Jump to content

PacMan

Contributor
  • Content Count

    767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PacMan

  1. Wait...let me get this right. MiserereNobis butts into a conversation and trolls questions that I did not ask her. Then she tries to antagonize me by suggesting she just might not want to respond to me. Calling her bluff (and her presumptuousness), I take her up on her offer. And then you, without anyone's invitation, interrupt this exchange to gaslight a conversation as the self-proclaimed board police without adding anything to the conversation. And I'm the rude one? Right. Do me a favor and take a page from MiserereNovis's book...don't respond to me. Preferably, never, ever, ever. Ever.
  2. No, you shouldn't respond. Particularly where our whole interaction started with you responding to a comment I made to Julie M about disproving evidence. Unless, you are also Julie M....
  3. Glad you restated. What you believe is irrelevant to the fact that you must concede you don’t have an answer to explain it away.
  4. Not exactly. Read the corollary of your statement: 'Once something is disproven you are obliged to believe that something.' Why are you obliged to believe something that is disproven? But, who am I to judge....?
  5. Go back to page 11 to find my questions.
  6. Not in the eternities. And that’s the point.
  7. He was 24 and barely literate. I don't care if he used all 24 years to produce the BoM. You still can't explain it. And the fact of the references in the large plates of Nephi to the small plates which hadn't been translated yet, makes it all the curious of how Joseph Smith pulled it off. Unless, of course, you believe that JS had plotted for Martin Harris to lose the 116 pages years before, and staged the impact that it had on Emma Smith's pregnancy....
  8. Yeah, that doesn't even make sense. Please do me a favor and don't respond to my posts.
  9. Umm, you really need to read what I write. In those situations, the parents are still the child's parents. And they can be for eternity. There's nothing regarding their family (as opposed to sinful hobbies) that the child would need to renounce. In other words, the problem isn't the kid's family. It's the parents decisions, bad habits, etc.. In the gay marriage context, the problem is absolutely the family that was created for the child. If you don't see that as different, then you have a very obscure view of what a family is and what it means to the church.
  10. The issue is whether or not the church should put itself between a child and his or her family structure--particularly when the child can't do anything about it. That hasn't been addressed. I think there's reason to think the policy is good for this reason. For being focused on the family, the church is wise to avoid making a child effectively renounce his or her family structure at such a tender age. I think it's very responsible, and it's something Bill and just about everyone else has failed to even address. And no, as I've repeatedly noted, this reason cannot be applied "to any other family where the parents are 'living in sin.'" Even if not married, the structure of having a mom and dad is still present. A child can still have these parents in the eternities. That's not so for gays and polygamists. A child that presently has 2+ moms or 2+ dads will never have them in the eternities. It's one thing for a child to encourage his mom and dad to get married so that they can have an eternal family. It's another for a child to realize that he has no hope of an eternal family with two people s/he call parents. The 2015 policy removes a tender child from needing to grapple with this reality. For crying out loud, how is this not the empathetic thing to do? How does the 2015 policy not decrease the stress, confusion, anxiety, and vulnerability of a child by removing very difficult questions that a child should not be required to answer. How does the 2015 policy not support such a child's family? Truly, after recovering from my own horror of the optics of it all, I cannot understand why people are against it. Because at its foundation, it makes a lot of sense.
  11. Because the church isn't fundamentally asking them to renounce their family structures. You're comparing apples and orangutans.
  12. You personally know of no member...? How do you personally know a negative? In any event, I think I know what you mean. You really need to get out and meet more people.
  13. As much as I abhor acknowledging naked links without original analysis, I have to say that yours was particularly unhelpful. I have no idea what your point was in including that link.
