Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 20, 2007 11:20:44 GMT -4
If someone was to tell me, "don't listen to those people, they are just anti-war" I would be suspicious of the person who told me this. It would seem he wanted to brush them off and not listen to them or consider for a moment they had anything of value to say. See what I mean? I do not mean you are wrong. I admit this is a subject alien to me and the things that seem odd I want to comment on. So, if I said "Ed Decker is a professional critic of the LDS church. He blames the church for the break up of his first marriage and the congenital deafness of his son. He strongly implies in this particular video that the LDS church murdered Lillian LeBaron even though the admittedly dangerous group she was a member of was not the LDS church and the gunshot wound he mentions in the video was self-inflicted," and didn't replace "critic of the LDS church" with the shorter "anti-mormon" which is nearly synonymous I would have more credibility in your eyes? Hey, if that's all it takes maybe I will start replacing "anti-mormon" with "critic of the LDS church." Who knows, after a few days of the incredible increase in persuasiveness I'll have from not using the term "anti-mormon" you might decide to join up.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 20, 2007 11:31:42 GMT -4
But this way of talking about people is what is strange to me. For example, I never hear Republicans call Democrats "anti-Republicans" and I never hear Democrats call Republicans "anti-Democrats" and so on. Well, Republicans and Democrats find calling each other by their party names to be damning enough. Republican is almost a dirty word on shows like The View and CBS news. You mean "do I believe these people have sold their soul to the devil in exchange for the ability to produce ham-fisted videos?" No, by anti-mormon I do not mean "in league with the devil." I believe these people do not understand what they are attacking and are more often motivated by hate or pride rather than a devotion to truth or an honest concern for members of the LDS faith. They may indeed be serving the devil's purposes here, but if so then unwittingly.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 20, 2007 12:20:21 GMT -4
I don't believe you can show CBS News to be anti-Republican. Certainly not in the way that FOX News is rabidly anti-Democrat. However, I can show you this about The View: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLnCDTWB2S0It is worth noting that it is the Republicans in this country who most often align themselves with creationists, intelligent design proponents and anti-science zealotry. Democrats are often accused of being anti-God (and therefore anti-American) because they refuse to cave to those who would make this country into a Christian theocracy. Three of the Republican candidates for President reject evolutionary theory: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSiDTfqSOV8
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 20, 2007 12:24:52 GMT -4
I don't believe you can show CBS News to be anti-Republican. That last part about CBS was a joke. TANGENTIAL EDIT: Except for Dan Rather. I heard that he is now suing CBS for $70 million because he feels they wrongfully fired him after he tried to pass off amaturish forgeries as evidence that President Bush didn't fulfill his National Guard Service. Rather used to insist that the documents may have been forged but the story was accurate. Now he's saying the documents were accurate too but CBS surpressed the evidence that they were authentic in order to not offend the President.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 21, 2007 10:02:53 GMT -4
It is worth noting that it is the Republicans in this country who most often align themselves with creationists, intelligent design proponents and anti-science zealotry. Democrats are often accused of being anti-God (and therefore anti-American) because they refuse to cave to those who would make this country into a Christian theocracy. Do you mean Republican politicians are the ones who most frequently pander to religious organizations to get their votes? Very true. I don't think Christians are trying to establish a theocracy. They want our just laws to be obeyed, the unjust ones overturned, and new ones to be good. Have you ever noticed that the politicos, after having been elected, never keep their promises and do whatever they want? The liberals end up winning anyway. The so-called Christian right should stop listening to these guys and just examine their past voting records if they want to know how a candidate is going to behave in office.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 21, 2007 11:01:50 GMT -4
Religious tolerance is a Christian principle, and the Christians who first settled America were escaping from a Europe which combined church and state. I trust Christians with maintaining our rights to worship as we will more than I trust atheists.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 21, 2007 11:23:11 GMT -4
That made me laugh. You have to completely ignore the history of Christianity to make a statement like that. For 1500 years, Christianity did its best to stamp out science, education and differences of belief. It is only when Christianity exists under a secular government that Christianity has the appearance of tolerance.
Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit."
I know the tree of Christianity by its fruit of 1500 years: the crusades, the inquisition, torture, witch hunts, complicity in slavery and more.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 21, 2007 11:28:07 GMT -4
Religious tolerance is a Christian principle which has not always been practiced by Christians, but which should have been.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 21, 2007 11:39:40 GMT -4
That made me laugh. You have to completely ignore the history of Christianity to make a statement like that. You are ignoring the good things Christianity has influenced as well. Religion is powerful, and like all power it can be abused. When Christianity has been practiced as its founders intended it has been a great force for good. When it has been abused it has been used to excuse great evils. Who set up these modern secular governments that are religiously tolerant? Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 22, 2007 6:50:10 GMT -4
Enough about the author of this tripe. On to the tripe itself. To begin with, the film gives the false impression that Mormon Doctrine is an official publication of the church containing official LDS doctrine. In fact, Mormon Doctrine was written by Bruce R. McConkie before he became an apostle of the church (he was a Seventy at the time). When Elder McConkie wrote the book the First Presidency of the Church had some misgivings about it precisely because they could see that it might be mistaken as official. Elder McConkie willingly agreed to abide by their guidance, and they suggested some changes before it was finally printed. The book was revised at least twice more during McConkie's tenure as an Apostle. It is still published today by Deseret Book, a company that is owned by the LDS church but which does not produce the official printed works of the church. Church members recognize that it is mostly Elder McConkie's personal opinion, and avoid using it to teach out of, but find it occasionally useful (I don't own a copy, though my parents do and I've read most of it). Mormon Doctrine is written in an encyclopedic format, and the entry on "Blood Atonement" is a denunciation of the anti-Mormon criticism. A more full account of Elder McConkie's position on the subject can be found here, in a letter he wrote in 1978 to Thomas B. McAfee: www.shields-research.org/General/blood_atonement.htmThis is more than a little difficult to sort out who the "Real" Mormon representative is. What is the real Mormon doctrine. Who is the real representative of the church? Is it Smith? Is it what the main LDS church says or interprets today? Catholics and Lutherans have this same problem. Was Martin Luther wrong? Was his criticisms of the Catholics wrong or right? Was he wrong when he said that the Catholics have lost their way and are not on the original path? Or are the Catholics right in telling Martin Luther that by the sole virtue of being the Catholic Church makes them right. Likewise, does the sole virtue of being the LDS church make it right and perfect? Do you think that it has or has not changed? This is the bottom - line question. Do you think that it has or has not changed? There is something else that bothers me lately. I find that you provide answers but they are not necessarily the answers to my questions. Now, I am saying that these answers are good answers, but they are not precisely to what I asked. I was wondering if the movie clip was real in the fact that were the people saying what the truly believed to be true. I am still a little foggy about that. I was wondering if these people were actors and it was all just fake and made-up. I think you answered that, no, it was not just made up with actors. Or, to a certain degree was it? Let me ask you this. Were the bodies they showed being rolled into ambulances real or fake? If I take your view as the one that is correct. At least we can say that a split-off group to the Mormon Church was involved in these killings. I never heard of any "blood atonement killings" until I saw this video. Are their others?
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Sept 22, 2007 7:38:42 GMT -4
If someone was to tell me, "don't listen to those people, they are just anti-war" I would be suspicious of the person who told me this. It would seem he wanted to brush them off and not listen to them or consider for a moment they had anything of value to say. See what I mean? I do not mean you are wrong. I admit this is a subject alien to me and the things that seem odd I want to comment on. So, if I said "Ed Decker is a professional critic of the LDS church. He blames the church for the break up of his first marriage and the congenital deafness of his son. . That is shocking. Is it really true or are you speaking figuratively? I have to ask this. Why would he blame the church for the breakup of his marrage and deafness of his son? Of topic: By the way, do marrages often break up of one party leaves the Mormon church?
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 22, 2007 9:43:31 GMT -4
Christians claim this endlessly, but it is not true.
Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Paine and likely Madison could be much more accurately called deists. The Constitution does not reflect Christian ideals, as it (the Constitution) says authority comes from the people, laws are made by representatives of the people, all people shall be treated equally and that the three branches of government act as checks on one another. The only system of government in the Bible is the one where God is at the top and everyone has to obey without question. The Founders and the Framers knew Christianity all too well and made a point of not making the United States a theocracy.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution have an obvious basis in earlier Roman, Greek and Anglo-Saxon law.
edited to clarify
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 22, 2007 14:37:09 GMT -4
Barack Obama:
"Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."
Pat Robertson:
“I think what he says is dangerous. I think that it has a veneer of sophistication and it has a veneer of moderation, a veneer of intelligence, but underneath it he basically is selling out, well, the origins of our nation.
America wasn’t built on Hinduism. America wasn’t built on Islam. America wasn’t built on Buddhism. America and our democratic institutions were built on the Christian faith. There is no question about. And I think to put Christianity on a par with Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., I believe this man is doing a grave disservice to our nation.”
For the US Constitution: Obama Against the US Constitution: Pat Robertson
Of course, Pat Robertson doesn't speak for all Christians. But it is intolerant people like him who always end up leading the charge.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 23, 2007 23:02:42 GMT -4
This is more than a little difficult to sort out who the "Real" Mormon representative is. What is the real Mormon doctrine. Uh, no it's not really that hard. Official doctrine for the LDS church consists of canonized scripture (The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine & Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price) and official pronouncements from the First Presidency of the Church or the Quorum of the Twelve (such as the Proclamation on the Family). Nothing else is official doctrine. Pretty simple really. The real representative of the church is the current President of the Church. A living prophet is greater than a dead one, so the current Church President can change church doctrine. Do I think what has changed? The Church? Yes, the Church has changed over time. It could hardly avoid it in growing from 6 members in New York in 1830 to 12 million spread throughout the world today. "Is what this video says true?" "No." "What is official Church doctrine?" "Official Church doctrine is canonized scripture and Official statements of the First Presidency of the Church or Quorom of the Twelve Apostles and nothing else." It doesn't get any simpler than that. That's not what you asked. You asked if it was true, not if the people in the video believed what they were saying was true. No they were probably not actors. Yes what it seemed to be saying about the LDS church was mostly made-up. Without knowing exactly where that footage came from I can't answer that question. The LeBarons really did kill people, if that's what you're asking. Yes, in the same way we can say that Charles Manson was a split-off from the Hippies.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 23, 2007 23:27:31 GMT -4
So, if I said "Ed Decker is a professional critic of the LDS church. He blames the church for the break up of his first marriage and the congenital deafness of his son. . That is shocking. Is it really true or are you speaking figuratively? I have to ask this. Why would he blame the church for the breakup of his marrage and deafness of his son? From what I've heard, Decker feels that the LDS church is truly controlled by the devil, and God was sending him messages to get out of it that he couldn't ignore, by causing his son to be born deaf. Not always. There are Mormons married to non-Mormons. But different religions put a strain on any marriage, and the LDS Church puts a lot of emphasis on temple marriages, which require that both partners be members in good standing.
|
|