Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[MG 2.0]

The things we leave out, however, always speak just as loudly as what we include. You, for instance, decry the fact that I won't repeat my spiritual history and beliefs, each time we meet.

As I mentioned earlier, what is of more interest to me is what people believe…not what they disbelieve. And in the realm of this board and its participants where belief has taken them after their non belief in the mission/purpose/message of the restoration.

drumdude opened up a bit. canpakes (although I don’t think she’s ever been a member of the church) did so too. I found that refreshing and helpful. But if you would rather not be a bit vulnerable and transparent, that’s OK. I won’t ask you again.

I thought there was more to your comment that what we don’t say might speak louder than what we actually say, or something to that effect. I was curious as to what you might be referring to.

I guess this was it.

Anything else? Although, the fact is, I came right out and made that request (that you state what you believe)…it wasn’t something I left unsaid. So I’m still not sure what you were referring to when it comes right down to it. I think I came right out and said everything that I wanted to say…and quite explicitly.

As it is, I appreciate your participation and your push back here and there.

Keeps me on my toes!

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

The things we leave out, however, always speak just as loudly as what we include. You, for instance, decry the fact that I won't repeat my spiritual history and beliefs, each time we meet.

As I mentioned earlier, what is of more interest to me is what people believe…not what they disbelieve. And in the realm of this board and its participants where belief has taken them after their non belief in the mission/purpose/message of the restoration.

drumdude opened up a bit. canpakes (although I don’t think she’s ever been a member of the church) did so too. I found that refreshing and helpful. But if you would rather not be a bit vulnerable and transparent, that’s OK. I won’t ask you again.

I thought there was more to your comment that what we don’t say might speak louder than what we actually say, or something to that effect. I was curious as to what you might be referring to.

I guess this was it.

Anything else? Although, the fact is, I came right out and made that request (that you state what you believe)…it wasn’t something I left unsaid. So I’m still not sure what you were referring to when it comes right down to it. I think I came right out and said everything that I wanted to say…and quite explicitly.

As it is, I appreciate your participation and your push back here and there.

Keeps me on my toes!

Regards,
MG

I was referring to what I may have left unsaid.

[I Have Questions]

Here’s what you said:

Here, as an example, is what the Church actually teaches about resurrection:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng



https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

You’ve made numerous errors in your representation of the gospel. I’ve just given you one example. I would recommend you revisit the Gospel Doctrine manual as a starting point, and maybe get the missionaries to teach you as an “investigator”. That way you won’t mislead people as to what the Gospel is/isn’t.

Hi IHAQ, as you are probably aware there has been discussion about those whom are referred to as the sons of perdition. Whether or not they will be resurrected. There have been differing opinions and pronouncements falling into the shade of gray area. President Kimball had his opinions as did John Widstoe and Brigham Young.

Sons of Perdition you say…

The followers of Satan who will suffer with him in eternity. Sons of perdition include (1) those who followed Satan and were cast out of heaven for rebellion during premortality and (2) those who were permitted to be born to this world with physical bodies but then served Satan and turned utterly against God. Those in this second group will be resurrected from the dead

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

So, either not part of mankind, or will be resurrected. Your error still stands. You need to study more from trusted sources and avoid presenting your personal speculation as if it were gospel doctrine.

[Marcus]

I wouldn’t be surprised to see that time come at some point. Some of the earlier church leaders alluded to that possibility. But I don’t know why you are personally concerned with that. You’re keeping that 10%+ in your pocket as it is.

Regards,
MG

Because the church is still teaching members to blindly pay even if they can’t afford it. They’re telling members that some miracle will happen to fill in the gap. It’s predatory. The church should be teaching that tithing is optional, just like temple attendance is optional.

Especially when they’re also facing a lawsuit for fraud, because Hinkley lied and said no tithing funds would be used for the Citycreek mall.

It was especially galling to read that an LDS leader told the president of then Zaire that 'we are not a wealthy people but we share what we have...'

The president was asking for help for his country re access to water (water!!!!), while the LDS church was actively hoarding 100s of billions of dollars.

Then an LDS leader told African members that if they would pay tithing, poverty would end. He told this lie (or, prophesy?) to a group for whom losing 10% of their incomes is an almost intolerable burden.

The LDS church is actively taking advantage of members who believe and trust them. It's no coincidence this is also a group with the lowest percent of citizens with even basic internet connection. That's why the Mormon insistence that tithing must be paid in order to participate in saving ordinances is so horrifying.

[MG 2.0]

Hi IHAQ, as you are probably aware there has been discussion about those whom are referred to as the sons of perdition. Whether or not they will be resurrected. There have been differing opinions and pronouncements falling into the shade of gray area. President Kimball had his opinions as did John Widstoe and Brigham Young.

