Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

california boy

Contributor
  • Posts

    9,797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by california boy

  1. 51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

    My testimony is all I need to know to SHOW me that Joseph was a prophet.      

    But according to what your are saying here, Tolkien could not have written all the books he did without error upon error.

    It's just plainly a bad argument and doesn't help your/ our views that Joseph was indeed a prophet.

    This is exactly what I was trying to say.  Thanks.

  2. 1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

    No, the Book of Mormon is unusually complex on a lot of levels that many (probably the vast majority) of fictional works aren't. 

    When this lengthy text's unusual degree of complexity and consistency is viewed in conjunction with the the author's age, the author's limited literary experience, the author's limited formal education, and with the uniquely constraining manner of the text's production (sustained oral dictation with no notes, manuscripts, prompts from scribes, or substantive revisions), it offers extraordinary evidence supporting Joseph Smith's extraordinary claims. 

    I realize this is a book of faith to you and many others.  I really don't have an interest in invading that belief you hold.  But there are many outside your faith that would disagree with your perspective and can point to a lot of flaws that they see in the book to support their view that it has no divine origin.

  3. 1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

    The point of the evidence isn't about whether or not the author would have conceptually been able to create a fictional fulfillment of a fictional prophecy, on an item-by-item basis. The issue is about the manifold complexity of the text, especial ally regarding nuanced details and wording that don't play a significant role in the narrative. The more layers and types of complexity that you stack on top of one another other, the less likely it is that Joseph Smith would have been able to fabricate and then dictate such a text, especially under the constraining circumstances reported by multiple witnesses to the translation event. The Book of Mormon's many fulfilled prophecies and editorial promises are part of a larger set of such features. 

    Isn't this pretty much found in every mystery book and other works of fiction?  I honestly don't see how this is some kind of magical indication that the BoM is what it claims to be when there are literally thousands of authors who do this on a regular basis with no claim of divine intervention.  

    Honestly for me, I have kinda an opposite reaction.  When someone prophesies in a book the exact number of years that will pass before Christ will be born, that just doesn't seem to fit any other prophesy.  Maybe am wrong, but can you point to any prophesy in the Bible that has that kind of exact dating for its fulfillment?

  4. 2 minutes ago, Calm said:

    Do we have any recent examples (last 20 years) that started out without a steeple inside the US to compare community reactions?

    I think using temples outside the US makes comparing population reactions inappropriate as dynamics could be quite different in that outside the US we are often viewed as an American religion, which can have some pretty intense positive or negative reactions.

    I am not familiar enough on where the Church has built temples to answer that question.  But I do know that the resistance towards these temples seems to be centered on light and height of the steeple.  Eliminating the steeple takes away a major argument that is being used against the building of the temples.  The lighting issues seem to be resolved by agreeing to turn the lights off at a reasonable time.  If it is just anti-Mormon attitudes that are causing these communities to become a battleground, you have just taken away their only real valid concerns.  What would be left could only be described as bigotry.

  5. 2 hours ago, Calm said:

    This assumes the majority of opposition is due to the architecture.  Is there any way to demonstrate this?  Do chapels have to go through the same approvals process with city public meetings and such?  Temples would get more publicity, so that would likely increase antimormon activity, so I wouldn’t expect to see comparable numbers for chapels and temples even if opposition was mostly antimormon driven.  There is also the problem that it could be the antimormons inflating/inflaming concerns over buildings so while the majority who oppose are not antimormon, they wouldn’t have been concerned if the hadn’t been exposed to the spin the antimormons put on it.

    Not saying the opposition is antimormon driven.  Just wondering if we can reliably conclude if the Church was adaptable there would be much difference and therefore the opposition is on the Church for not being adaptable.

    Do we have an example of where the Church was adaptable from the beginning and saw little resistance?

     

    1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

    I think you’re really overestimating how many people actually care about the steeple height. As stated by others here, the opposition purely consists of the NIMBY and CAVE phenomena. This is proven by the speakers’ comments at the city council meetings.  Lots of people saying to keep Fairview, TX “country” and that the temple height would block views of nature. Uh, the DFW metroplex is not AT ALL “country” and there are no views of nature to obstruct. There are water towers and some trees. 

    Is all I know is that every single suburban community the Church has placed or tried to place one of these temples with huge steeples, people have complained and the Church has resorted to threatening legal battles to get what it wants.  Yes they have every right to try and get approvals and fight for what they want.  But to me, it defeats the very goal of a temple and seems to be tearing communities and neighbors apart. Is it worth the battles?  I guess it depends on what goal the Church has in fighting these battles.  But it seems to me, winning these battles also increases the anti-Mormon feelings and gives reasons to people to hold onto those feelings.

