MONSON STORY

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _Themis »

Franktalk wrote:
Themis wrote:It certainly does. I am sure they are plenty of scientologists who don't care about evaluating L Ron Hubbard to see if his claims are accurate, just as you are not interested in evaluating Joseph's or LDS truth claims.


What if a prophet of God was told to go somewhere and he went the other way. How are we supposed to deal with this? Do we go with what God said or do we go with what the prophet did? To me it is a simple matter. To others it is not so simple. They wish to make the prophet perfect and without error. But we have many examples where prophets are weak in the flesh just like any other man. Could it be that the lessons in the Bible that deal with this very issue were placed there for a reason?


Your first problem is dealing with what you think is God talking to you, and not whether it is just your body creating the expereince. You seem to avoid this one like the plague. Second we look at the available evidence to see if the claims hold true. Joseph's claims certainly do not hold up. He made up the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc. He liked changing his first vision story. Always getting bigger and better. He was always on hand to make up a story like Zelph the white lamanite. Actually a very strong signal of a story teller. Sorry, but LDS truth claims don't hold up to the available evidence. If you think God is telling you, then I suggest a better look at the first problem, one you have yet to do, based on your posts. If you can't do this, maybe someone should introduce you to all the others who also think God is talking to them, yet can't agree to what he/she/they is saying.
42
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _Franktalk »

Dr. Shades wrote:Au contraire; there is NO issue too big to discuss here.


I mean on this thread. If you wish we can start another to deal with what I see as a big issue.

Dr. Shades wrote:Sure. If fellowship is all you want, then don't accept any callings or pay any tithing.


I am not one of those who will listen to the music and not place a coin or two in the hat.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _Roger Morrison »

FRANKTALK:
No church of man will be devoid of problems. I do see an attitude in the church which is troubling. One that the church will grow and become the Kingdom. That is against scripture. But it is common among churches. It will take me years to separate out the arguments against the church. But I will say that I think your comments are a little extreme. The church is not burning people at the stake..........

FRANK, I think as long as you propose that there is other than a "church of man" it will be difficult to have a meaningful meeting of minds.
"Being against scripture" is also not meaningful to a person who puts little credibility in scripture, other than as a history of thought & action of some person or group. Nothing divine, as pretended, in any church. Abraham did not talk with God, nor did anyone else. . .
And as I reflect, I am hard pressed to identify divinity anywhere. Maybe you can suggest where divinity resides???

However I am awed by natural beauty, as I am of human artistic and engineering feats. Bodies of life, insects to humans are unbelievably detailed, functioning, purposeful entities. . . That such might be attributed to "God" is understandable from a primitive, unlearned perspective. Can't fault them for that, they knew no better. Generally speaking, "we should."

Correct, today people are not burned at the stake. Our current civility will not allow it. Not so in the past. The closest LDS can come today is excommunication. Not as common now as yesteryear. . . Put yourself in the place of a Mormon who believes in the temple rituals that promise Eternalism. . . To be stripped of those covenants would be more painful than any form of death!
(OK Apologists, have your say :-)
I look forward to your Franktalk. Best regards,
Roger, over
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Franktalk wrote:
Roger Morrison wrote:An honest question. I'll try an honest, sincere answer: Personally, I have great appreciation for most church members that i know. They are welcome to their beliefs, whatever they are. However, the corporate entity is what I have little respect for. LDS Inc is entirely self-serving,even in their charities. From which many might benefit via their "generosity."
You must be aware of LDS the purpose?! To convert the world to Mormonism! 50,000 missionaries, & Member-missionaries are actively involved in doing so. Most members do not recognize LDSism negatives, so they remain to enjoy the positives, oblivious to the toxicity in which they survive.
You are correct, there are many false-teaching-churches, many bigger. But few as insidious and conniving as LDS Inc. (In my opinion.)


