Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

california boy

Contributor
  • Posts

    9,778
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by california boy

  1. Yeah that never happened did it. I have to say that because I am gay, just about everything I hear about this magical Celestial Kingdom makes me have zero desire to want to be there. All the carrots they offer to get there such as multiple wives, eternal increase and being straight are just a no starter for me. I don't need to be miserable here on earth just so I will be miserable throughout eternity. And maybe that is how Mormons have designed it so that if you don't fit the mold, you will not be there. Members spend a lifetime trying to fit this very narrow definition of what they have to be to gain the golden throne. I hope all of you get what you are so desperately hoping you will get. Then you can spend eternity controlling a world, wiping out wicked people by flooding your planet, commanding your special choose few murder women, children and all the livestock to claim land that others are living on, watching human suffering and doing nothing, until it all comes to a fiery ending burning the majority of your wicked children so that a tiny few will be able to return to you. Sounds like a way anyone would love to spend eternity, right?
  2. If this is what you really believe, then the Celestial Kingdom is going to be a pretty lonely place. I hope you enjoy your cold gold throne for all eternity.
  3. Just curious. I see a big difference between writing on paper with a pen and engraving with a stylist on gold plates. Has anyone every tried to duplicate this experiment onto metal plates using a stylist that might have been used during the BoM time? And what would that stylist possibly be made out of to press fine details of an alphabet into the metal?
  4. I too used to believe that the apostles and prophets had some special relationship between God and man that normal people do not have. That seems to not be the case. If I am wrong, could you or anyone else explain the difference between the relationship the apostles and prophets have that ordinary members do not have? Thanks
  5. Maybe your first problem is you think those of us that are former Mormons are only here to insult and mock, rather than to try and find answers. Like the questions that I asked. Like the questions that I asked twice and were ignored. Like the response you give above. None of which relates to the questions I have asked. So instead of answering the question, you write your own narrative of what you think this is about and then attack the very false statement that I didn't say. You are more interested in attacking than engaging. Fine. I will keep that in mind. My question had nothing to do with Biblical scholarship. This thread is not about Biblical scholarship. Yet you have decided to make it about that. Not to answer any questions that I have asked about. Perhaps it would have been better to ask for clarification of what I asked rather than make up a statement that I didn't make and then attack that false statement. Do you even remember what I actually wrote back on page 17? This is what I wrote. I added the bold. Maybe you won't ignore that part now. I remain hopeful anyway. My question was never about past teachings about the black curse. It was about current official Church understanding of Book of Mormon scripture. Not current official understanding of Biblical scripture. You know, like what this thread is suppose to be about before you started telling everyone they were race baiting and ignoring the actual questions. My interaction with you has been very unpleasant. It is apparent you are not interested in answering what I actually am asking. I have repeated the question enough times to come to the conclusion that clarifying Church teachings is not why you are posting. Since insulting seems to be your main goal, I am bowing out. Continue to insult and misrepresent me if you wish. I will no longer respond.
  6. Juliann, the problem I have with you is it seems you only read half of what people post. As a result you end up calling people names that don't really apply to them. I do appreciate your apology. And yes, you are attacking people claiming that the Church has moved on. So I asked this simple question Your reference didn't really answer my question did it. But you seem that because the Church has disavowed black skin is a curse, that all the sudden explains what the verses in the BoM are about??? Your glib answer is not an explanation of what the Church believes those verses in the BoM are referring to. I did look on LDS.org and I see no explanation of what those verses mean. Yet you are offended when I ask what the Church's explanation of those verses are. You chastised me and yet are not able to explain what the Church now teaches those verses mean. Do you see how your insulting barbs are really unwarranted . Yes you did find something, but not answers to the questions I actually asked about. I don't mind you stating that you don't want to answer the question, but I do mind your condescending attitude you have as if it is my fault that it appears the Church does not have an explanation of those verses. And this is where I loose patience with you and your flippant answers. You are quick to insult but slow to engage in attempting to answer the actual questions. I haven't had much interaction with you over the years. But honestly, this has not been a particularly enjoyable experience. It mostly has been a string of insults.
  7. Page 12 on on this thread you said this to me. If you now are withdrawing the accusation, are you willing to apologize? You don't have to start talking about leather jackets or anything else. But you are basing your whole rant about race baiting on the idea that the Church leaders have some kind of different interpretation of those verses in the Book of Mormon that no longer are based on skin color. If the Church has moved on, just what is their official explanation on what is written in the Book of Mormon concerning the curse of God causing a black skin? If there are such statements, maybe a little educating us on what is now the official doctrine on those verses might be more helpful than accusing people of race baiting. It is a pretty hideous accusation to hurl at someone.
