Darron Smith

[SeattleUte]

I want a link showing LDS doctrine. Is this it?

http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Doctrin...8061109&sr=1-2

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I want a link showing LDS doctrine. Is this it?

http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Doctrin...8061109&sr=1-2

No, here is the link you want:

http://www.lds.org/languages/youthma...eFaith_000.pdf

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

No, here is the link you want:

http://www.lds.org/languages/youthma...eFaith_000.pdf

This is pretty obscure. For example, I was hoping it would tell me whether Jesus and Jehova are the same person

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

This is pretty obscure.

I don't think obscure means what you think it means (hint, published in the last 30 years does not equal obscure).

Also, it does answer your Jehovah question but, of course, you would have to read it to find that out.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I don't think obscure means what you think it means (hint, published in the last 30 years does not equal obscure).

Also, it does answer your Jehovah question but, of course, you would have to read it to find that out.

See definition no. 2

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscure

[All-American]

So you think it is too obscure. Others will argue it is too specific. Or too narrow, or broad.

But you're not arguing whether or not it is obscure. You're arguing that it doesn't exist. That means you don't get to quibble over its qualitative value. You're going to have to stare at it and tell me it isn't there.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by All-American

So you think it is too obscure. Others will argue it is too specific. Or too narrow, or broad.

But you're not arguing whether or not it is obscure. You're arguing that it doesn't exist. That means you don't get to quibble over its qualitative value. You're going to have to stare at it and tell me it isn't there.

Game. Set. Match.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

See definition no. 2

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obscure

No my point still stands under either definition. You probably haven't read any of it (you do have a reputation to uphold). You certainly didn't read more than a few pages (I know because your question is addressed less than 20 pages in). So you can't possibly know whether it is obscure. Thus you must have thought that somehow its creation in the last 30 years made it obscure. But AA's response is better. He is right. Who cares? You were arguing against existence and it clearly exists.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

No, here is the link you want:

http://www.lds.org/languages/youthma...eFaith_000.pdf

I have a few questions about this pamphlet. Why isn't it called Mormon or LDS Doctrine? Why is the word doctrine not in the title? Why can't I find Nephites or Lamanites in the index? Why is there nothing in here about Lucifer's family? About Adam's family? When was it published? Has it been revised?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I have a few questions about this pamphlet. Why isn't it called Mormon or LDS Doctrine? Why is the word doctrine not in the title? Why can't I find Nephites or Lamanites in the index? Why is there nothing in here about Lucifer's family? About Adam's family? When was it published? Has it been revised?

Why is there nothing about the number of sands in the sea? Why is not the distance one must hie in order to reach Kolob spelled out in both miles and kilometers? Why are not the events prior to the second coming spelled out in exhaustive, minute-by-minute detail?

And finally, does it exist?