FAQs About Mormonism - Discussion

[Neophenx de Chrysalya]

Major Logica

Neophenx de Chrysalya

Major Logica

Neophenx de Chrysalya

Major Logica

Not really. It is a truism that truth is relative. What is right and true for you may or may not be so for another. It is entirely dependent on perspectives.

I'm stopping you right there. If truth is relative, then you're saying people can decide for themselves what is good and what is bad. By that logic, you cannot call the Holocaust a crime against humanity, as it was perpetuated by someone who believed he was right and morally justified. Relative truth cannot exist on a logical basis because it collapses in on itself. Without a single definition of what is actually true, there can be no proper standard of good and evil, right and wrong. You can say 2+2=5 or that red is blue, but believing it does not make it so.

If you feel like you're being attacked, step back and look at your own attitude about the subject. Do you want to know truth or do you want to live in your own little bubble? The fact is that discussion about truth is bound to be offensive to somebody. I already said it: Actual truth will not always be what you want to hear.

What you suggest in "live and let live" is exactly what I said I do not like: letting people believe in lies. If what I believe to be true is in fact a lie, I would rather somebody point it out to me than live in ignorance of the real truth. If you're comfortable with your friends and family living in what you believe to be lies, I hope that your lack of care doesn't set their eternal soul at risk. I believe in Jesus Christ, and He did not tell people to cope with lies in their lives.

This is what I meant by splitting hairs. ... Getting to your holocaust thing, If you think it's a crime, then you in agreement with civilised Humanity. However, why don't you ask the Nazis if they think it's a crime? from their perspective it was good eugenics. Now, yes, I agree the Holocaust was a terrible and evil thing, but again, it's still a matter of perspective.

Nothing is true unless it is observed and/or believed to be true... You can look at the equation 2+2=4 and insist its right (which in linear arithmetic is correct) but if another doesn't believe it, they will argue it with you. Observation is a key thing to ascertaining truth, but at the same time, one must believe and quantify what they are observing to be true. It's all in what you BELIEVE.

Now, getting into the present time: You cannot convince me that your Bible is correct, because form my observation and reasoning, it's full of contradictions, false logistics, superstition, and ancient obsolete social mandates... such as Patriarchy and theocracy. You can say I live in a lie and a fantasy world all you want, but you have failed to make me question my truth because I know that MY truth is True to ME. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but I cannot be anyone but me and I cannot please anyone but me.

Now, I am telling you you will be better off living and letting live because preaching and arguing is not making anyone question their faith or ideals. It's making them cling to them harder and stronger, thus, you are wasting your time and energy. Live for your beliefs and leave others to their own devices. If they come to you on their own asking what to believe, then there's you potential opportunity to share your currently misplaced compassion.

By the way, I believe in reincarnation... eternal reincarnation broken only by sufficient enlightenment resulting in ascension to a higher existence which repeats this cycle in a new plane ad infinitum. I know you don't believe in this and will argue it and try to convince me back into Christianity, but my truth is true to me and I feel it is more right than anything I have been taught before. It's the same feeling you have when you believe the bible is infallibly right. Just like I won't shake you form your faith, you won't shake me form mine.... and by the way, it's not your place to say who is going to 'hell' or not... I don't believe in hell anyway. The closest thing to hell in my belief system is karma deciding your next life and the the joys, challenges, and hardships you will face in that life... a system of cause and effect.

The point here is not to argue and disturb people, but to get definitive answers. Look at the thread title. I'm here to get answers from Mormons about their beliefs. The problem is that the answers I have seen thus far are pathetic excuses for apologetics. From what you speak, you sound like you're following Buddhism, which is even more baffling a religion for me to grasp as it rips mankind of their individuality and personal value, telling them that the world they see is all an illusion and the only purpose in life is to die and be born into the illusion again.

You call my motivation misplaced compassion, but go back and look at what religious leaders have said both for and against this Mormon religion. One of the LDS leaders in the early days of the church actually told people that if there was anything inherently untruthful about LDS teaching to point it out using scripture and reasoning. That's what's happening here. I'm looking for answers as to why this religion is claimed by followers to be the most true of any on earth.

Also, don't add to my words that are there. I did not say anyone in particular was going to hell. What I said was that if you believe you have THE REAL TRUTH, why would you not share it with the people you cared most about? If you knew the way to salvation or the way to escape and illusionary world, how much do you have to hate a person to rather see them trapped in that lie?

As for your contradictions, how many of those biblical contradictions can you cite off hand and show that you're not just showing off the contradictions based on a personal bias or opinion? After all, this is a thread of questions and answers and since you brought it up here is my question to you. What in the Bible is a lie and why is it a lie? What is the truth about what you're claiming about it, and where does your truth come from?

Mormons believe a similar thing to Christians. They believe it differently, though. In Mormonism, Jesus is a brother to humans, has a physical body like God does, and Satan is also a brother to him and us, albeit an estranged one. They believe that by going through Christian rituals like baptism, communion, and church fellowship as well as living a righteous and clean life, they can attain a state of godhood, realising their own divinity. They have supplemental books that are allegedly found in the New World (the Americas) that they believe to be divinely inspire histories and prophesy on par with the Bible. They believe that the King James bible is best translation to date and thus tend to follow that one and believe that it should be interpreted a certain way for it to be correct. Once, polygamy was okay under the religion, but they have formally renounced it because it brought trouble with the federal law and also because polygamist families tend to be more chaotic due to Human nature. They do not consume a lot of alcohol, as they consider it counter productive... they also do not consume coffee or tea, presumably due to the caffeine content, believing that stimulants and other addictive substances are counter productive. Finally, the LDS Chruch strongly holds that both parents must equally contribute to a happy and healthy home. They emphasises good family life and values and on the whole form my own observations, Mormon families ARE happier and healthier as the parents are more wholesomely involved in the children's lives. This does not mean I am inclined to believe their religion, but I praise their family and individual lifestyles.

