Ask the member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints AKA Interrogate the Mormon — Page 8

walkingdork said:

Wow, neither of is acting very Christian, huh?

You forgot a word.

walkingdork said:

darth_ender said:

It's a good thing you never, ever come off as arrogant.  It's only those obnoxious, over-the-top atheists that cause religious folks to be apprehensive towards the rest.

I've never claimed to not be arrogant. Yes, please be apprehensive towards the rest. We do a lot better when we don't get caught up in your holier than thou bullshit.

You, sir, are a disrespectful, self-righteous, high-horsed jerk.  I can hardly imagine why a 29 or 30 year-old like you might be divorced and why there was some sort of alienation between OT.com and myspleen.  Feel free to take this argument to a different thread, possibly here, or even more appropriately here.  Or at least before you reveal yourself as an idiot, use that superior intellect and intelligently read and comprehend my posts. 

Wow, neither of us is acting very Christian, huh? The difference is I don't claim to be Christian. What's your excuse? What is your made up Lord going to think of you behavior? Also I don't mind being called an idiot unless it's coming from someone who believes that Hebrews are from the Midwest.

You don't even know the background of my divorce, do you? No? Then kindly fuck off. I was married for three years and it was clear to both sides that it would not last very early on, so we separated before it got ugly. We remain friends and we have had no issues with the custody over our two wonderful children.

As for OT's relationship to Myspleen it has not been this strong since Xavier was the sole administrator (like 4-5 years ago). And no, I'm not claiming that it is because of me.

I tell you what, I am being an asshole so why don't you be a good Christian boy and forgive me. You can forward all your complaints to my inbox, I'll not be posting on these subjects any longer. I've seen all I need to see.

 Never claimed to be perfect, and I know what I have said was wrong.  However, I hear nothing but a lot of "holier than thou bull..." from atheists like you, constantly deriding religious people as less intelligent and the cause of the world's troubles.  It doesn't take a religion to feel all too holy I suppose.  I'm happy to forgive you, but if I at least was successful in getting you to go away, I'll consider my earlier post a success.  All I'm saying is, if you're this dislikeable in the few moments I spend reading your comments, I can hardly imagine how you are in person.  I ask that all who have seen my outburst forgive me, as I am certainly quite mortal.  But to have this guy constantly insulting me, my faith specifically, and religion in general, claiming to be intellectually and morally superior because he doesn't believe in a "made up Lord," and yet to stoop to such low levels, a hot head like me can only take so much.  I will of course forgive you, and I'm doing my best even now.  Hopefully you can be a good "atheist boy" with your heightened sense of ethics and forgive me too.  Perhap you may even rethink your approach to those you disagree with about such topics.  While I too became agitated, you have behaved far worse, for longer, and in the end.  I know it's hard to behave when you have the burden of being better than others resting on your shoulders, but perhaps the fact that others besides me see you as a jerk means that we're not all the problem.

See you.  You'll be missed.

Mrebo said:

darth_ender said:

Wow, you really go out with a bang!  Way to spend mankind's final hours, you sinful Camellia sinensis addict.

 

Disclaimer: Mormons do NOT believe the world is ending today.

I am a tea addict. I easily have 6 cups a day. I didn't read what the whole Mormon underwear thing was about the tea thing is a deal breaker.

 Ah well...we'll baptize you for the dead and force you to join once you've passed away.  HAHAHAHA!!!

You know, I'm impressed this thread stayed on topic without devolving into the pettiness it just did for so long.

timdiggerm said:

Eh, there's not much to say, really. To the outside observer, black people weren't allowed to be clergy until the Church conveniently announced a message from God saying they could, after racism had become unpopular, much as there was a convenient prophecy regarding polygamy once the Supreme Court had definitively declared it illegal. To the outside observer, they weren't messages from God, they were the head Prophet recognizing social pressures and claiming to have received communication from the Lord. The the LDS-believer, it was all actual messages from God.

Your thoughts, as a believer, on the convenient timings?

I had a lengthy response already typed, complete with quotes.  Unfortunately, I decided to add one last sentence, pressed backspace when having trouble, and lost the post.  Arg!  I bet you thought I forgot about your post, or perhaps I was dodging it.  Well, neither.  I just don't have time to type it up again at the moment, but I will return to this.  Never fret.

walkingdork said:

 My only idea is that maybe Noah taught all the animals to row during the flood, but even then it's an impossible trek. Unicorns probably died off because they had to get out and push. :)

I’m sure you feel your smiley makes this innocent, but in conjunction with other statements, it comes off as rude.  I am already aware of the complaints against the idea that the Garden of Eden is in America, and don’t need you to continually poke fun at it.

