Why do you think anything exists;here, anywhere? (mythology, agnostic, spirits)

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by Shirina

So hopefully we can just exchange the proverbial olive branch and put all this hostility behind us.

I would genuinely like that, Shirina. I am willing to let bygones be bygones if you are. And for the record, I honestly had no idea of what you have gone through in life. I have been fortunate enough not to have to endure things like that myself, and it's understandable why they would have taken a toll on you. Oh, and just in the event that you do accept genuine compliments, you're gorgeous.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Since this thread has obviously taken a turn and has turned into a discussion of LDS doctrine, I'll just say this and let it go. I hope my post doesn't get deleted as an attempt to hijack the thread, since I've been doing my level best not to do that.

Here's what we believe about Kolob: There is a God. He resides in Heaven, though His spirit can be felt throughout the universe. Heaven is a real place. There are stars in the sky and one of them is closer to where God is than the rest. That star has a name by which God refers to it in one book of LDS scripture. The name of that star is Kolob. I realize that most of the world's Christians believe that God doesn't actually reside anywhere, but instead fills the universe. That, unfortunately is not what the Bible says. The Bible consistently refers to God as being "in Heaven" and Mormon doctrine is consistent with that. Nobody "hangs out" on Kolob, and truth be known, it is one of the most insignificant things in LDS doctrine. You could attend LDS worship services every week for thirty years and never even hear Kolob mentioned in passing. It is not central to our theology in the slighest.

Here's some information on temple garments: Throughout history, people of various religions have worn sacred clothing that is both special and meaningful to them alone. Often times, this clothing may be visible to others, because it is worn on top of other clothing. Examples of such sacred clothing are beads, shawls, and special head-coverings. In other situations, this special clothing may be worn under one’s outer clothing, next to the skin. The Jewish tallit katan, for example, is a white garment worn under the clothing in remembrance of the Lord’s commandments (see Exodus 19:6, Numbers 15:38 and Deuteronomy 22:12).

Adult members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to live in such a manner that they may be worthy of the privilege of attending one of the Church’s 139 operating temples worldwide, and participating in sacred ordinances (i.e. religious ceremonies) there. Among these ordinances are a symbolic washing and anointing and an endowment ceremony which involves both instruction and the making of sacred covenants, or promises, with God. Once an individual has received these ordinances, he is to wear a special undergarment throughout his life. The purpose of this garment is to serve as a constant reminder of the covenants made in the temple, a little bit like a wedding ring is a reminder of the promises made to one’s spouse as part of his wedding vows. Any "protection" that can be attributed to the garment is solely spiritual.

Thanks - I learned something new. I don’t know anything about Mormonism (other than stereotypes, of course); and while I certainly don’t agree with it (or any religion), it was an interesting read.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by CorporateCowboy

Thanks - I learned something new. I don’t know anything about Mormonism (other than stereotypes, of course); and while I certainly don’t agree with it (or any religion), it was an interesting read.

Thanks. Trust me, I don't expect people to agree with it.

[ImissThe90's]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Since this thread has obviously taken a turn and has turned into a discussion of LDS doctrine, I'll just say this and let it go. I hope my post doesn't get deleted as an attempt to hijack the thread, since I've been doing my level best not to do that.

Here's what we believe about Kolob: There is a God. He resides in Heaven, though His spirit can be felt throughout the universe. Heaven is a real place. There are stars in the sky and one of them is closer to where God is than the rest. That star has a name by which God refers to it in one book of LDS scripture. The name of that star is Kolob. I realize that most of the world's Christians believe that God doesn't actually reside anywhere, but instead fills the universe. That, unfortunately is not what the Bible says. The Bible consistently refers to God as being "in Heaven" and Mormon doctrine is consistent with that. Nobody "hangs out" on Kolob, and truth be known, it is one of the most insignificant things in LDS doctrine. You could attend LDS worship services every week for thirty years and never even hear Kolob mentioned in passing. It is not central to our theology in the slighest.

