Snow

For anyone who didn't figure it out in the first obvious post or the second obvious post, santuaryave is just a troll with a less than deft touch. Stay tune as he reveals himself. What do you mean by that?? I mean you are not an honest poster. You have ulterior motives. You already know the answers to the questions you are pretending to ask. You only ask them to set up an opportunity to demean the Church once you think you have set us up properly. A more courageous and honest poster would have come in and been clear with their motives. A more clever poster would have done a MUCH better job in disguising their intentions. I don't care if you are a critic. You can be dealt with easily enough. I just don't care for your tactics. Even the non-Mormons here are onto you.

Hey snow, YOu've finally got him trained! For my next trick, I will make Ed Decker evaporate into thin air!

Lookee here Cal,You have adopted a very deliberate strategy on LDStalk that essentially consists of insulting the Church whether they deserve it or not and misrepresent the LDS position to do it. You can't very well expect no one to notice. Besides, your complaint would have more weight if in fact I had called you any names in this thread.

That's because I probably won't be much interested in something that you know more about than I do. I recognize that you know more about, probably, a bunch of things: obviously the military, clinical emergency medicine; I have seen you give pretty solid relationship advice; your knowledge of Bible scripture is probably greater than mine; I assume there are other things as well. The issue with you is not your knowledge base Trident. In my opinion you are not a very clear thinker, not terribly rational, and are given to superstition. Half the stuff I say in opposition to you is not necessarily because I think you are wrong, but because your argumentation is so bad. Ex: You said that homosexuality is in opposition to the principles of evolution. Well, okay, I know the point you are trying to make but you leave yourself so open to criticism by the way you present it. First, I doubt you even believe in human evolution. Second, according to your line of thinking, homosexuality is no more against the principles of evolution than is a childless heterosexual. That is, it's easy to find fault in your reasoning. Wrong Trident. I never justify the Church's supposed faults by pointing fingers. The Church stands or falls on its own merits. I point the finger at others when I think that their tactics are unfair. By attacking unfairly, I say they leave themselves open to unfair rebuttals. Tit for Tat if you will. Make a reasonable argument and see the way I respond.

Which reminds me, just exactly do you think that mankind is evolving into?

Snow happy!

For anyone who didn't figure it out in the first obvious post or the second obvious post, santuaryave is just a troll with a less than deft touch. Stay tune as he reveals himself.

Not exactly Ohio.In answer to your question [Anyway, is this forum for only gospel and doctrine discussion or can we talk about anything related to the church or its members? Also can we have "off-topic" discussions or is there another forum for that?]; if you talk about something and can't directly tie it to the Church/gospel, the moderators will move the topic to the General Discussion forum. That forum doesn't get hardly any traffic because it is so far down in the forum order. This forum, Gospel Discussion used to come after General Discussion and so it hardly got any action. Then the moderators switch order and now neither forum gets much traffic.

As of yet we have no knowledge of human flesh being fed to [German] prisoners, but we know that disease germs have been injected into their bloodstreams and it has been said that women have been nailed to doors within churches, after the brutes into whose hands they have fallen have accomplished their wicked purposes. You know, we just don't get a lot of juicy commentary like we did in the Oct. 1918 Relief Society Magazine (5). I miss the good old days of assertive communication. Don't you? "Common wisdom has held that men are the prime consumers of smut, but an Internet research company has found that women, primarily those between 18 and 34 years of age made up 42 percent of the visitors to such sites in January. One woman, sho said she hopes to produce and direct her own pornographic films tod the Times this was an issue of "empowering" women. Isn't it interesting how the world can take the very thing that saps humanity of it's real power and call it empowerment? ...Pornography today, which is being forced upon the people in ways never before comtemplated, is destroying countless lives, addicting minds and robbing people of uplifting passions and fellings. It causes people to view one another as objects for their own selfish pleasure, not as human beings worthy of respect and human dignity..." Yeah, yeah, yeah, I agree with all that and stuff. I would say that the purveyors and consumers of porn, by and large, suffer those consequences more than do those who aren't involved with it. I don't have any evidence to back up that conclusion but it makes some prima facie sense, does it not? Maybe it even makes some a priori sense for that matter. BUT, is it necessarily so? Is there an inevitable connection between porn and the aforemention incompatibly with human dignity, decency, goodness... I mean, could there be a person who involved themselves in the consumption of pornography, and yet maintained a good and productive and righteous life, towards him/herself, towards her/his family, in keeping with the wider principles of the gospel? Are there such individual that are good practicing Christians? Good practicing Mormons? Good practicing members of the Green Party? Note: I just posted this last bit on porn as a new topic and am placing it here as an edit to this post to preserve a copy of it because I think at least one of the moderators with get a little bent about it and delete it. It actually came from the Feb 28, 2004 Church news so it should be more than fit to print but who knows if there will know that. So, I'm placing here for safekeeping so I can repost it easily...

