Beyond Mitt's Underwear: Part 3: The Preexistence, Creation, and Plan for Salvation
Father in Heaven (Elohiem) and His wives live near the star called Kolob on a pair of magic stones. They were once mortal humans just like we are and have retained their physical bodies of flesh and bone, but instead of blood they have “spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood”. At the time of creation
( Read more... )
Reply
STFU, then. You wouldn't tolerate me simply making up bullcrap or repeating rumors because I thought it sounded good. I won't tolerate that from you.
My first comment on my first post said " Lots of mormons don't know lots of things about their church history, and I'm expecting certain parts of my overview to be as surprising to you as it is to non-mormons." I suspected that some of the surprises found in your official church doctrine might bother you as much as they bother me. Tough titties.
Reply
Reply
Except he's not talking about rumours. He's quoting your own scriptures from your own scriptural authority, and what you've done in response is say "Well nobody actually BELIEVES any of that!"
Which is, uh, kind of missing the point. Yes, 98% of Catholics use birth control despite it being absolutely banned in all cases, but pointing out that no Catholics follow the rule doesn't change what the rule *is*.
What didn't change was the commandment to love thy neighbor, (still) the most important commandment in the law.Your inclusion of "(still)" implies that, like all other teachings, it's subject to revision via the ongoing revelation. I have to ask, what if it *did* change? What would you do then ( ... )
Reply
Nah, he's either quoting stuff that is not considered doctrine, or he is misinterpreting what the doctrine says. I get that to an outsider (and an atheist at that), some of the wording could mean something to you that it doesn't really say, so it's more like, "Well nobody actually believes any of that the way you explained it!" In other words, it's not the words he quotes I am disagreeing with.
I haven't even once claimed he's quoting rumors, even though the Journal of Discourses, while not precisely rumors, also doesn't qualify as canon for the church. He's always great about quoting sources, which is the only reason he can write the stuff he does - everything is very well documented.
Your inclusion of "(still)" implies that, like all other teachings, it's subject to revision via the ongoing revelation. I have to ask, what if it *did* change ( ... )
Reply
You said: if you were talking about rumors about my beliefs or making up bullcrap [...]I would totally call you on it while proclaiming that he was wrong and that you were calling him on it.
You were, in fact, claiming that he was talking about rumours.
It is the true core of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And what would you do, tomorrow, if the Prophet declared once again that dark skin reflected the sins of the wearer and that non-white people could no longer be priests?
What would you do if, once again, something other than neighbourlyness became the judge of "who is my neighbour?"
Reply
What would you do if, once again, something other than neighbourlyness became the judge of "who is my neighbour?"
These are actually emotionally manipulative questions in the first place because you don't even believe in God, and so there is no answer I could give here that would properly answer them. Not to mention they demonstrate you don't even really understand what actually happened historically, either. Oh, you understand the facts from your outside, deeply opposing emotional point of view, but you don't get it. You only see what you want to see, which is fine, but there's no reason for me to fall into your trap.
Reply
You can't claim that you don't care about the incorrect things past prophets taught because they didn't contradict the TRUE gospel, while still claiming that the prophets understand the true gospel *and* that no future prophet will contradict your TRUE gospel.
Either the past prophets were wrong (and thus the current ones are thus obviously fallible as well) or the past prophets were correct and GOD CHANGED HIS MIND about how His church should act. You maintain that that second one is true: God's instructions to His church changed because the church needed to act differently at different times. Which means the question of what if they change AGAIN, in ways you don't like this time, is an perfectly pertinent one.
The fact that you dismiss it as "emotionally manipulative" because you don't have a good answer for it and don't want to consider what the actual teachings of your actual religion might mean, is telling.
Reply
Reply
Wait, wait. You're now taking the position that the prophets were wrong, and that their divinely inspired scripture was, in fact, incorrect? Because those dudes *were* the prophets, and they *did* say that dark skin indicated unrepented sin and a lack of righteousness, and they *did* say that a more righteous person would become more white.
By saying that was wrong, you've neatly skewered yourself on the *other* horn of your dilemma. Since you argue that the prophets can be wrong and the scriptures can be false, you have the problem of "what would you do if the prophet reinstated these false and wrong scriptures?" replacing "what would you do if God once again told you to do evil?"
If you see hate, it is because you have hate in your heart. Or it's because hate really is there. I could be the nicest least-hateful person on the planet, and the Mormon church would still be rabidly and irrationally homophobic. Sometimes, things really *are* real, ( ... )
Reply
I began this series by saying:
I should start with the obvious disclaimer that there’s a difference between what the LDS gospels say, what the general authorities of the Church say, and what most Mormons currently believe and practice. I can’t say whether Mitt wears temple garments, I can just say that the general authorities say that he should.
I am not, and have never said, what your beliefs are. I have said what the General Authorities say that your beliefs should be. If you're saying that the General Authorities are wrong, that's fine. I think they're wrong also. But don't come to me later saying that you have to destroy same-sex couples' marriages because the General Authorities told you to, and you trust them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Actually, if you go check a lot of the OP's links, you'll see that many of them are linked directly to lds.org. :) Tongodeon is really good about that, which is why I like to read his stuff. I just happen to disagree with some of his takes on that info, that's all. :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment