most importantly, Joseph Smith is the only one that knows what he did or didn't see and how he was going to share that information with his associates and with the Christian world...and how much...and when. It is difficult to know how much he did or didn't know about the godhead when he walked out of the grove of trees because we don't know exactly what he saw.

One would hope that his successors-men that are Prophets you know-would understand and know what he knew and when.

One would hope. But you can't always get want you want.

No, you can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
And if you try sometime you find
You get what you need

Truer words may never have been spoken by the Stones.

The question comes down to this: Does the church provide what we need?

Either it does, or it doesn't.

Regards,
MG

[_Tarski]

Describe what a God's "true" church would look like. In detail. Assuming of course for a moment, that God exists and made/makes a church and/or churches. You seem to be somewhat of an expert on man-made churches. <g> What would a God made church be? Do you think God would even have a church?

What WOULD God's church look like?

How would I know? I'm an atheist. in my opinion, any depiction of a god that intervenes with human-kind ends up being riddled with inconsistencies and illogic.

But I will say that IF God's "one true church" really WAS based on "personal revelation" that provided a pipeline for God to share "plain and precious" things important for human beings to know, then it WOULDN'T look like the LDS church. The historical confusion within the LDS church eliminates that possibility.

I mean, really, MG. Are you actually saying that if, for one example, God had actually been CLEAR and CONSISTENT with what he "revealed" to his prophets about, for example, African-Americans, then it would be a problem because "The Truth" would be SOOOOO obvious that no one would need to have faith, and all would be compelled to believe???? Come on! Or if, say, he'd been CLEAR and CONSISTENT and EXPLANATORY about polygamy???? Or even HIS OWN FREAKING NATURE?

What I hear you saying is that you don't know. Well, at least that opens things up a bit to the possibilities.

Regards,
MG

You hear what you want to hear. You missed the point entirely. Read it again.

[_truth dancer]

Hey MG,

The truth claim that one must be baptized into the kingdom of God in order to return to his presence is rather significant, wouldn't you say? The truth claim that in order to be potentially exalted to a condition of godlike capabilities and characteristics one must receive and make covenants in the temple is rather significant, wouldn't you say?

The church makes the claim of having the ONLY authoritative baptism (and the keys necessary for that to be so) that will act as an entryway/conduit into the kingdom of God.

That IS rather significant.

How about the claim that one must receive Moksha (not our favorite penguin), to be released from the cycle of rebirth?

How about the truth claim that one must be born again in the true Christian tradition or Catholicism to live in Heaven with God?

How about the truth claim that one returns to their animal spirit upon death?

How about the truth claim that a man must have a harem/be sealed to many women to become a God?

How about the truth claim that you have lived numerous lives and are traveling through existence with a soul group?

How about the truth claim that there is no separation between humankind/nature and God?

How about the truth claim of the Akashic records that anyone can access and know all truth past and present?

How about the truth claim that God is going to return in a spaceship and take the believers to another realm as earth is destroyed?

How about the truth claim that aliens are visiting the earth and giving us messages in the way of crop circles to enlighten us so we won't be destroyed in 2012?

How about the truth claim that one actually is God as believed by many Eastern religions?

I could go on and on and on... :-)

I don't know of any religions/faith traditions that do not make fabulous claims... they differ in their specifics but I do not know of one being more unique, unusual, crazy, odd, fantastical than any other depending on one's culture, society, and familial orientation.

You seem to think the LDS church has more wonderful claims, (or has more to offer, or has more rewards, or something), than other religions of the world, I do not think this is so by any means. In fact I would say much less so but that is a personal opinion. :-)

~dancer~

Ohhh by the way MG, you know you are one of my favorite posters right? And, I'm not all that good! (smile)

[_mentalgymnast]

Describe what a God's "true" church would look like. In detail. Assuming of course for a moment, that God exists and made/makes a church and/or churches. You seem to be somewhat of an expert on man-made churches. <g> What would a God made church be? Do you think God would even have a church?

What WOULD God's church look like?

How would I know? I'm an atheist. in my opinion, any depiction of a god that intervenes with human-kind ends up being riddled with inconsistencies and illogic.

But I will say that IF God's "one true church" really WAS based on "personal revelation" that provided a pipeline for God to share "plain and precious" things important for human beings to know, then it WOULDN'T look like the LDS church. The historical confusion within the LDS church eliminates that possibility.

