Formerly a real thread: Chat amongst yourselves (Shrug)

[_just me]

Must resist the jokes.

[_Sethbag]

[...] [a]nd if one was so fundamentally wrong (one has to be because they are diametrically opposite in what they say) what does that tell us about the reliability of Mormon Prophets in understanding what God wants?

Good luck, treat it like the ponzi sales pitch that it is.

I have already come to a conclusion on this point, and sadly my conclusion is that I view it as an extreme likelihood that Joseph Smith lied or was mistaken when he said he was a prophet, and that everything based on that lie cannot be wholly true, even if there were a true living prophet today.

I'm totally serious when I say this: all of your questions are easily resolved when you take the point of view that Joseph Smith and company were making it all up as they went along. This answer explains it all, in one fell swoop*.

It's that easy.

*the same answer applies to every other religion out there, bar none

[_Gadianton]

Hi Gaelen,

I'm enjoying watching you spank the apologists and point out the holes in Mormon doctrine from an investigator viewpoint of common sense and logic. In just a few minutes of thought, you can undo what some of these guys spend 20 years convincing themselves.

if there was no point to creation, ofcourse I could still ask the question, the fact that I do, as far as I am aware, exist, necessitates that so does the universe, as for why it matters, it matters because if there is a point, and I miss the point, then I will lose out in the long run while all the lucky people get the point.

While I can't really disagree, I have to wonder about how effective your line of investigation is. When I was a teenager, I was interested in a variety of religions and viewpoints and the wackier the better. I had similar critical thoughts to yours in this although certainly not as developed, but the mystery of learning new strange things kept me going. However, as my thinking developed it, and as I reached the level of consistent analysis you demonstrate, I just couldn't really hold an interest in yet another new religious perspective because it's just more of the same, especially from ground level, meaning, the basic message a religion teaches.

I'd think at a certain point you'd make some kind of inference that given each knock at your door represents an ordinary person from the same distribution as the last person who knocked on your door, that the next message probably isn't going to be all that more interesting. If the opportunity cost of a person's time is so low that it's worth it for the representative and the institution represented to spend all day banging on doors to get the message out, what would you expect?

I'd think at your level of analyzing new information, that you'd just skip the tier 1 reps and Google as many religions as possible and narrow down the list, and then seek out the scholarly reps (apologists) of each faith that is questionable, but still palatable. Speaking with the branch president etc. and the mission president is like escalating to the VP of marketing. You've got to go to the engineers.

(bear in mind I'm only half serious about the apologists for Mormonism. the analogy to a product fails because the orthodox reps are allegedly the product experts with the keys to represent the product, and the boilerplate is the revelation of the prophets, seers, and revelators, and so at this point you have enough to rule Mormonism out.)

[_Brackite]

3. Anti-mormons don't tell you (until I finally told them) that the Priesthood ban only applied to those of African Lineage, not "blacks". Blacks of the Islands, parts of Central/South America, India, etc. etc. WERE given the Priesthood, because they were considered to be of a different lineage.

Nearly all of the Black People in Central and South America are of African Lineage.
For Example:

Afro-Peruvians (also Afro Peruvians) are citizens of Peru descended from Africans who were enslaved and brought to the Western hemisphere with the arrival of the conquistadors towards the end of the slave trade.

...

The first Africans arrived with the conquistadors in 1521, mostly as slaves, and some returned with colonists to settle in 1525. Between 1529 and 1537, when Francisco Pizarro was granted permits to import 363 slaves to colonial Peru, a large group of Africans were imported to do labor for public construction, building bridges and road systems. They also fought alongside the conquistadors as soldiers and worked as personal servants and bodyguards. In 1533 Afro-Peruvian slaves accompanied Spaniards in the conquest of Cuzco.[2]

Two types of black slaves were imported to Peru. Those who were native-born in Africa were commonly referred to as bozales ("unskilled", "untrained"), which was also used in a derogatory sense. These slaves could have been directly shipped from west or southwest Africa or transported from the Spanish Indies or other Spanish colonies. Afro-Peruvians previously acculturated to Spanish culture and who spoke Spanish were called Ladinos; some were mixed-race, descendants of Spanish men and African women.[3] People of color performed skilled and unskilled functions that contributed to Hispanic colonization.

...

The government acknowledged that some discrimination persists against Afro-Peruvians, who make up 5%–10% of the population.[11] The government's initial statement said, "The government recognizes and regrets that vestiges of racially-motivated harassment are still present, which represent a hindrance to social, economic, labor and educational development of the population at large."[10] Monica Carrillo of the Center for Afro-Peruvian Studies and Promotion indicates that 27% of Afro-Peruvians finish high school and just 2% get higher or technical education.[12] Although Peru is not the first Latin American government to apologize to its population, it is the first to acknowledge present-day discrimination.[11]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Peruvian

[Guest]

If the church was corrupt in the past, how can I be sure that the teachings of the church are true today?[/color]

I have others that deal with the nature of sin, the necessity of Satan, the pointlessness of creation, the paradox of eternity, and concerns over the language used within the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great price et al. being old English, despite being published in the 19th century after translation, or revelation, when the point of the book is to bring as many people to God as possible, and surely such an endeavor would require a more approachable style of writing. Also Joseph Smith Jr. clearly had no understanding of Old English, and it is painful to read consequently.

The Lord told the church early on that they were out of the way and under condemnation. This was never fixed. To fix it you got to obey what Christ commanded when he put the Church under condemnation. And that command was to DO according to that which is written in the Book of Mormon.....which IS to get the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. This is what Jesus took forty days among the Jews who already believed on him to prepare their hearts to make the transition from being of the world to obtaining THE kingdom of God initiated by the power of the Holy Ghost changing them to new creatures and the sign and seal is the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost manifesting unto you the reality of God the Father such that you KNOW him and sealing upon you sanctification and salvation as you endure to the end.

About the language of the Book of Mormon you should realized that the early Americans still spoke in the old English when dealing with Church and preaching and expounding religion. That is why the Lord provided the Book of Mormon in that familiar context as the actual true religion-speak of the people at the time of its translation.

Gaelan, I have not read this thread and its too long now anyways. If you really have a direct question about anything at all I will attempt a satisfactory answer. Do not waste you time with the LDS Church, as it is dead on its feet. Zion is the only true Christian reality possible. And that is pure Mormonism as found in the bosom of Joseph Smith the Prophet.

[_grindael]

Here is the Mormon Doctrine of God in a nutshell, ask them to explain this,

THE Mormon CYCLE OF THE GODS

I. God Evolution By One Who Claimed To ‘Know’

It’s hard to tell what Mormons believe or what god they claim to worship. Why? Because they keep changing it. In 1830, when Smith penned the Book of Mormon, he claimed there was only one God, who was called the Father. He taught that this Father God came to earth and was made flesh and became the Son God. This was affirmed and made scripture as “The Lectures On Faith”, when they were included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

At this time the Holy ‘Ghost’ (as Mormons call it – or him, depending) was only the MIND of this God. (Lecture V) Later, the Book of Mormon was changed to try and erase these concepts, and the Lectures on Faith were discarded as binding scripture, but luckily we have copies of the first printing of the Book of Mormon and the Lectures and can compare the changes.

Then, by 1838 Smith was teaching that there were three gods, (the holy ‘ghost’ got promoted to a god when Smith invented the Book of Abraham) and that the Father and Son were now separate gods. Translating the Bible in 1831 he uses ‘And I God,’ in Genesis, claiming he ‘fixed’ the Bible, and in 1838 when he ‘translated’ the Book of Abraham it says ‘the gods’, (plural) for the same verses.

In Smith’s early years, he called the Father, elohim JEHOVAH, or just Jehovah. Mormons kept that name for the Father until the 1880’s, when they started calling Jesus Jehovah. Brigham Young in 1852 went off the deep end, and called the Father Michael, or Adam from the garden of Eden, and claimed he was the father of all the spirits of men, and that it was Adam’s God who was Yahovah, not Jesus, and “Elohim” was the grandfather-god. It was these three gods, Elohim, Yahovah, Michael, that made the earth and were in the Endowment Ceremony.

Then, when the church started calling Jesus Jehovah, they called Brigham Young’s teachings about Adam-god false, and started calling the father (Who was Michael according to Young) Elohim with a capital E. They simply made Jesus into Yahovah, and demoted Michael from a god to a pre-existent spirit.