     

  6. It really is a shame that the Church continues to use architecture of it's temples in a way that consistently causes ill will and division within a community when there are other architectural options that have been used in the past that would not cause this division.  It seems so counter productive to what I believe a temple should be conveying.  

  7. 26 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

    Not sure what you mean by nobody claiming they were national matters, but Prop 8 absolutely made national news and brought nationwide consequences after the leak pointed out our involvement and funding.  Mormons throughout the country experienced local backlash.  We had several churches and temples vandalized throughout the country.  I remember watching a video of Tongan saints confronting protesters who were vandalizing one of our temples.  The thing made international news.  I remember it as fueling the opinion that the church and its members were "anti-gay".  Prop 8 got quoted for decades, all over the nation and the world, by folks trying to demonstrate mormons were the bad guys.

    And Prop 8 in general, was part of the national discussion, for decades.  Anyone else remember tracking or talking about this chart across the 2000's and 2010's?  Thinking back to those discussions, I don't remember a single one that didn't invoke Prop 8 by one side or the other.

    gallup-same-sex-poll_wide-4593335a905b9f

     

     

     

    Of course you are right.  Church members contributed most of the financial and manpower to pass Prop8. And while the discussion was national, it was the law that was a state issue. I should have been more clear on what I was referring to 

  8. 35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

    Well, some disagree on this.  It is not uncommon to sidestep or ignore a commandment, or to re-define it, or to create a rationalization for exempting oneself from it, and then claim to "put God first."

    Virtually all commandments come through prophets and apostles.  Rejecting prophetic guidance, whether selectively or wholesale, by disaffirming it as such is a rationalization that eviscerates the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Every commandment can be sidestepped by this way of thinking.  Alma touches on this in Alma 42:

    "How could he sin if there was no law?"  If the individual denies the existence of the law, then he can deny the sin that comes from violating it.  

    "But there is a law given."  And these laws come through prophets and apostles.  

    You are not accurately stating what I believe.  I believe there is ample and sufficient scriptural and prophetic guidance on the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  

    First, I don't think there are many in this community who subscribe to this re-definition of the Law of Chastity.  The tendency is to entirely disregard the Restored Gospel.

    Second, this line of reasoning - avoiding a truth by re-defining it - just does not hold.  Consider this anecdote attributed to Abraham Lincoln:

    Respectfully, the individual cannot exempt himself from the Law of Chastity by re-defining it (and/or re-defining marriage), or by simply asserting that the law does not apply to him, or that he understands the law better than those charged with formulating, interpreting and enforcing it.

    Over the last several years I have been paying attention to the "Sovereign Citizen" movement, the adherents of which attempt to utilize argumentation similar to what you are presenting here, namely, disregarding the law, or re-defining it so as to declare themselves exempt from it.  Some examples:

    The fellow in the blue cap makes an impassioned argument that the court lacks jurisdiction, that the laws the judge is about to enforce do not apply to him.  It doesn't work.  Even though these folks feel strongly about the issues facing them, their idiosyncratic and ad hoc interpretation and preferred application of the law do not work.

    I once had a pair of borrowers try to argue that they did not need to re-pay their residential loan because it was only a "credit" loan, and was not backed by gold bullion stored at Fort Knox.  This argument failed at the trial court, so they appealed the decision to the Utah Court of Appeals.  It failed there, too:

    These folks sought to avoid the application of the law by re-defining it in a way that justified his behavior, or else exempted them from the law.  This reasoning does not work.

    "Until recently" marriage had been defined as between a man and a woman, such that "inserting between a man and woman" would have been redundant and unnecessary.  Once civil society decided to re-define marriage to include same-sex couples, the addition became appropriate and necessary.

    And you are assuming that your interpretation is "the correct" one.  Again, this is a "sovereign citizen"-style argument.  It does not work.

    I am not making any such assumption, though.  "Jurisdiction" refers to "the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law."  In the context of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the "jurisdiction" over the doctrines and laws of the Church belongs to the Presiding High Priest and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  It is their role and responsibility, not yours or mine, to definitively establish and maintain the parameters of the Law of Chastity.

    Of course, this is all in a purely ecclesiastical context.  A sovereign citizen can have his way by moving out of the United States, and thus remove himself from the jurisdiction of this country's laws.  What he cannot do, though, is stay in the country and insist that his say-so supersedes the exercised jurisdiction of the courts of this country.