If I wanted to prove your religion wrong, I would start with the easy stuff like "snakes can't talk" and "virgins can't get pregnant." :P

Again, I see a little tongue face, so I’m sure you feel it was all in good fun.  However, you don’t really understand my religion.  However literally or figuratively you wish to interpret the Bible, this statement does nothing but make you come off as a jerk.  “Oh really?  Snakes don’t talk?  Didn’t know that!  Virgins can’t get pregnant?!  That’s it, I quit!”  There are various interpretations of things like this anyway, but the primary thing to remember is that most religions accept that God works miracles, wherein our understanding is defied.  Your oversimplification appears quite condescending.

I hear what you are saying. I still think it's all made up bullshit, but I hear what you are saying. Like the universe is big enough to account for the possibility that there is a mountain in the sky where gods of many talents toy with the human race. And maybe one of those gods bangs a human chick and the son grows up to fight monsters like a slithery snake chick with snakes for hair.

I know I'm being shitty about it, (and I really do feel what you are saying), but I think there is a difference between infinite possibilities and moral fairy tales/parables told for generations. I do realize however that you were just pointing out the possibility of a talking snake and not advocating for them.

Do you think that’s not condescending and insulting, regardless of it being directed at Bingowings?  It’s not like religious persons could not say equally diminutive remarks.  Even if you think it’s made up, you don’t have to say things the way you do.  It is truly rude, and considering my efforts to be respectful every time you made statements like this, you could at reconsider your style.  You oversimplify something important to others and then mock your simplistic representation…bravo, that’s an intelligent thing to do.  This coming from the guy who clearly is no bigot.

I know there is no absolute proof that a god/creator does or does not exist. We debate about how the universe started but the why is unclear. I could be agnostic but the idea that somehow someone has managed to map out the whole history of creation by a god in fine detail is such a turn off. I might believe in the possibility that some deity flipped the switched and started the universe but (like Hawking and other physicists) the idea that a god temporarily changes the law of physics to create miracles or bring upon his will is too much.

@darth_ender

I know, I know. More conversation that should be in the religion thread. Well it's too late! Click.

 When I clearly asked for respect and proper behavior in this thread in the beginning, you apparently don’t respect those wishes.  I don’t mind diverting off topic, but to do so while being disagreeable and, er, “crappy” about it…you could have just moved your thoughts to another thread, or at least not shown your disregard for my wishes in such an uncouth manner.

So Mormons...we joke about the "magic underwear," but what is it actually all about?

Yeah, we Mormons aren’t the butts of jokes a lot already.  I haven’t already put my religion and my ability to defend it on the line.  You have to point out that everyone jokes about it, despite the level of sacredness I hold for it.

I agree, Mormon's beliefs are just a silly as other Christian beliefs, but he should still be allowed to be President.

Yes, it's true that atheists think that believing in talking snakes and shrubs, splitting seas, and fitting 2 of every animal (does that include the millions of insect species?) into a giant boat is ridiculous. And yes they believe that those things defy common sense and critical thinking.

So our beliefs are “silly,” but of course you make no pretense at being more intelligent than Mormons or other Christians.  You clearly are greater at critical thinking and therefore do not fall for the fairy tales we simpletons believe in.  No, you hardly ever come off as arrogant or of greater intelligence.

And finally:

This statement could not be more arrogant and is exactly why nonreligious people can't stand some religious people. So people have to accept Christ to go to heaven, but if you don't it will just be forced on your name when you die.

May your corpse be raped and dismembered, sir!

Uh, how was that anything but crossing a line?  Did you not read what I’d said before?  Did I not say that I understood their reasoning and that the problem was corrected?  And you called me, personally, arrogant, in spite of no such stance.  Instead, I presented why my church does what it does, the reasoning behind it, and my reason why I would not be offended under similar circumstances.  However, that is just me.  We never have forced anything down anyone’s throat.  Raping and dismembering my corpse?  How is that anywhere equivalent?