So I was just at Barnes and Noble weighing out my next purchase. (I buy books by the pound now - topics are only of secondary import). The Barnes and Nobles here usually have a shelf or two of LDS books. The selection today had two anti-books, a couple critical, non-polemical books and half a dozen regular LDS selctions but interestingly there was the Revised Authorized Version of the BoM, by the Community of Christ Church. One of our RLDS friend can better address what it is but apparently it is a revision to the BoM based upon the original printer's manuscript and the 1838 Kirtland edition. It was a cheap production, $4.95, but it is wierd to see a BoM in a regular bookstore much less a Revised Authorized BoM. Rock on!

Your continual misstatements about LDS beliefs is either from lack of knowledge or dishonesty. Personally I think your knowledge of our beliefs is very shallow but have it your way; your mistatements are not from ignorance. Note that this is not said just to make you mad. This whole thread easily shows just how badly you misrepresent our beliefs. A excellent case in point is found in your very last post: Utter nonsense and pure falsehood Cal. Find me a Mormon on this board, there are hundreds, that wishes that God would not act without the priesthood so that they could pretend that they are more special than others. Everyone here knows that is a fabrication. You’re busted. This is another reason that shows you are unaware of even the simplest of LDS doctrine. We believe that to obtain full salvation, one must participate in salvific ordinances which are effectuated through priesthood. Anyone who has a minimum of LDS education knows that yet you act as if you don’t know it. Ignorant or dishonest, whatever Cal. Remember the issue is not whether or not you accept the same belief, but rather is it internally consistent - and it is. There is no conumdrum and I just did explain it though all educated Mormons already knew it. Additionally, all educated Mormons also know the answer to your last question that one of the reasons for the exercise of the priesthood is that man is actively engaged in learing by experience and learning by experience requires experience. It is no surprize to actual Mormons that we are busy gaining knowledge through stewardship. Logic Cal, logic. You are assuming all sorts of things with no valid reasoning. I never claimed that priesthood is ONLY exercised with God’s will. Sorry, I don’t know who you are arguing with here. Not me, obviously. You challenge me to prove that what I believe. Now that’s just plain weird. I’m LDS. I told you what I believe. Accept it or not. You’re starting to dribble Cal. You have lost me. Tighten up your argument and get back to me. BTW, I notice you are not taking me up on the little PD challenge. No surprizes there. Unless you have something useful to add, we can always agree to disagree on this one, but I will allow you the honor of the last parting shot if you wish, and I will smile in silence.

Doesn't he say this about each and every topic that is discussed on this board? Absolutely not. I know more about antimormon argument than do you but that's not saying much. There are probably a couple of posters here that know more than I do. Bat and AS and exMormon certainly have read their fair share. I know more about LDS doctrine than Cal but probably not as much as Curvette and PD, and others who are not named. I know a little about emergency medical care (not much) but if I was ever in horrible, bloody, extremely gory, life threatening accident, where all my bodily fluids were spurting onto the pavement, I'd call the good doctor that posts on this board. If he wasn't available I would call you and ask you to put your fine paramedic skills to work my good boy. A great blessing in life is that I know, fairly accurately, where I peck in the pecking order.

Come on Jimmy,I don't hate you. I love you and your firey spirit. Evolution is based upon mutations occurring in the genetic code of an organism. Homosexuality in no more opposed that principle than do you, Jimmy, if you haven't mutated. You haven't mutated yet have you?

Cal,You're such a silly sort. In another thread I just saw you chide Peace for fundamental flaws in her logic and then you turn around and give us this gem of wisdom: God acts on earth w/o the priesthood = priesthood is unnecessary. In order for that to be true (which it isn't) at minimum 2 conditions would be necessary. 1. Priesthood's only function would be to bless, favor and heal; and 2. God could only bless, heal and favor through the priesthood. As it turns out, neither is true according to LDS belief. God, we believe, does not require the priesthood in order to act but does use the priesthood to act as he so chooses. However it is not an exclusive arrangement. We do not limit God and believe that he acts in multitudes of ways to bring about eternal life for man both inside the Church and outside. He acted during the apostacy to prepare a way for the restoration, he has called prophets and revealed to them his plans without the vehicle of the priesthood and inspired mankind through the Holy Ghost and light of Christ. Further, the Priesthood has other functions beyond healing, blessing and favoring; effectuating the ordinances of the gospel being one of them. You really have me scratching my head on this one. I know you come from a scientific background and therefore should have some history in logical processing but I can spot your flaws without giving them a second thought - so obivious are they. Me thinks you are so intent on finding fault in the Church that you have failed to spot the faults in your own thinking. Hey, here's a little test - if you really believe you have a point. I think that we can both agree that PD is as logical and fair as anyone on this board. Right? Take the argument above ["admitt(ing) that God does INDEED bless, favor, and heal WITHOUT the mormon priesthood being involved, you... establish(es) that Mormon Priesthood is UNNECESSARY"] and get him to say yea or nay. However, you needn't trouble yourself on my account. I already know the answer. Regards, Snow

The harm inherrent in AS's post is conjurred up soley in the mind of the one seeking to be offended. Sure, he had motives but his motives only work with the willing participation of people looking to be offended. If he were to ask me if I was fat, there is no possible way that I could be offened. One, I'm not. Two, if I were, it would be by choice (barring some rare metabolic disorder) and since I made the choice to be fat, (caused by consuming more calories than I needed to maintain a more optimal weight) that would of course mean that I preferred the lifestyle that led to the condition over a lifestyle that didn't. Conclusion: You (or others) are not offended by what AS said. You are just offended by fat but you just don't want others to point it out. His remark, though juvenile, was harmless.

Cal, Your lenghty reponse to me was such a mess that I couldn't follow it so I took just one part out of it to illustrate how very flawed your thinking was. This was one of your first statements: Cal: "He can alliviate suffering and refuses to do so on a regular basis. Oh, he does it for whom he "choses", according to mormons. Only if you are rightous enough and have the "priesthood" Snow: I criticized it and said that is an outright falsehood and that Mormonism holds no such belief. Cal: You responded to my criticism by saying this: " PRIESTHOOD----Exactly! Are you trying to assert that you don't need the priesthood to call god down to heal people? If not, then why all this "laying on of the hands stuff"? and this: Cal: "Snow--what you have mostly done here is simply make bald assertions to the contrary, not cite evidence" Snow's followup: Like I said, your post is such a mess, I won't bother trying to follow it but I will dissect your flawed thinking on this minor point as an illustration... You initially claimed that that God ONLY "choses" to alleviate suffering if you are righteous and have the priesthood. I correctly pointed out that is a falsehood. You responded not by refuting what I said but by asking a question. The answer to your question, even if it were the one you were looking for (which it is not) doesn't address your original false contention. Mormons do believe that through the administration of the priesthood, God may heal but that does nothing to support your false claim that suffering is alleviated ONLY for the righteous with the priesthood. Mormons believe nothing of the sort. God can and does (for all we know) intervene in the affairs of non-righteous, non-priesthood bearers all the time). Righteousness and priesthood are not requistite, in Mormonism, for God's intervention. Obviously you understand the fallacy in your position because you turn around and say of me that all I have done to counter you is make bald assertions. Cal, apparently you are not familiar with a few of the rules of logic. Let me give you an example. I can say that you once had mad monkey love with Janet Jackson and there is precious little you can do to disprove me. Your inability to disprove it is of little import because the burden of proof is not on you. It would be up to me to prove it. You made a completely absurd and ignorant statement about our beliefs. I respond that I, Snow, who am more knowledgeable than you about LDS doctrine, know your statement is false. (By the way, all other Mormons here can attest that we do not believe that God ONLY alleviates suffering for righteous priesthood holders). But regardless of what I know in that regard, I also know that you cannot offer any evidence what so ever that show we believe that God alleviates ONLY the suffering of righteous priesthood holders. The very notion is absurd. We believe that God has regularly intervened in the affairs of non-priesthood holders and his actions have alleviated suffering. For example, it is a standard LDS belief that God inspired the US Constitution and that the liberty it grants has improved the lot of all-mankind, alleviating suffering caused by oppressive government and lack of freedom of religion. There, I didn't need to offer evidence because the burden is on you but I did anyway - just like I could for all your points. Goodnight Gracie.

