You said I started this thread, and I was wrong.
And what did I say you were wrong about? Hint: It wasn't about finding common ground. I think you are getting discussions mixed up.
That may not be what you meant, but it's still what you said.
And?
Your actions speak louder than words. Why do you always attack me when I seek common ground with opposing views?
Hopefully, someday you'll learn the difference between attacking you and disagreeing with you. Again, you're barking up the wrong tree. Where do you get the idea that I don't believe in the truth is one great whole? Why are you complaining about me attacking you? What has that go to do with truth?
What am I wrong about on this topic?
Both the Book of Mormon and the Bible clearly reference the doctrine of pre-existence. You claim it's not to be found in either. I gave instances from both that clearly show references to us, you and me and everyone in the world, were present in the pre-existence.
Where did I say the truth lies solely in me?
actions speak louder than words. You're not here to learn. It appears that you are here to convince everyone else that you are right, even down to the point that the church is wrong and you are right.
I do believe some thing to be true, and draw my own conclusions, without an appeal to authority. Is that wrong?
I don't know what you said there. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's not wrong to question (if that's what you mean). However, it is wrong to accept only your own truth in denial of everyone else's input. Especially when you deny the truth of the religion that you claim you believe is true.
In this particular instance, you seem to have completely glossed over the precepts of the preexistence being part of the Bible and Book of Mormon when it's clearly mentioned on both (in almost the exact same wording. How can you continue to believe you are right about that when it's been shown that it does exist? That's a clear case of denial.
It seems to me, that in the pursuit of finding common ground, you're willing to use the same arguments our critics do. Somehow foreknowledge is supposed to trump knowing us before we were born and calling us forth giving us opportunities that others don't have. What is foreknowledge based on? Does God have a crystal ball where he can see everything past, present, and future? I'm not denying that he can see those things, but my question is what is it based on? I certainly hope you don't believe it's based on creating us to do the very things we do. Hopefully, you see the pitfall in such an idea.
I believe that foreknowledge is based on the past. If you have individuals who constantly seek the ill fate of those around them, then you can pretty well tell that in the future, they will continue doing the same thing. That's not to say that many will change. Some people are the way they are because of the people they choose to hang around. I believe a wise parent can see that. That's called foreknowledge.
But the fact that God
called them from the foundation of the world based on his foreknowledge is a clear indication of being present before God before we were born into mortality. Both the Book of Mormon and the Bible teach that.
I like to vet my ideas, and come to this board to receive oppositional feedback to do so.
I beg to disagree. From what I've seen of your arguments, you come here to insist that we are wrong and that you are right.
Is that the same as claiming "only I am true and you need my approval"? Hardly.
If that's what you did, then I wouldn't have anything to say about it. Take for example the argument about faith alone. There is no such thing, yet you insist that we are wrong and that you are right. Where have you vetted anything on this forum concerning that subject? You won't even explain what faith alone means to you. I asked over and over and over and you kept deflecting saying it wasn't worth your time, or maybe I'm just not worth your time.
Neither source? What? Are you continuing the discussion from the OP? Can you get out of your head for one minute to comprehend what I'm actually talking about?
At this point, it appears that you're actually just complaining that I'm attacking you. What I was talking about what the OP. That should have been the subject of this whole thread. This statement is all over the place so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Is it the OP or about me attacking you or something else. No matter where you go, I'm always going to try to drag the conversation back to the OP. Frankly, you're whining about the way I discuss things is totally off-topic and is a waste of time. Control yourself. Don't try to control me.
The Book of Mormon is meant to restore plain and precious truths.
So, now you're on the OP. Great. *boggle*
Very minimally it talks about pre-mortality
You said it didn't talk about it, not it talks about it minimally. Those are two different things. FYI. The doctrine about the pre-existence was not restored through the Book of Mormon. We had that in the Bible already. However, the Book of Mormon is a second witness to that doctrine.
which tells me that "pre-mortality" isn't a plain and precious truth seeking to be restored.
Yet, when we teach the gospel in the Church, we generally give the big picture, starting in pre-mortality, while teachers/missionaries in the Book of Mormon, start with Adam. Maybe we should follow their lead.
You act like we haven't learned anything. Why would we go backward and not talk about the pre-existence? Why pretend it doesn't exist? (of course, they didn't. They knew it existed. They didn't obsess about it because everyone understood it. In the dark period that reigned on the earth after the crucifixion of Christ is where the "church" decided that we aren't really children of God (even though the Bible is pretty clear that we are). The philosophies of men replaced the doctrines that were so plain and easy to understand (imagine that, a Father who has children, sons even). But nope. God only had one son and the rest of us are pets, created for entertainment. Some of them will be saved, the rest will be burned... who cares. The potter makes the pot and destroys it, It means nothing to them. That's all we are to God. Yea. So what was plain and precious was lost, not from the verbiage we find in the Bible and the Book of Mormon but from the forms of godliness that deny the power thereof.
No. We don't need to follow their lead. We need to follow the lead of those who are the head of the church today. They have not made any mistakes in their leadership, whether it be polygamy, race in the priesthood, or what constitutes a family. In their world, God can do whatever He wants and family has no function in God's plan. We can define it however we want.
Said. You quoted the point and still didn't see it. You're here to find common ground, even when there isn't any.
Which I repeatedly acknowledged was a loaded/fallacious question, which you failed to recognize.
Again, you prove my point. It was not loaded, it was not fallacious. Your argument and you couldn't answer a question about it. This results in you being right, you don't even have to defend your claims, we must just accept what you tell us and admit we are wrong. Oh wise one.
Richard7 never had an issue clarifying and validating what I was saying. Mesenja started making the exact same points I was making after a brief time on the Doctrinal Questions board.
And now it appears that you are in a world all alone. Everyone agrees with you (but me of course - I can't because you won't answer the questions I ask).