From about 1910 we have them ‘officially’ stating that the father is Elohim, the Son Jehovah, and the Holy ‘Ghost’ a spirit god. Why that part of the new Godhead trio wasn’t on the creation team, is unclear. They, of course never explain how a pre-mortal spirit can become a god, when they teach it is necessary to get endowments in mortality and be married before anyone can become a god.

II. The Endless Cycle

In 1843, Smith decided to enlighten the world on how their god came to be a god. Smith said that there was a thing called ‘intelligence’ that floats around the cosmos, that can never be created and just apparently was always around, because Smith said intelligence or the ‘light of truth’ (whatever that is) cannot be created or made. (If not, then where did it come from?)

These intelligences were somehow ‘organized’ by a god, (how that first god got to be a god we are never told) or how there got to be a goddess wife for that matter. Anyway, these two gods had spiritual sex or something, and these intelligences were somehow put into the spiritual bodies of their spiritual children.

While this was going on this god creates planets for his goddess wife to put his spirit babies on, so they can become ‘like’ them. How they got from being just “light of truth” to being “light of truth” with physical bodies though, is never explained.

This god then organizes a world by the ‘priesthood’, and again how the first god even got the priesthood has never been told. And they don’t “create” anything, they just “organize”. Again, how did the first “intelligence” get to be a god? Evolution? If that is so, how did the “intelligence” get into the physical form of the first god? Who could have put it there? (I’m thinking Star Trek, The Motion Picture as one scenario)

Anyway, after organizing the matter for the planets, these gods go “down” there, and (according to Brigham Young) eat the food and become mortal again so they can bear their spirit babies as mortal children. But before this, they choose their first born spirit son to be a ‘saviour’ so he can atone for their own disobedience to their own commandment not to eat the food that they created and placed there so they can become mortal.

Dang it, since after 1905 or so, the church has called that teaching false, or lately “opinion”, or “folklore”…

Mormons now teach that the first mortal, who is ALWAYS called Adam for some reason, was just another spirit son, (possibly the 2nd or 3rd born – cause the rebellious one who they call Satan was also probably one of the two, since he was important in the Council of the gods) who they ‘placed’ there so they could command him NOT to fall, but not really mean it, so they could have their first born spirit son die a horrible death to make up for them setting things up so that the first man would actually sin when he was told not to.

And why the need for a Council? This had been going on for eternity hadn’t it? Then why have a council every single time you create a world and choose a savior? Are those spirit children not taught anything about the history of the gods? Who the first god was? Anyway…

When all the spirit babies are born for all the worlds they have created (and how they know when to stop making spirit babies for each world is not revealed either) the first born spirit son, who was resurrected if he successfully completed his mission to die that horrible death and take on the sins of the world which causes him to bleed out of every pore, kicks rebellious (2nd or 3rd) born’s butt, (for wanting to break the rules and save everyone by force) casts him into ‘outer darkness’ where he languishes and dissolves back into an intelligence (along with all other apostates), to be recycled by some future god someday.

After this, the first born resurrects all those that obeyed his gospel and got his priesthood, so they too can become gods and do the whole thing over and over again. Now Brigham Young taught that these ‘sons of perdition’ as they are called, would be recycled, but a later prophet refuted this and called that ‘false doctrine’ too.

Now, since all mortals born on earth are ‘spirit babies’ of these gods, they are considered ‘gods in embryo’ only becoming gods if they ‘accept the gospel, live ALL the commandments, and get the priesthood. They must marry as many women as they can, because the more wives they have, the more goddess wives they get, thus making it easier for those gods to make more of those spirit babies, and attain a higher exaltation as more and more gods fall under their authority.

Since the ‘prophet’ Smith says that intelligence can’t be created or made, one wonders if someday it might run out, and the spirit babies that these gods have will be born brain dead, (since the spirit babies are composed of some component of ‘intelligence’) or perhaps they will be born spiritually challenged, thus ending the ‘eternal round’ of billions upon billions of gods. There can only be so many apostates that get recycled into intelligences, and it’s only logical that someday, the supply will run out. (since intelligence can’t be created or made, there has to be a limited supply, right?)

And where are these “intelligences”? Do they just float about the cosmos like in some kind of Star Trek episode? How does the “intelligence” get into the spirit babies? How did the first “intelligence” get to be more intelligent than the rest? Did he go to intelligence school? I mean the questions are just endless, and none of the answers make any sense.