No church of man will be devoid of problems. I do see an attitude in the church which is troubling. One that the church will grow and become the Kingdom. That is against scripture. But it is common among churches. It will take me years to separate out the arguments against the church. But I will say that I think your comments are a little extreme. The church is not burning people at the stake.

Roger Morrison wrote:Frank, the "Right one" is where the attendee feels comfortable, well served and not pressured to perform to reach heaven and avoid hell. In my seriously considered opinion, neither place exists. A good church is above all a Social Centre staffed with qualified, trained personnel. Such places are emerging. However most are still tied into Theology. Time will come when that won't be the case. . .

I hope this somewhat satisfies your curiosity. I'm not looking for agreement. . .
Best regards, Roger


I understand your desire but I see things differently. I don't make a belief system and then try and find some church that matches. I seek truth......What "Truth" are you seeking?........ How do you legitimize it?......... and then examine churches to see which one looks like it holds to that truth. My desire is for truth but not my own. We may disagree on what truth is. That is expected. What I do see is that churches in many cases do not follow its own doctrine. [/u] That is expected as well. No church of man can be perfect. (RM) Since they are all of man how can they be otherwise? I am quite sure most sectarian churches are basically pastored by well intended folks passing on their sect's doctrine, which may appeal or not.



Frank, when U speak of "the church" is that any church or specifically Mormon? Are you married? With children? LDS? TBM? Bi? Convert ???
What do you think of the Fall? Redemption? Original sin? The Genesis Creation Story? Enough for now:-)
Enjoy your day, best regards, Roger
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _Franktalk »

Roger Morrison wrote:Frank, when U speak of "the church" is that any church or specifically Mormon? Are you married? With children? LDS? TBM? Bi? Convert ???
What do you think of the Fall? Redemption? Original sin? The Genesis Creation Story? Enough for now:-)
Enjoy your day, best regards, Roger


There are many churches and they can indeed teach the gospel. But only one church will have the authority to perform the ordinances. At least that is my understanding. That comes from how the Temple was treated in the Old Testament. Now that the Helper (The Holy Ghost) is available in the world it is not surprising to me that there will be many Temples. But the original Temple will be rebuilt and it will be for the Jews. This to me is clear in scripture as well. The church or authority needed to be restored. It is appropriate that the church would be new and not one of the apostate churches already in existence. The treatment of the LDS by the other churches is an indication that the LDS church is doing things right. If they were not then it would be ignored.

The Fall is an interesting subject. I think that the plan of God needed to be carried out. So did Adam and Eve disobey God as part of God's plan knowingly? I have my doubts. But it would not surprise me to find they both as spirits took on the weak flesh so the fall would happen. In this way they knew in their spirit what to do but because of the veil they still acted in free will.

I am married. I became a Christian about six years ago. I became a Mormon one year ago.

Original sin makes no sense. Children are not able to sin until they know what they are doing. Even Paul said that the law was made so the Jews would know sin. So I have a problem with original sin. But in the flesh we all sin once we come of age. So you may look upon our choice to come here as accepting a sinful existence. To know sin or evil is to live it and live around it. Our choice of how we deal with sin is why we are here. Now there is yet another way of looking at this. We could say that as a result of the original sin we do sin. And there is scriptural support for this. The sins of a father will carry into future generations. Not as sin but the circumstances of birth will reflect an environment caused by the fathers sin.

1Ki 15:3 And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father.

I think that walking in the sins is not the same as having the sin. More environmental or situational. I think that some misread this one.

Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

I think the design of the world and the way families are made according to God's plan will have an effect in the following generations. But how many people actually hate God? One would have to believe in God first. I think this would be very rare indeed. But some think that God places sin on people. I think we place the sin on our self by our free will.

Redemption is the flip side of coming here to experience sin. On the one hand God said to come here and wallow in sin and be in a weak state so you will fall into sin. But He gives us an out to wipe away the sin and come back to Him. This is a simple view of our choice to come here and learn good from evil. The rewards are great but also the risk.

