ryankiel

Personally I believe it, but the church doctrine does not officially have a stance.

1. The book 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' is not canonized scripture. 2. We believe Joseph Smith did not write The Book of Abraham, but translated it. 3. I wish you had a page number or the full quote so I could garner a little more insight to what he was saying, but we believe God the Father and also Christ dwelt with and walked with Adam here on earth.

No problem, I'll try again.. We believe in the doctrine of progression, where Man is put on earth to grow, learn and progress. We believe that after death we can continue to progress if we choose and eventually create 'worlds without ends' From this doctrine, it can be inferred that God himself went through this progression, but there is nothing in the scriptures explicitly stating this fact, nor is do we have any information on his history. As for Kolob, it is simply stated in the book of Abraham that it is the 'star closest to the dwelling of God' and that all time is measured from it. If you have any other questions I will be happy to try and answer!

I think and also recall that they have horns and carry pitchforks.

I doubt there are many here who DONT have those books, I would drop them on ebay.

The post I made was deleted Odden, if you want to know the LDS doctrine of Exaltation and our beliefs as to where God came from and the nature of God just PM me

The doctrine of exaltation is one we hold true, however there is not great detail and depth. Exaltation is the idea that the children of God, grow up, and grow up to become like God, just as a child can grow up to be a parent themselves. Many of typical protestant churches can't fathom this idea as they have been taught and trained that if they just have faith, they may have the hope someday of blowing trumpets and praising God for eternity. We see God as loving and rather than receiving his glory from masses of bootlickers, he receives his glory by seeing his children grow up to become like him.

Sure, this also implies self interest in the worship and conformance to the precepts of the church. I prefer a God who wants his children to become like him. In worship of God, he is glorified and in our progression we are glorified. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 1 Corinthians 8:4-5

As a real live Mormon (Latter-day Saint) I'd like to give it to you from the horses mouth. 1) Yes, we consider ourselves Christian as far is a Christian is a follower of Christ. 2) No, and we don't really concern ourselves with it. 3) Have a look at www.freecapitalist.com An organization that is about 75% Mormon. As for our 'strange' doctrines, keep in mind perspective. The current 'Christian' trends (even though there are thousands of splintered denominations) base their doctrines on their individual interpretations of a little book called The Bible (we also adhere to The Bible) However, the source of our doctrine comes from modern revelation. Many of the doctrines we believe have been simply restored. A very little bit I'm afraid. Really? I don't think so... My favorite part of your argument: Your only source for your claims are from a cartoon. Hm, what else.. Polytheism: We believe the Father, Son, Holy Ghost are 3 seperate beings, however united in every way in the same purpose and existance. If you wish to interpret this as polytheism, so be it, it's not a concern to us. The quote from Revelation is a funny little trick anti-mormons use for their argument (as seen in this thread) 1) John was referring specifically to his writings in the 'Book of Revelation' 2) The book was written even before the writings of the apostles, it was placed at the end of the Bible to give it finality which gives this fallacy even more sway. 3) Imagine if the book of John was placed last in the Bible: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be awritten every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. -John 21:25

Although I am aligned on many Objectivist issues, I am not a Objectivist in every sense of the definition, so I used the word selfishness in your first sense of the word as the 'I want, GIMMIE' When discussing the conflicts between the natural man, I mean the natural, irrational man who acts on instinct rather than reason. This type of man is self destructive and suffers from internal mental conflicts. Adhering to a code of conduct will help the irrational man iron out his conflicts by giving him a steady guide on how to act and behave. My point was that this code of conduct can be found in either religion or a philosophy. Choosing reason to be your moral compass (although right and correct) is still a choice that must be made by the adherent.

This brings up an interesting subject on how to approach opposing ideas. Lemuel mentioned that by saying he is an objectivist as opposed to calling himself an atheist brings up more opportunity for productive exchange of ideas. I think that is the correct way of asserting your beliefs. In my church there are a large group of ex-members who spend much of their time and lives fighting and defaming the church they once belonged to. They are able to leave the church, but for some reason are not able to leave the church alone. Their tactics are seen by still faithful members as so extreme as to be humorous.. a joke.. Whereas other ex-members are able to leave the church and move on with their lives. One of the latter type remarked "I prefer to be defined by what I am, not by what I am not" It seems that atheists in recent days are banding together by what they don't believe because they don't have anything they do believe in. Case in point: Those who simply fight against for the sake of fighting get/deserver no respect. This reminds me of a quote from Mother Teresa who once said: "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." Although not an atheist myself, I see objectivism as atheism on a higher level, as Objectivisim at least uses philosophical premises to justify it's atheism. In regard to the article in the Washington Post, I agree with the author when he explains how a natural man is a conflicted man. I'm sure we can all relate to how unchecked emotion can result in swings from extreme rage and selfishness to heights of incredible love and appreciation. I would agree that each man needs to decide for himself a set of rules or codes that he will strive to adhere to. The most common set of codes such as these are found in religion, with God being the ultimate code setter and regulator. Those who choose to reject religion as their way will generally find something else to replace it. Objectivism can be one of these replacements. Instead of a religion of faith, it is a religion of man with reason it's God.

Brandon, you're committing the typical fallacy committed by both christians and atheists alike, but you're doing it deceptively. The fallacy is implying you must be a strong atheist because you were raised christian. That you somehow overcame christianity to become the "fire-breathing objectivist (athiest)" you are today. Of course the reverse is also a fallacy.. I was raised an athiest, and am now a strong christian.. so somehow that makes you a better christian. Not only do you commit this falacy, but you mislead us by saying here you were raised LDS then in the galtsgulchforum you say: "And I'm not hurt or whatever from my religious upbringing. Actually, my parents were pretty much inactive. My dad went to church like twice a year, usually for the Christmas party, and my mom went about ten times a year, when she was really active. They were (are) terrific parents. There was never violence or meanness or cruelty in my home." http://www.galtsgulchforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1494 Please explain...