Sons of Perdition you say…

The followers of Satan who will suffer with him in eternity. Sons of perdition include (1) those who followed Satan and were cast out of heaven for rebellion during premortality and (2) those who were permitted to be born to this world with physical bodies but then served Satan and turned utterly against God. Those in this second group will be resurrected from the dead

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

So, either not part of mankind, or will be resurrected. Your error still stands. You need to study more from trusted sources and avoid presenting your personal speculation as if it were gospel doctrine.

Those who become sons of perdition share the same fate as the devil and his angels. Lucifer has even been called “Perdition” in some LDS books, and those who follow him are known as his “sons” (Mormon Doctrine, p.746). What is this fate? Brigham Young taught that their bodies and spirits would ultimately be dissolved to their original state and that they must then be reorganized to begin life again in another god’s universe (Journal of Discourses 1:118). John Widtsoe clarified the teaching further, explaining that “the ultimate punishment of the sons of perdition may be that they, having their spiritual bodies disorganized, must start over again, must begin anew the long journey of existence, repeating the steps that they took in the eternities before the Great Council was held” (Evidence and Reconciliations, pp. 213-214).

----------

President Kimball:
In the days of the restoration there apparently were those who taught that the devil and his angels and the sons of perdition should sometime be restored. The Prophet Joseph Smith would not countenance the teaching of this doctrine, and sanctioned the decision of the bishop that any who taught it should be barred from communion.

In the realms of perdition or the kingdom of darkness, where there is no light, Satan and the unembodied spirits of the pre-existence shall dwell together with those of mortality who retrogress to the level of perdition. These have lost the power of regeneration. They have sunk so low as to have lost the inclinations and ability to repent, consequently the gospel plan is useless to them as an agent of growth and development.

https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2 ... perdition/

As I said earlier, this particular point of doctrine has been under discussion off and on throughout church history. If you feel comfortable staking out a hard position, that’s fine.

I won’t argue with you.

Nonetheless, I think we can agree that there are certain core doctrines that are central to the beliefs of its members and the instruction that comes over the pulpit at conference.

The resurrection is a central/core doctrine.

The list drumdude put up should not take away from these core doctrines. Unfortunately, in my opinion, those peripheral issues cause some to lose their testimonies and leave the church.

You may be able to speak to that.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Sons of Perdition you say…


https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

So, either not part of mankind, or will be resurrected. Your error still stands. You need to study more from trusted sources and avoid presenting your personal speculation as if it were gospel doctrine.

Those who become sons of perdition share the same fate as the devil and his angels. Lucifer has even been called “Perdition” in some LDS books, and those who follow him are known as his “sons” (Mormon Doctrine, p.746). What is this fate? Brigham Young taught that their bodies and spirits would ultimately be dissolved to their original state and that they must then be reorganized to begin life again in another god’s universe (Journal of Discourses 1:118). John Widtsoe clarified the teaching further, explaining that “the ultimate punishment of the sons of perdition may be that they, having their spiritual bodies disorganized, must start over again, must begin anew the long journey of existence, repeating the steps that they took in the eternities before the Great Council was held” (Evidence and Reconciliations, pp. 213-214).

----------

President Kimball:
In the days of the restoration there apparently were those who taught that the devil and his angels and the sons of perdition should sometime be restored. The Prophet Joseph Smith would not countenance the teaching of this doctrine, and sanctioned the decision of the bishop that any who taught it should be barred from communion.

In the realms of perdition or the kingdom of darkness, where there is no light, Satan and the unembodied spirits of the pre-existence shall dwell together with those of mortality who retrogress to the level of perdition. These have lost the power of regeneration. They have sunk so low as to have lost the inclinations and ability to repent, consequently the gospel plan is useless to them as an agent of growth and development.

https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2 ... perdition/

As I said earlier, this particular point of doctrine has been under discussion off and on throughout church history. If you feel comfortable staking out a hard position, that’s fine.

I won’t argue with you.

Nonetheless, I think we can agree that there are certain core doctrines that are central to the beliefs of its members and the instruction that comes over the pulpit at conference.

The resurrection is a central/core doctrine.

The list drumdude put up should not take away from these core doctrines. Unfortunately, in my opinion, those peripheral issues cause some to lose their testimonies and leave the church.

You may be able to speak to that.

Regards,
MG

From your linked source:

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this website do not represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I refer you to official church sources and the church website to clarify any doctrinal questions

You're still in error with regards to your claim about what the Church’s core beliefs are. Mike Day’s personal speculation is irrelevant. You will note that I’ve supplied links to official church sources, not some random bloke’s personal website.

It’s okay to be wrong MG. Try and learn from the experience. You need to stay away from junk sites like Brother Day’s and stick with trusted church sources.

