Jump to content

flameburns623

Members
  • Content Count

    758
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by flameburns623

  1. My BODY is a House of the Lord, within which I make sacred covenants.
  2. Put a two-minute hourglass on the pulpit on F/S's.
  3. Interesting article which suggeets that while it us unfair to speak of Latter-Day Saints as "brainwashed", we have evolved a unique system of social structures which bind us to each other. I do wonder if a similar couldn't be done of Roman Catholicism, Evangelical Christians, or Amway. https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/lds-indoctrination-and-retentive-socialization/
  4. Generally I think of anti-Mormons or anti-LDS as folks who: 1. Seek not to critique the teachings or practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in a constructive manner, with an eye to reforming or improving the Church; but who merely seek to debunk it and lead people out of it; AND, 2. Who generally do so in the service of some other cause or religion, in which they are often so deeply invested that they cannot be fair nor unbiased towards the LDS Church and may in fact be very skewed, disproportionate, or even dishonest in their criticisms thereof.
  5. "Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then the HELL with you!"
  6. A fun article to read: https://www.patheos.com/pagan/why-you-cant-worship-sam-webster-03-20-2013
  7. Lol. Crom is loosely based on Odin. But he's a purely fictional deity. OTOH, there are several fictional deities being worshipped with varying degrees of seriousness. Pastafarianism for example. Church of All Worlds, also.
  8. Congratulations. You win the Internet. Best quote I've seen all week.
  9. Satanists of any stripe are extraordinarily uncommon. Obviously, Anton LaVey capitalized on the shock value of the word "Satanism". Most Wiccans worship deities of a known ancient pedigree. Athena, Diana, Baba Yaga, Cernunos, Freyr, Thor, Poseidon. Wiccans are usually upfront that their religious practices are partly reconstructed based upon available information, and partially reimagined according to what they find meaningful. Which is exactly how I understand Mormonism, btw.
  10. It's a Mikveh" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikveh https://www.google.com/search?q=jewish+ceremonial+washing+tub&safe=strict&prmd=sivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiyorGM29nfAhUMKqwKHYYHCNQQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg&biw=360&bih=512#imgrc=6MRtUR7rO2ShGM
  11. Wiccans and Luciferians neither worship the "devil" nor believe in such a personage nor make him an icon of their faith. Certainly not Wiccans and Pagans, who do not even believe in a binary struggle of evil against good. Discussions of "good witches" or "bad witches", or of "black magic" versus "white magic" will tend to mark you as ignorant of the entire topic of Wicca. Some Wiccans worship a "horned god" who might resemble a Jack Chick cartonesque Satan, and most of the rituals I attended had a masculine and a feminine deity. But not all of those male deities sported horns. Most didn't. Luciferians beliefs are complex and resemble Zoroastrianism or Gnosticism. "Lucifer" is a Latin name for the Morning Star, a title of Christ and (for Luciferians) "the Christ" or the "Christ-mind" is a synonym for one of the "good guys", but so is the much-maligned Lucifer, who is in some sense the same as Christ. Followers of Anton LaVey don't usually even believe in a god. Satan is an archetype, a sumbol or mythological figure, embodying freedom from oppression. Their view of God looks more like something of Satan from our Pearl of Great Price. Their Satan looks more like our Jesus: somebody who stood up and said, "lemme do this in a way which allows people to retain freedom of choice".
  12. As someone who has close personal friends in real who are Wiccan; as someone who has attended Pagan Stabbat services; and as someone who has met, drank, and dined with actual believing Luciferians and LaVey-following Satanists: the Satanic Panic is less funny than sad. People whose moral lives would make them fair-to middlin' good Latter-Day Saints, (except for the copious consumption of coffee and ritual consumption of wine), have to keep their actual religious views extremely private to avoid either ridicule, bizarre questions about their sexual practices, proselytism, or outright discrimination.
  13. It's not germaine and kinda personal to ask. But, I regularized my marriage and went back to being Roman Catholic.
  14. Didn't Dr. Petterson occasionally used to lighten things up, when they got too heavy around here, by making jokes about donuts?🍥🍪
  15. This peraon can still open LDS Tools but if he tries to use the features, he gets nowhere. He and his fellow Ex-Mos are suggesting that the Church is still counting him as a member. When I voluntarily resigned in 2008, once I had my letter and the little pamphlet inviting me to return, I pretty much moved on. I focused on the faith community I had moved over to. I was still interested in Mormonism, I still popped in here once in awhile f'rinstance. But I didn't stress over whether or not I was still "being counted". I didn't hang with angry former LDS and grouse. I suggested this person do likewise but at the moment they prefer the role of disaffected, angry, unjustly-treated Ex-Mo. Seems like life is kinda short for all that to me.
  16. One of the recently excommunicated persons on my FB friends list is concerned about still being "counted as a member" because they have some limited functionality on the Church website. Allowing for lag time while the system is updated, I suggested that even never-members have a limited amount of access to Church website functions. Am I mistaken? Does anyone know?
  17. I had two articles saved on Facebook from about a year ago, one of them pretty academic, discussing the trend. I may have linked to at least one of those articles on this forum once before. A current search for at least one of those articles now turns up nothing. The churches experiencing growth, IIRC, are doing so among populations with high birthrates. The Western nations, with longstanding declines in births are also where declines in church membership are occurring. Those churches which were growing (as in the Bible Belt or in heavily LDS areas), were anomalous because those populations bucked the trend in terms of family size until the Las decade or so of the 20th century. There are two factors at play. First, people in certain communities had more children than did those in more secularized/cosmopolitan area. Second: children from those less secular communities remained faithful at a higher rate. Almost two out of every three kids in some areas would remain churched. As secularization reached the suburbs and more rural areas, retention dropped to about 50% or so. This may have begun to affect Islamic and Hindu subcultures in the United States and Europe as well, as those populations Westernize and become less insular. Ethnic isolation may slow the process down, but as those populations assimilate, they also seem to be having fewer babies and a decline in religious commitment. not simply a Judaeo-Christian phenomenon. So: in Western nations, whether one is raised in a religiously progressive or religiously conservative community, the members of that community average fewer children per household AND fewer of those offspring will remain part of that community as they reach adulthood. This is my summary of those articles, which I still cannot find. I will share them when I locate them. EDIT: I may have found one of the articles. The format and first few sentences ring a bell. http://www.religioninsights.org/denominational-decline-related-birthrates-societal-changes
  18. There is some research out there suggesting that urbanization and secularization within religious groups leads to fewer children. The so-called progressive denominations went into decline because they urbanized/secularized first, and stopped having children at replacement levels about two decades sooner than did the conservative/Evangelical sects. Beginning in the 1980's and 1990's, this trend caught up with conservative religious denominations. They, too, stopped having children at replacement levels, and this is why most of the Evangelical sects--as well as the LDS and a few other groups-- have also begun to experience declines.
  19. Gina is probably highly critical of how New Zealand treated aborigines, but she doesn't plan to become an expatriate. She is probably critical of embedded patriarchy in various associations she has Involvement in, and yet remains associated. Just as a certain segment of Christianity sees the world as rotten with sin, so too do certain people of a progressive mindset see reason to view most of the world in a critical way. All the better to advance "continuous revolution", the unceasing reform of a permanently imperfect world. I think the approach is related somehow to postmodernism. I stand ready to be corrected on this point, however.
  20. There are ecumenists who seek commonality within most of the major world religions. At present, l don't believe much progress is being made. We are several millennia yet removed from the Butlerian Jihad and the Orange Catholic Bible. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Catholic_Bible
  21. You are exegeting as a fundamentalist. You are not reading Scripture in a manner which unites, includes, promotes diversity, or heals. You are reading Scripture to sift them as a guide to a universal orthodoxy and/or general orthopraxy. Progressive Christians are as aware of the passage you are citing as you are, and deploy it to support a very different approach. The "brain" in their apprehension, is not earthly but Divine, and the central nervous system is the Holy Spirit. Only God is necessarily fully aware of how Christ's Body is fulfilling His purposes on Earth. What might appear to limited human eyes to be spastic and palsied is in fact a Divine dance. Btw: I am not endorsing this, but attempting to approximate how I think progressive exegetes might respond. My personal view is that progressives are somewhat blinded to their own tendencies to be exclusionary and judgemental. I do not think their more relaxed, culturally-directed way of getting at the Mind of God is as fecund or creative as they imagine. It has a certain appeal, but only just so much so. My feeling, anyhow.
  22. Concur this is at least part of what Gina Colvin is saying. My comments were formulated to allow others to underscore that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints DOES see itself as a truth-seeking endeavor, and as an organization uniquely in possession of certain truths. That is the difference between how Gina Colvin currently sees "doing church" as opposed to how the LDS Church sees itself. Gina isn't blithely unaware of this difference. She isn't debunking Church truth-claims with the fierceness of a Jeremy Runnels or a Bill Reel. But she takes for granted that the unique LDS "truths" are alreasy debunked, and that therefore the Church needs to reimagine its purpose for existence.
  23. In her John Dehlin interview which I linked to earlier, Colvin discussed how mainline Christian denominations have lost any concern over the "One True Church" doctrine and see each denomination as having elements which may help a Christian pilgrim during PART of their life's journey but not for all of it. Specifically, Gina speaks of being part of a liberal New Zealand Baptist fellowship when someone, hearing of what she was seeking, steered her toward the Anglican congregation of which she is now a member. The explicit message Gina says she was given was, "We LOVE you, Gina. We are NOT asking you to leave. We want you to stay. If you must leave, we hope that someday you will come back. Under whatever conditions seem right for you. But if you need to leave us, for a while or forever, in order to find yourself, then you have our blessing and our love". (Approximate paraphrase of Colvin's comments, drawn from memory). This sense of fuzzy, open borders between otherwise very different approaches to spirituality, is at the crux of Gina Colvin's criticisms of the use of excommunication by the LDS Church, I expect. She sees churches as communities gathered around therapeutic myths, (in the full sense of the word "myth": a story which might have some basis, or no basis at all, in facticity, but which serves some purpose other than a recounting of historical facts), gathered around those myths in order to serve one another and the larger world. Because faith communities are for bonding, healing, therapy, and opportunities for service, and are NOT, fundamentally, truth-seeking endeavors, Gina feels that, by the process of excommunication, the LDS Church does terrible harm to itself as well as to the subjects of disciplinary actions.
×
×
  • Create New...