Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's to talk about Polygamy? It was claimed as something permitted, and was later dropped. We can't seriously be expected to believe that tis was a true 'revelation' either time.
Well, duh... If you don't believe in God, it goes without saying that you're not going to believe that He has ever revealed anything to anybody.
Quote:
That is not the point. If your religion doesn't move with the times, it will get left behind. If it does...why couldn't it get it right the first time?
Sometimes, it's not a matter of being right or wrong. A rule or a guideline or a policy may be relevant for one period of time but not for another.
Quote:
This is the reason we don't believe Any of the religions and see them as man -made.
That's what I like -- somebody who spreads the skepticism around.
Quote:
No doubt. But it's not one for me. Since I don't believe Christian theology, why should I mark down LDS for differing - if it does. It's for Christians but as i said the Christians videos or objections weren't too impressive.
And that's fine. I wouldn't expect you to care one way or the other.
Quote:
There are always converts and deconverts. I doubt that even stats would help us much as I repeatedly see how lack of information and being economical with the facts is a fave way of sucking in people who don't know anything about this or that religion. If LDS isn't losing a lot of converts every year, given Online reviews such as this, I shall be surprised.
Well, be surprised then.
Quote:
It isn't so significant - as you say - that a hardened atheist like me is not going to be convinced, but it's the ones who - when they allow themselves to face facts - such as have been looked at here, failt to remain believers.
Obviously that's a matter of opinion. We all look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.
To what end? Just forget it. We're not getting anywhere. I had one thing in mind in starting this thread and you had something entirely different in mind by choosing to engage me. You seem to think I just want to "lecture" anyway, so we're obviously not on the same page at all. I haven't really even had a chance to address one issue before you've introduced another one, and that's definitely not likely to change. We did manage to keep our conversation relatively civil, though. That in and of itself is an accomplishment. Maybe we should just agree to disagree and quit while we're still "friends."
To what end? Just forget it. We're not getting anywhere. I had one thing in mind in starting this thread and you had something entirely different in mind by choosing to engage me. You seem to think I just want to "lecture" anyway, so we're obviously not on the same page at all. I haven't really even had a chance to address one issue before you've introduced another one, and that's definitely not likely to change. We did manage to keep our conversation relatively civil, though. That in and of itself is an accomplishment. Maybe we should just agree to disagree and quit while we're still "friends."
Do you think so? I think it's going swell. I'm been longing to post about the Abraham papyrus again, the problem with Archaeology and look into the DNA which I will try to do with or without you, because if there are valid links to N Asia (as is evidently accepted ) or there are Haploid markers found only in Jews - I want to know.
So did he. And thanks to the Internet, he found the answers weren't there.
LDS isn't the problem, Evangelical fundamentalist, Bible literalist and Creationist Christianity and Islam is the problem. The first in the US and the latter globally. LDS is not the problem. That's why we don't go for it very much. Nor scientology. But if and when we do, it's a small unmoving target. One thread is all it takes.
But it's a reminder that the pressure can't be let up, the eye taken off the ball or the fornication take off the streets.
I wasn't going to post this one, but I kept chuckling at the line "We had to thaw him out, first".
To what end? Just forget it. We're not getting anywhere. I had one thing in mind in starting this thread and you had something entirely different in mind by choosing to engage me. You seem to think I just want to "lecture" anyway, so we're obviously not on the same page at all. I haven't really even had a chance to address one issue before you've introduced another one, and that's definitely not likely to change. We did manage to keep our conversation relatively civil, though. That in and of itself is an accomplishment. Maybe we should just agree to disagree and quit while we're still "friends."
I'm afraid that I can't be intimidated into shutting up and going away. If you must take it personally when your particular religion is attacked (I won't reject the term) I can understand that. I can also understand the efforts to try to shut the whole discussion down before it gets any worse for LDS.
But people have to know this stuff. It's why we're here.
If LDS 'Really' teaches that it is the fastest growing religion, then this needs to be queried.
And yes, at the end the girding up of the loins, doncherkow. A call to go out and recruit! Recruit! Recruit! It's a call to me and those other doublebedammed disbelievers to keep up the debunking of disinformation and not be put off by declining to discuss, finger -pointing or threats of losing Friendship. My Friendship at least will stay the same because i love all you guys and galls, even those I disagree with.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-04-2018 at 12:16 PM..
I did? Perhaps you haven't yet read my post #36 in which I discussed it at length.
I did, and I do. Please try to keep in mind that I'm trying to field questions from three or four people at once. I'm just one person and I can't answer everybody's questions at once.
Well, for starters, I look at all of what my scripture says and try not to focus exclusively one one verse. I'm afraid that I don't really know what you mean when you say that my dogma is subject to change. Certainly interpretations change over time. That's the case in pretty much every religion. Doctrine (i.e. dogma) does not change, but policies, practices and procedures most definitely do. Doctrine represents eternal truths, but human beings, unfortunately, can be slow in coming to an understanding of what these truths actually are. The Bible says that we "all see through a glass darkly," and that's definitely the case.
Yeah, but I haven't avoided anything. I just haven't been able to get to every question as quickly as you'd like me to. I still have to get back to Transponder on a question he asked before you asked yours.
I read the response to my query in your earlier post. Thank you.
What you state is something one often hears from evangelical apologist; essentially you are saying that the 2 Nephi verse was "not in context", as you provided another one. So, just like the OT and the NT, the BOM is subject to interpretation by the reader. That causes a huge problem as it obviously allows different applications by believers.
BTW, thank you for your comments on Young. I concur, that he definitely was a racist, but I submit so was Smith, reflecting many norms of the times.
As far as your suggestion that policie, practices and procedures are not dogma, we again disagree. They are the teachings of the church, so what else could they be?
The question, as I understand it, is flawed. Our dogma (i.e. doctrine) is based upon our scripture (i.e. sacred writings). I will say, though, that I find more relevance in the words of a living prophet than I do in the words of a dead one.
I read this as, "My religion's tenets are fluid, and adjusts as needed".
Which the LDS church does, albeit very slowly and reluctantly at times. Smith and Young would probably not recognized it today.
I'm a bit reluctant to post this here, as it could arguably be a new thread. However, in trying to stay with in the topic, I would suspect the actual teachings of the LDS church would not support rape.
However.
However, it seems to take a position that is not much different than the Catholic church does when it's own leaders are involved in sexual impropriety. This video was taken this weekend, so it's brand new. How can a church be reformed from the inside, when it is clear that this particular one for sure, wants nothing to do with the accusation. It'll be interesting to see what the follow-up is. This information being out in the wild would suggest it can't be whitewashed, like many other instances recently have been. The faithful, whether Mormon, Catholic or other MUST pressing immediate action, not talk, not platitudes, but immediate and forceful action.
Unless that happens, what is all the other talk about what a church teaches worth anything?
I'm afraid that I can't be intimidated into shutting up and going away.
I'm not trying to intimidate you, Transponder. I'm sorry if that's what you think.
Quote:
If you must take it personally when your particular religion is attacked (I won't reject the term) I can understand that. I can also understand the efforts to try to shut the whole discussion down before it gets any worse for LDS.
I'm not taking it personally in the slightest. I don't really care one way or the other what you think of my religion. But what you accuse me of "[trying] to shut the whole discussion down before it gets any worse for [me and my religion]" you're doing nothing more than baiting me. To be perfectly honest, I'm not worried about your motives. I just don't like wasting my time talking to someone who simply disregards everything I say.
Quote:
captain Obvious quote of the month "There's no way an organisation can lose one third of its' membership and still be growing".
Well, Captain Obvious, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not losing one-third of its membership, and that's a fact. The Church is growing, and it is building new chapels constantly. It's doing that because of the growth, because several different congregations are meeting every Sunday in each of the chapels we already have and new buildings are needed to accommodate the numbers. Do you seriously think we would build new churches just to have them sit empty?
Quote:
What more we got?
If LDS 'Really' teaches that it is the fastest growing religion, then this needs to be queried.
Well, for starters, we're not the ones making the claim. Religious statisticians are making it. Of course, we're pleased at the number of new converts we're getting each year, just as we're disappointed at the numbers who leave. But here are the facts: There will always be periods of time when there are greater increases in our membership and times when there will be greater decreases. But, throughout the 20 consecutive years from 1997 through just over half of 2016, those who are leaving the Church have been fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent. At near the end of 2016, the Church's membership stood at 15,634,199. One-tenth of 1 percent of those people had resigned or were expected to have resigned by the end of the year. Compare that number to the number of converts who joined the church the prior year: 257,402. If you can tell me how that translates into our losing one-third of our membership, I suspect you've got someone in the Trump camp providing you with your numbers.
Here, for your information, is what the Church itself has to say about its growth:
"According to the National Council of Churches, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the second-fastest-growing church in the United States. However, despite its increasing numbers, the Church cautions against overemphasis on growth statistics. The Church makes no statistical comparisons with other churches and makes no claim to be the fastest-growing Christian denomination despite frequent news media comments to that effect. Such comparisons rarely take account of a multiplicity of complex factors, including activity rates and death rates, the methodology used in registering or counting members and what factors constitute membership. Growth rates also vary significantly across the world. Additionally, many other factors contribute to the strength of the Church, most especially the devotion and commitment of its members." ~Source: LDS Newsroom~
Quote:
And yes, at the end the girding up of the loins, doncherkow. A call to go out and recruit! Recruit! Recruit! It's a call to me and those other doublebedammed disbelievers to keep up the debunking of disinformation and not be put off by declining to discuss, finger -pointing or threats of losing Friendship. My Friendship at least will stay the same because i love all you guys and galls, even those I disagree with.