Huh?Here are the principles of evolution: 1. Evolution proceeds as changes (mutations) occur in the genetic code of an organism. 2. These mutations are 'tested' by the environment in which the organism exists. 3. Many (most) of the changes will be harmful to the organism, and it will die before the harmful genes are passed on to its offspring. 4. Occasionally, however, a gene combination will arise the actually improves the adaptation of the organism to its' particular environment and these genes are more likely to be passed on. 5. By this process, called 'natural selection', all life has branched. How does homosexuality come in? Oh yeah - here it is: Principle number 6. No queers. Good thinking Trident, you're onto something.

Well okay, but what does wondering if someone is fat have to do with attacking anybody? Do you think being fat is evil? Do you think that wondering about it is immoral?

We believe in a powerful god and maybe even all-powerful. It depends how you define all-powerful. I don't believe that God can do contradictory things - like cook a T-bone so big that even he cannot eat it. I don't think that God can act in ways that defy eternal laws - like the law of justice. I don't think that God is all-powerful in that he created all things including evil. I don't think that God can perfect his children without the Plan of Salvation (or at least do it better, with less suffering).Whether he could mechanically do any of that is one thing. Whether he could do that and still be God is another thing. What what it is worth, I doubt that anybody, mainline Christians included, really thinks that God is truly all-powerful, being able to do anything at all with absolutely no limit to what he can do.

Who cares. It is a false analogy. I blame the rapist and I blame you when you punch innocent people. That, however, has nothing to do with theodicy - the problem of evil.

Snow--OK, just for fun, let's hear them! :) What have I said that doesn't have AT LEAST some element of truth, or is not a logical conclusion based on valid premises? Which of my premises are faulty OR which of my conclusions are faulty? Let's be specific. There are far far too many mistruths, errors and logical fallacies in your whole post to cover in one evening so let's just started with the numerous mistruths, errors and fallacies in this one small paragraph:>>>Therefore, the mormon God is truely HEARTLESS. 1. As a statment, that is false and quite the opposite of what Mormons believe about God. It just will not do to define LDS beliefs in a way that defies our own self-understanding. 2. As the conclusion of an argument, it a completely erroneous. Here are the propositions that you think led to such a conclusion (along with commentary) a. God is in control over pain and suffering. (fallacy, assumes something not yet demonstrated. b. Mormons and Mormon scripture regularly say that God is involved in this thing and that thing, punishes this or that person. (unrelated in any substantive way to the fallacy a.) c. The above two items means that God is in sufficient control to make him responsible for both good and evil. (no evidence has been offered for this propostion/conclusion - besides which it assumes something that Mormonism does not accept - that God is the author of or the allower of evil in a way that make him the owner/steward of it) d. God "apparently" turns a blind eye (nothing you have said so far makes any such thing apparent and such a position is in opposite to LDS beliefs which hold that God is very interested in the affairs of this children. dd. This is logically inconsistent with your proposition b, which calls for a God who does not turn a blind eye. e. You mention stories of God warning or advising his choosen few. (red herring - among other things. Your antedoctal reccollections of Mormon myths and stories hardly has any import for this discussion) f. You again claim that "apparently" God could care less for children with cancer (no evidence offered and nothing you have said thus far make any such conclusion "apparent" and such in contrary to LDS belief which holds that God does care) All the above fallacies lead you to the conclusion that God is heartless which is still factly untrue in LDS beliefs. >>> He can alliviate suffering and refuses to do so on a regular basis. Does he? What evidence do you have of that? If God can intervene, a point you have failed to establish, your position assumes that his so refusing does not have a higher better purpose that is ultimately more humane. >>>Oh, he does it for whom he "choses", according to mormons. Here your poisoning the waters, Additionally you are giving the appearance that Mormons, as opposed to non-Mormons believe this when it fact it is a pretty standard belief among all believers. In addition, Mormons also believe in covenants - that is is not just a matter of chosing, but also a matter of contractual obligation. >>>Only if you are rightous enough and have the "priesthood". Outright falsehood. There is no such belief in Mormonism. >>>Does it matter that you never had a chance to learn about mormonism---NOPE---God won't step in unless you actually go to church regularly! That makes two outright falsehoods in a row. >>>Is God going to solve your financial problems? Not if you don't pay your tithing! False on two counts. 1. Paying tithing does not mean that God WILL solve your financial situations and 2. God may or may not do anything to solve or not solve the financial situation of those who don't pay their taxes. Either way, you have mistated LDS beliefs, offered no proof to support your position and assume things not in evidence. >>>Not if you don't pay your tithing! God only helps people who jump through the right hoops. Another outright falsehood that is out of step with LDS beliefs and the evidence (lack of) that you have presented.

So far no one has addressed the issue. You are all mostly talking right past it. The issue here is theodicy - the problem of evil. It is essentially a “tri”-lemma. 1. God is omni-benevolent (all-kind or all-good) 2. Goad is omnipotent (all-powerful) 3. Unnecessary evil exists That’s the problem. A omniscient God (who knows about the evil) who was truly interested in the welfare of his creation, could not allow such evil as is in the world to exist. Note that “evil” means suffering caused by both immorality (murder etc) and natural suffering (natural or accidental harm - fire etc) Here are some solutions to the problem: 1. (the orthodox Christian solution) Man is not innocent. Adam fell - thus all men are sinners and deserve what they get. (author’s note: that’s stupid) 2. Suffering and evil are just an illusion - that in the greater scheme of things, the suffering of this earth is so minor that it is not real suffering. 3. God does not exist. 4. God is not all-powerful and cannot stop all evil. 5. God is not all-knowing and doesn’t know about all the evil. 6. God is not all-kind and doesn’t mind if humans suffer unnecessarily. 7. The suffering that occurs is necessary to accomplish God’s plans, such as perfecting mankind. That’s PD’s approach. Still, think of a murder and brutal rape of and child where no one finds out about it. It is hard to imagine how that benefits anyone as a learning experience since it no one knows about it. 8. God is not the creator of everything and thus is not responsible for all evil. There are probably other possible solutions but off the top of my head, those are the main ones. Mormonism solves the issue pretty easily with a combination of 4, 7 and 8. Cal, You are so full of it - I say with the utmost of respect. If I believed all the screwed up things you believe about Mormonism, I would be more antagonistic than you are. More later but here’s a teaser. You said: “ Therefore, the mormon God is truely HEARTLESS. He can alliviate suffering and refuses to do so on a regular basis. Oh, he does it for whom he "choses", according to mormons. Only if you are rightous enough and have the "priesthood". Does it matter that you never had a chance to learn about mormonism---NOPE---God won't step in unless you actually go to church regularly! Is God going to solve your financial problems? Not if you don't pay your tithing! God only helps people who jump through the right hoops. I bet I can find about a dozen misrepresentations, exaggerations, logical fallacies and outright mistruths in that brief paragraph alone - and I just copied that one at random.

On earth? I don't think so.And no, not at least President's Snow's generation - we still all (the orthodox) believe it today.

If I punch you in the face who do you blame, me or the person who taught my how to punch? Or would you blame God for not stoping the punch? You think that teaching someone to punch is analogous to an all-powerful creator who created the murderer and created his environment and created his parents and created his spirit which entered his body when the creator decided which family he was to be born into and created and put into motion all the dynamics that led to the horrible deed, and then stood idly by and did nothing to perhap the act?Antishock, You explain it to him.

That's not the argument - that disinterested 3rd party parties saw the plates.The issue is - of those that saw them and felt them - was the seeing and feeling spiritual or physical. I dunno as I have never examined it but am willing to wager that the critics have constructed a faulty argument. (No mention is being made about the many faulty argument the apologist have undoubtedly made).