consiglieri Posted January 7, 2009 Author Posted January 7, 2009 So Hyrum Smith has (supposedly) decided that people in the terrestrial kingdom can move up or down on the logical basis that the moon waxes and wanes! And you think that is a legitimate way to determine LDS doctrine, do you? Well good luck to you. What more can I say. Remind me again, did you say you were an ex-Mormon agnostic? zerinusExcuse me, but where do you suppose Hyrum might have heard it from?Hyrum wasn't exactly known for his promulgation of new doctrines.And why is it that an ex-Mormon agnostic puts more stock in what Hyrum Smith had to say than you?All the Best!--Consiglieri
zerinus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 There are some who believe that pigeonholing people into artificial categories is counterproductive to a meaningful conversation.So you reckon he is an artificial "ex-Mormon agnostic" do you?zerinus
Tsuzuki Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Okay, Hiram was the old spelling for Hyrum. So Hyrum Smith has (supposedly) decided that people in the terrestrial kingdom can move up or down on the logical basis that the moon waxes and wanes! And you think that is a legitimate way to determine LDS doctrine, do you? Well good luck to you. What more can I say.Unless I'm mistaken, this thread is less about LDS doctrine, and more about LDS acceptable speculation.Remind me again, did you say you were an ex-Mormon agnostic? zerinusBelief is cheap, and affiliation even more so. What matters are understanding and actions.
Mike Reed Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Speaking on my own behalf, I had zerinus pretty well figured out without looking at his underwear tag.With me, it is a little more difficult, since I am a wolf trapped in a sheep's body... er... or is it a sheep trapped in a wolf's body? I forget.
zerinus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 But it is helpful in answering the question they "should" have asked. Why are you a Mormon at all? You sound like you are in agony for being one.zerinus
Mike Reed Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 So you reckon he is an artificial "ex-Mormon agnostic" do you?zerinusIt may be best to identify me as an agnostic, secular, humanist, ex-mormon, but cultural Mormon. Glad I don't have an underwear tag for THAT. Can you imagine how itchy that would be?
Tsuzuki Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 So you reckon he is an artificial "ex-Mormon agnostic" do you?zerinusI do, actually. Just as you and I are artificial "Mormons" (plus whatever else we like to call ourselves). In reality, we are all simply children of God, and anything else just clouds things unnecessarily.
LDSBruin Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Remind me again, did you say you were an ex-Mormon agnostic? zerinusFor someone who accuses others of a "smug" attitude, I'm not sure yours is conducive to discussion..Just wanted to pop in and say that I'm really enjoying this discussion. I will freely admit to being one who thought there was hard doctrine about kingdom progression and find it interesting to see that there is relatively little to support the idea. I'm very open to the thought that there might be progression. It seems apparent that we don't have any hard doctrine on the issue, but it is definitely worth discussing and researching in more depth.
Mike Reed Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Perhaps outer darkness is like absolute zero, and only possible in theory.Look at you and Anijen busting out the Mathmatics!Braniacs.
Tsuzuki Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 It may be best to identify me as an agnostic, secular, humanist, ex-mormon, but cultural Mormon. Glad I don't have an underwear tag for THAT. Can you imagine how itchy that would be?As a paradigm pirate, I think it's a good idea to change underwear frequently.
LDSBruin Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Why are you a Mormon at all? You sound like you are in agony for being one.zerinusYou are really on a roll...
zerinus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 It may be best to identify me as an agnostic, secular, humanist, ex-mormon, but cultural Mormon.Is that genuine or artificial?zerinus
zerinus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 I do, actually. Just as you and I are artificial "Mormons" (plus whatever else we like to call ourselves). In reality, we are all simply children of God, and anything else just clouds things unnecessarily.I take that to mean that you are an artificial Mormon. Be assured that I am not.I also suggest that you just try to speak for yourself, not for me. I think I am pretty good at speaking for myself, thank you.zerinus
Mike Reed Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Okay, Hiram was the old spelling for Hyrum. So Hyrum Smith has (supposedly) decided that people in the terrestrial kingdom can move up or down on the logical basis that the moon waxes and wanes!Yup. Bingo. And several other Mormons have "SUPPOSED" similarly in regards to advancement through the Kingdoms. And you think that is a legitimate way to determine LDS doctrine, do you?Nope. The point I am making (which you apparently missed) is that being Mormon is not enough to qualify you as an authority for determining what is and is not doctrine. Therefore, you will need to present more credentials, if you are expecting me to just take your word for itâ??as if your opinion was somehow the measure of perfection. Well good luck to you. What more can I say.I am less concerned with what you can "say", and more interested in what you can "substantiate." Remind me again, did you say you were an ex-Mormon agnostic? And what is that supposed to mean? You know what agnostic means, right? It is a concession of not knowing. You ought to try it (conceeding) sometime. Socrates said something about not knowing, like, "I know that I do not know, and it is this one thing that I know that makes me wise."There is another saying that may be more applicable to you: "He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not is a..."**Maybe its time I bite my tongue, so I don't get banned again. If you are interested, you can go to google and find out the rest of the phrase.