Oh, I almost did forget:

You can forward all your complaints to my inbox, I'll not be posting on these subjects any longer. I've seen all I need to see.

This sounds to me like a generalization, either about “good Christian boys” or perhaps just Mormons.  Either way, don’t let one bad apple ruin your experience or you're simply being the bigot you claim not to be.

On top of that, virtually every comment you make is crass and crude.  That’s fine and dandy for so many other threads, but why bring it here?

Look, you can hate me all you want.  I know I can overreact at times, especially given that we’ve already had a little argument in the politics thread, and therefore I’m more cautious when reading your comments.  But honestly, you cannot sit there and tell me you think you have not been disrespectful.  And if you read through all my comments, you simply cannot believe that I have an "I already know I'm right so don't question me" attitude.  How could I start such a thread with that mindset?  I know of much of the criticism leveled at my faith and at religion in general, and chose to take it head on in order to clarify.  I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right about anything (except maybe that there are cultures we currently know nothing about in spite of the likelihood that they once existed right where we stand).

As I’ve said, I can be a hot head.  I want you to know that you are still welcome to comment here, and I will try not to get angry so easily.  That said, I ask you to consider your words more carefully, in spite of what you may be smoking.  I should not have made either the divorce comment or the myspleen comment.  I truly apologize.

PS forgive the bizarre format, as it was difficult gathering all these quotes together and getting the quotes right.

Mr. ender, you are derailing your own thread.  I suggest you ignore any future comments from walkingdork and move on.

Thanks for the advice.  I'm sure you know how I can be.  I just hate making enemies, but from now on I'll do what you suggest.

walkingdork said:

BTW, how am I doing so far, TV's Frink? :D

tl;dr

;-)

I appreciate it, walkingdork.  After searching through your posts for the things that offended me, I came to realize that probably most of it was intended in good fun, though I still found much of it offensive.  You are clearly more respectful than I gave credit, and I was definitely being overly sensitive.  If you don't want to comment here any longer, I apologize that my overreaction sent you away.  However, you are still welcome.  Either way, I hope we have good discussions and that I will choose to laugh when you push buttons.  Thanks, man.

The only thing I would suggest, walkingdork, is that you be a little more clear when you are teasing or joking.  Well placed winkies

;-) <--- winky

would certainly help.

timdiggerm said:

Eh, there's not much to say, really. To the outside observer, black people weren't allowed to be clergy until the Church conveniently announced a message from God saying they could, after racism had become unpopular, much as there was a convenient prophecy regarding polygamy once the Supreme Court had definitively declared it illegal. To the outside observer, they weren't messages from God, they were the head Prophet recognizing social pressures and claiming to have received communication from the Lord. The the LDS-believer, it was all actual messages from God.

Your thoughts, as a believer, on the convenient timings?

It's always hard to type something for the second time, especially when you tend to write as much as I do.  I'm sure this will be an inferior post to my accidental deletion.

My Church had a ban in place that prevent blacks of African descent (that specific line, as there are other races of very dark skin but not from African descent, such as Australian natives.  This ban remained in place until 1978, and clearly is an offensive doctrine to most.  Why it was put in place, no one is truly sure.  Most historians today believe Brigham Young (second prophet) put it in place, and that there was probably a great deal of influence from prevailing ideas from his time, such as the popular notion that blacks were descendants from Cain.  Even before civil rights issues reached their height in the '60s, Church leaders began praying to have the ban removed.  However, they felt a specific revelation was needed to do so, and thus with continued prayers, the ban remained in place until a decade after the civil rights movement reached an apex.  To me this does not sound like convenient timing, but rather the awaiting of specific direction from God, when there was already a desire to remove the practice.

I understand how offensive this was, probably more than any other to an outsider.  I can't imagine how this would affect my faith if I were black.  Why was the ban really allowed to remain in place in the eternal scheme of things?  Why would God permit or cause such an unfair policy?  No one truly knows.  However, the best answer I've heard, which came from a black member of the Church BTW, is that God allowed an additional challenge to strengthen his people.

I will include several links, but perhaps in answer to your question, this link would be most useful:

http://fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Lifting_the_ban

Other beneficial links on the topic.

http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/

http://www.blacklds.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_early_Mormonism

http://fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban

With regard to polygamy being removed, I don't believe its timing was convenient.  Read here:

http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng

This is the announcement calling its end, and Wilford Woodruff (prophet #4) said the following:

"… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …"

In other words, he would have allowed whatever legal, fiscal, and social ramifications come upon the Church, but he felt God commanded that polygamy end.  And since it was always taught to be an exception instead of a rule, this should not be interpreted as a matter of convenience to anyone.