Oh good grief. I'm not threatening you with anything. If you want to keep this nonsense up, so be it. But just don't expect me to be able to respond to everything in your many little videos. There aren't enough hours in the day for that, and I do have a life outside of City-Data.
I'm afraid that I can't be intimidated into shutting up and going away. If you must take it personally when your particular religion is attacked (I won't reject the term) I can understand that. I can also understand the efforts to try to shut the whole discussion down before it gets any worse for LDS.
But people have to know this stuff. It's why we're here.
And now the vids. ..no, not that one.
This...not a very good vid, but good figures.
captain Obvious quote of the month "There's no way an organisation can lose one third of its' membership and still be growing".
What more we got?
If LDS 'Really' teaches that it is the fastest growing religion, then this needs to be queried.
And yes, at the end the girding up of the loins, doncherkow. A call to go out and recruit! Recruit! Recruit! It's a call to me and those other doublebedammed disbelievers to keep up the debunking of disinformation and not be put off by declining to discuss, finger -pointing or threats of losing Friendship. My Friendship at least will stay the same because i love all you guys and galls, even those I disagree with.
Trans you are an evangelist.
and becoming more evangelical all the time.
the more evangelical you become (which you are)
the more people tune you out (which they are)
a person can paper windshields with ads, public restrooms with religious tracts, or an online forum with hundreds of posts
people dismiss them with the same disregard
you are talking at people Trans. that is not a conversation. that is not a discussion. it is you being an evangelist, a zealot, and people walking away, just like they do with the guy on the street corner who talks at people and barrages others with words, but does not engage in any meaningful interaction, connection, engagement, or dialogue.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-04-2018 at 01:49 PM..
I read the response to my query in your earlier post. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Quote:
What you state is something one often hears from evangelical apologist; essentially you are saying that the 2 Nephi verse was "not in context", as you provided another one. So, just like the OT and the NT, the BOM is subject to interpretation by the reader. That causes a huge problem as it obviously allows different applications by believers.
You're right. The same situation exists when it comes to the Bible. That's why I try not to get too awfully hung up on trying to use passages of scripture to prove anything. Instead, I look at reasonable explanations of why scripture is being interpreted as it is, and on what my own conscience tells me. (Actually, my own conscience is responsible for most of the conclusions I come to.)
Quote:
BTW, thank you for your comments on Young. I concur, that he definitely was a racist, but I submit so was Smith, reflecting many norms of the times.
If we're going to talk about the "norms of the times," then Joseph Smith was definitely not a racist by comparison to the average American adult male in 1830.
Quote:
As far as your suggestion that policy, practices and procedures are not dogma, we again disagree. They are the teachings of the church, so what else could they be?
You can lump them all together if you want. I see them as very distinct from one another. There was a time in the very distant pass when Mormon missionaries were required to have facial hair. No lie. For as far back as I can recall, missionaries have not been allowed to have facial hair. This is a policy established by the men in charge. In my opinion, God couldn't care less. Granted, I would like to assume that these men seek the Lord's guidance, even when they just make policy changes. Sometimes I wonder, though.
Here's maybe even a better example: Young LDS men and women (i.e. teenagers for the most part) are strongly encouraged to marry in one of the Church's temples. We believe that marriages performed in our temples, by individuals we believe to have been given certain authority, will endure throughout eternity and will not be dissolved at death. Marriages performed elsewhere (even in LDS chapels or meetinghouses) are considered to be legally binding but "until death do you part." This is doctrine. It is what we believe to be essentially "an eternal truth." Now, if a couple is married in a civil ceremony, they may later go to the temple and have their marriage "sealed for time and all eternity." In the United States, marriages performed in LDS temples are considered by the state to be valid and legally binding. In many (perhaps most) foreign countries, this is not the case. In most countries, an LDS couple getting married must have a civil ceremony legally uniting them as husband and wife before they can go to the temple to be "sealed."
Here's where the policy part comes in. In the United States, Church policy prohibits a couple from getting married civilly (whether it be in an LDS chapel, in a judge's chambers, or on the beach) and then immediately going to the temple to be sealed. They must wait a full year before going to the temple. In most countries outside of the U.S., on the other hand, Church policy permits the couple to head straight to the temple after being legally married by the authorities recognized by their government.
Doctrines don't change over time, but the policies of the Church concerning how these doctrines affect our lives can and do. It's my hope that they time will come in the not so distant future when the policy is changed for couples marrying in the U.S., making it consistent with how it is elsewhere.
So, even though you may consider doctrine and policy to be all the same thing, we definitely don't.
Last edited by Katzpur; 09-04-2018 at 02:05 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But it's not one for me. Since I don't believe Christian theology, why should I mark down LDS for differing - if it does. It's for Christians but as i said the Christians videos or objections weren't too impressive.
