Lstinthwrld

Your right I should have said some of the points in the KFD. The missionaries were over sunday night and they were going over some stuff I recognized from the KFD so I am a little confused on the whole issue. I have friend who is a lifelong LDS member and he said to just stick to canon but it seems to me that a lot of the stuff that is believed necessary for salvation is taught in the KFD and not found in canon. So confused! Help.

this is a site April 7, 1844 I found that shows five transcriptions of the discourse. I had always heard that more than one person recorded it. If it was never rubber stamped why is it taught at all aside of an interesting side note to Joseph Smiths prophecy.

I am hoping someone can shed some light on the subject of the King Follet discourse for me. As an outsider looking in it seems that the KFD encompasses a lot of the teachings that are taught in the church today but I get told it is not cannon and therefore not valid as doctrine. I would like to know what are the differences between the KFD and accepted church doctrine and if it is considered as one of Joseph smiths more important sermons why isn't it doctrine? Thank you in advance. Steve

Isn't one of the precepts of the christian faith in general to be humble and sincere in your dealings with the world. Wouldn't someone asking in ignorance and challenge be seen as a chance to talk to and enlighten that lost soul. If the belief is an honest belief then any defensive posture or even a guard to lower is in my opinion inappropriate. Yes mormons are demonized quite frequently but this does not mean you all need to put up a guard or act defensively. It just means that you have to show more patience and understanding in the face of ignorance and persecution. Being under a microscope as the mormon religion is means you have to be a good example of your beliefs as much as possible.

I would like to meet you in person. It has been my experience that no matter how educated or arrogant in the anonymous environment of the internet the person is they are usually decent humble people face to face. The internet gives a false sense of authority. And almost always brings the worst out of a persons personality. I think in person we would have many deep and profitable conversations. I respect your depth of knowledge just not the way you present your self in these forums.

Who was the first person to compile the bible with the new testament as we have it today?

The scriptures you quote here are from the Old Testament. Christ was supposed to be the fulfillment of the law and bring a new gospel. The old testament is important but with the coming of the Christ it is not absolute. Before you believe the bible as the inerrant word of god look into the history of the bible. It will change your mind on that fact. The concept that mormons teach as eternal progression or godhood was a commonly taught idea in the first few centuries of Christianity. They just labeled by a greek term instead of an english one. They called it theosis.

The reason and in fact the salvation is not in the attainment of perfection but in the struggle for. We were not designed as perfect beings there would be no point if this were the case. We were put here with urges and desires and free will with the direction to go in. The rest is up to us. God does not want us to be perfect just vigilant.

An example of what?

I think some of us might feel similarly towards the mormon scriptures. In the end how do you prove which way is true if either way even is?

It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe you.

This may represent the first time that Vort and I come close to being in agreement on a subject. The key to the pro-life vs pro-choice debate is centered in theology/doctrine/dogma. Exactly when does the soul populate the fetus and create a viable human being (read child of God) and not just a jumble of dividing cells with base instincts? Science may argue about this but the Christian religion in general (I.E. not a single church body but all of them) is very clear and says this miracle happens at the moment of conception. There are three parts to this. The essence of the mother the essence of the father and the breath of God at the instant of conception when mitosis begins is when that child starts to live by the grace of God. Does this mean I am strictly pro-life? No like all corners of life this one is not black and white. There will always be gray. I believe this option no matter how distastefull I personally find it has to be out there and legally available. With restrictions. I don't however believe this should be an elective procedure but should be governed. If you are part of a church this should fall under the pastoral responsibilities of your minister/priest/bishop to help council you and ultimately make the recommendation that allows the procedure to happen. If no religion is involved maybe this would be a good responsibility for a trained and certified counselor to be involved in. It is a human life. Period. Not only a human life but the most precious of human lives. An innocent helpless relies on mommy and daddy for its care and continued existence human life. Sounds a little harsh and maybe a little too passionate right. It should. If this question ever comes up in a woman's life it should be considered with at least this level of reality.

I have no understanding of the Temple Garments. Can anyone here elaborate on the reason for them and why they are used?

Why do you think LDS people in general are so quick to get defensive when questions on their faith/doctrine are presented. (be nice with your replies please)

This may just be the most eloquent description of this experience I have ever read/heard. It actually answered a lot of questions I had about the experience and thought it may just be to personal to have explained well. Thank you for sharing.

This is much too convenient of an answer. The question posed was simple Please answer it without dodging or trying to dodge it.

No the reason for my debate of this issue is the assumptions Shirts erroneously made in defense of JS translation. He said that anyone faliliar with the issue would be aware of the thunderclap that just sounded. Well all I heard was a rather weak fart.

Me too. I run into this being quoted often and when I use some of the information in it I am told it isn't valid as canonized doctrine. This is one of the issues that confuses and frustrates me.

This is interesting. Is the King Follet discorse mormon doctrine?

The diamond can be veeerrryyyy big.

You are very wise Miss halfway your posts are always well thought out and always seem to go to the root of my problem. I may just have to message you personally with my questions from now on. I think I love you. Will you marry me?

I was frustrated when I posted this. While it may be one of my hang ups I should not have worded it so strongly. I am sorry for the tone.

Me too.

Sorry about the confusion Pam. In bolds shows the point of this post not the old monotheistic 'debate'

Its not so much the monotheistic henotheistic thing I am wondering about so much as why is there so much room to interpret it in the mormon church?