Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

i asked my lds-ex-g/f once about the plates joseph smith translated, and if i could view them anywhere.she said no, you'd have to be really high in the church elders to even see them.sounds fishy to me. if i don't like my bible translation, i can get a hebrew dictionary and look at the masoretic, or a greek dictionary and look at the septuagint. they're hardly secret documents.

like i said, sounds VERY fishy.

quite. along with the ark of the covenant.ok, i guess i'll rephrase. there are innumerable intermediate steps in the path of the bible from it's origins (plural) until today. we have some of those steps, if not the first few. even if it's made up, it was made up by multiple people, and earlier versions and translations can at least be checked.with the bom, we're dealing with a single translation, by a single person.although part of the bible seem fishy indeed, there's something about the bom that seems ever more spurious, like it was made up recently.

with my alien babies!

as a member of ben-elohym? do you interpret this group as gods, lesser gods, angels, or what? no, that can't be right, because (as i'm discussing in another thread and have discussed before) god is not bound by his own laws. rather, god is above them. god's law is for mankind alone. god himself can be seen breaking his own laws many times in the bible.god controls when we are born and when we die. but god tells man "thou shalt not kill."

i do. i only post here because i like to hear myself talk. wait, nevermind, that doesn't make any sense. i asked a question about your religion, as i am not too familiar with the mormon faith. i only dated a mormon for 6 or 7 months, and the topic didn't come up too often. no, but yes in a way. i do think i know god about as well as i can at this point in my life, and probably better than most.now, i asked a simple question. do you interpret christ to be a member of this group, the sons of god(s), along with satan? and if so, do you interpret this group as lesser gods, or angels, or what? i'm not insulting anyone's belief here, something you seem to feel the need to do. rather, if the answer is what i expect i'm probably inclinded to agree. no rhetoric. simple logic here.first premise: god tells man not to kill.
second premise: god controls when we die, ie: god kills.
therefore: god's instruction does not apply to god.god's law is a contract between man and god, a covenant. he is bound contractually (although not out of neccessity) to the terms of his side of the agreement, but NOT OURS. he protects his children and put them in the land he promised, therefore his children should follow his instructions. those instructions, per the terms of the covenant, don't even apply to non-jews, let alone gods. now that's just silly. do you contend then that god is not omnipotent? is god of this universe, or did he create it? that's like saying bill gates is bound by his code. bill gates exists outside windows, you know. god exists outside our universe. if god were bound by natural laws, then we woundn't have these things called MIRACLES, such as recorded in the bible (and i'm the book of mormon i'm sure). i suggest you re-read the first few books of the bible, and pretend god is a human being. make note of everytime he does something you'd consider sinful. also note that in exodus, he does some of these things on a massive scale. simply put, if you believe the bible, it disproves your point. god quite often "breaks" his own laws. god kills, and lies, and is jealous. that's three commandments right there. god must not be bound by those laws. i'm not interpreting, i'm analyzing. nothing i've said here is out of line with strict logic. i've read the text, and YOUR interpretation doesn't make sense. i've pointed out historical, logical, and textual refutations of it, and then you accuse me of what exactly? i agree.or, rather, i will when you tell me what job did to deserve his punishment. the book ended rather abruptly, and i never found out. no, but god did commande abraham to sacrifice his innocent son, isaac. what did isaac do to deserve death?and yes, i know he was spared, and i do get the point of the story. i study the bible. i enjoy it. i think it's a really interesting book, especially the books of the old testament. it's not my fault that much of christianity and its various sects has very little to do with it.i am not trying to shape god to my view at all. in fact, the position i am supporting, as i have said before, is NOT how i would choose to view god, had i the choice. many times, i find the bible strongly conflicting with my opinions and beliefs.but i have argued nothing here unbiblical. if you think that's of satan, that's your problem not mine. your passing judgement and offering condemnation for supporting the bible makes you look both ignorant, and unchristian. tell me, are you kosher? que? bible, folks. it's not that hard of a read, really. see above. i read once that a key precept to mormonism was the constant path of faith. always questioning, the idea being that with knowledge humanity eventually tends towards deity.i don't always agree with your faith, but i like that idea. i've been on that path all my life. i question, and i think. i read the bible, and i analyze it, put it context, see what it's saying. sometimes i'm right, sometimes i'm wrong. and so i question always.saying that god breaks his own laws is not a radical new idea, or a selfish one. god has to in order to insure the functioning of the universe. imagine a world with no death for a second, realistically. what would happen if god DIDN'T kill?i'm not saying that god's actions are wrong. i think they are right. he's god, i trust he knows what he's doing. i'm just saying that god is not bound by the law he gave us, and the bible supports that position. in case you haven't figured it out, i'm a believer. a strong one, at that. i have no beef with god. i just think some ideas about him are wrong. grammatically, that sentance indicates that god was created. was that intentional? (honest question, no insult intended. honest) lucifer &ne satan. sorry.lucifer is the latin name for the planet venus half the year, or the morning star. this was how the hebrew title for the king of babylon was translated. lucifer, speaking in a strictly biblical sense, was only a man. of course, parts that i HAVE read from mormon scripture indicate otherwise, but this all after inter-testamental and apocryphal books that describe similar things, not to mention paradise lost. so i'll let this one go for now. make another thread if you really wanna fight about it.satan is, btw, a member of ben-elohym, and serves the will of god by testing men. but if you don't understand the concepts i've been talking about above, about god's knowledge of good AND evil, you'll never get this one. strictly speaking, it's part three. err, actually, depending on how you count, it could be a lot lower on the list. the ot alone is three parts, as is the nt. and the "book of mormon" is also multiple sets of books, is it not? judge not, lest you be judged. how erroneously dualistic. you STILL didn't answer my simple question. what are the members of the group called the sons of god, and is christ one of them, according to your belief?

people here call the old testament "ot" and the new testament "nt."i call my old testament "tanakh" which is short for "torah, nevi'im, kethuvim"

i think that may be scientology, night.and i'm not sure if they wear sacred temple underwear.

i do too, but i'd be interested to see some documentation on that one.

i heard they were pages from the book of the dead, which is standard egyptian funeray rites, wrapped into mummies, and can be bought by tourists pretty cheap on the black market...

what? no! jesus is a wasp!

well, you'll be even more confused by my newest thread, then.answers are hard to find. i've found that the more answers i find, and the closer i get to god, the mroe i know how far away i really am.i do respect the mormon faith, apart from the books. the best church i have ever been to was LDS. i've been toying with the idea of unity with god, like in marriage. all of man toegther and all of god. not sure what i think of it. most christians would call that blasphemy, but i think there's some backing to it. mormons tend to be more receptive to the idea. your thoughts?

only a little. sort of. i think of true judaism as eastern, though. the gnostics are similar. i like them, i think. taoism interests me, actually. claimed, yes. demonstrated, no. absolutely.they have a more congregation-focused service. while they have a strict hierarchy (something i have mixed feelings about), the show isn't about any one man. instead, many people of the congregation come up and say things. it wasn't like in some christian churches i've been too, where everyone wanted to be a star so much that people on stage outnumbered the audience. it was more of a de-centralized service.i also liked the austere surroundings (no iconography in any form) and how the focus was more on god than jesus. in christian churches, jesus and paul seem to be at head of everything, and i think their priorities are really mixed up.theologically, doubting and questioning seem to be more accepted (unless it questions origins of the bom, curiously).and, as i mentioned, the people are also friendly.

no it's not. you just have to remember to take up collections.tax free!

no no no you're doing it all wrong. you have to categorize it as a religion, organize, with some form of service. then it's tax-free.