The problem with Limited Geography,

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

It's not hyperbole. Nor is it ridiculous.

D&C 1.30: "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth"

Believing that everyone has pieces, but only LDS have the "whole" truth is a monopoly on truth, and pretty smug, IMO. Hey, fine by me if people want to believe it. That's their prerogative. But they end up painting themselves into a corner by claiming facts, knowledge, and absolutes in realms of faith and belief.

Thanks for making it personal, Indy. You're the king of Pennsylvania.

C'mon. That scripture DOES NOT claim we have a monopoly on truth. The LDS church has the best framework of any faith to pull in disparate pieces of truth and fit them into a meaningful whole. That is NOT a monopoly. Admitting that other faiths (even non-Christian faiths) have elements of truth is a clear indication that the LDS church does not have a monopoly on the truth. That isn't a hard concept to grasp and your assertion to the contrary is just ridiculous.

Making it personal? When you make false claims about what my church believes (ostensibly it's still your church too, but that assumption seems to be more in question with each passing day), YOU make it personal.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

A church being "true" does not mean the church has "the whole truth."

I'm unaware of the distinction, and in the end we're probably splitting hairs.

LDS believe they have "truth" - whether it's authority, doctrine, or a more complete knowledge of the plan of salvation. Fine. I'm not disputing that, and I personally might even believe most of that.

My point is that many LDS testimonies use words like "I know" or "I testify" while consciously avoiding facts. This is a paradox to me. I have no problem with people saying "I believe strongly" or "I felt God speak to me." I do have a problem with "I know for sure, but will refuse to acknowledge or incorporate any facts that contradict what I know."

I think I'm done here, so don't bother with "FU we're done."

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Solon

I'm unaware of the distinction, and in the end we're probably splitting hairs.

LDS believe they have "truth" - whether it's authority, doctrine, or a more complete knowledge of the plan of salvation. Fine. I'm not disputing that, and I personally might even believe most of that.

My point is that many LDS testimonies use words like "I know" or "I testify" while consciously avoiding facts. This is a paradox to me. I have no problem with people saying "I believe strongly" or "I felt God speak to me." I do have a problem with "I know for sure, but will refuse to acknowledge or incorporate any facts that contradict what I know."

I think I'm done here, so don't bother with "FU we're done."

I had the same kind of crisis of conscience when I was nineteen on my mission. I was very uncomfortable with the language that the Missionary training book was instructing me to use. So when I had an interview with my mission president, I said "I just can't do this, this isn't how I believe, and I can't teach how I don't believe." And he said, "Just do what you feel is right."

And then I was fine. I could use the words that I was comfortable with, I could approach it from my angle.

I had a wise mission president.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I had the same kind of crisis of conscience when I was nineteen on my mission. I was very uncomfortable with the language that the Missionary training book was instructing me to use. So when I had an interview with my mission president, I said "I just can't do this, this isn't how I believe, and I can't teach how I don't believe." And he said, "Just do what you feel is right."

And then I was fine. I could use the words that I was comfortable with, I could approach it from my angle.

I had a wise mission president.

Nice job man, seriously.

[splitbamboo]

Sure wish SeattleUte hadn't derailed this thread. I was looking forward to a discussion on the views of BoM geography.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

what would it take for you to accept the Book of Mormon on the same level you accept the bible?

a carving like your avatar with the detail of Lehi's dream?

How about fair skin indigineous people?

Some ancient hebrew inscribed on a wall?

you seeing the golden plates?

Comparing the Book of Mormon and the Bible is completely inapt. It's like saying what will it take to convince yoi that the lady Utes basketball team should play in the NFL Super Bowl. The Bible is a chronicle with a paper trail going back thousands of years. Its protagonists are the lineal and culteral ancestors of the people who wrote and edited the book and and still compromize a people sufficiently monolithic to havw established their own nation state through warfare. The Bible was the means by which not only Hebrews but also numerous Mediterranean and European peoples acquired a sophisticated written language.I think an apples to apples comparison would be comparing the Mormon chronicles of Nauvoo, the westward trek, this is the place, etc to the Bible, even then it's like comparing a redwood to a little green shoot.