Vort

Spiritseeker, it seems to me that Ms. Toscano is a one-note piano player. She was excommunicated nine or ten years ago, yet it appears she's still agitating for her pet doctrine. (Her husband preceded her out of the Church by about five years, I believe, and she appears to have dutifully followed his lead.) We know that our Father has a wife of like glory. Beyond that, we know nothing. Why not? In my opinion, it's probably simply that we don't need to know. At this stage of our existence, we need to focus on our Father and worship him alone. Other information would be extraneous and potentially confusing -- note that even in our present situation, where we have been given almost no information about our "Mother in heaven", Toscano and others already advocate praying to her! How much more of such nonsense would arise if knowledge about her were openly revealed to the Church and the world? When the time is right, in this life or (more likely) the life to come, we will know all we need to know about our Mother in heaven, including knowing her face to face, as we will know our Father. Until then, please don't let the likes of Margaret Toscano cause you concern.

Now, now, aj4u. You know perfectly well that I never said any such thing. This is a misrepresentation of my post. Rather, I told you that your preaching is out of place on this particular board (which is called LDS Gospel Discussion). Other boards on this site are better suited to your efforts to call us to repentance. I even provided links for your convenience. I have no interest in "justifying my doctrine" to nonbelievers in the LDS Gospel Discussion forum. When I get a hankering to do so on lds.net, I head over to one of the forums I pointed you to. This particular forum is not for such things. I think I was pretty clear in saying that.

The forum you are in is called "LDS Gospel Discussion", not "aj4u's Personal Gospel Theories Discussion". In this forum, it is expected that the true, revealed gospel of Jesus Christ (aka LDS doctrine) takes front and center stage. You are, of course, welcome to pontificate to your heart's content, telling us how wrong our theology is and how Jesus is God's glory "bursting forth" or "erupting out" or "splitting open" or whatever terms you choose to employ. Believe and preach whatever you wish. But this forum is probably not the correct forum for such displays. I suggest the Christian Beliefs Board, or perhaps General Discussion.

Forgive me, Jim. As I wrote before, I could be mistaken. It appears I was. You did not say those words, but my understanding of what you wrote was that what I wrote was the logical extension of your beliefs: 1. God created all men. 2. God created men as he did because he wished to do so. 3. Because of #1 and #2, God could have created men differently, but chose not to. 4. Most men will dwell eternally in a hell of indescribable agony. 5. Because of #3 and #4, God clearly chose to create men in such a manner that the majority of them will dwell in indescribable eternal agony, when he might have chosen to create man otherwise. If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized any of your beliefs, please let me know.

The Church is the kingdom of God.

I do.

According to Jim's theology -- at least, if I'm understanding him correctly -- most people were created for hell.

Apostates or not, under Satan's control or not, you do not own your name after you die. There is no legal way, and as far as I'm aware no established method in the Church, to prevent your name from being processed like any other. Unless you wish to remove all traces of your existence from every file cabinet and database on earth. But you can rest easy. If Mormonism is the fraud you believe it to be, the "work" done by Mormons on behalf of your name won't affect your decaying corpse in the slightest. And if Mormonism is true after all, you still get to say "NO WAY, JOSE!" So either way, you win.

Zip code: 48169

Why sad? If that's how God created things to be, shouldn't you rejoice in the fact that most of God's created children will burn in an unspeakably nightmarish hell for all eternity? The second death.

Because he's a liar, a fraud, and a practitioner of priestcraft. No, it cannot be "legit". He is a vampire, preying on the spiritually weak and vulnerable. He should be reported to the stake president, who will put a stop to his actions, possibly through excommunication. (Waiting for Snow to lecture me on my childish judgmentalism...)

There were many thousands of other grammatical and spelling errors that the Prophet did not catch or correct. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that this is one of those.

I suspect it's much simpler than this. My understanding is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, but actually wrote none of it. At all times, he had a scribe (mostly Oliver Cowdery) to take dictation on his words. I suspect the scribe simply wrote the wrong homophone for this particular passage.

