A big problem for the LDS church to explain.

Over at Fathom, greengreek said (responding to a question of mine):

I replied:

After refreshing my memory on the subject, I intend to ask a few questions about those golden plates and Smith’s fancy readin’ spectacles.

Since you’ve already shown your class, as posted here:

Why should we LDS even respond to this?

Because y’all believe that Lucifer is Satan. And you’re wrong.

Well, now that you’ve settle that, I guess there’s no need for a debate. I suppose the appropriate thing for the Mods to do is close the thread. Mods?

You’re claiming to be an LDS?

I’d say because in a great debate, the character of the person posting doesn’t make what they say any more or less true (it might make you inclined to think one way or the other though).

I personally would have given the same answer which jab1 says is incorrect. However, jab1 has put forth a different argument - as well as a cite - and did such in a way that wasn’t insulting or condescending (minus the little humorous jab at the end).

I, for one, would be interested in hearing the LDS response, or any other for that matter.

LDS are told to not debate, because we believe that is Satan’s tool for tricking people. The most immediate response from a non believer would obviously be “that’s rather convenient, seeing as you could use that to avoid any debate.” You’d be partially correct, but mostly not. If you want to know what LDS believe, its best to talk to a missionary, or do a q and a segment. By playing on words, such as what jab and others have done, you try to trick someone into saying what you already want them to say for the purpose of “winning the debate.” If you already are set in your beliefs, why discuss religion? so you can “prove them wrong?” The best approach, at least this is the approach that LDS will most respond to, would be to show genuine curiosity, then LDS would teach you want you wanted to know. After that, you can take it or leave it. If you have serious questions LDS will not have a problem with answering them. However, if you are asking them in such a manner to get them to respond a certain way, then there is no question you are wanting to trick them, and we are told to stay away from that. Like I said, you can call it convenient all you want, the simple matter is LDS will not go into a heated debate over their beliefs.
Im still going to respond to what jab said though. Im not going to quote anything or do a major research for the sake of SDMB, although I am doing my own personal research on the matter.

[QUOTEIt means, variously, “shining one” or “morning star.”

When it arose in the morning, the Romans referred to the planet Venus as the “morning star” or “light-bringer”. The Latin word that means “light-bringer” is…


The reason the Latin name for the planet Venus got into the Bible as an alternate name for Nebuchadnezzar is because that is how the writers of the Latin Vulgate translated llyh. The Latin language developed long after Isaiah was written so there is no way that the original writer or Isaiah ever used the word lucifer.[/QUOTE]

Satan is also refered to as an angel of light. It is perhaps possible that the reference to this angel of light is made here when they say “light-bringer.” Also, when using a word to describe this cunning, evil light - bringer, the best way was to describe it, or rather describe satan, is to an existing King in which all could understand. The name lucifer is simply an extension of calling him “angel of light” or “light - bringer” - its still his name no matter how you look at it. Besides, whats in a name, by any other name? Its how people call and refer to satan. By argueing against LDS because they do not use the “proper name” of the devil is ludicrous in itself. The name lucifer is acredited to that verse, which in turn is acredited to this light bringer king, which is a comparison to this angel of light, otherwise satan.

Lucifer- Light Bearer as we already have established.

Satan or Shatan- means Adversary, originally as I have read in “The Origin Of Satan” by Elaine Paigles (this might be the wrong spelling of the women’s name, don’t have the book handy, lent it to someone)In the beginning of Jewish mythology Satan was just another angel in the Heavenly Court. He was often sent by God to do his work. She refers to a story about a man on an donkey who is on the path that will lead him to peril. Satan appears and only the donkey can see him. The man whips the donkey to get him to move but the donkey won’t move. Finally Satan appears to the man and chastises him for abusing his ass…Man that really sounds wrong but I’ll go with it. I could eloborate as she has researched all the diffrent names of The Devil and there use in the formation of Christian tenants, but I recommend you check it out yourself. A really good read.

No, I’m stating that I’m LDS.

In my experience on this board and others (as well as Usenet), I’ve found it to be nonproductive to enter a discussion with someone who starts off with such a hard-nosed adversarial approach. Even if I were to present sufficient argument to show consistency of LDS teachings and scripture, etc., such people refuse to accept it.

Hence, my focus here has not been witnessing, or trying to convince people that Mormons have it right, etc. Instead I’ve attempted to dispell common misconceptions, and correct posts of misinformation.

In this case, jab1 is too agenda driven to have meaningful discourse. On the other thread, he’s stated that “No God exists” is axiomatic and foundational to his proof of the quote I cited above. There is no reasoning with such a person.
I would make a small qualification to Pathros’ statement. LDS are advised to avoid contention in debate. A productive debate is valuable and instructive. A “Bible Bash” consisting of, “James said works!”, “No, Paul said Faith!” etc. is to be avoided because nothing positive comes of it.

So, is Jab1 right about the golden plates? I thought they were silver tablets.

Right, I left out contention there, but I have found that a lot of debates involving religion result in contention, especially on the SDMB, and when the OP is written like it is.

The Book of Mormon was written on golden plates. Did you really want to know the answer, or were you trying to be cynical?

I can vouch for the LDSness of emarkp.


The Mormon religion is not limited solely to what is written in the Bible, the BoM, the PoGP, or the D&C. Those are simply the basis, and they believe that subsequent announcements from various prophets fill in the blank space.

And that is all that they need. One source of religious view is as good as the next.


Thank you.

I feel like I must defend Jab here. Granted, he can be something of a chihuahua, but he seeks truth. If you’ll go there with him, you’ll find the means to communicate. Yes, he can be extremely abrasive, but his intention is not to agitate; his intention is to learn. If you present him a compelling argument (as I did once with the miraculous circle), he will concede your point, or at least give up hounding you.

Indeed, he should hone his social skills, and stop with the brow-beating borderline insults. But Jab is like the little boy who looks up at you and goes, “Mister, why is your belly so big?” And if you answer, “Because I eat too much,” then he will press on, “Then why don’t you cut back?” You must give Jab the comprehensive answer and be honest about it. And because of that, he is one of the best debaters here.

Douglips! Haven’t seen you since the last general relativity thread I was in.

douglips is one cool cookie. He was my lab partner for our third-semester computer science at UC Berkeley. He saved my butt on the final project. And he’s had the same login name for as long as I can remember…

I say this with all due respect to LDS, but as a thinking person this would raise a huge red flag with me if I were told it.

Doesn’t matter, Jodi. We aren’t told that.

Hence my qualification of avoiding contention in debates–that is, when a debate degrades to a shouting match.

OK! I left out one thing, which can be obvious by the fact that I debate all the time. I left out the word “contention.” (bad Pathros, bad!)

okay, sorry for the confusion there.