I mean, really, MG. Are you actually saying that if, for one example, God had actually been CLEAR and CONSISTENT with what he "revealed" to his prophets about, for example, African-Americans, then it would be a problem because "The Truth" would be SOOOOO obvious that no one would need to have faith, and all would be compelled to believe???? Come on! Or if, say, he'd been CLEAR and CONSISTENT and EXPLANATORY about polygamy???? Or even HIS OWN FREAKING NATURE?

What I hear you saying is that you don't know. Well, at least that opens things up a bit to the possibilities.

Regards,
MG

You hear what you want to hear. You missed the point entirely. Read it again.

I know what she said. She's saying if there was a God, what the "true" church wouldn't be/look like, from her point of view. Nonetheless, she didn't, or wasn't able to, say what it WOULD be/look like.

Because she doesn't know.

I'm saying that this opens up the possibilities as to what God's true church would be/look like.

Regards,
MG

[_truth dancer]

What is the official statement on where official church doctrine can be found? Is there one? If so I would be most appreciate if you could share it with us.

TD

Click on BCs sig line. It will take you to a press release that discusses LDS doctrine. But all it is is a press release.

Hi Jason,

Yeah, this is just opinion. Seems pretty much every member has an opinion but I have yet to hear from a prophet, and even if we did, unless it is canonized then it could be altered at any given moment. Actually, even if it IS canonized it could be altered so we go back to the original question: what is official church doctrine?

:-)


From LDS. org:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church.

No news here. I know of no one who has suggested that every word out of a prophet's mouth is doctrine.

With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications.

So, when in the last hundred and fifty years has this happened? Where can we read what is official doctrine?

Doctrine may be found in church publications but where is it? Certainly not everything in church publications is doctrine so what is or is not considered doctrine?

This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.

But, of course there are teachings in the Bible and other standard works that are considered NOT doctrine so again, who knows?

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines.

So? What does this have to do with what is or is not doctrine, or what is or is not true?

The problem is, no one seems to know what is doctrine, or where it can be found in the scriptures or publications.

For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

I don't think folks are worried about what doctrine is more or less important, they are worried about what is true.

If doctrine is not true then it doesn't matter how important on a scale it is, it speaks to the problem that LDS leaders have taught untruth and truth. This is problematic for a church that claims divine direction and revelation.

FAIR is putting together a lot of information on their opinions concerning LDS doctrine, there is the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and you have all sorts of apologists trying to figure it out, why doesn't the LDS church just come out and say what is or is not doctrine?

Wouldn't it help members with all the confusion?

~dancer~

[_beastie]

Let’s start here:

If there were really a God who communicates certain important information and directives to human beings, what would that look like?

Let’s take an example to show what it would look like.

Idea that God wants to communicate to human beings: all human beings are his beloved children, and no race or gender is superior in anyway to others, and human beings should treat one another with respect and dignity regardless of race or gender.

This is a simple, basic message. It can be conveyed to people of different cultures successfully, depending upon their particular mix of race and gender biases. In the US, one way this message would be conveyed is: Human beings with dark skin are no different than human beings with light skin, and should be treated with respect and dignity. Human beings with dark skin do not have that dark skin as a result of any sort of misbehavior, inferiority, or state of being “chosen”.

If God existed and wanted to communicate this message to human beings, he would communicate it in a way that would transcend culture and personal biases. In other words, the message would not become confused or murky due to “cultural influences”. Perhaps the human being receiving the message would struggle with it due to those same influence, but the message would be CLEAR.

This is just an example. Any message God wanted to convey would be conveyed clearly.

[_mentalgymnast]

Let’s start here:

If there were really a God who communicates certain important information and directives to human beings, what would that look like?

Let’s take an example to show what it would look like.

Idea that God wants to communicate to human beings: all human beings are his beloved children, and no race or gender is superior in anyway to others, and human beings should treat one another with respect and dignity regardless of race or gender.
This is a simple, basic message. It can be conveyed to people of different cultures successfully, depending upon their particular mix of race and gender biases. In the US, one way this message would be conveyed is: Human beings with dark skin are no different than human beings with light skin, and should be treated with respect and dignity. Human beings with dark skin do not have that dark skin as a result of any sort of misbehavior, inferiority, or state of being “chosen”.

If God existed and wanted to communicate this message to human beings, he would communicate it in a way that would transcend culture and personal biases. In other words, the message would not become confused or murky due to “cultural influences”. Perhaps the human being receiving the message would struggle with it due to those same influence, but the message would be CLEAR.

This is just an example. Any message God wanted to convey would be conveyed clearly.

Interestingly, this message came through loud and clear from Elder Joseph Wirthlin this morning in the conference session. Some more examples?

Regards,
MG