Still dodging my questions, Snow? How sad. Yet you still fail to explain how this language is either "childish" or "self-righteous". You seem to believe that your say-so is sufficient to establish truth. You have forgotten, or perhaps are simply ignoring, the genesis of the comment. Jim asked: Note his phraseoloogy: "indulge in a cold beer". This is not a momentary fit of pique, like not loving your neighbor. This is not a hard decision about paying bills or buying groceries, like tithing might be. This is not a matter of self-centered nearsightedness or getting sucked into the gray edges of propriety. Popping oneself a cold brewski is an intentional, deliberate, clearly defined act of rebellion against what one has covenanted to do (or not to do). Thus, my response to Jim: You have still failed to tell me what is incorrect about what I wrote, or to provide any measure of its impropriety other than your own say-so.

Ah. This is what is now passing for polite discourse. Thanks so much, Lutheran. So far, this makes sense. How? You believe in ONE baptism. Accordingly, you received your ONE baptism. So how do LDS beliefs or practices have any effect on your ONE baptism? You have already stated this. I already know you find it "disrespectful". What I don't understand is why. This is false. If they choose to participate in the LDS Christian faith tradition, they must indeed be baptized by LDS authority, since their original baptismal vow was not performed under any divinely sanctioned authority. In point of fact, this is why Latter-day Saints do proxy baptismal work.

Oh goody - let's play games, that would be ever so fun.Nope. No games, just sincere questions. Of course, this is a useless non-answer. "You're stupid because you're stupid." (FYI: What you wrote is a rather unimaginative example of "begging the question".) So why haven't you told President Monson how out of touch he is, along with the rest of the First Presidency and the Quorum of Twelve? Surely, your important insight must be heard! P.S. prospectmom is your friend.

Can't much blame you for that. Few people enjoy being attacked. But I haven't attacked you; I have merely pointed out when you have made false accusations and have responded to points you have brought up. If you feel attacked, that probably has far more to do with you than with me. Uh...that's obvious, isn't it? This is a discussion board, after all. What did you think people would post on a discussion board, if not their own judgments and opinions? A PARTIAL LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT VORT HAS ASKED PROSPECTMOM BUT THAT PROSPECTMOM HAS NOT YET ANSWERED: (Followed by two examples) (Note that this is actually two separate questions you failed to answer, not one.) Still awaiting your responses. Seeing as how I have never been banned, it would appear your wish has been granted. Now, prospectmom, answer honestly: Do you really want me to list out the many personal attacks, name-calling, and personal judgments against me that you have engaged in on this thread alone? As I have illustrated earlier in this reply, asking you for further explanations hasn't yielded much. Swearing, huh? By all means, please oh please oh please show me where I have engaged in "cursing or crude language". Right kind of you there, pm. :)

I can't say, because I don't know the nature of the mechanism of choice. I bet you don't, either. What has that to do with the topic of discussion? Ideally, yes. Again, what has that to do with the topic of discussion? Snarkiness noted (and appreciated).

No, I'm actually quite happy. I have a beautiful and loving wife, great kids, a fantastic ward, good health. Hard to ask for much more, actually. God has been very good to me, far beyond what I deserve. I notice you enjoy asking questions and passing judgment, but that you avoid answering questions and flip out any time you think someone else is passing judgment. Why is that?

If there is no choice after death, then how can proxy baptism for the dead be offensive? No one can choose to be Mormon, so no harm done. Yes, and one might also go so far as to say that you are a cheese and bacon sandwich. But that doesn't make you a cheese and bacon sandwich. The fact that someone says some absurd thing does not magically give that absurdity some sort of life. I agree with your O, but I don't understand the relevance to the present discussion -- unless you are saying that proxy baptism for the dead is Godly because it offers choice to those who otherwise would have no choice. In which case, I agree.

Exactly what is it you think I should let go? I will respond to or include you in my posts when I choose to do so. If you again make false statements like you did, I will correct you if I wish to do so. If you make false accusations against me again, I will respond and tell you that you are wrong if I want to do so. If you ask any question, make any comment, or write anything that I have any desire to comment on, I will do so at my own discretion.

I have never heard of this. A few decades ago, my mission president made it clear that those who were struggling with homosexual desires probably should be home working on their problems rather than in the mission field. A few years ago, my stake president made almost the same point, suggesting that those struggling with homosexual desires probably had other things to worry about than missions. I suppose that would be for his mission president to determine. I know that an elder in my mission once confided to the mission president that he felt some slight attraction to one of the sisters. The next morning, he was on his way to a new city. I assume homosexual feelings would be treated the same way, and if the missionary were unable to be in a situation without such feelings, the mission president might just send him home. But that's merely my own guess. I know of no scripture that defines celibacy in terms of lust.

Yes. I mean, no. I mean, er, I don't think you've phrased the question so that it can be answered unambiguously with a "yes" or a "no". Soda pop of any stripe (that I know of) is not mentioned at all in the Word of Wisdom. It is not disallowed. Drink all you want; my personal preference is for Squirt, but I'll go for most things that aren't artificially sweetened or caffeinated. Caffeine is not mentioned nor disallowed in the Word of Wisdom; you may drink gallons of Jolt cola and pop No-Doz by the dozen and still get a temple recommend. However, many members have wondered why coffee and tea are specifically disallowed, and have concluded that their caffeine content (and tea's tannin) are probably the reason God didn't want us drinking them. They have therefore determined to avoid all caffeinated drinks, not just coffee and tea. Since there is certainly no harm that comes from avoiding caffeine and probably some benefit, this seems like a reasonable practice (though second-guessing God's reasons doesn't sound like a sure bet). Others go even further, reasoning that drinking highly sugared water (i.e. soda pop) doesn't do us a bit of good and simply makes us fat and unhealthy. They avoid soda pop altogether. Again, I think this is probably a reasonable, even a wise, practice. We should all show such wisdom as to avoid the intake of large amounts of soda pop, candy, popcorn, butter, and other things that are unhealthy in excess. The problem comes when someone represents one of these "good ideas" as being mandated by the Word of Wisdom. They are not; they are reasonable extrapolations, or perhaps an example of living by the spirit of the law rather than merely the letter. But if I have decided that caffeinated drinks are very bad for my health and that I will avoid them altogether from now on -- even if God reveals that to be the case -- I still cannot claim that you are held to the same standard. Bottom line: The Word of Wisdom doesn't say anything about soda pop or caffeine.

Please explain in what sense it can possibly be considered disrespectful to offer someone (who is not even alive any more, but already dead!) the choice of accepting LDS ordinances. If we were proxy baptizing the living, I could perhaps see where someone might take offense. But proxy baptizing dead people so they can have that choice if they want it? How can any rational mind take offense at that? Seriously, I want to know. Please explain how proxy ordinances do not allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. How does proxy baptism prevent anyone, living or dead, from worshiping God however they wish? So you think that "hitting someone with truth and light...after [they have] kicked the bucket" is disrespectful? Maybe I just don't understand what other people find offensive. I have always thought of "disrespect" as failing to show respect, or showing an overt lack of respect, to others. Apparently, other people think of "disrespect" in another way altogether.

Why? Because I keep pointing out that what you write is incorrect? As long as you wish to talk me into accepting what you write at face value, including having me apologize for things you falsely accused me of and that I didn't write, I suppose you're correct. You can't browbeat me into agreeing with you when you're wrong, so if that is your goal, I guess you're right, there is not sense in trying to talk to me. Or you could just say, "Wow, I guess you were right. Sorry." But that might make you look like a pathetic sheepish follower, so best not to go there. Maybe honesty is not always the best policy, after all.