lds_mormon

This is a scripture that is usually used to discredit the church, claiming that we can not be right because of alleged false prophecies made by church leaders. I don't know if that is the case here; I'm not on often enough to know the topic starter's tendecies or religious affiliation. One thing that is interesting to note with this verse is that it doesn't say "If a person speaks..." it says if a "prophet speaks..." That could indicate that it's talking on a case by case basic, that just because something doesn't come true doesn't mean the man is not a prophet, just that he was wrong on that one account, maybe he was speaking his own opinion. And thus, that particular prophecy has no bearing on us.

I actually don't know how true this is. To my understanding, there is no law against students talking about religion during class. It may get them in trouble with the teacher for interupting their lesson, or getting off-topic, but there is no law against it. Separation of Church and State just means that the State can not sponsor a particular religion, in other words, our religious organizations are supposed to have no say in how the country is run. Even carrying on personal conversations with teachers is not against the law.

I simply write down any meaningful passage in a notebook or journal. I've got this sort of deep respect for books, and I don't like to write on them and even if I did, I wouldn't do it with the scriptures. I just feel like I'm committing some act of vandalism on God's Word if I do. I'm not saying anyone's wrong for doing it, I just can't bring myself to do so.

It's my understanding that it was an essential part of God's plan. Had they not partaken of the fruit, they could not have conceived children, and sin and death would not have entered the world. So had they not done that, none of us would not be here, Adam and Eve would have never been able to re-enter heaven (as they would still be living here on earth) and the concept of free agency, which was an eternal principle conceived before the foundation of the world was laid, would have never come to fruition. So I'd say yeah, it was part of the plan, or if it wasn't, God knew what was going to happen and worked it into his plan.

I believe in the creation story recounted in Genesis, about how God created everything and put them in their rightful place, but I'm not so sure I believe everything about the creation as our church explains it. Most Church's believe that the earth was created Ex Nihlo (out of nothing) But we claim that not even God can create matter, he simply organized it. He has to follow the rules, too. As a result, creation actually means to "organize" It is this logic that other Mormons use to explain scientific discoveries that claim the earth is older than six thousand years. Basically, since God is using 'used parts' there is a good chance that those parts will date back further than the creation. But I've always wondered how this can be. God didn't create this matter, because you can't create matter. But someone had to have made it at some point. I just can't buy into the theory that God used spare parts. I feel that God is all powerful, and thus can create whatever he likes. What are your thoughts on this, and are there any clarifications on it? This just doesn't logically make sense.

I suppose scriptures can help me when I am feeling down or angry. Sometimes I don't even have to read them, just holding them in my hands can be enough. But I have many other non religious things that get me through my day as well. Settling down and watching the Detroit Pistons go to work helps me to completely forget my problems as I get lost in the game.

Then how does their doctrine of "Once saved always saved," work if you can lose salvation? You know what's funny, Evangelists do believe in doing good works as well, they just don't want to admit it. I've had many debates with them over the subject, and they admit that you can't act however you please, that you don't have a free to sin card. It really does boil down to a difference in terminology. They say that we can not earn our salvation. There is nothing we can do on our own to earn God's good graces. And that's basically what we, as Latter Day Saints believe as well. We can't earn salvation, we must have faith. But in order to make our faith complete, we must have works. Like the book of James say, "Faith without Works is Dead." So just doing a lot of good deeds alone may not gain us salvation (in the celestial kingdom), for it is by faith that we are saved, but without the works, our faith can not be made complete.

Yes, I believe you are right on this one. The Book of Moses, from what I understand, covers about the first 8 or so chapters of the book of Genesis. Of course, Moses chapter 1 and, I think 7, are completely new, there is no equivalent in the Bible. The rest is so much more defined and gives more information that even those verses that have a counterpart in the Bible may as well be new material. The story of Enoch comes to mind. In the Bible, it basically says that he was a good man and that he walked with God. The Book of Moses portrays him as being one of the greatest prophets to ever live. When he talked, the earth quaked and so forth. It tells of how he founded the city Zion, and ruled over it. And just prior to the great flood, Enoch, along with Zion was translated and taken into heaven. This is just one such example. I personally find the Book of Moses to be one of the most interesting scriptures.

I don't know if I agree with the theory that angels mingled with mortal women. I don't believe it has much basis in the Bible. In fact, that doctine is, to my knowledge, only found in the gnostic book of Enoch. The book of Enoch supposedly gives more meaning to the verses directly preseding the flood. This account is found in Genesis 6:2-4 2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. 3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. According to Enoch, the sons of God that these verses are speaking of are rebellious angels, and the daughters of men, were just that, the human women. And the giants that are being spoken of are the offsprings of the angelsl and mortals. Then the Book of Enoch tells that God sent his righteous angels to fight these evil ones, and eventually, they cast the lead rebel angel into this pit in the ground. Imediately following this, God floods the earth to get rid of these giants. So I don't know if his theory is all that original as the Book of Enoch was written in about the 2nd century A.D. And I am unfamiliar with anything in the Bible that might give this theory any merit.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. But I'm not real up on the Book of Mormon. My specialty lies more with the Bible. I have set off to start reading the Book of Mormon all the way through again. Its been a while.

I have been carrying on some debates with other "traditional Christians" and one of the things they like to do is discredit the Book of Mormon by pointing out its logical errors. For the most part, I am doing a great job at defending it, but one thing I'm not too sure on how to defend it is their claim that only a handful of people came to the American continent, and within 30 years, there were two large civilizations at war with one another, the Nephites and Lamanites. I am a little rusty with the Book of Mormon, I don't study it as much as I'd like, so any advice on how to answer this would be greatly appreciated.