Student who's studying Mormonism

[_Yoda]

Basically, we just want everyone to feel welcome. Dis-inviting someone from the board is rude and inappropriate. Everyone has a voice here. We'll leave the rudeness to the MAD'ites.

Also, Nehor's comment is incorrect. There are members of the faith who post here. I am one of them.

[_Buffalo]

It's actually the ex-mormons who will give you a closer idea to the doctrines believed by actual Mormons in real life. Apologetic Mormonism with its alternative version of Mormonism exists mostly on the internet.

[_The Nehor]

It's actually the ex-Mormons who will give you a closer idea to the doctrines believed by actual Mormons in real life. Apologetic Mormonism with its alternative version of Mormonism exists mostly on the internet.

Nope.

[_Buffalo]

It's actually the ex-Mormons who will give you a closer idea to the doctrines believed by actual Mormons in real life. Apologetic Mormonism with its alternative version of Mormonism exists mostly on the internet.

Nope.

Yup. If you listen to apologists, you'll learn that practically nothing is "official doctrine." That's not what real members of the church believe.

[_Obiwan]

Yup. If you listen to apologists, you'll learn that practically nothing is "official doctrine." That's not what real members of the church believe.

Nope.... What we are actually arguing (instead of your misrepresentation) is that we have a different standard that you do as to what and how such and such is "doctine". You want to place your standard upon us, and that sorry to tell you never was/is Mormonism.

Further, ex-mormons are not the accurate judge of Mormonism. Mormon apologist or not ALL agree with one another. The only difference is the apologist actually deals with the issues in question and can properly and fully answer. Sometimes the layman isn't the best prepared or doesn't give the fullest and most accurate answer they can. Of course, I'm speaking of the "challenges" against Mormonism, not the basic faith itself. None of this somehow means we don't believe the same Mormonism and don't agree with each other, because we do.

Further, "official doctrine" is clear. Just because anti-mormons want to make every "fringe" issue (or their own misrepresentations of the issues) as official doctrine when they in nearly all cases aren't, doesn't mean we don't know or have official doctrine.

[_Dr. Shades]

Nope.... What we are actually arguing (instead of your misrepresentation) is that we have a different standard that you do as to what and how such and such is "doctine". . . Further, "official doctrine" is clear. Just because anti-Mormons want to make every "fringe" issue (or their own misrepresentations of the issues) as official doctrine when they in nearly all cases aren't, doesn't mean we don't know or have official doctrine.

Okay, then let's stop haggling about doctrine. From now on we'll only focus on your beliefs. Sound FAIR?

Mormon apologist or not ALL agree with one another.

Was Noah's Flood a temporal baptism of the earth by immersion or by sprinkling?

The only difference is the apologist actually deals with the issues in question and can properly and fully answer.

As opposed to the prophets and apostles who can't?

Sometimes the layman isn't the best prepared or doesn't give the fullest and most accurate answer they can.

"I don't know that we teach that."

Of course, I'm speaking of the "challenges" against Mormonism, not the basic faith itself. None of this somehow means we don't believe the same Mormonism and don't agree with each other, because we do.

Was God once a man?

[_Buffalo]

Yup. If you listen to apologists, you'll learn that practically nothing is "official doctrine." That's not what real members of the church believe.

Nope.... What we are actually arguing (instead of your misrepresentation) is that we have a different standard that you do as to what and how such and such is "doctine". You want to place your standard upon us, and that sorry to tell you never was/is Mormonism.

Further, ex-Mormons are not the accurate judge of Mormonism. Mormon apologist or not ALL agree with one another. The only difference is the apologist actually deals with the issues in question and can properly and fully answer. Sometimes the layman isn't the best prepared or doesn't give the fullest and most accurate answer they can. Of course, I'm speaking of the "challenges" against Mormonism, not the basic faith itself. None of this somehow means we don't believe the same Mormonism and don't agree with each other, because we do.

Further, "official doctrine" is clear. Just because anti-Mormons want to make every "fringe" issue (or their own misrepresentations of the issues) as official doctrine when they in nearly all cases aren't, doesn't mean we don't know or have official doctrine.

Real members don't have any concept of "official doctrine." It's all just doctrine - you know, the stuff that's taught in church and the stuff that the prophets teach. You know you're lying. I know you're lying. Why bother?

[_kavintenison]

Hi to all I'm also newbie. I truly telling you guys, I don't like to talk about Any religions. I believe on that we all are live in one world, so we all are same.