Hope this helps.  If you have further questions, please ask.  It's a hard topic, but I am willing to address it.

darth_ender said:

However, the best answer I've heard, which came from a black member of the Church BTW, is that God allowed an additional challenge to strengthen his people.

That is the best answer you've ever heard? That doesn't even make any sense. Which portion of his people was he strengthening with that? The African American Mormons? Hadn't they been through enough? You could honestly use the "strengthening his people" rebuttal for just about any crappy policy any religion ever had. So, prophet Brigham Young, due to prejudices his social climate created within him... had a prophecy from God telling him to ban African Americans from being leaders in the church? Shouldn't prophecies from God be slightly more universal and less influenced by current prejudices?

In other words, he would have allowed whatever legal, fiscal, and social ramifications come upon the Church, but he felt God commanded that polygamy end.  And since it was always taught to be an exception instead of a rule, this should not be interpreted as a matter of convenience to anyone.

Why does it being an exception to the rule make it less of a convenience? The church condoned polygamy, polygamy becomes illegal, and hey, guess what, while God's laws are more important than federal law, it turns out God is changing his views on polygamy to match those of the US government. Not a matter of convenience, just God keeping up with the times, I suppose. If polygamy would have remained something supported by the church for the next long while, I assume the notion that it was because God was strengthening his people would be a valid.

No response I give will justify this policy, and trust me when I say this is a hard topic for me personally, both to understand, and harder still to explain.  The answer I provided is only what I found appealing, and it was from a black member.  Yes, it refers specifically to the black population, and yes, I feel they'd already been through enough.  However, someone else felt they perhaps needed additional strengthening and the thought appealed to me.  As far as societal pressures and prejudices affecting even prophets, if you are religious at all (you in general, as I know you specifically are not), you recognize that there are scriptural practices and prophetic direction that are completely unacceptable by today's standards.  I don't know why, but perhaps God allows people to be faulty and unjust, gently guiding them along their way until they come closer to perfection as a people.  Perhaps such is the case with this church.

I encourage you to check out those links, particularly the Genesis Group and blacklds.org, as both would give you a better perspective from those far more directly affected by the policy (I wasn't even born when it ended).

As for polygamy, as I've stated, it has bee more of an exception than a rule.  The Book of Mormon, published prior to the practice's introduction, condemns polygamy with force, and then leaves a tiny little caveat.  God's laws are not that polygamy should always be in place except when illegal.  God's law is that polygamy should only be in place when prudent.  Thus, its removal indeed complied with federal law and prevented serious punishments, but it simultaneously was a return to standard practice.  And bear in mind that polygamy is not illegal in many countries such as Mexico.  However, if a Mexican Mormon is found advocating or engaging in the practice, he/she will be excommunicated.

I thought he was named "Jim."

walkingdork said:

CP3S said:

darth_ender said:

However, the best answer I've heard, which came from a black member of the Church BTW, is that God allowed an additional challenge to strengthen his people.

That is the best answer you've ever heard? That doesn't even make any sense. Which portion of his people was he strengthening with that? The African American Mormons? Hadn't they been through enough? You could honestly use the "strengthening his people" rebuttal for just about any crappy policy any religion ever had. So, prophet Brigham Young, due to prejudices his social climate created within him... had a prophecy from God telling him to ban African Americans from being leaders in the church? Shouldn't prophecies from God be slightly more universal and less influenced by current prejudices?

 

In other words, he would have allowed whatever legal, fiscal, and social ramifications come upon the Church, but he felt God commanded that polygamy end.  And since it was always taught to be an exception instead of a rule, this should not be interpreted as a matter of convenience to anyone.

Why does it being an exception to the rule make it less of a convenience? The church condoned polygamy, polygamy becomes illegal, and hey, guess what, while God's laws are more important than federal law, it turns out God is changing his views on polygamy to match those of the US government. Not a matter of convenience, just God keeping up with the times, I suppose. If polygamy would have remained something supported by the church for the next long while, I assume the notion that it was because God was strengthening his people would be a valid.