I don't strictly follow Buddhism... it's similar, closer to New Age beliefs, but I do kinda have a Zen thing. I meditate, I use Crystals, I research history and tend to draw spiritual connections as well as controversial alternate interpretations of history (such as the gods of ancient civilisation being extraterrestrials). I believe in universal Reincarnation, in the sense that we are not restricted to Earth itself and could and do reincarnate on a multitude of worlds each lifetime. We could have been any number of intelligent species, but I do not believe a sentient soul can be a non-sentient creature... so unlike Hindu beliefs, one DOES NOT reincarnate as a lower lifeform if they have lived as an intelligence race. I believe in Evolution and that life's only true purpose is survival and reproduction. Any higher goal in a spiritual sense is something set into motion by the Higher You. It is my belief that all of us are a piece of the Divine and we are walking the same road at the end of the day. We live, we drop the body, we live again somewhere else as someone else.... but the soul inside is still You. When I speak to you, I am not speaking to the fleshly body. I speak to the spirit in you... the true you. This body is just a chemical process and nothing more and has less significance in the grand scheme of things.

Now, I believe in Jesus but he is known to me also a Yeshuah and is what I call an Ascended Master. An Ascended Master is one who has become so enlightened that their spiritual resonance (otherwise known as vibrational frequency) is no longer compatible with this dimension of existence. Thus, they ascend to a place that can accommodate their frequency. To our less evolved perspectives, they are quite god-like in that they are able to interact with this universe, but they do not live in it. Think of it like this: You can reach down into lower planes, but cannot reach up into higher ones as easily. The act of Ascension is breaking through to that higher plane and the point of the Spirit's existence is to continue the ascension process ... possibly ad infinitum. Honestly, the spirit's thrill is discovery the accumulation of knowledge and wisdom through out the ages.

And Individuality is just a part of Human nature. We won't get far in anything indulging this animal instinct, Dear One. We are at a critical moment in our evolution as the Human Species in where we can evolve beyond war and conflict and come together as one race and one people universally if only we can cease to feed the instincts that created all of the conflicts that drove us apart and drove us to argue with each other over what is actually meaningless in the long run. Greed, Ego, Self gratification, Passion for the self and comeptition agaisnt others for the betterment of the self for selfish purposes.... hearing this is a threat toy ou, I know, but in such a place you fear losing your sense of self and the thrill of being personally happy while separated form the needs and desires of others.

I frequently make this argument when i argue economics: Capitalism is dangerous and advocates greed for the sake of personal power at another's expense. Socialism is where everyone helps each other and keeps each other in check. However, never allow Socialism to devolve into communism, which due to Human nature, always becomes a totalitarian dictatorship and everyone suffers. Thus, An ideal economic solution that can help change people's perspectives and evolve Human nature favourably would be to Base currency on Energy, make a Market Socialist economy, And take Europe's example... just make it better.

I used to argue religion like you are now, attacking people for having different beliefs for one motive or another. However, Once I came to the realisation that I'm not getting anywhere.. that I am indulging my animalistic instinct to hate to be angry, to fear... I stopped attacking and started wanting to learn. I am a happier person now and I feel more enlightened once I broke free of narrow minded beliefs and ideals.

Alright, so what source do you have to back up these beliefs of yours? Surely you have some teacher or some scripture to reference. If you've come up with all this stuff on your own or decided on it just because it sounded good, then I cannot value any of it as truth. I did not choose Christianity because it made me feel good or because it was easy. I would rather find myself some easy girls and have loud crazy sex, but because of a system of ideals or morality that comes from outside of my own judgment, I choose against it, preferring not to repeat my past lifestyle.

As far as socialism, America has already been moving in that direction with all the welfare and all it means is essentially this: The government takes from one person to give to another. on a basic ideology of personal property and ownership, that doesn't seem right, but that's a whole other discussion.

As for what you call a "narrow minded" set of beliefs and ideals, how are yours any less narrow? I adhere to a belief system that values a search for truth and relationship with a personal God who gave something of Himself for the sake of His creation and to welcome people into His kingdom as adopted sons and daughters of the Creator. Your beliefs and ideals are to let people think whatever they want and go on their merry way regardless of what it means in the face of any given truth. You are sitting here telling me not to push my beliefs around, and in doing so have pushed your idle philosophy onto me, expecting me to accept your ideology of "relative truth" as a proper and moral high ground, when the Jesus Christ of the Bible warned specifically against that attitude.

Also, you do realize that Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus are essentially the same name, simply translated into different languages, right? Your name Yeshua is a Hebrew name meaning "salvation." Jesus and Joshua are similar in origin, translated to fit dialects of the gentiles that the apostles preached to. These names mean "God rescues." So that name Yeshua is really no more special than someone who uses the name Jesus for the Son of God.

[Fringie Jester]

Major Logica

Mormons believe a similar thing to Christians. They believe it differently, though. In Mormonism, Jesus is a brother to humans, has a physical body like God does, and Satan is also a brother to him and us, albeit an estranged one. They believe that by going through Christian rituals like baptism, communion, and church fellowship as well as living a righteous and clean life, they can attain a state of godhood, realising their own divinity. They have supplemental books that are allegedly found in the New World (the Americas) that they believe to be divinely inspire histories and prophesy on par with the Bible. They believe that the King James bible is best translation to date and thus tend to follow that one and believe that it should be interpreted a certain way for it to be correct. Once, polygamy was okay under the religion, but they have formally renounced it because it brought trouble with the federal law and also because polygamist families tend to be more chaotic due to Human nature. They do not consume a lot of alcohol, as they consider it counter productive... they also do not consume coffee or tea, presumably due to the caffeine content, believing that stimulants and other addictive substances are counter productive. Finally, the LDS Chruch strongly holds that both parents must equally contribute to a happy and healthy home. They emphasises good family life and values and on the whole form my own observations, Mormon families ARE happier and healthier as the parents are more wholesomely involved in the children's lives. This does not mean I am inclined to believe their religion, but I praise their family and individual lifestyles.

I just want to add a couple of things. Some LDS members do not drink coffee or tea or soda/pop. However, it's more of a a suggestion, it's not required.

And the whole thing about Polygamy. It wasn't a(n) LDS thing in the beginning. The LDS were hated so much, that Missouri ordered them to be killed through "Missouri Executive Order 44" or "the Mormon Extermination Order" link so they had to flea the country to Illinois and later Utah (was not a state at this time). Along the way the Civil War was going on. Mormon's were Abolishionists (part of the reason behind the hatred that they were receiving) and they believed in serving their country. So the men stopped to fight in battle and many were lost in the fight. When they got to Utah, after so much death... There were not many men left. And remember this is the 1800's. Women did not have the rights that they have now. So the men that were left, were assigned (they didn't get to choose) widows, so they could help take care of the women and children that lost their husband's, fathers, and brothers. In the Early 1900's polygamy was no longer necessary and it was starting to cause problems so they got rid of it.

[Neophenx de Chrysalya]

Henry Hobo-Master

Major Logica

They believe that the King James bible is best translation to date

I tend to get a little nit picky on a few details, and I apologize for intruding on the conversation. I wouldn't say that the Mormons believe its the best translation. However, it is a very traditional Bible. I believed Joseph Smith used it, and provided "corrections" called the Joseph Smith Translations for this Bible, thus we still use it. I had a professor who always carried around a Greek Bible of the NT, which was a lot more factual. I believe that one to be better for a number of reasons (although, I wouldn't call myself Mormon).

Quote:

formally renounced it because it brought trouble with the federal law and also because polygamist families tend to be more chaotic due to Human nature.

Was it more chaotic? Do you mind showing me where you learned this? I don't know much about how chaotic things were and were not. I honestly don't understand why any man would ever want such a life... one partner sounds like more than a handful, male or female.

Quote:

Mormon families ARE happier and healthier as the parents are more wholesomely involved in the children's lives.

I'm sure you realize that every family has their problem, and I don't know if there is anyway to actually find out if they are happier or not. But being raised a Mormon, only one parent was "active" in my life. My father, however interesting he may have been, wasn't the stereotypical Mormon father.

But, I'm actually quite surprised how much you actually know if you are not Mormon. That's just amazing really. I don't know much about Easter Religions or philosophies, but I'm trying to understand more about Hindu (seeing how my boss is from India, I question him all the time about this and that).

The polygamy argument is a hard one for any Mormon scholar to explain. I've heard time and time again how Abraham and Jacob were polygamous, but when put into the context of the actual family relationships those family lives were not pleasant (Abraham had to exile his firstborn son and his mother, Jacob's wives kept producing babies out of spite for each other).

As for a study of Hinduism straight from a source who grew up in it, I suggest looking up scholar/preacher Ravi Zacharias. I've found series of Q/A sessions on youtube where he speaks and answers questions, but in his books he talks more clearly about his personal testimony growing up in a Hindu family and where it led him culturally and emotionally.

[Neophenx de Chrysalya]

Jester25

Major Logica

Mormons believe a similar thing to Christians. They believe it differently, though. In Mormonism, Jesus is a brother to humans, has a physical body like God does, and Satan is also a brother to him and us, albeit an estranged one. They believe that by going through Christian rituals like baptism, communion, and church fellowship as well as living a righteous and clean life, they can attain a state of godhood, realising their own divinity. They have supplemental books that are allegedly found in the New World (the Americas) that they believe to be divinely inspire histories and prophesy on par with the Bible. They believe that the King James bible is best translation to date and thus tend to follow that one and believe that it should be interpreted a certain way for it to be correct. Once, polygamy was okay under the religion, but they have formally renounced it because it brought trouble with the federal law and also because polygamist families tend to be more chaotic due to Human nature. They do not consume a lot of alcohol, as they consider it counter productive... they also do not consume coffee or tea, presumably due to the caffeine content, believing that stimulants and other addictive substances are counter productive. Finally, the LDS Chruch strongly holds that both parents must equally contribute to a happy and healthy home. They emphasises good family life and values and on the whole form my own observations, Mormon families ARE happier and healthier as the parents are more wholesomely involved in the children's lives. This does not mean I am inclined to believe their religion, but I praise their family and individual lifestyles.

I just want to add a couple of things. Some LDS members do not drink coffee or tea or soda/pop. However, it's more of a a suggestion, it's not required.

And the whole thing about Polygamy. It wasn't a(n) LDS thing until after they moved to Utah, by Brigham Young. The LDS were hated so much, that Missouri ordered them to be killed through "Missouri Executive Order 44" or "the Mormon Extermination Order" link so they had to flea the country to Utah (was not a state at this time). Along the way the Civil War was going on. Mormon's were Abolishionists (part of the reason behind the hatred that they were receiving) and they believed in serving their country. So the men stopped to fight in battle and many were lost in the fight. When they got to Utah, after so much death... There were not many men left. And remember this is the 1800's. Women did not have the rights that they have now. So the men that were left, were assigned (they didn't get to choose) widows, so they could help take care of the women and children that lost their husband's, fathers, and brothers. In the Early 1900's polygamy was no longer necessary and it was starting to cause problems so they got rid of it.

The problem I have with this explanation, while it sounds like it has merit to it, is that the Doctrine and Covenants defines plural marriage specifically as an everlasting covenant. Also, it is basic Christian understanding, according to the Bible, that the only pure and good religion (lifestyle) in God's sight is to care for the widows and orphans and to not be corrupted by the world's philosophies and practices. Taking care of widows doesn't mean taking underage girls for wives as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (sounds like bring-them-young, doesn't it?) are often criticized for doing. Use the 'taking care of widowed women from war' excuse all you want, but it doesn't explain the actual wording of the D&C.

[Fringie Jester]

Neophenx de Chrysalya

The problem I have with this explanation, while it sounds like it has merit to it, is that the Doctrine and Covenants defines plural marriage specifically as an everlasting covenant. Also, it is basic Christian understanding, according to the Bible, that the only pure and good religion (lifestyle) in God's sight is to care for the widows and orphans and to not be corrupted by the world's philosophies and practices. Taking care of widows doesn't mean taking underage girls for wives as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (sounds like bring-them-young, doesn't it?) are often criticized for doing. Use the 'taking care of widowed women from war' excuse all you want, but it doesn't explain the actual wording of the D&C.

I can't argue with that. But I did some research on what you just said and found this...

"Our faith is grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in the actions of any particular person. Community of Christ affirms its long history of vigorous opposition to polygamy as a doctrine or practice, regardless of what historical research concludes about its origins in the early Latter Day Saint movement. The church has consistently taught monogamy as the basic principle of Christian marriage (Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 111 and 150)."

and

"The issues of polygamy and whether Joseph Smith Jr. was connected with its inception at Nauvoo, Illinois, in the 1840s have been of considerable interest to Community of Christ members and others through the years. The early RLDS Church (1860–1960) consistently opposed the doctrine and fought against the assertion by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Mormon] that Joseph Smith Jr. advocated this practice as part of a divine plan. Joseph Smith III, son of the founding prophet and first prophet-president of the RLDS Church (1860–1914), spent much of his life trying to clear his father’s name from the stigma of polygamy and polygamous doctrine, even though there were leaders in the early RLDS Church who believed otherwise. While it is clear Joseph Smith III sincerely believed his father was innocent, he affirmed on more than one occasion that even if his father was guilty, he was wrong."

http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp

[Neophenx de Chrysalya]

Jester25

Neophenx de Chrysalya

The problem I have with this explanation, while it sounds like it has merit to it, is that the Doctrine and Covenants defines plural marriage specifically as an everlasting covenant. Also, it is basic Christian understanding, according to the Bible, that the only pure and good religion (lifestyle) in God's sight is to care for the widows and orphans and to not be corrupted by the world's philosophies and practices. Taking care of widows doesn't mean taking underage girls for wives as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (sounds like bring-them-young, doesn't it?) are often criticized for doing. Use the 'taking care of widowed women from war' excuse all you want, but it doesn't explain the actual wording of the D&C.