[MG 2.0]

You're still in error with regards to your claim about what the Church’s core beliefs are.

Well, I checked Mormon Doctrine and BYU Studies and looked at references on the church website. The established doctrine is that at some point those that are Sons of Perdition will be resurrected. So even with some of the controversies that have existed in earlier times among some brethren, the doctrine is established.

Core doctrine of the church is that all will be resurrected at some point.

Thanks for pushing me to look into this further.

Remnants of Seminary memories or from somewhere back there in time.

Regards,
MaG

[Rivendale]

Because the church is still teaching members to blindly pay even if they can’t afford it. They’re telling members that some miracle will happen to fill in the gap. It’s predatory. The church should be teaching that tithing is optional, just like temple attendance is optional.

Especially when they’re also facing a lawsuit for fraud, because Hinkley lied and said no tithing funds would be used for the Citycreek mall.

It was especially galling to read that an LDS leader told the president of then Zaire that 'we are not a wealthy people but we share what we have...'

The president was asking for help for his country re access to water (water!!!!), while the LDS church was actively hoarding 100s of billions of dollars.

Then an LDS leader told African members that if they would pay tithing, poverty would end. He told this lie (or, prophesy?) to a group for whom losing 10% of their incomes is an almost intolerable burden.

The LDS church is actively taking advantage of members who believe and trust them. It's no coincidence this is also a group with the lowest percent of citizens with even basic internet connection. That's why the Mormon insistence that tithing must be paid in order to participate in saving ordinances is so horrifying.

That LDS leader was Nelson.

"We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation," he said. "That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing."

And he also went the dowery system.

"That's not the Lord's way," President Russell M. Nelson told about 2,000 Kenyans and other Africans Monday night inside a large, oval, wooden event center styled after traditional huts in Nairobi, Kenya. "The Lord's way is to be married in the temple, for time and all eternity, with your children sealed to you."

[Morley]

You're still in error with regards to your claim about what the Church’s core beliefs are.

Well, I checked Mormon Doctrine and BYU Studies and looked at references on the church website. The established doctrine is that at some point those that are Sons of Perdition will be resurrected. So even with some of the controversies that have existed in earlier times among some brethren, the doctrine is established.

Core doctrine of the church is that all will be resurrected at some point.

Thanks for pushing me to look into this further.

Remnants of Seminary memories or from somewhere back there in time.

Regards,
MaG

MaG,

Most folks take the opportunity to “look into this further” when they’re first challenged on something factual—an item or idea that a simple web search would either verify or not. Part of people’s frustration with you is that it often takes pages of prodding to get you to own anything, as you throw up a wall of defensive, self-righteous argumentation and lay out a minefield of references to second rate weblogs. It’s frustrating as hell, MG. Smart folks like malkie have learned to cut their losses and walk away; even smarter folks here rarely even engage you, or dart in and out of the debate. But then, of course, there are idiots like me, who stick it out to the end, vainly hoping that our efforts and optimism will somehow be redeemed. It almost never is, and I, for example, just come away feeling dirty. I do this all to myself. I am my own self-destroyer.

You will reply to this with invective, victimhood, and the suggestion that I should just ignore you. At least on the last bit, you will be oh so very correct.

[malkie]

Well, I checked Mormon Doctrine and BYU Studies and looked at references on the church website. The established doctrine is that at some point those that are Sons of Perdition will be resurrected. So even with some of the controversies that have existed in earlier times among some brethren, the doctrine is established.

Core doctrine of the church is that all will be resurrected at some point.

Thanks for pushing me to look into this further.

Remnants of Seminary memories or from somewhere back there in time.

Regards,
MaG

MaG,

Most folks take the opportunity to “look into this further” when they’re first challenged on something factual—an item or idea that a simple web search would either verify or not. Part of people’s frustration with you is that it often takes pages of prodding to get you to own anything, as you throw up a wall of defensive, self-righteous argumentation and lay out a minefield of references to second rate weblogs. It’s frustrating as hell, MG. Smart folks like malkie have learned to cut their losses and walk away; even smarter folks here rarely even engage you, or dart in and out of the debate. But then, of course, there are idiots like me, who stick it out to the end, vainly hoping that our efforts and optimism will somehow be redeemed. It almost never is, and I, for one, just come away feeling disgusted and dirty. I do this all to myself. I am, and always have been, my own self-destroyer.

You will reply to this with invective, victimhood, and the suggestion that I should just ignore you. At least on the last bit, you will be oh so very correct.

(My emphasis)
Morley giveth , and Morley taketh away

Thanks, I think.

Of course, MG has stated that he sees us as the problem, but I suspect that you are right - it's really the interaction that causes all the grief.