My Sister is Mormon....

[why_me]

As one who has gone through the Mormon temple, I would have to say the Mormon temple ceremony was one of the most disappointing experiences of my life. I looked forward to this wonderful spiritual experience and it was more like becoming a member of a frat club meeting in some posh hotel.

I think that people do have different experiences when going to the Temple for the first time. Some have the experience that you had or they find the whole thing strange. I suppose it would be interesting to research the expectations that people have before they visit the temple. And then see how expectations were met when the visit occurs.

I think that some people believe that a wonderful supernatural experience will occur. And when it doesn’t, they become disappointed. Or they expect something that was much more different than experienced.

 

[RebeccaJ]

???

Rebecca, the ‘lecture’ was a rather mild response to:

Yes, expanding your telling me of how many degrees you have to the nerve to lecture me!!

 

[dianaiad]

…Ever learning, never coming to the knowledge of the Truth?

I hope you’re here with us to learn something as well, Diana. And not just practicing your writing and debate skills. Seriously.

Nice ripost there…

However, sitting around NOT learning anything won’t get anyone to a ‘knowledge of the truth,’ either.

Learned that one a long time ago.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, expanding your telling me of how many degrees you have to the nerve to lecture me!!

“Lecture you?”

Well, if you want to see it that way. Most people don’t tend to see compliments as insults, though. Even if they are couched in a ‘lecture.’ Perhaps…I hit a nerve?

 

[truthsilence]

However, sitting around NOT learning anything won’t get anyone to a ‘knowledge of the truth,’ either.

Knowledge of the Truth. Big T. As in, a Person. Thats the knowledge I was speaking of. But you knew that, right?

 

[NewSeeker]

You change the mass and it is “just externals”

We point out that King Follett was never doctrine, and we’re lying

The Prophet Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the word of God. He also preached the King Follett Discourse. The prophet of the Restoration spoke to both points in his capacity as The Prophet. Both must be true or Joseph was a false prophet. Joseph’s successors can’t pick and choose which of his prophetic utterances were actually prophetic.

It’s really quite simple.

NS

 

[mfbukowski]

…Ever learning, never coming to the knowledge of the Truth?

I hope you’re here with us to learn something as well, Diana. And not just practicing your writing and debate skills. Seriously.

We learn how nasty Catholics can be to Mormons? What else did you have in mind? I am here to defend my faith from people who insult it. That is the only reason.

 

[mfbukowski]

I think that people do have different experiences when going to the Temple for the first time. Some have the experience that you had or they find the whole thing strange. I suppose it would be interesting to research the expectations that people have before they visit the temple. And then see how expectations were met when the visit occurs.

I think that some people believe that a wonderful supernatural experience will occur. And when it doesn’t, they become disappointed. Or they expect something that was much more different than experienced.

Not my students. They are ready and have great experiences.

 

[mfbukowski]

The Prophet Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the word of God. He also preached the King Follett Discourse. The prophet of the Restoration spoke to both points in his capacity as The Prophet. Both must be true or Joseph was a false prophet. Joseph’s successors can’t pick and choose which of his prophetic utterances were actually prophetic.

It’s really quite simple.

NS

False. He could have made sure that the “doctrine” in the King Follett was in the D&C. He didn’t. Many things he taught are not in the D&C. They are not “doctrine”

It’s really quite simple.

Is everything the pope says catholic doctrine? No, it has to be spoken “ex cathedra” and canonized.

It’s really quite simple.

And yes, Joseph’s successors can pick and choose which of his statements are canon.

Isn’t that precisely what the pope does in the rare occasions he DOES speak ex cathedra? Developing and explaining doctrine?

It’s really quite simple.

I have always liked the litanies.

 

[dianaiad]

Knowledge of the Truth. Big T. As in, a Person. Thats the knowledge I was speaking of. But you knew that, right?

We still have to read and study to get that, too, as well as pray. But you knew that, right?

 

[ibkc]

False. He could have made sure that the “doctrine” in the King Follett was in the D&C. He didn’t. Many things he taught are not in the D&C. They are not “doctrine”

It’s really quite simple.

Is everything the pope says catholic doctrine? No, it has to be spoken “ex cathedra” and canonized.

It’s really quite simple.

And yes, Joseph’s successors can pick and choose which of his statements are canon.

Isn’t that precisely what the pope does in the rare occasions he DOES speak ex cathedra?

No, popes cannot “pick and choose” which past teachings are “canon”. Ex cathedra statements are nearly always clarifications on things that have never been addressed before, and which need definition for the faithful. Ex cathedra statements do not contradict the teachings of popes past.

 

[NewSeeker]

False. He could have made sure that the “doctrine” in the King Follett was in the D&C. He didn’t. Many things he taught are not in the D&C. They are not “doctrine”

Who says doctrine must be in the D&C to be canonical? Joseph Smith never said that. Joseph doesn’t have the freedom to make doctrinal errors. He claimed to have private chats with Jesus about doctrine. There’s no room for error under that criterion. Joseph clearly believed the things he taught outside the D&C were doctrinal. Why are you doubting his word? How can you (or any LDS leader) pick and choose which to believe. If the Prophet says X and Y are true, they must both be true or he is a false prophet, even if X and not Y end up in the D&C. A self-proclaimed prophet who hears the voice of God doesn’t get to make mistakes. It really is that simple.

It’s really quite simple.

Is everything the pope says catholic doctrine? No, it has to be spoken “ex cathedra” and canonized.

The pope doesn’t claim to have fireside chats with Jesus about doctrine. Joseph did make that claim. He is thereby held by a much higher standard. Someone who speaks one on one with God about doctrinal matters doesn’t get to make errors. If he does, then his credentials are called into question.

It’s really quite simple.

And yes, Joseph’s successors can pick and choose which of his statements are canon.

Isn’t that precisely what the pope does in the rare occasions he DOES speak ex cathedra? Developing and explaining doctrine?

It’s really quite simple.

Joseph Smith and the Pope are not comparable. The Pope doesn’t have sit down time with Jesus and doesn’t have to review the teachings of someone who claimed to hear God’s voice in his head telling him doctrinal truths.

NS

 

[truthsilence]

False. He could have made sure that the “doctrine” in the King Follett was in the D&C. He didn’t. Many things he taught are not in the D&C. They are not “doctrine”

It’s really quite simple.

Is everything the pope says catholic doctrine? No, it has to be spoken “ex cathedra” and canonized.

It’s really quite simple.

And yes, Joseph’s successors can pick and choose which of his statements are canon.

Isn’t that precisely what the pope does in the rare occasions he DOES speak ex cathedra? Developing and explaining doctrine?

It’s really quite simple.

I have always liked the litanies.

(Hi Newseeker!!!)

So, mfbukowski, if the King Follet discourse is not “doctrine” WHY is it still included in the Gospel Doctrine manual put out by the LDS Church to teach the faithful? I will never, ever, understand why its still in there, if you’re not supposed to read it and believe it. You can deny it all day long, but if you don’t believe it, then you don’t believe a foundational teaching of Mormonism.

Read the Catechism, It contains what we are taught and what we believe, its that simple. Read it and see if its time for you to consider coming back to the faith that was taught to you in your youth. Heaven will be glorious, because we will be with our God for eternity. Mormonism has created God in mans image. Its all backwards.

 

[hosemonkey]

(Hi Newseeker!!!)

So, if the King Follet discourse is not “doctrine” WHY is it still included in the Gospel Doctrine manual put out by the LDS Church to teach the faithful? I will never, ever, understand why its still in there, if you’re not supposed to read it and believe it. You can deny it all day long, but if you don’t believe it, then you don’t believe a foundational teaching of Mormonism.

The answer is, is that mormonism is a confidence game and it’s founder and leaders are confidence men. In a con-game, one must continually change the rules so the marks won’t catch on. So, one minute JS is a “prophet of God”, but the next moment he “was just speculating” or “what he learned from God himself wasn’t canonized.” Which is it, mormons? Does the “Living Prophet” speak for God, or is he just “speculating”?

 

[truthsilence]

We still have to read and study to get that, too, as well as pray. But you knew that, right?

Actually, reading and studying did not get me to Christ. It was an encounter, real, and personal. Yes, I am certain it involved prayer. But it happened before I knew what Mormonism taught, and definitely before I knew anything about the Catholic church.

Learning about the Catholic church is the icing on the cake for me; a rich and wonderful blessing in my life.

Peace to you.
Tami

 

[truthsilence]

The answer is, is that mormonism is a confidence game and it’s founder and leaders are confidence men. In a con-game, one must continually change the rules so the marks won’t catch on. So, one minute JS is a “prophet of God”, but the next moment he “was just speculating” or “what he learned from God himself wasn’t canonized.” Which is it, mormons? Does the “Living Prophet” speak for God, or is he just “speculating”?

Yes, exactly. It is more than enough to make ones head spin.

 

[NewSeeker]

Yes, exactly. It is more than enough to make ones head spin.

It gets worse. Not only do LDS church leaders get to pick and choose which of Joseph Smith’s doctrinal statements are canonical, individual church members get to pick and choose which church leaders’ statements about Joseph Smith are canonical. The ground just keeps on changing and shifting depending on who you talk to, as if Mormonism’s theological edifice sits in a bowl of lime green jello (with marshmallows) at the ward potluck.

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

Hi TruthSilence! I hear you have a lot of snow right now. We’re a balmy 72 degrees today. Woot!

NS

 

[dianaiad]

The answer is, is that mormonism is a confidence game and it’s founder and leaders are confidence men. In a con-game, one must continually change the rules so the marks won’t catch on. So, one minute JS is a “prophet of God”, but the next moment he “was just speculating” or “what he learned from God himself wasn’t canonized.” Which is it, mormons? Does the “Living Prophet” speak for God, or is he just “speculating”?

He did both.

Though you did not see anybody write ‘what he learned from God himself wasn’t canonized.’ I think you should be more careful with the quotes.

 

[hosemonkey]

The ground just keeps on changing and shifting depending on who you talk to, as if Mormonism’s theological edifice sits in a bowl of lime green jello (with marshmallows) at the ward potluck.