Here's some information on temple garments: Throughout history, people of various religions have worn sacred clothing that is both special and meaningful to them alone. Often times, this clothing may be visible to others, because it is worn on top of other clothing. Examples of such sacred clothing are beads, shawls, and special head-coverings. In other situations, this special clothing may be worn under one’s outer clothing, next to the skin. The Jewish tallit katan, for example, is a white garment worn under the clothing in remembrance of the Lord’s commandments (see Exodus 19:6, Numbers 15:38 and Deuteronomy 22:12).

Adult members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are encouraged to live in such a manner that they may be worthy of the privilege of attending one of the Church’s 139 operating temples worldwide, and participating in sacred ordinances (i.e. religious ceremonies) there. Among these ordinances are a symbolic washing and anointing and an endowment ceremony which involves both instruction and the making of sacred covenants, or promises, with God. Once an individual has received these ordinances, he is to wear a special undergarment throughout his life. The purpose of this garment is to serve as a constant reminder of the covenants made in the temple, a little bit like a wedding ring is a reminder of the promises made to one’s spouse as part of his wedding vows. Any "protection" that can be attributed to the garment is solely spiritual.

Good to know! My husbands best friend is (well, technically was, I guess. He is no longer practicing) Mormon, and we used to live almost within sight of the temple in Bartlett, TN, but I know very little of the faith. Always interesting to learn something new.

[Hannibal Flavius]

You look up the garments of the high priest, and what are you supposed to see?

The temple is a bride, it is the body that holds the male spirit and the plan was always for the Temple to symbolise a virgin with a wall of separation just as a virgin has a wall of separation, and that wall was torn in two from top to bottum specifically to prove a consummation.

The temple is designed in the human anatomy of a virgin.

When you are looking at the garments of the priest about to go into the holy of holies, you are looking at a circumcised phallus completely dressed in his seed trying to bring his seed into the holy of holies but all those years, the temple remained a virgin until a true virgin came being submissive to God.

This consummation was practiced for thousands of years at the feast of Tabernacles where the water and wine are celebrated when they spill out of their bowls built into the alter, this blood and water have always been the two witnesses as legal witnesses to every single consummation. The friend of the bridegroom goes into the bridal chamber to bring out the sheets stained in water and in blood and they testify of the consummation.

Jesus was then planted as a seed in the Earth as all dead men have been seeded in the Earth, and Jesus became the first born son of many sons to follow in resurrection(Birth).

The Earth had literally become pregnant after centuries of seeds planted that remained dead and barren.

[Hannibal Flavius]

I haven't believed we actually exist in a long time, and that sounds so crazy and stupid.

[Hannibal Flavius]

My problem with existing is that I don't believe in time. If we could travel fast enough, we could get in a rocketship to leave earth in 2019, and then come back in that same ship, 40,000 years later. When I think of Einstein, I think of a man who proved that we don't exist, or that our timeline exists in the same timeline as somebody living 10,000 years in the future.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

1. Mormons believe that God the Father has a physical form that we could describe as human in appearance.

That evolved over time.

That's not what Smith originally preached. Smith initially preached something else, and then over a period of 12-15 years his idea evolved in having a physical form.

That is proof that a man is talking, not a god.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

These next three statements are common misconceptions, and I've lost track of the number of times I've corrected people who genuinely believe they know what they're talking about. Still, I have no trouble calmly and patiently explaining how and why they are incorrect:

6. Mormons perform posthumous baptisms in an attempt to force everyone who has ever lived to convert to their religion.

That's false as well as a Straw Man.

LDS did baptize posthumously, and I have the records to prove it. So do Millions of others, and Millions more witnessed it.

Mormons only stopped doing posthumous baptisms in the last 10 years, but that's only a claim without any verification. What people do in secret is another matter entirely. It's hard to believe Mormons would suddenly stop just because the pope and the Jews threw a hissy-fit.

In all the discussions on posthumous baptism, I never once heard anyone claim it forces dead people to convert.

That's speciously nonsensical.

You can't force dead people to do anything.

The whole purpose of baptism is to cleanse the "soul" of original sin, but then when you die the soul-thing is on the soul train outta here, so there's nothing to baptize.

If you really could posthumously baptize people, then why couldn't you also posthumously annul marriages?

