|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 27, 2007 20:54:49 GMT -4
Isn't it true that there are no stupid questions? I think I've posted a few here without thinking. My wife says that I ask stupid questions sometimes. Once, when she was about six months pregnant, I said something like this: "What happened to your belly button. The hole is gone!" I always thought that your belly button continued on into the body. But maybe, it wasn't a stupid question. I just didn't know, and by asking the question I became a more informed person. Maybe that's what you mean? Oh, Bill now HERE is a stupid question: Asking any woman their age.Here is another one: Hitler telling his general before they marched into Russia: "Why would they need winter coats?" see www.charlietubbles.com/charlietubblesstupidquestions.htm
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2007 17:57:19 GMT -4
I cannot see how I can ask the tough questions without sounding too harsh and thus being banned. There are ways to ask nearly any question in a tactful manner. Rather than saying "your church makes you all mind-contolled zombies" you could say "this other website makes the claim that your church makes you all mind-controlled zombies. What is your response?" Well, I can tell you right now the majority of the horrible things reported about Mormons on the web are false. Look Bill, I already played your game once by debating you with private messages and it went nowhere. Out of the last ten messages I sent you responding to points you raised you didn't open seven of them. What sort of debate can be had when one party doesn't read the responses of the other? I much prefer this open forum, where the traffic isn't so high that you are constantly interrupted, where the majority of forum regulars are educated, intelligent, and fairly tactful, and where these other forum inhabitants may benefit from the discussion even if the individual you are debating refuses to read your responses. I think Lunar Orbit is fine with us discussing the issues here as long as neither of us gets abusive of the other. At least, that is the attitude he has seemed to have to this point. I beleive I already have. There is a fifty page thread on this site where I have answered a large number of the criticisms you've found online about the LDS church. Quite wrong. Many arguments are won or lost, despite the fallibility of humans.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2007 17:58:34 GMT -4
Jason, do you think I was attacking you? If so, I am sorry I came across this way. You have attacked me many times. Several times you have doubted whether I am in fact LDS. Often you accuse me of not really believing the points I've made, and occasionally you just insult my intelligence, education, or credibility. Apology accepted.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Sept 29, 2007 18:06:59 GMT -4
WHo is right and who is wrong? What are Jason's credentials? My credentials are that I'm a life-long member of the LDS church, I am an ordained Elder of the church and was a foreign missionary (The Netherlands - from '92-'94). I hold a current temple recommend, which means I am a member in good standing. One of my current callings with the church is the Elders' Quorum instructor for my Ward (congregation), which means that twice a month I teach the Sunday school lesson for all the Elders, around 30 of the younger male adults. I am not a source of official doctrine in the sense that I am not one of the Church's General Authorities, but I believe I have a better-than-average grasp of church doctrines and history. I believe we've done that before too. Or to be more accurate, Bill took some of my comments on this forum and quoted them on an anti-Mormon forum, then came at me with some of their responses. Thank you. I consider that a high compliment.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 1, 2007 11:29:08 GMT -4
Your definition of what is anti-Mormon is not what I would define as anti-Mormon. So when you use that word I think of something horrible.
For example, an anti-American web site might show all sorts of stereotypes of Americans and hideous outrageous and horrible. There might be disgusting cartoons and lots of unfair attacks.
I did not see anything unfair and biased on any of the websites I go to. Since these people all say that they were once Mormon I assume they must know more than I do.
But I listen to your side of this issue too.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 1, 2007 11:46:34 GMT -4
Your definition of what is anti-Mormon is not what I would define as anti-Mormon. So when you use that word I think of something horrible. Well in the future please keep in mind what I actually mean when I use the term. I could say that I'll use "critic of the LDS church" in the future instead, but I probably won't be consistent. It's easier to type "anti-mormon". Were your eyes open at the time? They probably do know more than you do, but that doesn't mean that they are being 100% accurate or honest. People who were members of the Church years ago may no longer accurately remember Church doctrines or conversations they had with members. Most people who left the Church left for a reason, and in my experience it's almost never a doctrinal reason. It's much more likely to have been how the person was treated by another member, or a difficulty in obeying one or another commandment of the Church. The doctrinal arguments tend to appear only after the person has already left the Church - as after-the-fact rationalizations.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Oct 3, 2007 2:32:42 GMT -4
Which view to you hold, Jason? Do you think that the original principals of the church are to be adhered to and were just misinterpreted or, on the other hand, do you think that the teachings of the church in the past were appropriate for those times and since times change it is natural that the church must change?
This guy in the blood atonement video seems to be stressing that his way is the old and origional way. Is he mistaken and they were not this way or, on the other hand, is what is important is what the LDS church teaches today.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 3, 2007 11:39:19 GMT -4
Which view to you hold, Jason? Do you think that the original principals of the church are to be adhered to and were just misinterpreted or, on the other hand, do you think that the teachings of the church in the past were appropriate for those times and since times change it is natural that the church must change? This guy in the blood atonement video seems to be stressing that his way is the old and origional way. Is he mistaken and they were not this way or, on the other hand, is what is important is what the LDS church teaches today. The doctrine of "blood atonement" as "Art" describes it was never actually taught by the LDS church in the first place, so yes, he's mistaken. Most of the "fundamentalist" splinter groups that exist today are relatively recent in their formation, not survivals from the days of Brigham Young. "Art"s group is obviously recent, as he states he is the founder of it. Such groups are creating their own new interpretation of past Mormon teachings and trying to pass them off as the original practices. Whether past doctrines of the church that have changed, like ploygamy, were "misinterpretations" is a different question. The short answer is no. The long answer is that while the basic doctrines of salvation do not change, what God requires of mankind does sometimes change with circumstances and over time, and with the ability of human beings to obey. Polygamy is a prime example. It was an authentic commandment of God to practice it during the first sixty years of the church, and the practice was withdrawn with another commandment once it had served its purpose. The Word of Wisdom (the Mormon health code which forbids alcohol, smoking, and coffee) is another. When it was first given it was seen as a guideline - essentially good advice that members would be wise to follow. Around the beginning of the 20th century the church began to require its members to live by the Word of Wisdom in order to hold a temple recommend. There are examples of the same sort of thing occuring in biblical times. Abraham didn't obey the Law of Moses, since it hadn't been given yet, and after Christ came the Christians no longer obeyed the Law of Moses because it had been fulfilled. The Law of Moses wasn't a "misinterpretation" - it was what God required of his chosen people during a specific time period, and those who obeyed it were justified. Because God's requirements of mankind can change, what the LDS church teaches today is more important than what it taught in the past. As I said in an earlier post, a living prophet is more important than a dead one, because a living prophet can receive revelations tailored to the present circumstances of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 17:18:39 GMT -4
Allow me to come at this from another angle. What is exactly WRONG with Blood Atonement?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2007 17:30:21 GMT -4
Allow me to come at this from another angle. What is exactly WRONG with Blood Atonement? To start with, from the LDS perspective no church has the right to deprive someone of life. The most severe penalty a church can inflict is excommunication. D&C 134:10 "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship." That specifically rules out taking a life, a limb, or physical punishment of any kind. It also excludes even fines. Obviously this rules out what is typically meant by "blood atonement". If you're wondering, this specific declaration of belief was adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the LDS church in Kirtland, Ohio August 17, 1835.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 17:32:01 GMT -4
Allow me to come at this from another angle. What is exactly WRONG with Blood Atonement? To start with, from the LDS perspective no church has the right to deprive someone of life. Then were does the idea come from? Didn't it had to have come from the LDS church in some way if people who call themselves Mormon believe in it today?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2007 17:50:44 GMT -4
Then were does the idea come from? Didn't it had to have come from the LDS church in some way if people who call themselves Mormon believe in it today? The idea came from a combination of critics who were willing to create sensationalist stories to combat the church and misunderstood teachings of LDS prophets which they used (typically completely out of context) to support their stories. It gained credibility through repetition, to the point that some splinter groups, which already believe the LDS church is wrong in one or more areas, apparently believe the critics were correct, and come to believe that the Church originally held this doctrine, whether the splinter group practices or condemns it.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 18:01:48 GMT -4
Then were does the idea come from? Didn't it had to have come from the LDS church in some way if people who call themselves Mormon believe in it today? The idea came from a combination of critics who were willing to create sensationalist stories to combat the church and misunderstood teachings of LDS prophets which they used (typically completely out of context) to support their stories. It gained credibility through repetition, to the point that some splinter groups, which already believe the LDS church is wrong in one or more areas, apparently believe the critics were correct, and come to believe that the Church originally held this doctrine, whether the splinter group practices or condemns it. So says you but the people who believe in it are not critical of it at all. And about the idea that you are taking a life by Blood Atonement, I can see how the people who believe in it would argue that they are saving a soul from damnation. By spilling someones blood to atone for their sins in situations where Christ's blood would not atone for it, you are saving that person.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 8, 2007 18:35:33 GMT -4
So says you but the people who believe in it are not critical of it at all. You mean "Art" in the video you posted earlier didn't appear critical of it. "Lillian" was in fact very critical of it, despite appearing to believe it was an authentic LDS doctrine. This idea that a murderer's just execution acts to the ultimate benefit of his soul's welfare does have some credence among LDS, and appears to be what Brigham Young was talking about in the speeches commonly cited as in support of "Blood Atonement", but the LDS church does not believe in carrying out such a sentence under the authority of a Church. We leave the punishment of criminals up to civil authorities. And ideally the murderer should willingly submit to this punishment in order to achieve any real spiritual benefit.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 8, 2007 19:51:12 GMT -4
So says you but the people who believe in it are not critical of it at all. You mean "Art" in the video you posted earlier didn't appear critical of it. "Lillian" was in fact very critical of it, despite appearing to believe it was an authentic LDS doctrine. No, there was a guy with a beard was very sincere in saying that it was authentic and original LDS doctrine. He surely believed it. It must have originated in the LDS church somehow rather than coming from the outside. So you are saying that the people who do this are following the teachings of Brigham Young but they do this outside of the support of the LDS church?
|
|