    Similarly, an individual can leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and thus remove himself from the laws and commandments of the Restored Gospel.  What he cannot do, though, is stay in the Church and insist that his say-so about the Law of Chastity supersedes the exercised jurisdiction of the prophets and apostles who administer and preside in the Church.

    So I am not "assuming" anything here.  I am acknowledging the proverbial "law of the land."

    Sovereign citizens use this sort of reasoning all the time to claim that state and federal courts and their adjudication of the law are illegitimate.  It doesn't work.

    There is ample scriptural and prophetic guidance on the marriage being between a man and woman, and on the parameters of the Law of Chastity.  You choose to disregard this authority, or craft a rationalization that purportedly exempts you from it.  

    Thanks,

    -Smac

     

    There are plenty of examples where prophets and apostles have been incorrect on their beliefs that supposably came from God but later retracted those beliefs.  I will let my answer stand.  

  9. On 9/8/2023 at 10:15 AM, smac97 said:

    Yes, particularly where no such "right" existed at the time.

    You find it problematic that a religious group exercises its constitutional rights?

    Thanks,

    -Smac

    I see this has already been answered, but I think you are totally coping out since both the California Supreme Court ruling AND Prop 8 were state matters.  No one claimed they were national matters. Even so, the US Supreme Court ruled the exact same way as the California Supreme Court, just a few years later.  Sounds like both a state and a national constitutional right.

  10. 2 hours ago, Devobah said:

    Hey fellow California Boy! I appreciate your perspective here! I have a friend down here in Arizona who is much the same way. We were actually talking today and he has many of the same conclusions you do. Honestly, it's a breath of fresh air to hear the different perspectives of those who have left the church for one reason or another. We actually have very healthy conversations on what we can do better for each other, those members who leave, those who stay, and how to have a healthy dialogue!

    I'm new but I've been watching the board for a bit. I'm a big fan of yours!

    Well thank you for your post. And since I can’t give you an upvote yet, consider this an upvote 

  11. 15 hours ago, webbles said:

    They could be like the Beta Israel who are considered Jewish but with very little genetic proof.  Per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel

     

    Of course you can believe what you want. But that doesn’t really square up with the Book of Mormon narrative of the beliefs of Church prophets who consistently taught that Native American Indians were descendants of Lamanites. 

  12. 4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

    Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good. Just because something is unpopular doesn't mean it's bad. I believe this is part of the persecution non members don't like to admit exists. 

    I am not sure that explains why some believe there is an intense dislike for the Church. This might explain why you feel that dislike is justified. But that is a different issue 

  13. 2 hours ago, CV75 said:

    Not everyone believes in such a restoration. You say you don’t need that, your partner is much more important to you, and God will fix your errors anyway. Our conclusions are very different!

    Since you seem to have God all figured out and know how God will judge me, I would seriously love to know how God will judge me for choosing to live a life of joy and happiness with a partner I love and trust way more than Church leaders

  14. 6 hours ago, CV75 said:

    Don't misunderstand: I am not brushing anything off, including my own sins and mistakes and the principles of of forgiveness. But overarching even these is the reality that Jesus Christ will settle all our affairs, and that is what I am emphasizing at this particular juncture.

    That is actually the same conclusion I came to.  Why rely on men who claim to be apostles and prophets when is all they are doing is relying on their own prejudices to tell us what to do and not claiming any kind of revelation.   Far better to strengthen your own relationship with God and rely on that relationship to guide you.  In the end Christ will fix any errors either make.

    So I am not allowed to be a member or do temple work while I have my partner.  He is much more important to my life then the personal opinion based on their prejudices or being a member of the Church 

  15. 4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

    Despite such a conclusion, and whether it is correct or not, the keys of the kingdom still do what they are meant to do. The Lord will correct any incidental mistakes in how His servants manage them along the way, as well as those who, having benefited from the delegation and exercise of those keys, have an incorrect response to them.

    The Lord may very well correct these policies that have their roots in prejudices, but at what cost to those individuals and their families?  How many have left the Church as a result imog these policies lacking any revelation from God?   How many broken families have been affected by these policies today that lack revelation?   
     

    Maybe you are able to brush this off the same way I erroneously brushed off the ban on temple ordinances for blacks because it didn’t affect me.  I taught that false doctrine to countless people while serving a mission, even quoting scripture to support that teaching, something I deeply regret to this day. I was a part of withholding those blessings because, once again I followed the apostles and prophets.  

×
×
  • Create New...