Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

It'S Too Sacred


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
167 replies to this topic

#161 LeSellers

LeSellers

    Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,845 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:05 PM

Well, do you consider anything sacred?

We've asked him at least five times in this topic (beginning here and here). I haven't seen his answer.

Lehi
  • 0
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp

#162 ELF1024

ELF1024

    "Elvis Has Fled The Building"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:06 PM

We've asked him at least five times in this topic (beginning here and here). I haven't seen his answer.

Lehi


I doubt he holds anything sacred. He seems to busy firing up the BBQ for all of our sacred cows.
  • 0

#163 Jeff K.

Jeff K.

    Creates Beasts Of The Earth

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,511 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:20 PM

If he holds nothing sacred, then he cannot understand why sacredness comes into being, and therfore he is limited in his understanding. Nothing is sacred to him, he cannot fathom then why something could be sacred to someone else.
  • 0
I would rather deal with a hundred ravenous wolves than sully myself with one dishonest man. The wolves are honest, straightforward and you know what it is they want. The battle is hard fought but open and free. The dishonest man though, he is a thing, like Cain, that should be shunned, exiled.

"You will rise or fall to the kingdom within which you feel the greatest comfort."

"There are those who would define the family in such a nontraditional way that they would define the family out of existence."
President Spencer W. Kimball 1980

#164 LeSellers

LeSellers

    Redefining excellence upwards, just to make it a challenge.

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,845 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:27 PM

If he holds nothing sacred, then he cannot understand why sacredness comes into being, and therfore he is limited in his understanding. Nothing is sacred to him, he cannot fathom then why something could be sacred to someone else.

Indeed.

That's why Mark Beesley and I asked four days ago. It was my premise and at least two others have made the same point.

I do not question that he holds something sacrrd, although it seems less and less likely in my mind. But in order for this conversation to continue in ant meaningful way, then we need to know, at least, that there are things he does regard as sacred (even if he does not want to reveal their nature to us). Or, if not, then we can proceed with that knowledge.

Lehi
  • 0
The public school system: "Usually a twelve year sentence of mind control. Crushing creativity, smashing individualism, encouraging collectivism and compromise, destroying the exercise of intellectual inquiry, twisting it instead into meek subservience to authority".
— Walter Karp

#165 Vance

Vance

    Chief Pharisee and Vindictive Goat

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,770 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:27 PM

If he holds nothing sacred, then he cannot understand why sacredness comes into being, and therfore he is limited in his understanding. Nothing is sacred to him, he cannot fathom then why something could be sacred to someone else.

As I see it, either he holds nothing sacred (as you say) or he is afraid to reveal what he holds sacred for fear of it being mocked, which would make him a hypocrite.

Edited by Vance, 31 May 2011 - 02:38 PM.

  • 0
"Remember kids! In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant." Stephen Colbert

"Because some people need to be dealt with reality, they have been coddled their whole lives, and when they're morons I have the guts and the compassion to let them know that they're morons." Mark Levin.

"Vance is truly the devil's right hand man and his multiplicity of sins testifies to that." & "Your heart is truly filled with evil, a true thistle through and through." Echo of the "truth in love ministry".

#166 kolipoki09

kolipoki09

    Gadianton Rhetor

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,516 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:31 PM

The issue here is not the time lag per se, it is the nature of the claim in the context of who is making it and in what circumstances. No one seriously questions that Paul persecuted Christians and then became a Christian after a religious experience of some kind. The reason is that Paul tells on himself in his own letters about his guilt in persecuting Christians. Moreover, Paul told the same story from day one, reporting in his earliest epistles the same facts: that he had been a persecutor of the church; that Christ had been revealed to him; that this experience turned him from persecutor to apostle.


I know plenty of New Testament scholars who are more than willing to call into question whether Paul actually had a vision, the overwhelming majority of whom suggest that Paul acted as the first of a long line of reformers that changed the gospel of Christ to suit their own interests. I do not share their beliefs to the extent to which they are offered, but I think Crossan, Borg, Ehrman, and Spong may well be on to something.

You note that Paul told the same story from day one, yet his accounts differ on a number of significant details. Richard Lloyd Anderson notes:

Many Christians who comfortably accept Paul’s vision reject Joseph Smith’s. However, they aren’t consistent in their criticisms, for most arguments against Joseph Smith’s first vision would detract from Paul’s Damascus experience with equal force.
For instance, Joseph Smith’s credibility is attacked because the earliest known description of his vision wasn’t given until a dozen years after it happened. But Paul’s earliest known description of the Damascus appearance, found in 1 Corinthians 9:1, was recorded about two dozen years after his experience.

Critics love to dwell on supposed inconsistencies in Joseph Smith’s spontaneous accounts of his first vision. But people normally give shorter and longer accounts of their own vivid experiences when retelling them more than once. Joseph Smith was cautious about public explanations of his sacred experiences until the Church grew strong and could properly publicize what God had given him. Thus, his most detailed first vision account came after several others—when he began his formal history.
This, too, parallels Paul’s experience. His most detailed account of the vision on the road to Damascus is the last of several recorded. (See Acts 26:9–20.) And this is the only known instance in which he related the detail about the glorified Savior prophesying Paul’s work among the Gentiles. (See Acts 26:16–18.) Why would Paul include this previously unmentioned detail only on that occasion? Probably because he was speaking to a Gentile audience, rather than to a group of Jewish Christians. Both Paul and Joseph Smith had reasons for delaying full details of their visions until the proper time and place.


You assume the lack of a "long paper trail" with Paul confirms with conclusive assertion that Paul was called of God, and that Joseph's long paper trail debunks his alleged claims to the First Vision because #1 it never happened (your obvious explanation) or #2 he chose not to share (or most likely publish) the experience until 12 years later. Does Paul's choice to not publish his vision until at least 15 years after it happened not also undermine his own account as well? I'm not ruling out that Paul may have shared his vision long before publication, but I'm not ruling that out for Joseph as you have. You seem to only want to accept what is on paper, rather than the implication existing as early as 1831 that Joseph was sharing his experience of the First Vision with others.
  • 0
Academia.edu
"Morman [scholars] is just a bunch of white men trying to figure out how to better hide all there wives. and make it legal for you ppl to be able to vote legally without being jailed." - Ernie Tschikof

#167 bookofmormontruth

bookofmormontruth

    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

  • Limited
  • PipPipPip
  • 785 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:34 PM

So Rob doesn't hold anything sacred.

A lot of people in the world are that way, yet they somehow manage to have enough integrity to RESPECT what is considered sacred for others.
  • 0
bookofmormontruth
youtubebookofmormontruth
"If the Church were not true, our enemies would be bored rather than threatened, and acquiescent rather than anxious. Hell is moved only when things move Heavenward." Elder Neal A. Maxwell


#168 Skylla

Skylla

    Six Headed Man Eating Beast

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,360 posts

Posted 31 May 2011 - 02:51 PM

Automatic generated message


This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Insults

Kind regards,
Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff
Banning people since 2006.


1 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users