Snow

Warned? Why? Oh, AS is on double-secret probation. What's the problem with being fat Spencer? You act like AS has made an unwarranted moral pronouncement.

I just glanced at the thread so forgive me for not addressing it completely, I'll get to more of it later, but, in a traditional Christian model of an omnipotent diety, of course you have to blame God. If the all-powerful, all=knowing creator of everything that is created is responsible for what He created, then who is? On the other hand, this is probably one of the best arguments for why the traditional Christian model doesn't make sense. (Don't worry Trident, you aren't expected to get it) More later.

Oh, but AS, As far as whether or not anyone besides JS ever physically saw and or held the plates, I have not read up on it but I suspect that the anti's argument is the weaker or the two, probably significantly so.

Sorry Cal,It was just a play on words offset against Jimmy's post. I am active - look a little higher up in the thread for my post on the subject. I guess that the upside is that at least some of you are reading for content - thanks.

Hold on there a minute. I readily admit to snowfuscation in arguments that are nothing but exercise in clever word play - like ones with bat, especially the fake ex-navy general, you, etc, but I don't ever recall deliberately leading anyone astray on material fact in a straight up debate. In this case I think you are talking about golden plates in the post I made about the translation process. Specificially I said that Martin Harris estimated their weight to be about 50 lbs - after having lifting them - AND, right there I put in the clause that he had lifted them while they were in their box. My direct point was that he didn't lift the plates and plates alone or even see the plates on that occasion in as much as they were IN THE BOX. I think you then asked a clarying question and I quickly responded that at least on that occasion, he didn't see them, to my knowledge.Now you have been confused and coming from your perspective vis a vis my posting style, that's not so hard to see why, but my intent was never to mislead anyone and in fact I think I actually went the extra bit to make it clear that Harris's experience was with a box and what he believed to be in it, That's not to say that I have never let someone draw incorrect conclusions from ambiguity in my posts but I think we both agree that many debates aren't honest debates but exercises in sleight of hand tricks. I readily admit that I am a "homer" when it comes to the Church, just like I was a homer with my HS and college sport's teams and like I am about Utah in general, or my kids, or Mac computers. And, like a parent, I am sometimes overly critical of my kids and I am also over critical (sometimes) of the Church - more than it warrants. Still, I do think that it is a marvelous institutions, one that is made all the more fascinating for its human flaws. In a way I suppose I am a bit proud of my faith, but maybe even more I take great joy in it and my joy spills out onto the page, with the ink of my obnoxious personality.

Oh, yeah, Lindy just PM'd me to ask me about that. I can't even see where I wrote that, but I am sure that it was just an odd throw-in line to see who was paying attention. I am more active than at any time since my mission (to save the world). I love the gospel and I love the Church (though I think the members are a bunch of flipp'n weirdos). Several years ago I went though spiritual re-birth of sorts and now have more interest in and passion for all things religious (and especially LDS) than I ever though possible. Antishock's theory that I would follow his path to apostasy has turned out to be a bust. It is funny or odd or noteworthy that two people can get exposed to the same stimuli and experience two completely different outcomes. He may be smarter than I am but I have more hair and once dated my cousin who was totally hot - so I got that going for me, you know. Anyway, beyond the intellectual fascination I have with religion and specifically Mormon History and how it gives us a unique and unmatched view into how religions with supernatural beliefs are formed, I also find the whole gospel/church experience to be rich and textured and nuanced and complex and fullfilling and all things bright and beautiful, wise and wonderful. Cheers.

Now that I am an "non-active Mormon," it bothers me that kids like you that allegedly think they know what they are talking about could say so many dumb things. Once I realized that their opinions, even though stated as fact, were worth no more that the non-existenct paper they were written on, it all fell into place. When that happened, I was free to obseve that phrases like "cognitive dissonance" sound important but really mean nothing other than indicate that you kids all hang out on the same message board.Of course, your opinion is simply a man-made attempt to explain something you don't get and heaven forbid that your house of semi-rational cards comes tumbling down, but hey, everybody's got to believe something.

And here's another thought.Jimmy is probably not a new poster, just a recylcer, but in the unlikely event that his entirely worn and tired spiel is, um his first time posting... let me ask, you state your opinion not as an opinion, but as a fact you came into possession of (please excuse the propisiitional ending). Pray tell, what is it that you think you know that the rest of us believers don't.

Cal,Here's what I said: "Without temples and a lay priesthood, and widespread missionary service, and the WoW, and Mormon specific scripture and shared hardship... etc, Mormonism might well be just another, of many, denomination." The WoW is one of many defining charactersitics. However, mention abstinence from coffee, tea, alcohol and tobacco and I don't most people we know would say... "those wacky Muslims" They might well say, "Whaddareya, a Mormon?

Sorry, Snow, but this part of your post is evidently not true. There are whole other denominations out there that were part of the original movement, just like the LDS, that are not capital M Mormons. We are mormon, but we are not LDS. Jenda, I don't get what part of my post you say is untrue. Mormonism is a considered by many, Mormon or not, to be a seperate and distinct religion - Christian but in a way that no other Christian movement is. Mormons do not consider Community of Christ Church to be the Mormon Church nor do they so consider the Stangites, nor the Culterites nor the Fundamentalist. The non-Mormon does not, I think, consider any of those groups to be Mormon either. If some non-LDS person is talking about "those Mormons" 998 times out of a 1000, they are not thinking of the Community of Christ Church. You might be more like us than, say, the Catholics, but in the Mormon and non-Mormon consciousness, you are not part of a "seperate and distinct" people - a "peculiar people" You may call yourselves Mormon, like Mormons call themselves Christian - as far as I know we don't own the word but you went your way, and we went our way. Am I missing your point?

Oh, I'll address your question, and if fact I already have to a certain extent: 1. as a health code 2. as a sign of faith and then obedience 3. as a test of spiritual purity 4 as a unifying force to steel the saints; us versus them

A recent born-again said this: Boiling it down to the key points: -Salvation comes from being reborn -Being reborn from from acceptance of Christ and faith and not any collection of works or ordinances -Mormons, as a general rule, don't understand this and aren't really reborn -Being reborn defies adequate description but is a highly personal relationship between the person and God. -Even though it is highly personal experience, and thus the validity of the rebirth not being comprehensible to anyone but the person involved, born-agains such as the author of the above, insist that they can tell, if not in individual cases - at least in general, that others, such as Mormons, don't have the right kind of rebirth/relationship with God. (he didn't say all that but we know the drill) That is to say, they know/believe something (that others don't have a valid relationship with God), that they readily admit is unknowable. In other words, they say, "my relationship with God is right and only I can know it, your relationship with God is not right, and I also know that." Go figure. I doubt there are any born-agains, Mormon or otherwise, hanging around, but if so, feel free to opine.

Why are you asking more such questions when you, I am quite certain, already know some plausible answers...One case in point being, JS created a health code (whether or not his science was known to the rest of civilation), and turned it into a mark of spiritual purity. It became a great unifying and strenghtening theme that continue through this day. Without saying that one is better than the other, a Lutheran may be a Lutheran, or a Methodist a Methodist, but a Mormon is a MORMON. In the absence of any overriding ethnic or geographic specificity, Mormons, to some significant degree, are seperate and distinct, a people unto themselves. Unity brings power. Without temples and a lay priesthood, and widespread missionary service, and the WoW, and Mormon specific scripture and shared hardship... etc, Mormonism might well be just another, of many, denomination. Oh yeah, and the Word of Wisdom works.

That's true. The canon is that by which we, though common consent, have all agreed to be bound. 1. What make you think that the WoW as a commandment is not canonized and 2. Even if it is not, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't accept it.

Whatever the purpose, I think that is mark of JS's religious genius (if you are not a TBM) and his prophetic gift (if you are a TBM). A normal man would have thought about the problem and then bought an additional spitoon. JS plugs in to some circuit of cosmic intelligence and overnight comes up with a spiritual law (recommendation) with eternal blessings, a health code, and a great unifying commality that would go on to set the Saints up as a seperate and distinct people.

Hmmm,Right now I can't think of a reason why ordinances are important/essential. I can understand the reasoning behind treating others with kindness, repentance, honesty, charity, service, etc. I even understand the logic behind the word of wisdom and maybe the law of chastidy, kind of. But, I don't understand why ordinance are required. Oh, I accept them and believe in them soley on the basis of faith, though I am not even sure why faith in them is important. It's not even a matter of faith in God. It's a matter in what another man says is the will of God. So, it's like faith, once removed.

Bat, You'll be happy to know that Brigham Young's son, then a member of the 12 agreed with you, if'n the beer was Danish beer.

Ummm,Aren't lawyers the largest and most powerful part of the legals system?

There's no harm done Shawn. Drop the agenda and stick around if you want. If you had me in mind in your last post, I accept your contrition and will gladly read your next post in the spirit in which it is intended.

Not the point bat. There are honest and dishonest Mormons, antiMormons and neverheardof-or-don't care-Mormons. However, Shawn's problems is that he is dishonest when it comes to proselytizing to his cause. What makes that hilarious is that Shawn tells us that he has undergone "a completely genuine and undeniable spiritual regeneration" that is so superduper magical that it "can only be described as otherworldly." Ohhh. So while he proclaims that he himself has "a natural revulsion to sin and temptation, a fruitful desire to know, love, serve and please God," he is, in reality not revulsed enough to avoid calling Mormon he does not know dishonest, deliberately misstating what is being posting, and generally insulting them. Oh and here's a bit of a kicker. When he says that he has undergone a "completely genuine and undeniable spiritual regeneration" - you know - the one that makes him insult Mormons and post dishonestly - does not succumb to dogma or religious doctrine, he conveniently forgotton to mention that his own view of Christ and the atonement is 100% dogmatic and driven by religious doctrine. So I guess it is bad to be doctrinally dogmatic unless you agree with his dogma. This guy is as smooth as Major Spike Douglas.

Gosh, you have been both insulting and dishonest in each of your posts and then your concerned that I notice it? Imagine my discomfort. Lessee, you have offered no evidence to support your position but act annoyed when someone offers antidotal evidence? Wow, that's persausive. Say, you're not a professional debater are you? Uneducated or dishonest. Take your pick, either is applicable in the case of your first half dozen posts. Golly, you admonish me to "speak facts," when in point of fact, you have done nothing but offer your own agenda ladden opinion. Some people call that hypocritical. I just call it hypocritical. Since I am in a generous mood, here a little help for you. Drop the stupid agenda. No one here is as dumb as you think they are and as you treat them. Many are a whole lot brighter than you. We routinely send those who are as clumsy as you have been packing.

Let me point something obvious out.I have read only three post of this Shawn kid and have found them to be both insulting and dishonest. How is this one dishonest? He says that neither myself or Ray can describe our spiritual rebirth. Anyone with a brain knows that because one does not address a topic, does not mean that one cannot address a topic. We assume this Shawn kid has a brain and so didn't mistakenly say that we could not. That leaves dishonest. What a shocker... a dishonest Mormon critic.

Well, let's see.In priesthood yesterday, the lesson, taken from a First Presidency message, discussed the four cornerstones of the restoration, the first and principle of all being Christ and the atonement. Do you have any other uneducated statements to make?

Gosh,I've only read two post from this guy and in both he has implied that Latter-Day Saints are prone to dishonestly (oh my he's not slamming). This is "agenda" meets the road, eh Shawn.

The inference, being that Latter-Day Saints who would respond, would or might be dishonest in their responses... and of course, that they really aren't reborn.How's that for being offensive? Dishonest and ignorant both. Nice.