[_Equality]

Whatever. I was taught that Heavenly Father forked Mary. I know tons of LDS who believe it. The reason she was still considered a virgin was that she hadn't been forked by a human man. I swear.

Never known a SINGLE LDS save a couple nuts online that has believed that.
And I've lived in some 30 different wards/areas of the church.

This is an example of how the anti-mormon mind distorts reality. Even if what you say is true that you know some LDS who believe this, doesn't change the fact that it's simply a false view/interpretation, and not even representative of LDS thought. Again, I've been doing LDS scholarship for some 27 years, and lived all over the church.

It is all your imagination.

And in Brigham Young's, apparently:

The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.

http://journalofdiscourses.com/8/27

And Orson Pratt's:

The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully.

And Joseph Fielding Smith's:

They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches No Such Thing! Neither does the Bible!

And Ezra Taft Benson's:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost

I could cite many more examples. Either the Prophets of the LDS Church are confused about Mormon Doctrine or ldsfaqs is. Which is more likely?

[_sock puppet]

Whatever. I was taught that Heavenly Father forked Mary. I know tons of LDS who believe it. The reason she was still considered a virgin was that she hadn't been forked by a human man. I swear.

Never known a SINGLE LDS save a couple nuts online that has believed that.
And I've lived in some 30 different wards/areas of the church.

This is an example of how the anti-mormon mind distorts reality. Even if what you say is true that you know some LDS who believe this, doesn't change the fact that it's simply a false view/interpretation, and not even representative of LDS thought. Again, I've been doing LDS scholarship for some 27 years, and lived all over the church.

It is all your imagination.

And in Brigham Young's, apparently:

The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.

http://journalofdiscourses.com/8/27

And Orson Pratt's:

The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Savior unlawfully.

And Joseph Fielding Smith's:

They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches No Such Thing! Neither does the Bible!

And Ezra Taft Benson's:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost

I could cite many more examples. Either the Prophets of the LDS Church are confused about Mormon Doctrine or ldsfaqs is. Which is more likely?

ldsfaqs is simply demonstrating a common malady that afflicts mopologists. Upon hearing/reading unbelievers accurately describing an embarrassing LDS teaching, deny that it is an LDS teaching despite a plethora of statements by 'prophets, seers and revelators'. The LDS have so many embarrassing teachings, this is a go-to response for every mopologist. ldsfaqs included. It's a knee-jerk reaction. It was what GBH did when asked by Larry King about the King Follett Sermon.

[_mentalgymnast]

...scripture...dictate[s] several times that god is eternally unchanging. For your explaination I would have to accept that scripture isn't literal...

For scripture to be literal wouldn't it have to be literally 'God breathed'? Do you see the scriptural text as being the literal words of God from the first book of Genesis to the Book of Revelations?

...and if it is not literal I can derive no truth from it that holds any real meaning.

That sounds rather absolutist in outlooks and also limiting in what can be gained from an imperfect source. Is it all or nothing for you?

...I cannot trust the prophet to restore truths if I have to try to interpret whether the prophet is acting under true revelation, or is merely talking about his own interests.

And this is why the scriptures and the prophets teach the principle of individual access to God through prayer. Again, it seems as though you're taking an all or nothing position. You are also part of the equation. A true doctrine or principle "tastes good". If you throw out the whole platter without taking the time to taste and then ask God...you may be at a distinct disadvantage.

...if there is a point, and I miss the point, then I will lose out in the long run while all the lucky people get the point.

How does this dovetail with the idea that where much is given, much is expected. If a person intentionally misses the point for ulterior motives...aren't they missing the point? Maybe I'm missing the point...

...why creation was a necessity for God, if I'm guaranteed to be before him in the future, and given a chance to better myself to at least some level, even if that means not attaining Celestial [glory].

But isn't that the point? That God would bring as many souls to a greater state of perfection and/or self-actualization as possible? It seems as though looking at LDS doctrine that there seems to a 'free pass' or shortcut given to some...so, you say (I think)...why not beat the system and cut some corners to find yourself in a position by which you have the 'golden ticket'? Don't you think that it is reasonable to consider that: 1. God isn't going to let folks 'cheat' their way up the ladder? Scriptural references tell us that God/Christ is the gate keeper and no one can hop over the wall without the gatekeeper's approval. 2. Those that find themselves in a position by which they seem to get a 'free pass' have done something/proved themselves...say in the eternities before this world came into being...that provides a 'fast pass' position at the gate?