zerinus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Nope. The point I am making (which you apparently missed) is that being Mormon is not enough to qualify you as an authority for determining what is and is not doctrine. Therefore, you will need to present more credentials, if you are expecting me to just take your word for itâ??as if your opinion was somehow the measure of perfection.The credentials is simple. There is nothing revealed about transmigration between kingdoms, period. By "revealed" I mean in the standard works of the Church. That is the source of Church doctrine. An obscure quote from Hyrum Smith or Franklin D. Richards or anyone else for that matter does not cut it. That is the official position of the Church regarding any doctrine.zerinus
consiglieri Posted January 7, 2009 Author Posted January 7, 2009 There is nothing revealed about transmigration between kingdoms, period. So getting back to my "trenchant" question, why do recent Church leaders teach there is no transmigration between kingdoms when there is nothing revealed on the subject?All the Best!--Consiglieri
Mike Reed Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 The credentials is simple. There is nothing revealed about transmigration between kingdoms, period. By "revealed" I mean in the standard works of the Church. That is the source of Church doctrine. An obscure quote from Hyrum Smith or Franklin D. Richards or anyone else for that matter does not cut it. That is the official position of the Church regarding any doctrine.zerinusScripture is subject to interpretation, and there is nothing in LDS Scripture that diffinitively settles the matter. Besides... The LDS Church doesn't accept sola scriptura--that all religious truth is found in closed canon scripture. As a "Mormon" you should know that.Hmmm... maybe you are an "artificial Mormon", and you just don't know it.
consiglieri Posted January 7, 2009 Author Posted January 7, 2009 An obscure quote from Hyrum Smith or Franklin D. Richards or anyone else for that matter does not cut it. zerinusHave you ever stopped to consider why these quotes are obscure?And why should the obscurity of a quote have anything to do with whether it is true?And I should like to know where Hyrum Smith got this idea if not from his brother, Joseph. I understand they were rather close.All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted January 7, 2009 Author Posted January 7, 2009 You are really on a roll...I think he's still mad about my spelling his name zeranus on another thread.
Mike Reed Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 I think he's still mad about my spelling his name zeranus on another thread.Lol! Freudian slip? So Zerinus has been this closed minded and dogmatic on other threads, eh?Wow. MADb is so lucky that he/she participates here. [/sarcasm]
zerinus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 So getting back to my "trenchant" question, why do recent Church leaders teach there is no transmigration between kingdoms when there is nothing revealed on the subject?All the Best!--ConsiglieriAs somebody has already shown in this thread, leaders of the Church have expressed differing opinions on the subject. When that happens, that is the surest sign that the Lord has not spoken on the subject. They are expressing their own personal opinions. The leaders of the Church are allowed to have their own opinions too, you know. Where God has not spoken, everybody is allowed to have their own opinions, which may or may not agree with each other.zerinus
Mike Reed Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 As somebody has already shown in this thread, leaders of the Church have expressed differing opinions on the subject. When that happens, that is the surest sign that the Lord has not spoken on the subject. They are expressing their own personal opinions. The leaders of the Church are allowed to have their own opinions too, you know. Where God has not spoken, everybody is allowed to have their own opinions, which may or may not agree with each other.zerinusEarth calling Zerinus! The only one (in the last few pages of this thread) that has been claiming an official position on the matter seems to be YOU.
zerinus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Scripture is subject to interpretation, and there is nothing in LDS Scripture that diffinitively settles the matter. Besides... The LDS Church doesn't accept sola scriptura--that all religious truth is found in closed canon scripture. As a "Mormon" you should know that.Actually, it does. Have a look at this article in my Blog. You wouldn't want to miss my Blog, would you? zerinus
cjcampbell Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 There is progression between kingdoms in the temple ceremony. In fact, it is implied that progression between kingdoms is mandatory.
zerinus Posted January 7, 2009 Posted January 7, 2009 Have you ever stopped to consider why these quotes are obscure?They are obscure because there are doubts about their authenticity. They are often hearsay rather than reliably documented statements.And why should the obscurity of a quote have anything to do with whether it is true?Because we cannot be certain if they are true or not.And I should like to know where Hyrum Smith got this idea if not from his brother, Joseph.Too bad he isn't around so I could ask him!I understand they were rather close.I am sure they were.zerinus
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.