Only an extremely differently twisted person would actually believe people in Heaven are segregated by religious denomination.

You're talking to Jesus and Jesus gets a text message that you've been posthumously baptized by the Mormons, so, what, Jesus sends you to the back of the bus?

And what does it say about Mormon leadership?

It says there's an extreme disconnect between Mormon leaders and Jesus, as in no connection at all.

Right

That much is obvious.

Because if "Mormonism is the Way" then Jesus should have had the common sense, the decency and the foresight to warn Mormon leaders about posthumous baptisms, lest it generate public outrage and averse publicity, casting aspersions on Mormonism resulting in public belittlement.

Jesus failed to warn Mormon leaders about their dismissive, insensitive, pompous in-your-face cavalier attitude about the whole thing.

The fact that Jesus let Mormon leaders fail says Mormonism isn't the Way.

Originally Posted by Shirina

That's what I read. Perod. You act as though the only reason why I wrote what I did was to offend - and offend YOU.

That's actually reminiscent of Mesopotamian cosmogony.

The Planet of Crossing is the planet of god's realm, and it has a reddish hue or appearance.

Except there's no way Smith could have known that.

Rawlinson didn't publish his [erroneous] work on the Behistun Inscription until 1837, and Grotefend published his [corrected] version (in German language) in 1853.

None of that matters, since it wasn't until 1857 that Rawlinson and Oppert independently published transcriptions of texts from Assurbanipal's library, which was long after Smith was dead, and it matters even less because none of those texts were the relevant texts, which weren't published until 1903.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Was it really necessary to begin a post accusing me of being weak or having a lack of knowledge or a limited mind-set - or any other unflattering, borderline insulting words?

Since you freely admitted it, it cannot possibly be an accusation.

Originally Posted by Shirina

Anyhow, when I was in college, I ended up abandoning a class I should've passed without a second's thought.

I failed it because the professor graded his papers the same way - it wasn't splitting hairs. It was disecting hairs. And you never knew which hair to pick, either.

For instance, I wrote, "President Truman commented ..." and he crossed out the word "commented" and inserted "stated."

Or ...

When I wrote, "When Russia invaded Germany late in the war ..." he crossed out "Russia" and replaced it with "Red Army."

The words were so close in meaning and intent that I could make a career writing just one paper, sitting there agonizing over which word to use, buried behind a stack of thesauruses hoping that I picked the right synonym.

It's too much like walking through a minefield.

Did you discuss it with him?

After you discussed it with him, did you go to the dean of the department? Then to do the dean of your college?

Did you file a grievance with whatever student organization you have for such issues?

No?

You just let other people wander into the minefield and get blowed up.

And I though you were an enlightened being.

That professor should not be teaching, not because he's anal retentive, which is the least of his major malfunctions, not to mention he's apparently incapable of distinguishing his works from other people's works, but because that's not teaching.

[Katzpur]

You don't seem to understand what my post actually was intended to accomplish. I did not mention any of these things as an invitation for people to debate them. I was merely trying to group different kinds of statements together to explain what kinds of things I would describe as (a) accurate, (b) inaccurate but understandable mistakes and (c) rude comments intended to misrepresent the religion.

Originally Posted by Mircea

That evolved over time.

That's not what Smith originally preached. Smith initially preached something else, and then over a period of 12-15 years his idea evolved in having a physical form.

That is proof that a man is talking, not a god.

Whether this is the case or not, what you're saying is totally beside the point. The belief that God has a body (although not a corruptible, mortal body) is, in fact, LDS doctrine, as I clearly stated in my previous post.

That's false as well as a Straw Man.

LDS did baptize posthumously, and I have the records to prove it. So do Millions of others, and Millions more witnessed it.

Slow down just a minute and read what I actually said. I never said that we don't perform baptisms for the dead. What I actually said was this: "Mormons perform posthumous baptisms in an attempt to force everyone who has ever lived to convert to their religion." Perhaps I should have underlined the part of the statement the first time around that I underlined this time around. That's why I listed this belief as one which is inaccurate, but which people can be excused for misunderstanding.