  14. Really, Bill. A copy-paste? Good grief. Still, I'm glad you did. Because it's easy to show how bad your reasoning is. This policy change diminishes agency. Wrong. This logic completely adulterates the term "agency." Agency is the ability to choose. Agency is NOT the opportunity to choose. Further, as Elder Christofferson said, no one will lack for the policy. As is the same for any other of situations where people cannot accept baptism (as in most of the world's population), all will be given the opportunity to accept or reject. Thus, the policy does not diminish agency because all will have both the ability and opportunity to choose. This policy diminishes the importance of the Holy Ghost Wrong. This has nothing to do with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is going to respect the God-given obligation for parents to act as stewards over their children. Further, to the extent that the Hold Ghost tells a child that their parents and family structure are sinful, that places an enormous and near unnavigable burden on the child. That, in fact, would take away a child's agency because such child, truly, doesn't have the ability to choose a different family structure. This violates the scripture in D&C 68:27 which calls for all 8 year old children within the stakes of Zion to be baptized and confirmed D&C68:27 – “26 For this shall be a law unto the inhabitants of Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized. 27 And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.” · Wrong. This is a commandment to those of the stake of Zion. Those in a homosexual relationship are not members of the church and, therefore, not members of a stake. The command does not apply to “their children" -- being those adults in a homosexual relationship. This policy diminishes the value of ordinances such as baptism. This is just nonsense, unfounded, subjective speculation that completely contradicts and undermines baptism, including vicarious baptism for those that were not otherwise given the opportunity to receive it in life. This policy seems to run contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. What “seems” to be is irrelevant. This policy leaves so many harming possibilities. Irrelevant. The only material comparison is the net effect. There is no support for the notion that the perceived and speculative harm outweighs the benefits, namely, not creating tension between the family structure and the church. This policy seems to contradict Article of Faith #2 · What “seems” to be is irrelevant. It seems deceptive to claim the letter sent out a week later was a clarification of the original intent. · What “seems” to be is irrelevant. There was already a policy that would have covered in all likelihood most all of these situations. Irrelevant. This policy creates a litmus test where Elder Christofferson just a few months ago said there was none. Illogical. Supporting is wholly distinct from living in a same sex relationship. You are drawing the untenable similarity that is in fact further removed than even inchoate offenses. This policy encourages promiscuous homosexual sex over committed legal loving homosexual relationships. This doesn’t even make sense. I mean, if we are playing absurd, why not say it encourages gays to murder their spouses so they are no longer in a gay marriage? Your logic is inflammatorily intolerable. This motive of protecting children from confusion is implausible. · CFR. That’s not what the motive was. And, how does the plausibility of the motive make it a bad policy? In fact, there is no relationship whatsoever. This “modification” has not yet been added to the online handbook. Who cares? And, so what? The policy contradicts Book of Mormon’theology that teaches if ye have a desire to be baptized and are worthy, you are encouraged to do so. Non sequitur. Being encouraged to do something is not the same as being permitted to do something.
  15. Bill, did you not read anything I wrote? I mean, I understand that proof texts and picking and choosing are your MO, but come on—this is a discussion board! We can see what was actually written. No wonder you like real time talk! Here they are, again. So now answer them: 1. I’ve already addressed your criticisms of Elder Cook. I challenged your belief that what they say is “unhealthy” (whatever that means) based on what you believe is an insinuation. I explained why it’s not an insinuation at all, and that you’re stuck either believing they are who they say they are or calling them liars. I’m still waiting for you to take a stance. 2. Even assuming your $5k is proper, I’m wondering where your missing $25k went from your “charitable” organization. Given all the licks to the church, I’m sure you’d be just fine with a little transparency on your own. 3. You have not, because you cannot, avoid the witness statements to the Book of Mormon. This alone completely destroys any proof you think you have that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. You have 13 witnesses (don’t forget Mary Whitmer) that said they saw very specific things. What single piece of critical evidence matches toe-to-toe with these witness accounts? Nothing. That's what. And that says nothing about many other visitations that Cowdrey and Rigdon had...with Joseph Smith--which they never denied even after leaving the church. 4. If Joseph Smith was truly one of the world’s greatest cons, then you need to answer Jim Bennetts question—how did Joseph so completely mess up his polygamy con just to bed a bunch of women? Joseph’s ‘bungling’ of polygamy is wholly inconsistent with the genius of his purported ‘fraud.’ 5. Based on your discussion with Jim, you assume some perverse notion that LDS believe that they are somehow uniquely qualified to receive inspiration. That’s not at all true. The New Testament answers that question. Considering God loves all his children, I have a hard time believing that he would only answer LDS prayers. Further, as long as people are praying and seek to progress, I think God will answer any such prayer in the affirmative. If converting to Catholicism will bring someone closer to God, then I expect that God will answer that prayer. That says nothing of the fact, however, that the seeker—if given the time in this life—will eventually be brought to the Church of Jesus Christ. Your basic premise is completely faulty. 6. Provide concrete support that the 2015 policy does more harm than good. You can’t do it. It’s all speculation. 7. Explain how the 2015 policy does not actually respect and support alternative family structures, even if the church disagrees with them? Being all about family, isn't this what you would want? That the church will not step between a child and his family? 8. Your criticism of D&C 132 regarding espousing virgins is specious. Webster's 1828 dictionary notes that an acceptable (albeit uncommon) definition of "virgin" is a woman without children. Why haven't you mentioned that little tidbit? 9. You need to explain how Joseph Smith, at the ripe old age of 24, ignorantly produced the Book of Mormon and its complex history, culture, and doctrine. You need to explain how Joseph Smith reproduced large parts of the Old Testament, namely Isaiah, without notes. You need to explain to me how Joseph carefully avoided Trito-Isaish, while there has been a new view of Duetro-Isaiah that presents additional consideration that Isaiah just may have written much of this section himself. And before you attack my assumptions, critical historians like Brent Metcalfe have soundly beat-down amateur notions like the Spaulding theory, etc. Joseph Smith created this book by his lonesome, and there is no evidence that he ever had anything to help reproduce the quoted text. Explain how he did it. 10. You need to account for the fact that of the women engaged in polygamy, even years later, they never complained about Joseph's practice. It is you complaining for them. Further, you need to explain the numerous spiritual (and angelic) experiences some of these women had. If it was all a con, how did Joseph con them into having these visitations to convince them of polygamy? I challenge you to fully develop, with me, any single particular criticism. The exercise will be fruitless, but I'll tell you why I want to do it--I want to show you and the world just how bad your reasoning is. You build a sandy foundation of assumptions and straw man arguments. And then you try to beat and mock people with it. I am more than happy to deconstruct your assumptions. For example, the whole Book of Abraham question is actually really easy to explain. But I'm not going to give it to you until you answer all my prior questions. Again, pick a topic. But first, address my prior points.
  16. Ex, freaking, actly. And that is the point. A sinful family structure should be given certain respect while a minor is a minor because it's still a family.
  17. First, who said anything about "prohibiting baptism to children whose parents are also sinning?" That's not it at all. This is about asking an 8 year old child to effectively (if not explicitly) renounce his own family structure. An unmarried couple can get married. A mixed-religious marriage isn't sinful in the first place. Your examples simply do not address the issue at hand. Further, to conclude that the church is using the 2015 policy as a "punishment" is recklessly irresponsible. There is nothing, except your own morbid conjecture, to support such a notion--agree with it or not.
  18. Going back to the New Testament, Christ repeatedly forbade speaking of certain miracles and events. I don't know why, but he did it. Elder Eyring testifies by referring to a well-known event, without talking about the specifics of his own experience. In fact, this is exactly what Jesus did in witnessing of himself. He didn't say, "I am King of the Jews." He spoke indirectly: "Thou sayest it." Luke 23:2.
  19. The "surely as if" was not about the occurrence itself, but "surely as if" he was on the road to Emmaus, himself. He is definitely paralleling his experience with another well-known experience that leaves no wiggle room.
  20. I see your point. I don't discount it. Bill Reel's straw man, however, is that simply because there is a hypothetical potential negative consequence to the policy change, that this hypothetical potential negative consequence outweighs everything else. I don't think this is true--at all. To the contrary, I am more curious why this change took so long. Framed another way, the church now protects a child's gay family structure even to the exclusion of increasing its own membership. Why would any organization do this? Why hasn't Bill addressed this angle? Clearly, because it doesn't fit his agenda. Even so, how is this explanation wrong? I think this is a much better (and truer) context than anything Bill Reel set forth. And, contrary to Bill and Jim Bennett, I think it shows an incredible amount of inspiration. It's nothing I would have ever considered because the optics are (as we have found) bad. Of course, optics alone do not change the rightness of something.
  21. Bill Reel relies on unfounded assumptions and straw man arguments in his debate with Jim Bennett. Jim even notes as much. As much as there is another thread, I've been encouraged to start a new one on a particular topic. So here it is. Concerning the 2015 policy that prohibits children of gay parents from getting baptized until they are adults, Bill and Jim seem to struggle with the policy on a logical basis--but they completely miss the purpose of the policy. In 2015, the Church interviewed Elder Christofferson: He continues: In essence, Elder Christofferson explains that the family unit -- even a sinful one -- needs to be respected during a child's youth. And, where a child would effectively need to renounce their own family structure, that's not a fair thing to require the child. For a church based on family, this makes sense. My question is, why is this so problematic? Why can't the church put the family -- even an alternative family -- ahead of baptism for a time where "[n]othing is lost to them in the end?" How is this bad? In fact, how could the church require anything else?
  22. Apparently, you all have a different definition of "personal attacks" than I do. I'm not interested in getting into a nag fest. I'm challenging Bill's motives, his logic, and his statement on his podcast. I don't understand how that's a "personal attack." And I don't understand how it's inappropriate. Calling Bill an idiot (which I did not do) is a personal attack. Demonstrating that Bill is an idiot, is not. In fact, that was Jim's very point -- which Bill agreed with -- as it relates to Jeremy Runnells in the 7th podcast.
  23. My response is, go away. Challenging his failure to respond to an online message board so that he can drive traffic to his podcast is completely appropriate. He's not answering my questions because he wants me on his program. He needs content to drive his donations. That's why I'm not going on his program. And that's why he's not going to answer my questions (and because I thought he was not honest with Jim). It's all about $$. And based on his response, he's got $25k that he hasn't accounted for. That's not a personal attack. That an "Oops!"
×
×
  • Create New...