  8. Wait. Are you trying to tell me the reason why you are accusing me of race baiting is because I acknowledged that past leaders taught a totally different belief on what was meant in the BoM about the curse placed upon them by God???? That is the reason I am race baiting? Seriously? And to be clear, I never ever said that past racist practices by the Church have not been disavowed. They have. Do you have any official statements by Church leaders that skin of darkness now means the Laminates just put on leather jackets? Is there an official explanation to what the BoM now means when it talks about the curse from God that turn their skins black???? Just what is the official explanation on the meaning of these verses that YOU say the Church now move on to?
  9. I didn't ask for a definition of race-baiting. I asked you to show where I have done any race-baiting. Just STOP this name calling. Either provide a quote where I have said something that is race baiting or withdraw the accusation and apologize.
  10. Well being called a prophet used to mean some kind of divine authority from God. Are you throwing that past claims of prophets out?? I haven't heard anyone claiming that the Bible doesn't have some racist teachings in it. Have you? However, the BOM is the subject of this thread, hence bringing up these issues. You keep accusing me and others of race baiting. Just what do you consider race baiting that me or someone has said?? Because I feel pretty insulted getting that term hurled towards me. I should at least know what your jabs are based on.
  11. So you are berating Teancum for believing at one time that prophets and apostles claimed they had some insight in the past? But in reality, they did not have any authoritative statements on what is taught in the Book of Mormon? Interesting position for a believing member to take. And yes, past statements were indeed racist. That is not being debated is it? Now we got people who do not speak with any divine throwing out their own opinions they have on the black skin curse and we are now expected to adopt those theories??? As you said, Good Grief.
  12. If you don't think that humans can be deceived about what they are seeing up close, I suggest you watch a Netflix program called "Magic for Humans". It is very entertaining to see how people can be tricked into seeing things up close that don't really happen. And do we really know how far away the witnesses say Moroni or the plates actually were? I agree generally with what you are saying. Which is probably why I now have such a problem with multiple accounts of the first vision. And yes, I have heard all the apologetics on why different versions are out there, but I don't find them very convincing. Like you, I would think that was such a powerful moment, I would never forget the details of what happened. I am also amazed that we have no record of the witnesses recounting what happened to anyone right after the event happened. I can tell you, if I. actually saw the gold plates and an angel standing in front of me, I would be writing every single family member and anyone else I knew, telling them the incredible news of what I witnessed. But evidently that didn't happen. The only version of what happened was written by Joseph Smith, not any of the witnesses. For me that is kinda a problem. My point is to not persuade others to not believe the Church's current narrative, but rather to show that if you think the testimony of the witnesses is a proven fact of what happened, then you only believe that because you want to and not necessarily because it is irrefutable.
  13. I remember waking up one day when I was a kid and going to breakfast. My mother was looking out the window and told me she saw a monkey in our back yard. I was so excited. I tried finding it but couldn't. She kept saying, look it is over in the corner by. the workshop. Eventually, I too thought that I saw it. I became so excited and wanted to go out and capture it. Then my mother said "April Fools". She then explained to me for the first time in my life, the tradition that happens every April 1st. I never forgot that experience and at times later in my life tried to trick friends on that day to also see things that weren't there. I find the story of the three witnesses that see the angel Moroni "with their spiritual eyes" holding the plates as the very real possibility of simply being convinced of what they were suppose to see, especially when one of the participants claims to also see what Joseph is insisting is right in front of them. And Martin Harris unable to see what others are claiming is right in front of them giving up. Joseph tells him it is his own fault that he doesn't see the plates and angel because he is not worthy. Later he repents and all the sudden is now convinced that he can see it also. Maybe because he doesn't want to be thought of as unworthy by Joseph Smith. There is a strong indication of perceived manipulation. I know that those who want to believe an angel did appear with the plates will take their testimony without question. And that is understandable and fine. I know they will take my experience and explain that away as well because they strongly want to believe in the story. But that experience i had as a young boy does show another possibility that COULD have happened. Try the same experiment on your own friends. I am willing to bet some will be successful in having a friend convinced they have also seen something that is not really there. The three witness testimony is not really a particularly strong narrative that supports the truthfulness of there being real gold plates except to those who really want to believe they did in fact exist. Another example of this that might be more easy to relate to: How many believe that in Disney's Snow White, the evil step mother stands in front of the mirror and recites "Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" That is not exactly what she said, yet how many are completely positive those were her exact words.
  14. So exactly how do you get an entire nation of people to all agree to wear the cool black leather jackets? And if you are a rebellious Lamanite, do you put on a white shirt and tie to become the hoodlum of the family? I can see grieving Lamanite parents worried sick about their teenage son who only wants to wear white and hope he grows out of the rebellious phase before too long.
  15. I will throw this into the mix. I know women who purposefully hang out with gay men. The go to gay bars, or hang out in the gay section of a beach. or music festivals, or often adopt a gay buddy to hang out with them. If the person is truly gay, then seems like there is a certain trust that they are in a safe environment. I have been in situations were I have actually felt women coming next to where I was and striking up a conversation. I could tell that they felt uncomfortable about something and though I would be a safe haven. If they still feel nervous, I may tell them about my partner and how much in love we are. If he is there, I might even kiss him in front of her.