Mormons only stopped doing posthumous baptisms in the last 10 years, but that's only a claim without any verification. What people do in secret is another matter entirely. It's hard to believe Mormons would suddenly stop just because the pope and the Jews threw a hissy-fit.

Well, here's a news flash for you: We've never stopped doing baptisms for the dead. It's just that there are now restrictions in place concerning who we may not perform these baptisms for.

In all the discussions on posthumous baptism, I never once heard anyone claim it forces dead people to convert.

That's speciously nonsensical.

You can't force dead people to do anything.

You may not have ever heard that, but trust me, I have definitely heard it stated more times than I can count.

The whole purpose of baptism is to cleanse the "soul" of original sin, but then when you die the soul-thing is on the soul train outta here, so there's nothing to baptize.

Well, for starters, we don't believe in Original Sin. Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sin as well as for everybody else's, and God doesn't punish people for sins they didn't commit. Secondly, we believe the spirit continues to exist as a cognizant entity after death, and that it is merely the body that dies. If we're right about that, then the spirit could either accept or reject the posthumous baptism done on behalf of the person who had died. If we're wrong, and the spirit simply ceases to exist after death, then it's a moot point.

If you really could posthumously baptize people, then why couldn't you also posthumously annul marriages?

I'm not sure what the point of posthumously annulling marriages would be.

Only an extremely differently twisted person would actually believe people in Heaven are segregated by religious denomination.

That may be the case, but there are millions of people who do believe that. They're just not Mormons.

You're talking to Jesus and Jesus gets a text message that you've been posthumously baptized by the Mormons, so, what, Jesus sends you to the back of the bus?

I honestly don't have a clue what you're getting at.

And what does it say about Mormon leadership?

It says there's an extreme disconnect between Mormon leaders and Jesus, as in no connection at all.

Right

That much is obvious.

Because if "Mormonism is the Way" then Jesus should have had the common sense, the decency and the foresight to warn Mormon leaders about posthumous baptisms, lest it generate public outrage and averse publicity, casting aspersions on Mormonism resulting in public belittlement.

Jesus failed to warn Mormon leaders about their dismissive, insensitive, pompous in-your-face cavalier attitude about the whole thing.

The fact that Jesus let Mormon leaders fail says Mormonism isn't the Way.

Nothing's "obvious"except to the person who believes it. There's little point in arguing on something that's merely subjective. You could be right or I could, and no amount of debate is going to settle it.

[CorporateCowboy]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

You don't seem to understand what my post actually was intended to accomplish. I did not mention any of these things as an invitation for people to debate them. I was merely trying to group different kinds of statements together to explain what kinds of things I would describe as (a) accurate, (b) inaccurate but understandable mistakes and (c) rude comments intended to misrepresent the religion.
I disagree. Regardless, what you're saying is totally beside the point. The belief that God has a body (although not a corruptible, mortal body) is, in fact, LDS doctrine, as I clearly stated in my previous post.

Well, duh. I never said that we don't do this. What I actually said was this: "Mormons perform posthumous baptisms in an attempt to force everyone who has ever lived to convert to their religion." Perhaps I should have underlined the part of the statement the first time around that I underlined this time around.

Well, here's a news flash for you: We've never stopped doing baptisms for the dead. It's just that there are now restrictions in place concerning who we may not perform these baptisms for.

You may not have ever heard that, but trust me, I have definitely heard it stated more times than I can count.

Well, for starters, we don't believe in Original Sin. Jesus Christ atoned for Adam's sin as well as for everybody else's, and God doesn't punish people for sins they didn't commit. Secondly, we believe the spirit continues to exist as a cognizant entity after death, and that it is merely the body that dies. If we're right about that, then the spirit could either accept or reject the posthumous baptism done on behalf of the person who had died.

I'm not sure what the point of posthumously annulling marriages would be.

That may be the case, but there are millions of people who do believe that. They're just not Mormons.

I honestly don't have a clue what you're getting at.

If you say so. There's little point in arguing on something that's merely subjective. You could be right or I could, and no amount of debate is going to settle it.

So what does a Mormon believe in terms of our existence (and the thread)? Similar to a Christian? I’m curious of the differences between the two.