1 Nephi 14:10-12 'There are save two churchds only'

[_charity]

Here we see your reasoning department shut down completely again as you offer ridiculous rationale as a means to make yourself feel good.

And here we see your lame attempt at mindreading.

Sometimes cultural traditions take a while to die out. It was so bad with the Children of Israel they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years until the older generation all died, except for Joshua.

This isn’t a cultural tradition.

If you are as sure of that statement as you are of my mental state, you are way, way off base.

There is doctrine, and there is the understanding of it. We are led by prophets today. Prophets didn't end with Joseph Smith, or even Brigham Young.

No the Church began with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. Now you’re telling me their understanding of the verse should be flipped on its head because you think it is time that “tradition” died out? What gives you that kind of authority?

I am not contradicting their espousal of doctrine. And I listen to modern prophets.

If you look back to the First Vision, Joseph said Christ used the word "creeds" and the "professors" of those creeds. He never said everybody who belongs to any formal church organization is of the devil.

That is what this verse says. Stop trying to create another straw man. Nobody is basing this belief on their comments about creeds.

Another attempt at mindreading.

But this wouldn’t give you any wiggle room either since Brigham Young distinguished between the Christian world and Mormonism, regularly calling the former the worst things imaginable.

And in those days most of the denominations were quite different from what they are today. One of their leader ministers said of Joseph Smith's death, "Too bad he didn't die 10 years sooner." Really Christian, don't you think. I don't wonder Brigham Young had a few harsh words for them.

by the way, styleguy, McConkie was not a prophet.

by the way, dartagnon, Elder McConkie was sustained as a prophet, seer and revelator twice a year for 13 years. He wasn't THE prophet. He was A prophet.

[_mentalgymnast]

But you can give us no examples of well informed people joining the Church as adults.

Gotta disagree with you Mr. Graham if you are saying none such exist. I know plenty of people who joined the Church as adults who were quite well informed and even baptized a few as a missionary. They had been through anti LDS literature, met with the minister of the Church they were leaving and still joined. Maybe they are not a whole lot of these but they are there.

In High Priest's quorum today the topic of the lesson was related to two talks from this last General Conference. One of the talks was called, " It's True, Isn't It? Then What Else Matters"

http://www.LDS.org/conference/talk/disp ... 26,00.html

We discussed how various men in the group developed faith/testimony and those who did so as an investigator/convert to the church. One fellow gave his story having to do with his conversion. Part of his conversion process involved intense scrutiny/study of anti-mormon literature and as Joseph Smith said, "proving contraries". He has been active and had a "rock" solid testimony for the many years he has been a member. Bright guy. Just one example from one ward...just today.

Regards,
MG

[_dartagnan]

For someone with an advanced degree in psychology, you sure do appear ignorant of everything I posted regarding confirmation bias. You think I’m mind reading? Mind-reading isn’t necessary thanks to modern science. Your reason-free responses fit the category described by Shermer and Westen perfectly. You offer only silly rhetoric which doesn’t refute anything presented, nor was it ever intended to; again, fitting their description to a T.

The whole purpose of your presence here is not debate. If it were then you’d actually respond to points with reasonable and sound responses instead of baseless rhetoric. I doubt even you believe you’re impressing anyone here but yourself. You’re here for your own benefit. You’re here to self-sooth. You’re here to spout off at everyone who presents troubling aspects of the Church. This is how you deal with it. It isn’t through reasoning. It is through confirmation bias; whatever you can do to make all the troubling reality go away. It is the apologists’ miracle drug and you’re a complete junkie.

And in those days most of the denominations were quite different from what they are today.

Even a seven year old knows that this verse speaks of TWO Churches. Did you get that? TWO! It said there are ONLY two. If you don’t fall into the former, you fall into the latter. If you are a Church then you are represented, and it is clear Joseph Smith didn’t consider other Christian Churches the Church of God. They fell into the latter category. Your interpretation pretty much leaves out the vast majority of churches as unrepresented.

Your nonsense about cultural tradition and creeds is just desperation; diversionary techniques integral to your confirmation bias processes.

One of their leader ministers said of Joseph Smith's death, "Too bad he didn't die 10 years sooner." Really Christian, don't you think. I don't wonder Brigham Young had a few harsh words for them.

This is another perfect example of a reason-free rhetorical response. You cannot handle the fact that Brigham Young hated the Christian world. Instead of reconciling this with the Christ-like attributes we’re told to strive for, you try to rationalize this some way to make yourself feel better about this unpleasant fact. So you appeal to the two wrongs make a right fallacy. And you’re probably inventing this citation anyway, not that it would make a difference and make Brigham’s attitude justified.

by the way, Bruce R. McConkie was not “prophet, seer and revelator” when he published his comments in Mormon Doctrine.

[_charity]

by the way, Bruce R. McConkie was not “prophet, seer and revelator” when he published his comments in Mormon Doctrine.

I will leave it to other posters to see how your rabid inaccurate characterizations of me and what I say are out in the blue yonder.

by the way, the edition of Mormon Doctrine I have was published in 1979. Elder McConkie was an apostle from 1972-1985. So let's display the logic here.

Apostles are sustained as prohpets, seers, and revelators.
Elder McConkie was sustained as an apostle in 1972.
Mormon Doctrine was published as a revised edition in 1979.

Therefore, Mormon Doctrine was published when Elder McConkie was a prophet.

I will be waiting for your admission of error. Thanks.

[_dartagnan]

I will leave it to other posters to see how your rabid inaccurate characterizations of me and what I say are out in the blue yonder.

Bad idea. The only person impressed with charity is charity.

And I always get a kick at the way you guys keep the same jargon in full swing. Rabid? Canard? It is just the same limited vocabulary amateur apologists have always called upon when they cannot formulate coherent counter-arguments in response to the data.

by the way, the edition of Mormon Doctrine I have was published in 1979. Elder McConkie was an apostle from 1972-1985. So let's display the logic here.

Logic doesn’t work with you. Not only are you a straw man machine working overtime, but you employ every fallacy known to man without the slightest clue of what you’re doing. But it is funny how you blew aside 95% of my refutation and then suddenly, when you see a tiny window to prove me wrong on a minor point, you want to ignite discussion again. Unfortunately for you, you haven’t scored any points here either.

Apostles are sustained as prohpets, seers, and revelators.
Elder McConkie was sustained as an apostle in 1972.
Mormon Doctrine was published as a revised edition in 1979.

Therefore, Mormon Doctrine was published when Elder McConkie was a prophet.

I will be waiting for your admission of error. Thanks.

Are you truly this stupid? Have you forgotten the context of my statement already? It was in response to styleguy's comment.

Styleguy was obviously referring to McConkie’s “whore of Babylon” comment found in the Mormon Doctrine which was published more than a decade before McConkie became an apostle. He alluded to his statement as a “prophet, seer and revelator” which I noted he was not. This bigoted comment towards Catholicism was in the first printing published in 1958 - which you disingenuously neglected to inform your audience - when McConkie was a General Authority, but not “prophet, seer and revelator”. So let’s play real logic here.

The Church allowed McConkie to reprint his book with the necessary modifications in 1966. McConkie wasn’t made an Apostle until 1972. The version you own (1979) was published for the sole purpose of accommodating Spencer Kimball’s “revelation” about blacks in the priesthood.

Technically, a third version of Mormon Doctrine was published when McConkie was an apostle, but the version that matters was not published during that time. In other words, he never made these bigoted comments as “prophet, seer and revelator,” so styleguy’s comment needed a correction, and my comment is valid.

[_karl61]

I stand corrected: thanks for the correction. I never really read it but just heard about it. But I do agree that if you are not in the LDS church then you are in the other one - the church of the great whore.

[Guest]

Anyone who has his/her calling and election made sure are LDS.

Just as I thought.

Anyone who is "headed toward" the Church of the Lamb, even though they may be in other earthly organizaitons.

This sentence makes no sense, so please complete it. If they are "headed toward" something, they are not in it. Therefore, they are in the church of the devil until they convert and accept what you consider the fullness of the ordinances (basically, become LDS; nitpicking and juggling semantics and talking about meetinghouses isn't going to help you).

"Taking people down with him" is people who try to destroy the faith of others. It doesn't have to be door to door. There are DVD's. Did you hear what happend with the "Jesus vs Joseph" DVD? The distributors were given specific isntructions to go to LDS homes while they were not there, hang a little baggie containing the DVD and rushing back to their vans so they wouldn't encounter any LDS. Polygamy Porter has declared his intention. Sethbag, pretty much, too.

Well, aren't missionaries trying to destroy the faith of others in whatever church they may currently be attending? I've never heard of the "Jesus vs. Joseph" DVD, but it sounds to me from the name of it that they were not fighting against Jesus, but against Joseph who they think fought against Jesus. Am I wrong? They are doing the same thing the missionaries are doing.

I don't know of many atheists who want to completely change people's opinions on not killing people or not stealing, for instance.

I will leave your accusations against the prophets alone sinceit is obviously a blend of presentism, a Biblical double standard and a porjection of your own repressed sexual desires on others.

Gotta love how you figured out my repressed sexual desires so quickly, Ms. Freud. Gotta love how you are so quick to judge people despite your advanced Psych degree which you like to rub in people's faces even though I doubt you are truly able to distance yourself from your biases for true science. What are you, my therapist?

Suddenly repressed sexual desires are bad when you want to fling some crap in the direction of a person who disagrees with you. But it's a must when you are gay or want to masturbate.

If you want to think that Joseph, Brigham, and the next few prophets after them did not have sex with multiple women, feel free to deny the obvious. I guess they had no sexual desires to repress because they've acted them all out. Whereas I, who has only had sex with one person, must have a buttload of things to repress.

My opinion of your intelligence will really sink if I believe you think homosexuals are being affectionate in a non-sexual way! This is the perfect place for a ROFL smiley if this board had smilies.

Are you suggesting that they are not capable of being affectionate in a non-sexual way? I would insert a ROFL smiley here. What about kissing, hugging, complimenting each other, etc. - none of which the Church wants them to do; it wants them to downplay their sexuality and basically keep it a secret, as well as sever any ties to people who openly identify themselves as gay.

I suggest you watch this video and then tell me what you think of that guy. He's a virgin, but he is being affectionate with other gay people. I suppose the impossible has happened. Wow! Gay people are actually capable of restraint and don't actually try to hump everything that moves when given an indication that their attention is welcome. Also, tell me whether or not you think that Church leaders would approve of his behavior. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. I think this documentary is a little hopeful in their regard, but it was made before the new gay pamphlet was released and DHO made his bigotry publicly known.

I was referring more to trying to interfere with non-LDS people's business and imposing LDS doctrinal mentality on them. Incidentally, I also think that gay people will be able to marry in the temple within my lifetime. You might be spared the sight of it, though, since there are a few decades of age difference between us, it seems.

ROFL!!!!!

Yeah, just laugh it off instead of addressing the crux of the issue - why doesn't the Church mind its own business and avoid meddling with other people's choices?

So most people belong to the church of the devil since they might be involved with these organizations in one way or the other, especially the NEA and publishers?

To the extent that they are involved, yes they are. You only asked for homosexual organizations, but I can add a bunch of others. NARL, Planned Parenthood (the part that supports abortion), NAMBLA, producers and distributors of pornography. Just to name a few.

How can you be in the church of the devil "to an extent"? You either are or are not. This makes it pretty clear how "tolerant" you really are of differing viewpoints. Anyone who disagrees with you on issues slightly more serious than which potato salad recipe is the best is in the church of the devil, it seems.

Oh, pu-leeze. Abstinence is required of many people. Chastity is one of the most important virtues. I thought you would have understood that. You should go to the LDS.org and read Elder Holland's talk on same sex attraction. You would learn something.

Oh, pu-leeze. How convenient for you to assume my ignorance on these matters. I've read all those talks, pamphlets, etc. I'm well-informed, thank you, and I suggest that you part with this idea of yours that I "don't understand". Now that the Church has admitted that there is no hope for some people of ever becoming straight (it only took them a few decades to figure it out after most of the rest of the population did), they are basically saying that there is no hope for people who are fully functional mentally, attractive and otherwise would make a desirable partner for someone of ever having sex. this is different. Single straight people always may have that hope. Two of the current apostles have married old maids, after all. And don't give me the tired comparison to mentally differently abled people. Not to mention the fact that the attitudes are changing and some people with Down syndrome are getting married to each other, which I think is great.

I suppose going and paying tutition to any college that doesn't kick out people who have gay sex would also constitute membership in the church of the devil. Boy, you really can't be too careful these days. Better follow the example of Colorado City and move to an isolated compound.

That is pretty over the top.

You are dodging the point. Again. Where did you get your degrees? I'll venture to assume at least one of them was not BYU. Did the school(s) or did they not kick people out for having gay sex? If not, congratulations! You are in the church of the devil by your own standards. At least you were when you were attending. But since you have used what you gained through your participation in those Satanic institution for advancing your career, it could be argued that you still are.

With the spirit of discernment we can tell which is which.

I'm glad you have enough confidence to assert your spirit of discernemnt is more reliable than that of BY, who could not differentiate between reality and his own opinion on who God is, apparently. Or GBH, who paid a decent price for some forgeries.

Don't you want to address what Titus had to say about it?

I think that very few people are free from conscience. Sociopaths. And there are genetic and biological factors involved in APD. I would also like to avoid assigning full or perhaps any responsibility to them for their condition.

Also, your assumption that light of Christ=conscience is rested solely on McConkie's claim. I don't put much stock into the spirit of discernment, given existing evidence. But if it is, you have no argument. See the paragraph above.

I suppose it depends on how lax you are willing to allow the definition of "moral code" to become. If you don't think abortion is a crime, then it isn't immoral to engage in it. If single people having sex isn't immoral in your view, then a moral prohibition and the obligation to live it doesn't even come up on your radar screen. Add in pornorgraphy, etc. Marital fidelity is corrleated with strength of religious belief. Abortion is also found in much higher incidence in non-religious or non-practicing religious populations.

So what you mean by "moral code" is the current LDS moral code. I see. Your arrogance is apparent. Again. You have only included the points that seem important to you. What about opposition to capital punishment, supporting the right to choose what happens to your body, equal rights for all people, pacifism, erasing artificially created geographical borders? I think all those are pretty important, but most LDS hold different opinions on these matters, judging from what I've seen.

I think that LDS attitudes and lobbies concerning gay people, women's rights and their lack of denunciationand and even expressed support of violent and/or anti-UN global conflicts are doing way more harm to society than single people having sex, watching pornography in which only consenting parties are involved, or even having abortions (I don't think abortions are a good idea, but I suspect that if there was less social stigma rooted in religious beliefs, less women would be having abortions).

[_Blixa]

So what you mean by "moral code" is the current LDS moral code. I see. Your arrogance is apparent. Again. You have only included the points that seem important to you. What about opposition to capital punishment, supporting the right to choose what happens to your body, equal rights for all people, pacifism, erasing artificially created geographical borders? I think all those are pretty important, but most LDS hold different opinions on these matters, judging from what I've seen.

Thanks for summarizing this so eloquently, Zoidberg.

Even as a small child I was surprised that for many LDS people, especially the leaders, "morality," rather than indicating a broad range of ethical positions was instead equated only with a narrow and repressive set of sexual restrictions.

[_charity]

It is just the same limited vocabulary amateur apologists have always called upon when they cannot formulate coherent counter-arguments in response to the data.

Data? You've got data? How come you haven't ever shown us any data?

by the way, the edition of Mormon Doctrine I have was published in 1979. Elder McConkie was an apostle from 1972-1985. So let's display the logic here.

Logic doesn’t work with you. Not only are you a straw man machine working overtime, but you employ every fallacy known to man without the slightest clue of what you’re doing. But it is funny how you blew aside 95% of my refutation and then suddenly, when you see a tiny window to prove me wrong on a minor point, you want to ignite discussion again. Unfortunately for you, you haven’t scored any points here either.

All I saw was a bunch "did not either" statements. I didn't want to waste key strokes replying back in kind with "did so, too."

Apostles are sustained as prohpets, seers, and revelators.
Elder McConkie was sustained as an apostle in 1972.
Mormon Doctrine was published as a revised edition in 1979.

Therefore, Mormon Doctrine was published when Elder McConkie was a prophet.

I will be waiting for your admission of error. Thanks.

Are you truly this stupid? Have you forgotten the context of my statement already? It was in response to styleguy's comment.

Styleguy was obviously referring to McConkie’s “whore of Babylon” comment found in the Mormon Doctrine which was published more than a decade before McConkie became an apostle. He alluded to his statement as a “prophet, seer and revelator” which I noted he was not. This bigoted comment towards Catholicism was in the first printing published in 1958 - which you disingenuously neglected to inform your audience - when McConkie was a General Authority, but not “prophet, seer and revelator”. So let’s play real logic here.

And it was revised. Did you miss that part? You could change your mind about something. Don't you allow anyone else the same privilege?

The Church allowed McConkie to reprint his book with the necessary modifications in 1966. McConkie wasn’t made an Apostle until 1972. The version you own (1979) was published for the sole purpose of accommodating Spencer Kimball’s “revelation” about blacks in the priesthood.

Technically, a third version of Mormon Doctrine was published when McConkie was an apostle, but the version that matters was not published during that time. In other words, he never made these bigoted comments as “prophet, seer and revelator,” so styleguy’s comment needed a correction, and my comment is valid

Nice history on the publicaiton of the book. But it just shows, you don't understand the meaning of the different revisions. And the way in which LDS view the statements of men, even General Authorities, which are not scripture. You are more educated that most former Mormons. But you don't seem to understand this..

[_harmony]

Nice history on the publicaiton of the book. But it just shows, you don't understand the meaning of the different revisions. And the way in which LDS view the statements of men, even General Authorities, which are not scripture. You are more educated that most former Mormons. But you don't seem to understand this.

A couple of thoughts:

1. Kevin holds his status very close. No one knows if he's still a member, or if he's a former member. For you to assert anything about him, let alone the status of his membership, is out of line to the max.

2. For you to assert that Kevin (or any of us) doesn't understand anything about the LDS church, including the revisions to Mormon Doctrine, is the height of hubris. He understands it at least as well as you do, and likely moreso, judging by your comments here. Many of us have spent many many years in the church. Some of us are no longer in, but some of us still are. Your assumptions are ill-founded here.