CatchTheRedeye

Sure, we can be companions. Do you snore? Altair-3, right on! You mean the next trip to the moon planned in about 2020, right? I'm all far space exploration. I think they ought to build a Space Elevator and build everything needed for and cheaper resupplying for a lunar colony from it. I just don't want to ever go myself. I don't even like to fly. The Space Elevator Reference brought to you by SpaceRef

I hope I don't offend anyone in responding to this thread as an agnostic who doesn't believe in god or Jesus. I respect all of your opinions. I especially appreciate ABQfriend when she says that she doesn't really understand the idea of the Trinity, but she believes in her church and maybe someday she'll understand it but she's not worried about it for now. That being said, whenever anyone tries to explain the Trinity concept to me it just sounds like a litany of canned phrases and my head starts to spin. It seems like a mass of confusion that I can't come close to grasping. The godhead is a three-in-one spirit essence that fills the immensity of space? It has no body, parts, or passions? The godhead is unknown, unknowable, and uncreated? I searched and found a talk from the Mormon apostle Bruce Mcconkie discussing this and to me the LDS belief in the godhead is much more believable. One thing he talks about, however, that I don't understand either is the notion that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. IMHO only. I know this is a thread for 'traditional christians' but the speech I am talking about can be found at: The Mystery of Godliness - Bruce R. McConkie

Though I don't think we can ever completely remove our bias we should attempt to recognize it exists and try to eliminate it as much as possible, or at least be cognizant of it. Attempt to look at things from different viewpoints. Doing so I am often amazed by the results and realize that perhaps my thinking on a certain subject might be flawed. I have even been known to change my mind from time to time after doing so. Try it. I play a little game sometimes when reading something controversial. I will read it again from a completely different frame of reference. For example, when I first read the Book of Mormon I admit I was biased that it was a chicanery I could easily disprove. I was still negative about it after reading it. Then one time I read it I convinced myself to try to read it as a faithful Mormon would, thoroughly believing in its veracity. Suddenly, I wasn't so sure it was a concocted sham. Is it true? Maybe not, but now it is one of my favorite books, whether fact or fiction, and I've read thousands of books. After reading all these posts and much more on the subject of Truth I am still not sure what Truth is. Today's truth is often tomorrow's anecdote.

Missions sound fun. I want to go on one and I'm not even a Mormon.

Do you mean to tell me that not everything I read on the internet is true? No!!! I refuse to believe it! Oscar Wilde himself said, "Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as nothing happened." Or was it Winston Churchill?

Sounds very interesting Elayne, the kind of stuff I like to read. I'll definitely take a look at it.

Thanks everybody for all of the good ideas. I'm going to read them all except for maybe those Work and Glory books. That's not my thing. For those who recommended Joseph Smith, A Rough Stone Rolling you were right on. I read it this week and it is outstanding. I think the author, Bushman, tried to be as objective as possible. It was fascinating. He would be the first to admit that nobody can be completely unbiased, but I think he tried to be a true historian first. As a not-Mormon I enjoyed it. I'm reading the Messiah Series now by Bruce R. McConkie. He sort of sees everything as real black and white, with no grays, but he makes no bones about it. It is interesting. Somebody mentioned they like the older LDS books and I agree. John A. Widtsoe and James E. Talmage come to mind. Someone else suggested reading different versions of the Bible too and I have, many times. One of my favorite concordances was written by an atheist, Isaac Asimov, and his Guide to the Bible: A Historical Look at the Old and New Testaments. He didn't denigrate the Bible or those who believe it and seemed to really enjoy all the history behind it, from a scientific not faith-based view. It gives a different perspective. He was such a brilliant man.

More power to book snobs! There is so much worthless stuff out there. I can sort of see why a lot of people like the Twilight series. A girl friend forced me to read them. She practically held a gun to my head, and then was less than amused when I wasn't very impressed. I'm just so tired of the all-powerful vampires cliché. Ann Rice's books were better and they were even too much. I did read Meyer's new book, The Host. That was better, and was fairly good sci-fi, other than the gaggy romance parts and where it drug on at times.

I would like some advice from my LDS friends. I have read the Book of Mormon eight times this last year(not bragging, I just read a lot and read fast) and would have to say it has become one of my favorite books, whether it is fiction or not. I even encourage my friends at the university to read it, not as a missionary, but I tell them it is amazing that a hick in the early 1800's wrote it. Some have taken me up on the challenge. If you want to read my thoughts as an agnostic on reading the book look at my personal belief comment on it. It has led me to read further so I've read the Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Jesus the Christ, Articles of Faith and A Marvelous Work and Wonder. I have read plenty of stuff by un-Mormons. Any suggestion on good, more recent, LDS books that would help me learn more about church history, Joseph Smith, LDS beliefs and practice?

I don't believe in any god or in Jesus Christ. Does that make me a son of perdition in your eyes? I don't consider that I am fighting against either or those who believe in them. I just don't believe for or against their existence. I know when I have run across this concept in Mormon writings it has been a little confusing to me. Do you think it would it be better for sons of perdition to have never come to earth at all or are they still better off than the ones who never came to mortality?

As a young non-Mormon single guy the whole idea of a year's supply of food sounded so silly and Chicken Little-ish that it made me laugh. It sounded desperate. But, now, with the way the economy is going my young naive mind can see some wisdom in it. Things could really snowball to head south quickly, and I'm not talking about natural disasters, but man-made economy disasters. I basically live on ramen noodles and spaghettios. How can I keep ramen noodles long-term without them going bad? I think am going to follow Mr. Raines suggestion and buy a bunch of the bachelor staple of SPAM.

This whole abortion debate is bull. "I want to have my freedom of choice whether it means murder of a new life force growing inside of me or not, boo hoo." I think that when we die that is the end of it, but life goes on. Murder is murder so what gives a person the right to take away that life force's opportunity to live too whether the mother's mistake messes up her life or not? They deserve the chance to live. The only time I can see doing abortions is if the fetus was determined to be severely deformed and wouldn't survive birth anyway or if it's birth was definitely going to risk the life of the mother. Just a weird agnostic's view on abortion... ummm... I mean murder. See, not all liberals are Pro Choice.

ABQFriend, Sorry, that was getting personal and no, I hadn't read your other posts that showed you think Mormons are Christians. Good for you. I would have to say that for a christian, you sound wise. I just get real peeved at Christians who dare say Mormons aren't Christians and I'm not even one myself. CTR

Kona, I should correct my last post. Interplanetary travel is possible, but I have serious doubts about interstellar travel. The closest star is Proxima Centauri at 4.2 light-years away, but who knows if it even has livable planets around it? The fastest spacecraft we have sent yet has only gone like 1/500th of a light-year. I know there can be improvements in space travel like nuclear pulse engines and magnetic sails and more, but I just think it is so far-fetched. The only possible way is generational ships where the descendants of the original ship passengers would arrive at a planet, but that would be so risky. There is life out there, but I'll bet it is spread pretty thin. I hope I'm wrong, though. Space travel would be so cool. I'm just a cynic.