I agree. And why should it be so hard to imagine a human being (whether a holy man or not) adjusting the laws to the political times. Doesn't the Bible say to "obey the laws of the land?" It's not like Religious leaders never make political decisions.

Different denominations of Protestant Christians decided to allow female reverends/pastors/whatever because that's just the world we live in now. Those churches realized the change in society and changed their rules. They didn't need to hear the voice of God say, "Hey Brigham, let someone else have a chance to be a leader. Oh and good news, one of your descendants will be damn good at football. They shall call him....Steve."

Well, you have a good point in your first paragraph.  And I want to make it clear that such a climate did spur such changes, at least in the case of polygamy (I really don't believe it affected the priesthood situation at all, as there were no lawsuits or anything of the sort).  What I want to make clear is that the situation did not simply change just because of convenience.  Many other stands we take are not convenient.  My point is simply that we rely on revelation from God in our decisions, not simple political pressures.

However, you are right that we believe in being a law-abiding people.  Our 12th Article of Faith states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  We are a patriotic people, and we strive to follow the law (though I admit I tend to speed on the road :)

As for other churches and their female pastors, that is not likely to change for us in spite of potential accusations of sexism.  We see the roles of male and female different; not superior and inferior, but simply different.  Other churches don't believe in a prophet today and therefore try to follow the Bible, but often interpret it in light of present-day society.  We do believe in relying on our prophet's direction for policy changes like that.

You may be interested to know that there are small groups that have broken from the primary branch at various points in our history.  The largest of these groups, the Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, has been ordaining women since the mid-'80s I believe.  They are a much more liberal branch, and at the present are hardly recognizable as a Mormon schismatic group.  Their numbers, last I checked, are about 250,000.

I worry that this thread may have provided a bit of an improper perspective of my Church because most of the questions asked dealt with rather tangential topics that were not core aspects of my faith.  I'm sure they are greater interest to most because they are either major sources of criticism or simply are distinctive aspect, but I feel that I should say that most of those things are not core doctrines, and most of them are seldom talked about.  Yes we believe them, but they are not essential to our understanding.  The following are our Articles of Faith, probably the closest equivalent we would have to a creed, confession, or catechism, though truly none of these.  They are copied directly from our primary website and explain the most important teachings (though there are a few things that could have been added, such as the resurrection, eucharist, etc.)  These really do sum up what is truly important to understand, and if one seeks clarification or depth, you may ask.  I am always happy to answer.

1 We ^abelieve in ^bGod, the Eternal Father, and in His ^cSon, Jesus Christ, and in the ^dHoly Ghost.

 2 We believe that men will be ^apunished for their ^bown sins, and not for Adam’s ^ctransgression.

 3 We believe that through the ^aAtonement of Christ, all ^bmankindmay be ^csaved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

 4 We believe that the first principles and ^aordinances of the Gospel are: first, ^bFaith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second,^cRepentance; third, ^dBaptism by ^eimmersion for the ^fremission of sins; fourth, Laying on of ^ghands for the ^hgift of the Holy Ghost.

 5 We believe that a man must be ^acalled of God, by ^bprophecy, and by the laying on of ^chands by those who are in ^dauthority, to^epreach the Gospel and administer in the ^fordinances thereof.

 6 We believe in the same ^aorganization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, ^bprophets, ^cpastors, ^dteachers,^eevangelists, and so forth.

 7 We believe in the ^agift of ^btongues, ^cprophecy, ^drevelation,^evisions, ^fhealing, ^ginterpretation of tongues, and so forth.

 8 We believe the ^aBible to be the ^bword of God as far as it is translated ^ccorrectly; we also believe the ^dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

 9 We believe all that God has ^arevealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet ^breveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

 10 We believe in the literal ^agathering of Israel and in the restoration of the ^bTen Tribes; that ^cZion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will ^dreignpersonally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be ^erenewedand receive its ^fparadisiacal ^gglory.

 11 We claim the ^aprivilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the ^bdictates of our own ^cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them ^dworship how, where, or what they may.

 12 We believe in being ^asubject to ^bkings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in ^cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the ^dlaw.

 13 ^aWe believe in being ^bhonest, true, ^cchaste, ^dbenevolent, virtuous, and in doing ^egood to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we ^fhope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to^gendure all things. If there is anything ^hvirtuous, ⁱlovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith.