Forums: Community: The Soap Box:
(mor)Man made climbing
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for The Soap Box

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All


Partner tradman


Dec 15, 2006, 8:42 AM
Post #76 of 113 (1141 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: [flamer] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Hey if you want to be another lamb go ahead.....seems to me that you are clearly not smart enough to avoid the ultra nice approach. There is a belly to the beast and it's not good.

Perhaps there is a bad side to mormonism. I don't know.

But if I attack and hate mormons because of it as you do - well then all I'll have done is ruin my own happiness and peace. And that would just make the situation worse than before.

Two wrongs don't make a right.


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 9:12 AM
Post #77 of 113 (1133 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [tradman] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

tradman wrote:

Perhaps there is a bad side to mormonism. I don't know.

As was mentioned earlier jcasper showed himself to be very patient, so if jcasper is the good side, then I (not as patient, more in you face with flamer, less willing to suffer a fool.) must be the bad side! hey, What are these two lumps starting to grow on my head?


Partner tradman


Dec 15, 2006, 9:41 AM
Post #78 of 113 (1117 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: [fluxus] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
As was mentioned earlier jcasper showed himself to be very patient, so if jcasper is the good side, then I (not as patient, more in you face with flamer, less willing to suffer a fool.) must be the bad side! hey, What are these two lumps starting to grow on my head?

Smile

Heh.

If we care about people, we try to set them straight when they make mistakes, right?

But there's a big difference between patiently if firmly trying to correct them and just abusing and badmouthing them with no intent other than to hurt them and make others think badly of them.

You're on one side of that equation, flamer's on the other. Perhaps the lumps on your head are the beginnings of a halo...

Wink


wilcox510


Dec 15, 2006, 9:52 AM
Post #79 of 113 (1114 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 16, 2004
Posts: 106

Re: [flamer] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Flamer - I am not Mormon and am not pro or anti Mormon. I'm not really a believer in any organized religion and I agree that many things about the LDS church seem quite odd to me, but your tone throughout this whole thing only makes you (and therefore other anti-Mormon people) seem bitter and ignorant. You mentioned something earlier about you being attacked, if you read back through every post here you'll notice that pretty much every attacking statement here was made by you. Responses like "blow me" and "I'm done doing circle's with these silly Mo's" don't exactly help further your cause

And what does "Hey if you want to be another lamb go ahead.....seems to me that you are clearly not smart enough to avoid the ultra nice approach" mean? It seems you believe that it is impossible to be nice and make an intelligent point? Well, you havent managed to be rude and make an intelligent point either, just the first.


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 10:05 AM
Post #80 of 113 (1112 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [tradman] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Tradman, you are far more kind than I deserve, but thanks!


jcasper


Dec 15, 2006, 10:45 AM
Post #81 of 113 (1103 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108

Re: [fluxus] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

tradman wrote:
represented here by JCasper, are a lot more patient...
fluxus wrote:
As was mentioned earlier jcasper showed himself to be very patient, so if jcasper is the good side

I appreciate the compliments. I spent two years as a missionary talking to people like flamer and got pretty used to it. It gets a lot more interesting when people are as belligerent as flamar was, but educated with more fodder, especially concerning doctrine. It was always fun to see a preacher come to answer the door, bible in hand. :)

tradman wrote:
and might well be worth talking about.
fluxus wrote:
hey, What are these two lumps starting to grow on my head?

I'd happily answer any questions you may have. Wink


madriver


Dec 15, 2006, 11:00 AM
Post #82 of 113 (1095 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700

Re: [jcasper] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

jcasper wrote:
tradman wrote:
represented here by JCasper, are a lot more patient...
fluxus wrote:
As was mentioned earlier jcasper showed himself to be very patient, so if jcasper is the good side

I appreciate the compliments. I spent two years as a missionary talking to people like flamer and got pretty used to it. It gets a lot more interesting when people are as belligerent as flamar was, but educated with more fodder, especially concerning doctrine. It was always fun to see a preacher come to answer the door, bible in hand. :)

tradman wrote:
and might well be worth talking about.
fluxus wrote:
hey, What are these two lumps starting to grow on my head?

I'd happily answer any questions you may have. Wink


hey Jcasper...did you have to do the door to door preaching thing? I'm totally ignorant when it comes to religion, but I have always felt sorry for the LDS guys that have to canvas a neighborhood in hopes of hitting a lost soul.

Bob


BTW


if I sign my name I'm fairly serious and not my usual cynical troll


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 11:10 AM
Post #83 of 113 (1092 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [flamer] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

flamer wrote:
Funny thing about people...if fluxus and I were to climb together and leave this BS out of it we'd probably get some serious shit done. This world we live in is weird that way..no?

Judging from your climbing log you couldn't keep up with me past the warm-up. :-)

but seriously, you posted insulting, hostile, and bigoted things about me and my religion and then post something like this? There is nothing weird about a world in which people are put off by written comunications such as yours, and think of you as a sketchy dude as a result (and therefore would never consider you a viable climbing partner.)

If you want to be the guy that everyone would consider a potentially cool climbing parter, then how about a bit more civility in the public sphere?

Its Obvious to me that everything you had to say about the church could have been presented in a way that encouraged dialogue and a thoughtful examination of those topics you raised. Near the end you stated that you wanted people to learn and make their own decisions but in no way did your statements encourage efforts in that direction. You never cited or offered sources, you never really engaged practices or beliefs you just made a loose jumble of inflamatory claims. If you really want to educate and promote questioning, you have a lot to learn about how this is done.

anyway, party on, hope you get outside climbing this weekend.


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 11:21 AM
Post #84 of 113 (1090 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [petsfed] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

petsfed wrote:
Also, the RLDS, the first real splinter group from mainstream LDS, broke off shortly after Joseph Smith's death, led by his first wife and his son, who did not support or condone polygamy.

This statement stuck out to me. I think it shows how the contemporary context informs our understanding of history.

I think calling the RLDS a "splinter" from the mainstream poses an interesting question. How did the people involved in the church at the time understand and process what happened to the church as the violent death of JS? At the time there were several groups claiming that they were the rightful leaders of the church I imagine that Emma Smith, her son and others breaking from Brigham Young was a HUGE deal, that cast doubt on Young's authority to lead the church. I suspect that it was far less clear at the time that one was the "mainstream" and one was a "faction" since as you mentioned Emma's group held views that were more in line with social norms of the day (and today as well!). I don't know the answer but I find it interesting to consider.


jcasper


Dec 15, 2006, 11:33 AM
Post #85 of 113 (1088 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108

Re: [madriver] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

madriver wrote:
hey Jcasper...did you have to do the door to door preaching thing? I'm totally ignorant when it comes to religion, but I have always felt sorry for the LDS guys that have to canvas a neighborhood in hopes of hitting a lost soul.

Yup, sure did (well, more accurately, I chose to, I didn't "have to"). The neighborhood canvassing was more just boring than difficult. On average, I'd say about 498 out of every 500 people we talked to (which meant about 1500 doors knocked on), said "no thanks" and we moved on. One would want to argue with us, and one would actually be interested in listening. Then of those 1/500 that listened, maybe 1/20 or so were actually interested in really looking into the church. And I was in an area that had high numbers. :) I was in the St. Louis area and spent most of my time going through small towns in Southern Illinois, I can't imagine knocking through Italy or Japan or something.

To combat the monotony we would play games and have fun with it. Take turns coming up with random words that the other had to use in their "door approach." Ask if we could sing them a song if they didn't want to hear the message. Do stupid/silly door approaches ("If a book fell out of heaven and landed on your doorstep right now, would you read it?", "ummmm, sure", then have your companion toss the Book of Mormon from somewhere hidden to land on their doorstep; or introduce myself like James Bond ("Names Casper, Elder Casper."), etc.). Then there were the old ladies chasing us off with a broom or the rednecks answering the door with a shotgun pointed at us that kept things interesting as well. We had a good time. :)

Anyway, it was all well worth it for the few that answered their door and said "Actually, yes. We've been looking for a church to join." or the people who were reluctant to listen but eventually had their lives change for the better, even if they didn't end up joining the church. I was able to play a small part in helping dozens of people overcome substance abuse, depression, etc. just by being a friend to talk to or offering a message of hope. So overall I consider it probably the most meaningful, useful, and productive two years of my life.


madriver


Dec 15, 2006, 11:57 AM
Post #86 of 113 (1085 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700

Re: [jcasper] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

thanks...and all the best...I could not imagine ever having to go through that. Hang in there...the community is a rough place for anyone daring enough to espouse their religious beliefs. You seem like you've already been through worse though!!!


Bob


snoangel


Dec 15, 2006, 1:28 PM
Post #87 of 113 (1075 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 28, 2004
Posts: 1715

Re: [madriver] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Ok, why has no one asked the one question that REALLY matters when it comes to Mormons???

What's the deal with the magic underwear?? Wink


jcasper


Dec 15, 2006, 2:11 PM
Post #88 of 113 (1067 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108

Re: [snoangel] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

snoangel wrote:
What's the deal with the magic underwear?? Wink

This is a little less superficial than what I've said before so I have to put in the disclaimer that this is my viewpoint and take on things and not necessarily the "official" way the church would describe it or any other member of the church for that matter. So please just take this as a general gist or main idea. Things are much more complicated and in depth than I could possible go in to here.

I also have to be bit careful as I don't want somebody who is writing a book like those flamer has mentioned to google this reply then take quotes out of context to further their invalid assumptions. I'm a little hesitant to answer publicly, as opposed to a PM, for that very reason, but I'll give it a go...

In temples, members of the church receive sacred ordinances. In mormonism, an ordinance is an act that usually involves making a covenant, or promise, with God. We promise to obey His commandments and He promises that we will be blessed as we obey. After we have made these convenants in the temple, we wear special garments under our clothes as a symbol and constant reminder of the convenants we have made. This is similar in nature to wearing a wedding ring, or a Jewish family putting a Mezuzah on their doorpost. The "magic" part comes from our belief that as we obey God's commandments, in this case wearing these garments, we will be blessed. It's as simple as that really.


(This post was edited by jcasper on Dec 15, 2006, 2:13 PM)


camhead


Dec 15, 2006, 2:13 PM
Post #89 of 113 (1065 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [snoangel] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

wow, I haven;t read this thread all the way yet. So far, what I've seen is that the non-mormons are regurgitating the same rumors and misinformation propogated by anti-mormon evangelical groups, who are AT LEAST as fucked up as the LDS church.

And on the other side, the Mormon apologist is regurgitating the same whitebread doctrine that the church is pushing nowdays "honest, this is what we've always believed! we're not THAT weird!"


BOTTOM LINE---
The mormon church is at its heart intolerant and disrespectful.

say what you want, but in 2 Nephi... there is a church of the lamb and a church of the devil. nothing more. Mormons believe that all religions that are not their own are of the devil. this is disrespectful at the least.

fine bitches.


(This post was edited by camhead on Dec 15, 2006, 2:17 PM)


madriver


Dec 15, 2006, 2:45 PM
Post #90 of 113 (1051 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 8700

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
wow, I haven;t read this thread all the way yet. So far, what I've seen is that the non-mormons are regurgitating the same rumors and misinformation propogated by anti-mormon evangelical groups, who are AT LEAST as fucked up as the LDS church.

And on the other side, the Mormon apologist is regurgitating the same whitebread doctrine that the church is pushing nowdays "honest, this is what we've always believed! we're not THAT weird!"


BOTTOM LINE---
The mormon church is at its heart intolerant and disrespectful.

say what you want, but in 2 Nephi... there is a church of the lamb and a church of the devil. nothing more. Mormons believe that all religions that are not their own are of the devil. this is disrespectful at the least.

fine bitches.


...buzzkill....so can we go back to rippin on Academics?


(This post was edited by madriver on Dec 15, 2006, 3:12 PM)


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 2:57 PM
Post #91 of 113 (1049 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
Mormons believe that all religions that are not their own are of the devil. this is disrespectful at the least.

100% catagorically false, period.

Over and over again the leaders of the church have said that other religions contain truth, (sorry I don't have an exact citation at the moment.) I think you are mistaking Mormons with the Southern Baptists :-). Anyway, if we believed that all other churches are "of the devil" why then would basic Mormon beliefs contain such statements as:

"4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of aworship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul."

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."


jcasper


Dec 15, 2006, 3:25 PM
Post #92 of 113 (1037 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
BOTTOM LINE---
The mormon church is at its heart intolerant and disrespectful.

say what you want, but in 2 Nephi... there is a church of the lamb and a church of the devil. nothing more. Mormons believe that all religions that are not their own are of the devil. this is disrespectful at the least.

Hehe, realized your 2 Nephi 10:16 was wrong eh? :) Let me help you out, 1 Nephi 14:10:

1 Nephi 14:10 wrote:
And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

In 1 Nephi 14, a prophet, Nephi, is seeing the future in a vision. This particular verse is talking about how before the second coming Christ (i.e. still in the future for us), the people on earth will polarize into those that follow God and those that fight against Him. Verse 14 defines the "church of the Lamb of God" as the "saints of God, who were also upon all the face of the earth." He is talking about a group of people who are obedient to God's commandments, not members of a particular organization. The use of the word "church" here is a bit confusing but is cleared up in verse 14. It follows then, and modern day prophets have clarified, that the "church of the devil" is not a particular church or group of church, but those people that rebel against God and follow Satan as their leader. I'll spare you the comparison of this prophesy and that of John's in the book of Revelation, where he too talks about a "whore that sitteth upon many waters" in Revelation 17:1.

That being said. It is true that we believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is exactly what its name says, the church of Jesus Christ, literally. Being the literal church of Jesus Christ, we have the truth, i.e. the doctrine taught by the church is literally the doctrine taught by God himself. By so saying that our doctrine is correct, we are, by definition, saying that conflicting doctrines of other churches are incorrect. By saying that their conflicting doctrines are incorrect, we do not say they are totally incorrect. As fluxus pointed out, pretty much all churches have a lot of truth. Any church that motivates people to do good, is good, and thats that. Any church that claims any particular doctrine true is in turn claiming churches that teach a conflicting doctrine are incorrect. For things that matter, there can only be one truth. Either there is an after life or there isn't. Either Christ atoned for our sins or He didn't, either you need to be baptized or you don't, the Godhead is either three entities in one or it isn't, etc.

Most important to this particular topic is what we DO NOT claim, and what is often assumed to be an extrapolation of the above claims, and that is that we believe the people in other religions are horrible people that will suffer in a firey hell for eternity. That is wrong, and any member of the church that says or believes that is, I believe, guilty of a grevous sin (improper judgment).

camhead wrote:
non-mormons are regurgitating the same rumors and misinformation propogated by anti-mormon evangelical groups, who are AT LEAST as fucked up as the LDS church.

You shouldn't knock on someone for regurgitating standard anti-mormon propaganda in one breath, then do it yourself in the next!


(This post was edited by jcasper on Dec 15, 2006, 3:30 PM)


camhead


Dec 15, 2006, 3:30 PM
Post #93 of 113 (1033 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [fluxus] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

okay, dude. you bit, I'm attacking...

TRUE: many Mormon testimonies end with "I know the Book of Mormon is true." I'm sure that yours does.

TRUE: 1 Nephi 14:10 (sorry, not 2 Nephi)
"there are save two churches only; one is the church of the lamb of god, and the other is the church of the devil... whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of god belongeth to... the whore of all the earth."

TRUE: it is disrespectful, in today's culture, to call someone else's church a whore, or abomination, or of the Devil.

If you disagree with any of these statements, then I apologize.

I also apologize if I am confused about Mormon doctrine, and was unaware that the church is categorically just not believing in certain parts of the Book of Mormon.


care to retort?


(This post was edited by camhead on Dec 15, 2006, 3:32 PM)


camhead


Dec 15, 2006, 3:36 PM
Post #94 of 113 (1027 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

woops, sorry dude. our posts got crossed. thanks for the correction on the citation, it's been a while since I read that.

Your justification of the "church of the lamb, church of the devil" bit is still shaky, though.


jcasper


Dec 15, 2006, 3:44 PM
Post #95 of 113 (1024 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
I also apologize if I am confused about Mormon doctrine, and was unaware that the church is categorically just not believing in certain parts of the Book of Mormon.

You are confused about the doctrine, but we do not not believe in certain parts of the Book of Mormon. We believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God. To prevent possible further attacks, understand that the Book of Mormon is a complex book, like the bible, and it takes a LOT to understand it fully. I've read it cover to cover dozens of times and still feel like I only have an elementary understanding of it. Therefore, before attacking based on what you understand the book to be saying, it may be more appropriate to ask a knowledgeable member of the church what it means first. :)

And while I'm on a role... a quick note to mention that this is a huge part of the reason why modern day prophets are necessary. Both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are only written as clearly and well as the mortal prophet who wrote them could. The doctrine that the prophet was trying to convey is always truth, but because any written language is imperfect, the meaning of what is written can be interpreted to be different than what the prophet who wrote it was trying to convey. By having modern day prophets, God has someone to clarify His word so we can know which interpretation of the written word is what the original author meant.


(This post was edited by jcasper on Dec 15, 2006, 3:52 PM)


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 3:56 PM
Post #96 of 113 (1016 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead,

When attacking religion / scriptures you need to know how the texts are interperted, understood and used by the religious group in question. For example, would you read passages in leviticus regarding purity laws and then go on to say: "did you know that all Jews believe that women should be locked up for seven days during their monthly period? and that if a man has sex with a woman during her period that he should be put to death?" I have a hard time believing you or anyone else would do this.

Why not ask a question rather than launching an attack? For example: "Say you guys, what does that Church of the devil passage mean anyway? it looks like it condems all other religions, is that so?"


camhead


Dec 15, 2006, 3:56 PM
Post #97 of 113 (1014 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [jcasper] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

then, why do prophets say something like "black people will never hold the priesthood."? Brigham Young said this, and no I don't have the quote exactly. Disprove me, though. I dare ya.

Terms such as "true," "never," and "word of God" imply a sense of absolutism that is not in your shoddy qualifications.

oh, and congrats for sucking me into this debate. it is a black hole, and neither of us wil prevail.


fluxus


Dec 15, 2006, 4:07 PM
Post #98 of 113 (1010 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 947

Re: [jcasper] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

jcasper wrote:
By having modern day prophets, God has someone to clarify His word so we can know which interpretation of the written word is what the original author meant.

but even within the faith there is room for disagreement, this image of God as "new critic" (new criticism was popular form of literary analysis in the 1st half of the 20th century it placed emphasis on close readings for the sake of revealing authorial intent.) is a common way of thinking about scriptures in the church but it's not the only one. Other LDS members, thinkers, and scholars use different approaches to understanding scriptures that do not rely on the notion of language as having singular, fixed, or even stable meaning.


jcasper


Dec 15, 2006, 4:38 PM
Post #99 of 113 (1001 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 108

Re: [camhead] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

camhead wrote:
then, why do prophets say something like "black people will never hold the priesthood."? Brigham Young said this, and no I don't have the quote exactly. Disprove me, though. I dare ya.

Well, this goes back to what I said earlier in the thread about even prophets are not perfect or infallible. If Brigham Young did say that, and I don't know whether he did or not, that was his own opinion based on his understanding of things at the time. Obviously if he said that he was wrong, as black people are now able to hold the priesthood. That statement was not canonized as scripture, and I'm willing to bet wasn't said in a general conference of the church, and wasn't stated as an official statement of fact or prophecy acting in capacity as a prophet of God, but in his own personal communications with others. There is a difference.

So if a prophet is infallible, and can sometimes be wrong, what good are they as a prophet? That's a pretty dang good question and one that I've asked myself a lot. The answer, I believe, is that God himself is the only absolute source of truth. He communicates to people on the earth as a whole through a prophet, to get word out, but also communicates individually with everyone. He does not expect you to blindly follow what a prophet, any body else, or any book says as truth, but will tell you, individually and specifically, that what the prophet has said is true. That's the only way to really know whether something is true or not, at least for me. If a prophet is speaking in a general conference of the church, I'm going to take what he says very seriously, and not discount it without serious consideration. But I will not accept it at truth until I have been told by the Almighty himself that it is true. If a prophet says something in a book or personal communication, such as your example with Brigham Young, then if I don't agree with it I may not take it as seriously. It's all kind of gray area, and I believe is a very individual thing. Each of us is responsible for our own happiness, so each of us has to figure out what we are going to accept.

camhead wrote:
Terms such as "true," "never," and "word of God" imply a sense of absolutism that is not in your shoddy qualifications.

Well, I think the only case where such absolutism can be applied is the case of God. God is truth, in that what God says is true. And that is absolute. And nothing else is.

camhead wrote:
oh, and congrats for sucking me into this debate. it is a black hole, and neither of us wil prevail.

Hehe, I know that as well as you... but I enjoy an occasional debate like this. It helps me clarify my own beliefs, providing both necessary adjustments and confirmation of existing beliefs.


camhead


Dec 15, 2006, 4:44 PM
Post #100 of 113 (998 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2001
Posts: 20656

Re: [fluxus] (mor)Man made climbing [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Other LDS members, thinkers, and scholars use different approaches to understanding scriptures that do not rely on the notion of language as having singular, fixed, or even stable meaning.

gotcha. kind of like how Joseph Smith said that the Book of Mormon covered the entire North American continent, but now many Mormon thinkers say that, in light of archaeological and DNA evidence, it only took place around a small area of Central America.

Still confuses me how this ever-changing interpretation gels with "TRUTH."

http://www.bookofzelph.com/

bonus points to whomever tells me the historical backing for this satirical page.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : The Soap Box

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$8.96 (10% off)
$12.56 (10% off)
$107.06 (10% off)
$621.00 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook