more proof your church isn't true, montelds

[Mayfuck]

sounds like you are in an abusive relationship

[MonteLDS]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

religious people have these experiences all the time and they always attribute it to whatever god they've inherited from their parents.

My mother was born a Catholic, my father born without any religious background...

sorry to debunk that idea.

[Luke de Spa]

forgive me. "almost always"

in your case it's the same god/alien jesus/spaceghost anyway.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by MonteLDS

I don't believe your sincerity in your question, so I won't be answering it more than the following Official Declaration by the church on both matters.

What does that even mean? You only want to answer questions of people already on your side?

Originally Posted by MonteLDS

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/2

I already know these. That doesn't answer my question.

Originally Posted by MonteLDS

Your question reminds me of a scripture in the Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 11:16-17
16) "....Knowest thou the condescension of God?"
17) "....I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things."

I don't know every reason for the action of God. But I do know he loveth his children.

So basically, you have no idea and don't want to think about it.

[Debaser]

Don't you find it strange at all that God told Joseph Smith to start plural marriage in 1835 but then in 1890, God told Woodruff to stop plural marriage?

Seriously, what the fuck? Don't you ever stop that think about how illogical that is? Does this not scream that either a) Joseph Smith is lying or b) Woodruff is lying or c) God made a mistake or d) they fucking make this shit up?

[Fattening Ass]

you ladies still going at it?

[Luke de Spa]

lol are you "ladies" still having a serious discussion? tits! farts!!

[mercurial]

fish and barrel stuff this

let them have their zombie kings i say - no one's better off or more enlightened or cooler or whatever at the end of a good old fashioned netphorian beat up thread like this

[Debaser]

lol it's funny because we're actually males.

[Fattening Ass]

who gives a shite about who participates in serious conversations here or not

DON'T JUDGE ME

[Mablak]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Don't you find it strange at all that God told Joseph Smith to start plural marriage in 1835 but then in 1890, God told Woodruff to stop plural marriage?

Seriously, what the fuck? Don't you ever stop that think about how illogical that is? Does this not scream that either a) Joseph Smith is lying or b) Woodruff is lying or c) God made a mistake or d) they fucking make this shit up?

I think they made this stuff up with the consent of God, I mean the only explanation is that he's in on it too. I can't pretend to know why smith, woodruff, and God have teamed up to fool humanity with an elaborate prank spanning two centuries, I can only assume their intentions are pure.

[duovamp]

People still believe in this stuff? In 2008?

[Starla]

Originally Posted by mercurial

so what are your thoughts on Steely Dan *************?

ahahaha........... unfortunately i know who it is.....I will be 27 soon

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Mablak

I think they made this stuff up with the consent of God, I mean the only explanation is that he's in on it too. I can't pretend to know why smith, woodruff, and God have teamed up to fool humanity with an elaborate prank spanning two centuries, I can only assume their intentions are pure.

What an awful prank. This split the Mormons into LDS and FLDS...what good did that serve?

You now have Colorado City, AR and Hildale, Utah with the highest incidence of fumarase deficiency due to so much incest by plural marriage in the FLDS. What gives, God?

Which leads to another question, what do you regular mormons think about the fundamentalist mormons? Are they mistaken? They mishear god? why?

[cork_soaker]

Originally Posted by duovamp

People still believe in this stuff? In 2008?

don't stop believing
http://aycu05.webshots.com/image/403...0127412_rs.jpg

[null123]

************* and/or MonteLDS

I am sincerely interested in knowing what you think about the 1890 and 1978 changes in church doctrine with regards to polygamy and black priests respectfully. what do you think the reasons for these changes were? do you think they have any bearing on the trustworthiness of the church doctrine?

[Starla]

I want to know how many wives snake has.

[sickbadthing]

god speaks to the prophets and the prophets don't question god's word*



*they change doctrine so utah can be a state and so they don't look like racists

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

************* and/or MonteLDS

I am sincerely interested in knowing what you think about the 1890 and 1978 changes in church doctrine with regards to polygamy and black priests respectfully. what do you think the reasons for these changes were? do you think they have any bearing on the trustworthiness of the church doctrine?

monte basically said he doesnt know but knows at least god loves us

mablak said they make the shit up, but God told them to do it

************* has the mind of an 12 year old

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by sppunk

Mormon churches should teach grammar, huh Monte?

dude if nothing else, monte is confronting the questions. i can respect that. ************* is the one acting like a literal semantic pussy when he's called on his avoidance.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Don't you find it strange at all that God told Joseph Smith to start plural marriage in 1835 but then in 1890, God told Woodruff to stop plural marriage?

Seriously, what the fuck? Don't you ever stop that think about how illogical that is? Does this not scream that either a) Joseph Smith is lying or b) Woodruff is lying or c) God made a mistake or d) they fucking make this shit up?

it really just reeks so, so bad of bullshit, i have a hard time accepting that even believing mormons dont harbour some doubt on it. then again, they believe all kinds of other stuff equal in stupidity, so i dont know. theyre just so addled with idiotic beliefs, their standards have been beaten so low, anything passes.

its funny because the mormon leader who "received" this divine injunction is undoubtedly a cynic and opportunist who doesnt believe it, and i bet my life that in the back of his head he was giggling at the culpability of his idiot followers, thinking "phew, uh, well.. guess ill give it shot! (nervous laughter)" before he announces in a solemn voice gods command to him

the whole notion of god correcting himself like this is so amazingly stupid, i cant get passed it. if racism is indeed wrong, it is always wrong. what makes racism wrong would be true today and would be true yesterday. its weird to think that god, knowing racism to be wrong, allowed it for thousands (haha) or years... and only changed his mind when he, like, legally had to. you have to be out of your fucking mind to buy this.

[sleeper]

that said, its not so much different than the new covenant: a suspiciously convenient washing of hands, and one that hardly erases the fact that god, for thousands (uehhh) of years, allowed something that he knew was wrong to flourish -- when he wasnt outright commanding it, that is.

[Thaniel Buckner]

Originally Posted by To Starla

ahahaha........... unfortunately i know who it is.....I will be 27 soon

wow that is so telling of your age because steely dan are not one of the most popular bands ever.

[MonteLDS]

Originally Posted by Debaser

Which leads to another question, what do you regular mormons think about the fundamentalist mormons? Are they mistaken? They mishear god? why?

I speak only for myself. regarding this. As the church has nothing to say about it other than that they are in no way associated with the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

as far as i see it, it is just another group of people who have troubles understanding that time to time policy of the church will change.
they reject the teaching of the church that is: the president of the church would never lead the church in the wrong direction. That he is a Prophet and that he holds all the keys of the priesthood and governs the church as inspired to do so...

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by MonteLDS

I speak only for myself. regarding this. As the church has nothing to say about it other than that they are in no way associated with the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

as far as i see it, it is just another group of people who have troubles understanding that time to time policy of the church will change.
they reject the teaching of the church that is: the president of the church would never lead the church in the wrong direction. That he is a Prophet and that he holds all the keys of the priesthood and governs the church as inspired to do so...

well, aren't they right? if god is all-knowing, all-loving, and perfect, and the leaders of the church have always been perfectly-informed prophets, then why would there ever be a need for a change? this is a serious inquiry.

[MonteLDS]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

************* and/or MonteLDS

I am sincerely interested in knowing what you think about the 1890 and 1978 changes in church doctrine with regards to polygamy and black priests respectfully. what do you think the reasons for these changes were? do you think they have any bearing on the trustworthiness of the church doctrine?

I will speak only from my perspective. I do not speak for the church.

what do i think?

1) on the subject to polygamy. I can see a number of reasons to end it. First you must know that I believe that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God. That he literally was visited by God the Eternal Father & His Son Jesus Christ, That the church was RESTORED from a apostasy (which i currently don't have time to get into) and that the United States was created in part to allow this restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ. The church was offered safe haven from persecution in Canada & in Mexico. The church leaders chose not to move to these locations. The church needed to stay in the place where they were & needed to be in the United States. Also the need of polygamy was not in as much need as it was during the time of the church exodus from the mid-west to Utah. Many men were killed by mobs or died on the trails to Utah. The sisters needed support of a Husband. ALSO i want it to be clear that you could not just become a start up polygamy family. The leaders of the church arranged such activity's as i understand it and the 1st wife had to approve it. By the time the Saints had been in Utah for long enough and it came time for the area to become a state. the need of polygamy as i see it was no longer needed for piratical purposes..
The biggest thing to me though is that it is no longer practiced & that its former practice doesn't shake my testimony of the church truthfulness.

2) On the case of Blacks and the Priesthood. I have read a biography and had a number of lessons on this subject. the biography on President of the church at the time; Spencer W. Kimball. President Kimball had prayed about this a number of time. He felt that as he was a member of the church leadership in the apostleship that he would be the President of the church who would be able to usher in the black brothers to have the priesthood. He prayed a number of times on the subject and it wasn't until June 8th 1978 that it was placed in ink that these brethren should receive the priesthood.
It is my point of view that God had always intended to allow the blacks to have the priesthood, but understood that it would be done in a time when it was correct for the church to do so. When members who might have racist roots hearts would be soft enough to except such doctrine. Since at that time most of the church membership was inside the United States where racist feelings were strong. Some might consider it as a political correct move. But I see it as God will to do it at the proper time. And He choses the time, not man.


i do not think that either of these changes has effects on the church trustworthiness w/ the doctrine it teaches. The changes have always been needed and were made at the proper times, as it seemed fit.

i want to state that I am speaking for myself .

[MonteLDS]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

well, aren't they right? if god is all-knowing, all-loving, and perfect, and the leaders of the church have always been perfectly-informed prophets, then why would there ever be a need for a change? this is a serious inquiry.

people are not perfect. that is the problem. and that is the reason for constant change, one step at a time

[Thaniel Buckner]

Originally Posted by MonteLDS

people are not perfect. that is the problem. and that is the reason for constant change, one step at a time

does that mean god is imperfect

[MonteLDS]

Originally Posted by Thaniel Buckner

does that mean god is imperfect

no that doesn't mean God is imperfect. We each have the right to make our own choices. to either obey God or not to.

[Debaser]

Originally Posted by MonteLDS

It is my point of view that God had always intended to allow the blacks to have the priesthood, but understood that it would be done in a time when it was correct for the church to do so. When members who might have racist roots hearts would be soft enough to except such doctrine. Since at that time most of the church membership was inside the United States where racist feelings were strong.

So before 1978, god knew that people were too racist to accept his command not to be racist, so he tolerated the racism til then.

Thats kind of a shitty god you're describing there with pretty flexible or weak principles.

Originally Posted by MonteLDS

Some might consider it as a political correct move. But I see it as God will to do it at the proper time. And He choses the time, not man.

Actually, you've described the exact opposite. With god waiting for members with "racist roots hearts" to soften, Man chose the time, not god.

Originally Posted by MonteLDS

We each have the right to make our own choices. to either obey God or not to.

So why even wait? Set the morals high in the first place and tell the members to take it or leave.