False enough for me

[_cinepro]

About the best I can do at this juncture on this topic is to quote from Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Neither the biblical records nor secular history and archaeological research identify the dimensions or the location of the garden in terms of the present-day surface of the earth. Latter-day revelation specifies that as a mortal, Adam lived at Adam-ondi-ahman in what is now Daviess County, Missouri.

Early church leaders taught that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.

Beyond that, who knows?

Regards,
MG

The location of Adam-ondi-ahman wasn't the issue. The issue was whether the contents of the Sunday School Lesson manuals is official doctrine or not. I was just pointing out that it would create problems for many apologists if they were bound to treat the manuals as such, since it would close off some wiggle room that has become critical to maintaining belief.

But I suppose your fall back to a non-doctrinal source will make my point just as well.

[_mentalgymnast]

...you ALL look like man-made churches....

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?

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

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?

[_Jason Bourne]

No redefining necessary as I put my money where my mouth is.

I understand your frustration because I have debated this with other apologists as well. However, I think the Church put out the official statement referenced in my siggy to correct them.

The statement in your sig line is not an official statement from the church. It is a press release. When the FP puts this out under their name and sign it alonog with the 12 then maybe we will really have something official that defines LDS doctrine. Till that time you are just blowing in the wind and offering your interpretation that actually differs quite significantly from many of your other apologist friends.

[_Jason Bourne]

But notice bcspace's sentence above? It's a little hole to slip through. You always need a little loop hole: "if there is a conflict, the newer publication Trump's"

Not at all. It simply recognizes that continuing revelation is part of the systematic theology of the LDS Church. Notice Tarski's lack of examples. He's unwilling to go to LDS doctrine because of the strawman church he's built up overr the years.[/quote]

But what happens when new revelation overturns the old. For example in the KFD Joseph Smith says we had supposed God was God from all eternity but now he was going to refute that idea. So for his entire ministry until shortly before his death he taught and believed God was God from all eternity but then made a pretty huge change. And of course BY thought Adam was God-(no BC Elden Watson's two Adam theory fails miserably to explain this away. Even as a hobby apologist I could never buy into it) and then President Kimball later declared Adam God a false teaching. Then there is that polygamy thing and it being required for exaltation and never giving it up and so on.

[_truth dancer]

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~

[_Jason Bourne]

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. After all the one living is supposed to be the one we trust to get it right today. Correct?

So what you say is the Mormon Prophets really did not understand a whole lot and had to wade through it like everyone else.

Yes. Brigham said as much. Amazing, when you think about it. With full knowledge of what he was saying (what an admission!!)...[I]and of what Joseph Smith had already said he saw YEARS earlier.[/I

well if it is all so messy then why does the Church get uptight when members deviate on issues of doctrine and threaten with excommunication as an apostate. If they get so much wrong and so very little right what do I need them for? Why should I let them tell me how I should dress, how many earings my daughter should have, stop me from having a glass of wine with a good dinner out, keep me out of the temple for drinking green tea which is very good for you, make my tithe on gross income vs. net increase after taxes and reasonable living expenses, and on and on and on. and why should I let them define who God is for me when they seem not so sure about who and what he is. If I reject in infinite regression and multiplicity of Gods where does that leave me?

[_mentalgymnast]

We aren't any different from other churches as they are from us.

Which can be taken to say that there is a whole lot of difference.

I suppose that would be another thread though. I don't know that I have any interest in debating the important/crucial differences between the LDS church and other forms of Christianity.

Regards,
MG

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

[_mentalgymnast]

About the best I can do at this juncture on this topic is to quote from Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Neither the biblical records nor secular history and archaeological research identify the dimensions or the location of the garden in terms of the present-day surface of the earth. Latter-day revelation specifies that as a mortal, Adam lived at Adam-ondi-ahman in what is now Daviess County, Missouri.

Early church leaders taught that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.

Beyond that, who knows?

Regards,
MG

The location of Adam-ondi-ahman wasn't the issue. The issue was whether the contents of the Sunday School Lesson manuals is official doctrine or not. I was just pointing out that it would create problems for many apologists if they were bound to treat the manuals as such, since it would close off some wiggle room that has become critical to maintaining belief.

But I suppose your fall back to a non-doctrinal source will make my point just as well.

I realize this was off thread. But it is an interesting subject. I suppose that I tend to fall back to the D&C section that refers to all things being made known when the Lord returns. How the earth was made, etc. I suppose that he would be able to give the correct and complete information.

Regards,
MG