The stories in Genesis actually happened. Exactly how and when I sure don't know. They had to happen or the Plan of Salvation is just a story. This was done so that modern man would stumble. This is clearly laid out in 2 Peter 3.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _moksha »

Roger Morrison wrote:Come on Frank, you must see "Mormon Discussions" as somewhat of a church??:-)



Roger, is there anything specific you would like the Reverend Dr. Shades to confess?

;-)
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _Drifting »

Franktalk wrote:
Roger Morrison wrote:Frank, when U speak of "the church" is that any church or specifically Mormon? Are you married? With children? LDS? TBM? Bi? Convert ???
What do you think of the Fall? Redemption? Original sin? The Genesis Creation Story? Enough for now:-)
Enjoy your day, best regards, Roger


There are many churches and they can indeed teach the gospel. But only one church will have the authority to perform the ordinances. At least that is my understanding. That comes from how the Temple was treated in the Old Testament. Now that the Helper (The Holy Ghost) is available in the world it is not surprising to me that there will be many Temples. But the original Temple will be rebuilt and it will be for the Jews. This to me is clear in scripture as well. The church or authority needed to be restored. It is appropriate that the church would be new and not one of the apostate churches already in existence. The treatment of the LDS by the other churches is an indication that the LDS church is doing things right. If they were not then it would be ignored.



Frank, here is something I've been pondering that may be of interest to you.
The Church of the 1800's would be considered Apostate if measured against the Church of today.
Or could that be that the current Church is apostate in comparison to the one restored by Joseph Smith?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_Franktalk
_Emeritus
Posts: 2689
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:28 am

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _Franktalk »

Drifting wrote:Frank, here is something I've been pondering that may be of interest to you.
The Church of the 1800's would be considered Apostate if measured against the Church of today.
Or could that be that the current Church is apostate in comparison to the one restored by Joseph Smith?


This is the bottom line is it not? The measure must be just what is the first love of the church? If it is Christ and the Father then the church is not apostate. It may have some doctrine wrong but that is expected. The key is do the members seek the Holy Ghost and not the church for a witness? You may get a lesson in church but the witness whether it is true or not should be through the Spirit. I see the early and late LDS church as not being apostate. The RCC went apostate because they replaced Christ with the Pope. The Reformation was a good thing but not sanctioned by God. It is possible that some late Christian churches are not apostate. Now just because a church is apostate does not mean the members are not saved. But a church even if not apostate they must have authority to do the ordinances. So the comments about a true church relate to authority. The LDS do not have a lock on truth and they don't have a lock on the gospel. If you believe that there are some who remain alive that received their authority before the LDS church was established then the LDS church does not have a unique position of authority on the earth. This is a complex issue.
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _Roger Morrison »

moksha wrote:
Roger Morrison wrote:Come on Frank, you must see "Mormon Discussions" as somewhat of a church??:-)



Roger, is there anything specific you would like the Reverend Dr. Shades to confess?

;-)


Mok. Please clarify:
Do you mean-* Roger wants to confess his sins to Rev. Dr. Shades .....
OR, Roger wants Rev. Dr. Shades to confess his sins to Roger? God? the world?
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Re: MONSON STORY

Post by _Roger Morrison »

More to the topic of the Opening Post
Watched a doc re Wikie Leak recently that reminded me of THE HONEST MAN awaited by the Mormon world to reveal the deceit of the the LDS Standard Works and other such theistic mythologies. . .

Such a revelation need not undo the beautiful prose, poetry & wisdom found in these books. To the contrary, those positives would be appreciated for what they honestly are, rid of the belief and faith components tending to prejudice readers who might be edified, while not being mislead.

That such a person will emerge is inevitable. In time historical figures and events will be seen for what they are: true or otherwise. . . Unfortunately, deceit still plays a significant role in power-politics wherever they are in play.

Hope has always been in the hands of coming generations. There it still remains. . .
Warm regards, Roger
Post Reply