  16. The problem for me is, my responses have been distorted using this method. Intentionally or not, fisking lends itself to doing such a distortion. Since SMAC is really the only one that uses this method, it is clear that fisking is not necessary to form a response to the point of the post. But it is reasonable to not have our posts distorted. I don't seem to have this continuing distortion of what I have posted by anyone else. While some of my posts may need clarification, I find the vast majority of SMAC's responses have distorted what I have actually said. I do ignore most of his responses to my posts. But at some point, it just reaches a point where it seems to be systemic.
  17. I hope you will. You mean using fisking as a way to take sentences out of context. I get it. You like using this gimmick to muddy exactly what the poster is saying. I hope you will Your preference being to use fisking to purposefully take things out of context. Because keeping things in context is unimportant to the actual discussion? I hope you will reconsider I guess distorting the intent of what a poster is actually posting lends itself to your agenda. Sad. You are welcome
  18. When a poster has more than one idea in a single post, then addressing those thoughts separately is totally understandable. When each sentence is broken into multiple comments, then the whole context of the sentence is distorted and context is lost. Once SMAC is able to break up the context of the original poster, then he is not responding to exactly what the poster intended. He is able to put his own spin and give that spin context. That is exactly why people use fisking. Everyone else on this entire board is able to keep posts in context and respond to those posts as they were written. So what approach is a more honest approach? Taking things out of context? Or keeping the thoughts in context and commenting on exactly what was said. Maybe you haven't been fisked like some of us have. I hope you haven't. It is very frustrating to see what you wrote become so distorted. Take a look at the post I originally posted and see if you can tell where by going so far as to break apart a single sentence loosed all context of what that sentence has actually said.
  19. Fisking Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. Fisking Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. Fisking Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. Fisking Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. Fisking Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. Fisking Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. Fisking Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. Fisking Fisking is a written argument where one person sequentially addresses each point of an of another person's argument. This is done in a precise manner relying on semantics and ambiguities to infer a defect in the original point. This approach is tantamount to taking a sentence out of context in order to refute an entire argument. Fisking does not pay heed to the opponent's thesis as a whole, and thus does not disprove the thesis as a whole. Okay? Perfect. I am glad you are ok with not fisking my posts. We finally agree on something. Then don't respond to. my posts If you are not interested, then don't respond to my posts. Calling you out for using a gimmick to distort the context of what they post is a justifiable demand. I have demonstrated exactly how fisking works in this very post You don't think fisking changes what you stated? Your personal fisking style takes words and sentences out of context, which is exactly why fisking is used. It is dishonest to continually distort the context of what others are actually saying. You are welcome. Always glad to offer constructive criticism.
  20. How clueless can you possibly be. I was very clear that I do not want my posts picked apart word for word or sentence by sentence. Yet you answer my post by doing the VERY THING I complained about. PLEASE DO NOT FISK MY POSTS. Taking sentences apart and taking sentences out of context is NOT The very definition of Fisking which is what you consistently use in your posts defines it as an approach that is tantamount to tking a sentence out of context in order to refute the entire argument. I see you use this method in your answers consistently to allow you to take things completely out of context. PLEASE STOP DOING THAT IF YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO MY POSTS. Taking a sentence apart to answer a question and taking individual sentences OUT OF CONTEXT is NOT providing a verbatim quote. It is taking the words out of context, which. is exactly what fisking is designed to do. You use fisking for the very reason to distort what is being posted. I am not the only one who have complained to you about using this gimmick. I am not going to simply ignore your posts when you have distorted what I have said by using this gimmick. Maybe I should copy and paste this post every single time you use fisking when you answer my posts. Perhaps you will then get the clear message that I am tired of you fisking my posts.
  21. You know SMAC, one of the biggest reasons why I dislike your posts so much is you feel you need to pull apart every single sentence and make a comment about every single part of a sentence. When you do that, you totally take away the context of what the person is saying. In doing this, you distort even the most simple of statements into a unrecognizable response. I get that sometimes a post may have more than one point. But seriously, a single sentence doesn't need to be broken down word for word so you can make some comment out of context the whole sentence. I have asked you to not do that to my posts multiple times. Quit that. I don't like my thoughts being taken out of the context that I write them.
  22. In general, I like most members of the Church. I respect their values and find most to be decent people. While I strongly disagree with many of the policies and some of their doctrine, I don't think the Church has no value. Some of my Children are still in the Church and raising their own children in that religion. I fully support their decision to do that. If I thought for one minute you represented the beliefs of most members, then I guess I would have to re-evaluate what I think of Church members in general. Your posts can be summed up in three words. Attack. Attack. Attack.
  23. That is not what he said. You are constantly inserting your own prejudice onto other people, and then claiming it is their point of view. It is dishonest and insulting. I wish you would think a little more before you respond to posters. He NEVER said purely about their political views. He was giving you an example of what he didn't like about some Church members
×
×
  • Create New...