Why would a just and loving being design Adam with a flaw that would cause the fall of mankind and the suffering of billions, just for the plan of salvation to work, and further how can one claim that Adam had Agency?

According to LDS doctrine Adam's fall was a 'fortunate fall'. God knowing the end from the beginning knew that Adam and Eve would make the choices necessary to put the plan of salvation into effect. Adam wasn't 'flawed', he just 'was'. And being what he was, he and Eve made the choices that they did. Would you not think that their Father know them intimately? He walked in the Garden with them. I'd guess they were talking about more than baseball.

...God is all powerful, just because you cannot come up with a better solution [for a plan of salvation that doesn't seem to be full of holes] does not mean that God can not.

So I ask: can you define it or locate it within the systems of belief within the known history/geography of the world? If not, then why not Adam and Eve?

...why [would] a perfect being...deliberately design an imperfect being to experience his creation...

Mormon doctrine teaches that we are eternal beings...as is God. We are not 'designed'. We just 'are' and always have been. Yeah, tough to get your mind around...just like eternity. Is it not reasonable to think that IF this is the case, God is and always has been aware of the classroom experiences that those "less than He" in experience, knowledge, etc...um...all of us, need in order to reach our own potential? And that it takes work? No shortcuts.

Am I misunderstanding you? Are you saying that the 'plan of salvation' is non-nonsensical because imperfect beings are integrally intertwined in that plan? And that makes the PLAN imperfect?

...especially when his creation was meant to be perfect.

Oh? First, what does "creation" encompass in totality? Second, does natural law and/or the cosmic reality dictate, as a matter of fact, that the creation was meant to be...or in actuality...was/is perfect?

Why are you stating this as a 'truth'?

The fall of Adam not only damaged humanity...

LDS doctrine says that Adam fell that men might BE. Without the fall humanity would not have access to a probationary/testing phase. And again, as I said earlier, it seems that a dynamic/changing/evolving universe...plan of salvation/exaltation...provides a maximal position/opportunity for mankind to move forward in time and eternity rather that some kind of static/unchanging plan with an unchanging God at the helm.

...but damaged creation...

Again, if you're expecting a "perfect" creation...I ask...why? How does that make sense? What would it look like for one thing?

...that's a big design flaw...

you say.

...which suggests God wanted to break everything.

OK. Let's say that we do live in a 'broken' or 'fallen' world. Why would God want to have it this way? Agency anyone? Choice? Growth? Development? Oh, and the possibility of failure?

But even then, a plan in place for the happiness of almost ALL...

The brokenness put back together.

Had he not broken everything...

You're saying that God literally sabotaged...potential? Why in the world, no pun intended, would He do that?

...there would be no need for salvation...

Salvation is a reuniting with either what we once were and/or what we may become and to have knowledge of God and eternity before us. Why would you NOT want salvation? In effect, the way you're describing it, God breaks everything so that He can put it back together...as though no one else is even in the game or an active participant.

He would be perfect, Creation would be perfect, and presumably life would be perfect.

That's the way you would have it? And you're saying this is or should be the way things ARE? And if they are not, then God isn't?

...if I were to gain an adversary, someone who opposed me, someone who worked against me, but I was infinitely superior than them, I would make it so that they wouldn't be able to oppose me.

Why? What would that accomplish? Brings back memories of having read 1984. I'm sure that if God operated the way that you're dictating that He should that this would be just fine and dandy. We're ALL opposed...sinners...in the eyes of God, a perfect being. We all come short of His glory. We all have to receive His image in our countenances by coming into alignment with His will...rather than our own rebellious/carnal natures. You're saying that God should simply force us to be perfect/good? Yeah, that would work.

...Everything [Satan] does is guaranteed to end in failure...

He got one third right off the bat. If that's not success, what is success? And the numbers have only continued to go up from that primeval period in time until this very day. That's not failure. If Satan has control/influence over souls of men/women...again, that's success. And he's doing a pretty good job.

...he is facing someone infinitely better and more likely to win, and has no chance of success.

In the final analysis, after all the numbers have been crunched, that's true.

...if [Satan] know[s] [he's] going to lose, then there is no reason to fight, because the potential for reward is gone...

That POV doesn't seem to fit reality. He seems to be doing quite well in this world.

Prayer is offered as a real way to change reality, perhaps most notably in Helaman 11:4 in which, because of the prayer of the faithful, God intervenes and literally changes war into famine.

You've been reading the Book of Mormon the missionaries gave you...awesome sauce! May I suggest that as you read the Book of Mormon you also pick up Grant Hardy's, "Understanding the Book of Mormon" for a companion read?

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Boo ... 0199731705

This book will have more to say in regards to the complexity patterns in the Book of Mormon than the Elders will be likely to share with you. And again, don't forget Blake Ostler's writings linked to earlier.

Totalitarian societies only look brutal because of the person in charge being corrupt.

So the people in those societies are reaching maximal awareness of their own capabilities and opportunities for growth...relative to let's say...a free and non-totalitarian society/nation?

A truly good lord and master would be a wonderful person to live under without free will, because, in being truly good, any decision they make for me will have my interests in mind.

Hey, we agree on something.

However let's consider the following analogy instead. You are told that if you are subservient and without free will for, say, 5 years, the other 65 of your life, you get to live in paradise. This is a good deal, aye?

Yes.

70 years to eternity is a massive time difference, what is 70 years to the rest of existance, I would be prepared to live 70 years without free will if it guaranteed me the grace of God.

And that is indeed the state of things for a huge swath of humanity throughout the world's history. I'm hopeful that, as you say, they will all be beneficiaries of God's grace. Aren't you glad that you don't have to endure this scenario though? Makes you wonder what you did to deserve what blessings are yours, doesn't it? But remember, where much is given, much is expected. That's a pithy saying we hear all the time in the LDS Church. There may actually be some merit to that little pithy saying.

The best bit is, without free will, I wouldn't even know what I was missing.

That may be true. I wonder if it is always true though. If a person lacks love...do they know it?

...black people and the priesthood, in which it is claimed that until Brigham Young, black people did attain priesthood, but then until Kimball, no black person was permitted such. The span of over a century of a tree bearing no fruit, after it had already borne fruit.

I think ldsfaqs comments may apply here.

God is all powerful, if he has to reason with me as a man, he could do so as the best of men, the most compelling orator, the most influential discourse, the most sensible and intelligent arguments.

If God speaks to everyone in their own language and according to their own customs/traditions/beliefs/nature, then He may reason with you through the channels of science and philosophy...or sociology and the social sciences. You may find that as you investigate/pray/meditate that you can see God's hand/voice in your own life, in your own circumstances. Or, OTOH, maybe not. I suppose it depends, at least somewhat, on what you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

But He may speak to me or to someone else differently.

What we do have in common, however, are the scriptures in which God, purportedly anyway, speaks to all who will lend an ear...from the lowest to the greatest.

To claim that something is beyond God...

I don't think I would be as bold/presumptuous to make that claim. Although I do doubt that he can stand and keep His balance on the head of a pin. But then again, I could be surprised.

Thank you for your time in answering all of my questions, I'm glad you took the effort to attempt to do so.

And I'm also happy that you took the time to respond to someone who Gadianton would consider to be a 'lesser' light.

Best wishes to you...if you are indeed taking those missionary lessons you referred to earlier. You do seem to know at least one scripture...on the fly...from the Book of Mormon. Got to hand that to you.

Regards,
MG

[_ludwigm]

Must resist the jokes.

Don't resist that. It may cause mental problems...

I never resist --- then my comments lands regularly in Outer Darkness.
You know, the place where no edit, no delete, no answer, no explanation, no excuse, no nothing.
The only (theoretic) way is a PM, which is, by default, a sacred cow. One may not mention it, may not refer to, may not quote.
And so the circle was closed. ( https://books.google.hu/books?id=PJMFcw ... 22&f=false )

---------------------------------
Ooops!
After seven example without a break, ldsfaqs conquered the first place on OD !!!
I take it --- from Shades --- as a gift of my 70th birthday, which was on 1st April. A special thank to everybody who congrated me on that event. Khm... actually nobody...