I can't argue with that. But I did some research on what you just said and found this...

"Our faith is grounded in the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in the actions of any particular person. Community of Christ affirms its long history of vigorous opposition to polygamy as a doctrine or practice, regardless of what historical research concludes about its origins in the early Latter Day Saint movement. The church has consistently taught monogamy as the basic principle of Christian marriage (Doctrine and Covenants, Sections 111 and 150)."

and

"The issues of polygamy and whether Joseph Smith Jr. was connected with its inception at Nauvoo, Illinois, in the 1840s have been of considerable interest to Community of Christ members and others through the years. The early RLDS Church (1860–1960) consistently opposed the doctrine and fought against the assertion by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Mormon] that Joseph Smith Jr. advocated this practice as part of a divine plan. Joseph Smith III, son of the founding prophet and first prophet-president of the RLDS Church (1860–1914), spent much of his life trying to clear his father’s name from the stigma of polygamy and polygamous doctrine, even though there were leaders in the early RLDS Church who believed otherwise. While it is clear Joseph Smith III sincerely believed his father was innocent, he affirmed on more than one occasion that even if his father was guilty, he was wrong."

http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/faq.asp

So with the information you've given, we see that LDS prophets have literally spoken both sides as correct at some point in time, if I'm reading you correctly.

[Fringie Jester]

Neophenx de Chrysalya

So with the information you've given, we see that LDS prophets have literally spoken both sides as correct at some point in time, if I'm reading you correctly.

I am more or less saying that "I don't know a lot about Joseph Smith Jr." Some say that he had multiple wives. Others say that he didn't. His son and his wife didn't acknowledge that he had multiple wives... and it seems that they didn't think that he had multiple wives... and his son Joseph Smith III didn't believe that he was guilty of saying or practicing it. So he tried to clear his dad's name and when no one believed him, or he couldn't clear his name of it, he said "If he was guilty of it, he was wrong."
Key word being "if".

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Neophenx de Chrysalya

The polygamy argument is a hard one for any Mormon scholar to explain. I've heard time and time again how Abraham and Jacob were polygamous, but when put into the context of the actual family relationships those family lives were not pleasant (Abraham had to exile his firstborn son and his mother, Jacob's wives kept producing babies out of spite for each other).

So there was a lot of tension between Abraham and his polygamous wives? I don't know a whole lot about Abraham.

Well, here's a source that goes well with this. I guessed I never figured that plural marriage would be as hard, which is unrealistic. Don't see how anyone could ever see it as a good idea, and there is bound to be a lot of problems.

This makes a lot of sense, thanks.

[Lady Regina Jane]

Neophenx de Chrysalya

Major Logica

Neophenx de Chrysalya

Major Logica

Neophenx de Chrysalya

Major Logica

Not really. It is a truism that truth is relative. What is right and true for you may or may not be so for another. It is entirely dependent on perspectives.

I'm stopping you right there. If truth is relative, then you're saying people can decide for themselves what is good and what is bad. By that logic, you cannot call the Holocaust a crime against humanity, as it was perpetuated by someone who believed he was right and morally justified. Relative truth cannot exist on a logical basis because it collapses in on itself. Without a single definition of what is actually true, there can be no proper standard of good and evil, right and wrong. You can say 2+2=5 or that red is blue, but believing it does not make it so.

If you feel like you're being attacked, step back and look at your own attitude about the subject. Do you want to know truth or do you want to live in your own little bubble? The fact is that discussion about truth is bound to be offensive to somebody. I already said it: Actual truth will not always be what you want to hear.

What you suggest in "live and let live" is exactly what I said I do not like: letting people believe in lies. If what I believe to be true is in fact a lie, I would rather somebody point it out to me than live in ignorance of the real truth. If you're comfortable with your friends and family living in what you believe to be lies, I hope that your lack of care doesn't set their eternal soul at risk. I believe in Jesus Christ, and He did not tell people to cope with lies in their lives.

This is what I meant by splitting hairs. ... Getting to your holocaust thing, If you think it's a crime, then you in agreement with civilised Humanity. However, why don't you ask the Nazis if they think it's a crime? from their perspective it was good eugenics. Now, yes, I agree the Holocaust was a terrible and evil thing, but again, it's still a matter of perspective.

Nothing is true unless it is observed and/or believed to be true... You can look at the equation 2+2=4 and insist its right (which in linear arithmetic is correct) but if another doesn't believe it, they will argue it with you. Observation is a key thing to ascertaining truth, but at the same time, one must believe and quantify what they are observing to be true. It's all in what you BELIEVE.

Now, getting into the present time: You cannot convince me that your Bible is correct, because form my observation and reasoning, it's full of contradictions, false logistics, superstition, and ancient obsolete social mandates... such as Patriarchy and theocracy. You can say I live in a lie and a fantasy world all you want, but you have failed to make me question my truth because I know that MY truth is True to ME. I'm sorry if that hurts you, but I cannot be anyone but me and I cannot please anyone but me.

Now, I am telling you you will be better off living and letting live because preaching and arguing is not making anyone question their faith or ideals. It's making them cling to them harder and stronger, thus, you are wasting your time and energy. Live for your beliefs and leave others to their own devices. If they come to you on their own asking what to believe, then there's you potential opportunity to share your currently misplaced compassion.

By the way, I believe in reincarnation... eternal reincarnation broken only by sufficient enlightenment resulting in ascension to a higher existence which repeats this cycle in a new plane ad infinitum. I know you don't believe in this and will argue it and try to convince me back into Christianity, but my truth is true to me and I feel it is more right than anything I have been taught before. It's the same feeling you have when you believe the bible is infallibly right. Just like I won't shake you form your faith, you won't shake me form mine.... and by the way, it's not your place to say who is going to 'hell' or not... I don't believe in hell anyway. The closest thing to hell in my belief system is karma deciding your next life and the the joys, challenges, and hardships you will face in that life... a system of cause and effect.

The point here is not to argue and disturb people, but to get definitive answers. Look at the thread title. I'm here to get answers from Mormons about their beliefs. The problem is that the answers I have seen thus far are pathetic excuses for apologetics. From what you speak, you sound like you're following Buddhism, which is even more baffling a religion for me to grasp as it rips mankind of their individuality and personal value, telling them that the world they see is all an illusion and the only purpose in life is to die and be born into the illusion again.

You call my motivation misplaced compassion, but go back and look at what religious leaders have said both for and against this Mormon religion. One of the LDS leaders in the early days of the church actually told people that if there was anything inherently untruthful about LDS teaching to point it out using scripture and reasoning. That's what's happening here. I'm looking for answers as to why this religion is claimed by followers to be the most true of any on earth.

Also, don't add to my words that are there. I did not say anyone in particular was going to hell. What I said was that if you believe you have THE REAL TRUTH, why would you not share it with the people you cared most about? If you knew the way to salvation or the way to escape and illusionary world, how much do you have to hate a person to rather see them trapped in that lie?

As for your contradictions, how many of those biblical contradictions can you cite off hand and show that you're not just showing off the contradictions based on a personal bias or opinion? After all, this is a thread of questions and answers and since you brought it up here is my question to you. What in the Bible is a lie and why is it a lie? What is the truth about what you're claiming about it, and where does your truth come from?

Mormons believe a similar thing to Christians. They believe it differently, though. In Mormonism, Jesus is a brother to humans, has a physical body like God does, and Satan is also a brother to him and us, albeit an estranged one. They believe that by going through Christian rituals like baptism, communion, and church fellowship as well as living a righteous and clean life, they can attain a state of godhood, realising their own divinity. They have supplemental books that are allegedly found in the New World (the Americas) that they believe to be divinely inspire histories and prophesy on par with the Bible. They believe that the King James bible is best translation to date and thus tend to follow that one and believe that it should be interpreted a certain way for it to be correct. Once, polygamy was okay under the religion, but they have formally renounced it because it brought trouble with the federal law and also because polygamist families tend to be more chaotic due to Human nature. They do not consume a lot of alcohol, as they consider it counter productive... they also do not consume coffee or tea, presumably due to the caffeine content, believing that stimulants and other addictive substances are counter productive. Finally, the LDS Chruch strongly holds that both parents must equally contribute to a happy and healthy home. They emphasises good family life and values and on the whole form my own observations, Mormon families ARE happier and healthier as the parents are more wholesomely involved in the children's lives. This does not mean I am inclined to believe their religion, but I praise their family and individual lifestyles.

I don't strictly follow Buddhism... it's similar, closer to New Age beliefs, but I do kinda have a Zen thing. I meditate, I use Crystals, I research history and tend to draw spiritual connections as well as controversial alternate interpretations of history (such as the gods of ancient civilisation being extraterrestrials). I believe in universal Reincarnation, in the sense that we are not restricted to Earth itself and could and do reincarnate on a multitude of worlds each lifetime. We could have been any number of intelligent species, but I do not believe a sentient soul can be a non-sentient creature... so unlike Hindu beliefs, one DOES NOT reincarnate as a lower lifeform if they have lived as an intelligence race. I believe in Evolution and that life's only true purpose is survival and reproduction. Any higher goal in a spiritual sense is something set into motion by the Higher You. It is my belief that all of us are a piece of the Divine and we are walking the same road at the end of the day. We live, we drop the body, we live again somewhere else as someone else.... but the soul inside is still You. When I speak to you, I am not speaking to the fleshly body. I speak to the spirit in you... the true you. This body is just a chemical process and nothing more and has less significance in the grand scheme of things.

Now, I believe in Jesus but he is known to me also a Yeshuah and is what I call an Ascended Master. An Ascended Master is one who has become so enlightened that their spiritual resonance (otherwise known as vibrational frequency) is no longer compatible with this dimension of existence. Thus, they ascend to a place that can accommodate their frequency. To our less evolved perspectives, they are quite god-like in that they are able to interact with this universe, but they do not live in it. Think of it like this: You can reach down into lower planes, but cannot reach up into higher ones as easily. The act of Ascension is breaking through to that higher plane and the point of the Spirit's existence is to continue the ascension process ... possibly ad infinitum. Honestly, the spirit's thrill is discovery the accumulation of knowledge and wisdom through out the ages.

And Individuality is just a part of Human nature. We won't get far in anything indulging this animal instinct, Dear One. We are at a critical moment in our evolution as the Human Species in where we can evolve beyond war and conflict and come together as one race and one people universally if only we can cease to feed the instincts that created all of the conflicts that drove us apart and drove us to argue with each other over what is actually meaningless in the long run. Greed, Ego, Self gratification, Passion for the self and comeptition agaisnt others for the betterment of the self for selfish purposes.... hearing this is a threat toy ou, I know, but in such a place you fear losing your sense of self and the thrill of being personally happy while separated form the needs and desires of others.

I frequently make this argument when i argue economics: Capitalism is dangerous and advocates greed for the sake of personal power at another's expense. Socialism is where everyone helps each other and keeps each other in check. However, never allow Socialism to devolve into communism, which due to Human nature, always becomes a totalitarian dictatorship and everyone suffers. Thus, An ideal economic solution that can help change people's perspectives and evolve Human nature favourably would be to Base currency on Energy, make a Market Socialist economy, And take Europe's example... just make it better.

I used to argue religion like you are now, attacking people for having different beliefs for one motive or another. However, Once I came to the realisation that I'm not getting anywhere.. that I am indulging my animalistic instinct to hate to be angry, to fear... I stopped attacking and started wanting to learn. I am a happier person now and I feel more enlightened once I broke free of narrow minded beliefs and ideals.

Alright, so what source do you have to back up these beliefs of yours? Surely you have some teacher or some scripture to reference. If you've come up with all this stuff on your own or decided on it just because it sounded good, then I cannot value any of it as truth. I did not choose Christianity because it made me feel good or because it was easy. I would rather find myself some easy girls and have loud crazy sex, but because of a system of ideals or morality that comes from outside of my own judgment, I choose against it, preferring not to repeat my past lifestyle.

As far as socialism, America has already been moving in that direction with all the welfare and all it means is essentially this: The government takes from one person to give to another. on a basic ideology of personal property and ownership, that doesn't seem right, but that's a whole other discussion.

As for what you call a "narrow minded" set of beliefs and ideals, how are yours any less narrow? I adhere to a belief system that values a search for truth and relationship with a personal God who gave something of Himself for the sake of His creation and to welcome people into His kingdom as adopted sons and daughters of the Creator. Your beliefs and ideals are to let people think whatever they want and go on their merry way regardless of what it means in the face of any given truth. You are sitting here telling me not to push my beliefs around, and in doing so have pushed your idle philosophy onto me, expecting me to accept your ideology of "relative truth" as a proper and moral high ground, when the Jesus Christ of the Bible warned specifically against that attitude.

Also, you do realize that Yeshua/Joshua/Jesus are essentially the same name, simply translated into different languages, right? Your name Yeshua is a Hebrew name meaning "salvation." Jesus and Joshua are similar in origin, translated to fit dialects of the gentiles that the apostles preached to. These names mean "God rescues." So that name Yeshua is really no more special than someone who uses the name Jesus for the Son of God.

Scriptures... that's in interesting term and one I associate with written documents considered infallible. In such a case, we have none. We instead use mythology and draw our own conclusion on it, read the philosophies of other New Agers and spiritual speakers/writers, and spoken about by word of mouth. We don't have any de facto holy books, since it's not about religion or a Church, but rather more about an individual's journey. Part of the joy of my belief system is that you don't get it dictated to you or have anyone to lead you unless you actually want a leader and seek one out. It's about personalised discovery to find out what resonates best with you and what is true to you.

I have not pushed my beliefs on you, expecting you to convert to them.. there is nothing to convert to. You asked if it was like Buddhism (rather assumed it was), and so, I explained things to you. I am not trying to make you believe what I do, but rather I'm trying to get you to take a step back and stop attacking others for believing some kind of heresy you are on a crusade to stop. You do not come off as a truth seeker to me, but rather someone who is concerned for someone's eternal soul and is hellbent on 'saving' them by trying to talk them away form their beliefs and into one more in line with your own. This is what I mean by narrow minded systems of belief... you come looking at other faiths to find what is wrong with them and attack along those lines you consider to be heresy. THIS is what I'm trying to tell you... if my beliefs aren't for you, then they aren't for you. Follow your own way, but don't attack others for not following you and your beliefs.

You believe the Bible is truth. you believe it's infallible, yet I do not. Thus, what is truth in a spiritual sense is relative from person to person. You have no way to prove to anyone that the Bible is 100% accurate in all ways. You can pick and choose things you consider to be evidence, but there is a big difference between evidence and proof. In Law, there is something called the burden of proof. The burden of proof is when you have to prove that the evidence you say proves someone committed a crime is in fact proof. Until proven to be proof of a crime, the evidence is can disputed to mean a multitude of things. Everyone in involved is going to have a different perspective and a different interpretation as a result... thus the Burden of Proof is to prove to everyone that the evidence means one thing and one thing only: Proof of a crime. It should also be noted that not always is the Burden of proof correct. There have been cases where the court finds someone guilty of a heinous crime when later evidence cleared their name long after the conviction. Adapt this analogy to Spiritual truths.... How do you know your bible is truth? I am content to let you go accepting that you have blind faith in it.... and that you wilfully try to validate the bible, rather than have an open enough mind to consider maybe it is inaccurate in some ways after all. Logically, you cannot KNOW the Bible is true until a time machine is developed that allows you to go back and observe the events described in the bible first hand. Until then, Both us should agree to disagree and settle for each other simply believing what we want by faith and perhaps wishful thinking alone.

And honestly, I do not claim to have all of the answers. I dare say no one does. Thus, asking em to provide proof for my beliefs is just like me asking you for proof of yours. Neither of us can PROVE it without going back in time and travelling all across the Universe to witness history we consider true first hand... and I don't have to prove my case to you any more than you do to me... so, All I am saying is that you should just agree to disagree, use Wikipedia to find out what Mormons believe, go talk to a missionary on Mormon.org and interrogate him (preferably respectfully), and stop trying to convert other people to you faith. I'm not here to convert you or anyone else... it's not my place to do that. Nor is it yours.

[Lady Regina Jane]

Neophenx de Chrysalya

Jester25

Major Logica

Mormons believe a similar thing to Christians. They believe it differently, though. In Mormonism, Jesus is a brother to humans, has a physical body like God does, and Satan is also a brother to him and us, albeit an estranged one. They believe that by going through Christian rituals like baptism, communion, and church fellowship as well as living a righteous and clean life, they can attain a state of godhood, realising their own divinity. They have supplemental books that are allegedly found in the New World (the Americas) that they believe to be divinely inspire histories and prophesy on par with the Bible. They believe that the King James bible is best translation to date and thus tend to follow that one and believe that it should be interpreted a certain way for it to be correct. Once, polygamy was okay under the religion, but they have formally renounced it because it brought trouble with the federal law and also because polygamist families tend to be more chaotic due to Human nature. They do not consume a lot of alcohol, as they consider it counter productive... they also do not consume coffee or tea, presumably due to the caffeine content, believing that stimulants and other addictive substances are counter productive. Finally, the LDS Chruch strongly holds that both parents must equally contribute to a happy and healthy home. They emphasises good family life and values and on the whole form my own observations, Mormon families ARE happier and healthier as the parents are more wholesomely involved in the children's lives. This does not mean I am inclined to believe their religion, but I praise their family and individual lifestyles.

I just want to add a couple of things. Some LDS members do not drink coffee or tea or soda/pop. However, it's more of a a suggestion, it's not required.

And the whole thing about Polygamy. It wasn't a(n) LDS thing until after they moved to Utah, by Brigham Young. The LDS were hated so much, that Missouri ordered them to be killed through "Missouri Executive Order 44" or "the Mormon Extermination Order" link so they had to flea the country to Utah (was not a state at this time). Along the way the Civil War was going on. Mormon's were Abolishionists (part of the reason behind the hatred that they were receiving) and they believed in serving their country. So the men stopped to fight in battle and many were lost in the fight. When they got to Utah, after so much death... There were not many men left. And remember this is the 1800's. Women did not have the rights that they have now. So the men that were left, were assigned (they didn't get to choose) widows, so they could help take care of the women and children that lost their husband's, fathers, and brothers. In the Early 1900's polygamy was no longer necessary and it was starting to cause problems so they got rid of it.

The problem I have with this explanation, while it sounds like it has merit to it, is that the Doctrine and Covenants defines plural marriage specifically as an everlasting covenant. Also, it is basic Christian understanding, according to the Bible, that the only pure and good religion (lifestyle) in God's sight is to care for the widows and orphans and to not be corrupted by the world's philosophies and practices. Taking care of widows doesn't mean taking underage girls for wives as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (sounds like bring-them-young, doesn't it?) are often criticized for doing. Use the 'taking care of widowed women from war' excuse all you want, but it doesn't explain the actual wording of the D&C.

Where Mormons and non-Mormon Christians differ in this subject is that Mormons believe their marriage(s) last into eternity... as in you are still married if sealed by the temple forever.... all of your spouses are if you have re-married after one died or something.

However, non-Mormons refer to the point Yeshuah made where the Sadducees attempted to trap Jesus in a legal conundrum... and apparently failed. The law of Moses states that if you marry a woman and she bears you no sons and you die, then your wife has to marry your borther and have an heir through him. Suppose there are seven brothers. A woman marries all seven, legally, and bears no sons, then herself dies. The Sadducees tried to get him when they asked "whose wife is she if she legally married all of them?" (mind you, back then patriarchy was law and men could have multiple wives as far as I know, but NOT the other way around. Women were property, not people) Yeshuah replied, "You don't know what the law says. When people rise form the dead, no one will be married." it should be noted as well, that the there were two denominations of Judaism back then: the Sadducee and the Pharisees. The Pharisees believe in Angels and ressurrection, while the Sadducees did not. The Sadduceees were trying to prove their case by trapping Yeshuah in a legal issue in regards to Resurrection, which they rejected. The Bible says they they walked away form him right after.

Thus, this dispute still lingers today between the Mormons and non-Mormon Christians.

And Neo, can you PLEASE stop being an a**?

[Henry Hobo-Master]

Major Logica

Where Mormons and non-Mormon Christians differ in this subject is that Mormons believe their marriage(s) last into eternity... as in you are still married if sealed by the temple forever.... all of your spouses are if you have re-married after one died or something.

However, non-Mormons refer to the point Yeshuah made where the Sadducees attempted to trap Jesus in a legal conundrum... and apparently failed. The law of Moses states that if you marry a woman and she bears you no sons and you die, then your wife has to marry your borther and have an heir through him. Suppose there are seven brothers. A woman marries all seven, legally, and bears no sons, then herself dies. The Sadducees tried to get him when they asked "whose wife is she if she legally married all of them?" (mind you, back then patriarchy was law and men could have multiple wives as far as I know, but NOT the other way around. Women were property, not people) Yeshuah replied, "You don't know what the law says. When people rise form the dead, no one will be married." it should be noted as well, that the there were two denominations of Judaism back then: the Sadducee and the Pharisees. The Pharisees believe in Angels and ressurrection, while the Sadducees did not. The Sadduceees were trying to prove their case by trapping Yeshuah in a legal issue in regards to Resurrection, which they rejected. The Bible says they they walked away form him right after.

Thus, this dispute still lingers today between the Mormons and non-Mormon Christians.

This is a weird dispute, mainly because Jesus was talking to non-believers who were trying to trap them. The doctrine of eternal marriage came later as a revelation. Eternal marriage can only happen if the practices are "correct" to Mormon standards apparently. Since neither of the brothers or the wife were eternally married (to Mormon standards), it would have been the correct answer to say that they are all angels in heaven.

I knew a professor who understood Greek fairly well, and researched many things about these stories. He rationalized such things in a manner that made a lot of sense; Jesus would not have taught or said anything to the non-believers that wasn't necessarily understood yet. If Jesus was going to teach anything, he wouldn't do it to these people. A lot of his more "secretive" practices came later on.

But most of that is just speculation and interpretation.

[Neophenx de Chrysalya]

Major Logica

I have not pushed my beliefs on you, expecting you to convert to them.. there is nothing to convert to.

Again, I'm stopping you short on this remark right here because you've illustrated yet again that you're adding to the black-and-white text I've written.

I did not say that you were trying to make me convert to your way of thinking, but that you are indeed pushing your belief about stating one's faith and standing up for it.

You also keep saying that I am attacking people, when I have already pointed out that I am looking for definitive information. It is your opinion that I am attacking people, when if you read my words carefully, removing from them your interpretation, your emotions and your opinions and READ the black-and-white text in front of your eyes, you will see that. Again, you are pushing on to me your opinion-based definition of "attacking people" when I've made it abundantly clear that I want solid answers. I have also made it clear that being loving to people does not mean sitting idly by while they live in lies. My heart breaks for people who live in lies. And yes, I do have a perception of truth that differs from yours, but it is because of what I believe is truth that I literally cry in sorrow for people who are lost. I repeat: How much do you have to hate somebody to know what the truth is and not share it with them?

As for your whole approach to "personal truth," I've already made my peace on the subject. If you honestly don't care about the actual definition of the word and would rather apply your own opinion of what the dictionary should say about it, I do hope that you are actually right and that I am wrong about what the word actually means. I'd also suggest actually studying the entire notion of this "new age" faith, because in reality it's not that new. You're telling me that people should just believe whatever they want, regardless of what very real and truth-based consequence it just MIGHT have on them in this life and the next. I repeat again: it is out of love for people living in what I believe are lies that I reach out to them, to ask them questions and think critically about the answers. It's not just a church that rides on this, but that person's individual identity and soul. I repeat (again because you continue thinking this is an attack): I would have to literally hate and despise someone to not share with them what I believe is the very real and powerful Christ, who alone is salvation in eternity and comfort and fulfillment in this life.

So tell me, knowing this definition of truth and love that I carry in my mind and in my heart, if you were to ask yourself how much you loved somebody, could you say you loved them enough to share what to you is a very real and fulfilling truth? Or is your life so full of either fear, hatred or anger that you do not want your truth, which you believe saves your eternal soul, to save another human being, be it a stranger on the street or your own parent, sibling or friend?

Your huge rant about "burden of proof" regarding evidence in a court of law does not change one single fundamental fact. While different witnesses may have different interpretations of what happened, there is STILL only a SINGLE factual occurrence of what did happen. Saying that everyone can have their own interpretation is, again, illogical in the light of there can still only be a single truth. Say for instance a murder goes to trial and is pardoned because of a "lack of evidence." Regardless of whether or not the evidence was substantial in the opinions of the members of the jury to convict the murderer does NOT change the fact that he or she committed the murder. You illustrate time and time again that you simply place more value on personal opinion than on solid information, in this tangent, and in ignoring a simple question of specific Biblical contradictions that led you personally away from Christianity. Dodging such questions is not at all clever, my friend, and (in my opinion) very disrespectful to the progression of conversation.

Oh, and I'll stop being an a** as soon as you stop paining me in that light. Your own interpretation of what constitutes "being an a**" apparently matches my definition of "speaking with confidence." Again, you're only illustrating that you're trying to push your definitions onto me by interpreting black-and-white text with your emotional reactions.

[Lady Regina Jane]

Neophenx de Chrysalya

Major Logica

I have not pushed my beliefs on you, expecting you to convert to them.. there is nothing to convert to.

Again, I'm stopping you short on this remark right here because you've illustrated yet again that you're adding to the black-and-white text I've written.

I did not say that you were trying to make me convert to your way of thinking, but that you are indeed pushing your belief about stating one's faith and standing up for it.

You also keep saying that I am attacking people, when I have already pointed out that I am looking for definitive information. It is your opinion that I am attacking people, when if you read my words carefully, removing from them your interpretation, your emotions and your opinions and READ the black-and-white text in front of your eyes, you will see that. Again, you are pushing on to me your opinion-based definition of "attacking people" when I've made it abundantly clear that I want solid answers. I have also made it clear that being loving to people does not mean sitting idly by while they live in lies. My heart breaks for people who live in lies. And yes, I do have a perception of truth that differs from yours, but it is because of what I believe is truth that I literally cry in sorrow for people who are lost. I repeat: How much do you have to hate somebody to know what the truth is and not share it with them?

As for your whole approach to "personal truth," I've already made my peace on the subject. If you honestly don't care about the actual definition of the word and would rather apply your own opinion of what the dictionary should say about it, I do hope that you are actually right and that I am wrong about what the word actually means. I'd also suggest actually studying the entire notion of this "new age" faith, because in reality it's not that new. You're telling me that people should just believe whatever they want, regardless of what very real and truth-based consequence it just MIGHT have on them in this life and the next. I repeat again: it is out of love for people living in what I believe are lies that I reach out to them, to ask them questions and think critically about the answers. It's not just a church that rides on this, but that person's individual identity and soul. I repeat (again because you continue thinking this is an attack): I would have to literally hate and despise someone to not share with them what I believe is the very real and powerful Christ, who alone is salvation in eternity and comfort and fulfillment in this life.

So tell me, knowing this definition of truth and love that I carry in my mind and in my heart, if you were to ask yourself how much you loved somebody, could you say you loved them enough to share what to you is a very real and fulfilling truth? Or is your life so full of either fear, hatred or anger that you do not want your truth, which you believe saves your eternal soul, to save another human being, be it a stranger on the street or your own parent, sibling or friend?

Your huge rant about "burden of proof" regarding evidence in a court of law does not change one single fundamental fact. While different witnesses may have different interpretations of what happened, there is STILL only a SINGLE factual occurrence of what did happen. Saying that everyone can have their own interpretation is, again, illogical in the light of there can still only be a single truth. Say for instance a murder goes to trial and is pardoned because of a "lack of evidence." Regardless of whether or not the evidence was substantial in the opinions of the members of the jury to convict the murderer does NOT change the fact that he or she committed the murder. You illustrate time and time again that you simply place more value on personal opinion than on solid information, in this tangent, and in ignoring a simple question of specific Biblical contradictions that led you personally away from Christianity. Dodging such questions is not at all clever, my friend, and (in my opinion) very disrespectful to the progression of conversation.

Oh, and I'll stop being an a** as soon as you stop paining me in that light. Your own interpretation of what constitutes "being an a**" apparently matches my definition of "speaking with confidence." Again, you're only illustrating that you're trying to push your definitions onto me by interpreting black-and-white text with your emotional reactions.

That's all very well and good, but it isn't WHAT you're saying. it's the WAY you're saying it.

[Guildzilla]

Neophenx de Chrysalya

So I've been keeping up with the things said in this forum. You say you are searching for the truth. Yet you pish others beliefs out of the way stating that there is only one version of the truth. I have news for you. Beliefs do not equal the truth. Beliefs are the same as opinions which are things people accept as the truth. Now I am a Christian I am saved but you cannot take what the bible says literally. It's full of hypocrisy. Because the bible was translated by man there for used for power. As Gary Oldman said in The Book of Eli "It's not a book it's a weapon." Why? Because you can twist everything that's said into the book and make it say what you want. I can find enough passages in the bible to make it to where everyone has to do what I say because I am supreme ruler of everything if I took enough time to site everything.

You are truly insane if you think anything written in black and white is anything close to the truth. I can guarantee you just about anything you source as the truth from the bible there is something else in there that contradicts that.

You believe therebis only one truth and you continue to discredit and push others aside because you think your belief is true?

You are truly insane.

http://youtu.be/eBDi0iM2kcU

[Neophenx de Chrysalya]

Guild Carver1

Neophenx de Chrysalya

So I've been keeping up with the things said in this forum. You say you are searching for the truth. Yet you pish others beliefs out of the way stating that there is only one version of the truth. I have news for you. Beliefs do not equal the truth. Beliefs are the same as opinions which are things people accept as the truth. Now I am a Christian I am saved but you cannot take what the bible says literally. It's full of hypocrisy. Because the bible was translated by man there for used for power. As Gary Oldman said in The Book of Eli "It's not a book it's a weapon." Why? Because you can twist everything that's said into the book and make it say what you want. I can find enough passages in the bible to make it to where everyone has to do what I say because I am supreme ruler of everything if I took enough time to site everything.

You are truly insane if you think anything written in black and white is anything close to the truth. I can guarantee you just about anything you source as the truth from the bible there is something else in there that contradicts that.

You believe therebis only one truth and you continue to discredit and push others aside because you think your belief is true?

You are truly insane.

http://youtu.be/eBDi0iM2kcU

So you criticize the way I approach a singularity of truth and proceed to call me insane. Good job on the name calling, you're so much more mature than I am. You've obviously done a poor job at actually reading through a bulk of it, if that's your argument against me in which I have asked for specific examples of these contradictions, and that this is a thread specifically about questions for and answers from Mormons. I'm sorry that my freedom of speech offends you. Done.