Jump to content

zelder

Members
  • Posts

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by zelder

  1. The lying is the bigger issue for sure. The main difference between polygamy and adultery is honesty. In polygamy, you take an additional spouse with the consent of the existing spouse. In adultery you take without asking and keep it secret. The pain and suffering felt by the spouses of adulterers has more to do with trust than with sex. Same with swingers, the issue is trust and open honesty not sex.

  2. Log - I'm getting the idea that you believe that Kimball was not just greater than the modern leaders of the church but also greater than the founder. The current modern leaders say the there is no prophecy about becoming white but rather pure. Joseph Smith indicated that the prophecy about becoming white was wrong but rather it is that they will become pure. You stand alone. You stand against the living prophet and the current teachings of the church. You stand in opposition to the church doctrine and position. You are not defending the church, you are now in opposition to it.

  3. I'm sorry, Zelder - you are wrong. Kimball did not say, in the statement at issue, that baptism changes skin color. It's embarrassing to publicly demean the Prophet of the Lord by putting words into his mouth and calling him embarrassing and racist as if he said those words - at least, I would be embarrassed were someone able to substantiate my having demeaned him in such a fashion.

    Apparently, you don't feel the same.

    Kimball was wrong. The Book of Mormon does not promise that the lamanites would become white and delightsome. It was a printing error!!! HE WAS WRONG!

    What was Kimball implying by suggesting that they are becoming white? Was he suggesting that being white is superior to being darker? Is there anything wrong with being darker? This is racism!

  4. .

    This has nothing to do with my post. Deflection into irrelevancies is not an appropriate response, which leads me to question whether you understand the question that's been asked.

    Do you understand the question I asked?

    Do you understand President Kimball's aforementioned statment?

    Would you like me to get someone to translate it into your native tongue? I can try to use Google Translate, but I haven't had such good results.

    You fail! Prove that skin color changes to white after baptism! I WANT THE PROOF!!!

  5. What I accuse you of being is someone who is avoiding the very specific request for evidence which disproves President Kimball's specific statement referred to here.

    Noting that you are libelling me and President Kimball instead of answering the call for references is not an example of the ad hominem fallacy, even if you find it insulting that I am pointing out your complete and utter lack of substance regarding President Kimball's statement.

    Put up, or shut up.

    The church does not teach that skin color changes after accepting the gospel. This is not doctrine. This is an extraordinary assertion that virtually nobody believes, in or out of the church. The burden of proof is on you. You and Kimball are the ones with the extraordinary claim that nobody believes (this is why it's embarrassing, get it?). You must prove that laminates turn white after baptism.

    Put up or shut up.

  6. Prove he made one. Do you understand the question I asked? Would you like me to simplify it for you? If English is not your first language, we have plenty of returned missionaries who might assist you in translating it into your native tongue.

    Asking someone who asserts something to substantiate their claim by producing their evidentiary basis is embarrassing to you? I can only imagine you are embarrassed by it because you have no evidentiary basis to produce.

    If you have no such basis, you are engaged in mere libel.

    Put up, or shut up.

    Engaging in ad hominem insults is also embarrassing and causes you to completely loose any sense of intelligent credibility. You are what you accuse me to be.

  7. Because I don't care about your opinion of me. What I do care about is you actually responding appropriately to my post, instead of simply libelling President Kimball or myself. So, either put up, or shut up.

    There is nothing slanderous in pointing out mistakes. We all make them. The authoritarian structure of the church has a lot of great qualities but it also makes it very difficult to back away from mistakes let alone admit them. Mistakes are made nevertheless and the church body has to deal with them in their own way. I think your method is quite embarrassing.

  8. Unless the prophet is speaking personally to me; giving a direction, etc., then I will always follow the Spirit. However, if he speaks to me, I will follow and the error will be on his head.

    I'm not sure what people mean when they say it's on his head. I'm afraid you will still suffer the consequences of error.

  9. I'm curious: has anyone ever substantiated that those individuals to whom President Kimball referred to did not, in fact, acquire lighter skin? No? Didn't think so. So what basis do you have for asserting he was wrong?

    This is comedy but it's also embarrassing. "White and delightsome" in the Book of Mormon was changed to "pure and delightsome". The idea that laminates change and become white comes from a mistake in the printing of the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately the mistake created an embarrassing Mormon cultural idea about changing skin color. Nobody teaches this anymore. It was a mistake.

    http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/%22white%22_changed_to_%22pure%22

  10. I find this scripture offensive. Would you Brothers and sisters please help me frame this. Help me see this in better light. I see this as God can and has given men to a women who is already married without her husband's consent for her to be with including intimately. and as long as it was given by God it is ok. i know this may seem no different then a man marrying multiple wives when Polygamy was around but for some reason this scripture just doesn't strike me as something I am comfortable with.

    I know I will get several opinions and I am looking forward to them and need them.

    This is the scripture that had me reeling a few years ago and is why i originally signed up on this forum. I've come to peace with it. As has been stated previously, polygamy is something done with consent of all parties involved. Many women are offended by polygyny and would never share their husbands. However, some women wouldn't mind and some would even enjoy it. Likewise even though a lot men would never want to share, some would. There is a word used to describe good feelings some people get from sharing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compersion

    You ever wonder what kind of deal Joseph had with God the Father over Mary? Who knows but I've decided there is nothing inherently evil with sharing. The only thing that matters is that people make covenants and love each other.

  11. What do you mean taught? A passing reference to some obscure, theoretical doctrine that has never existed in the past 2000 plus years hardly constitutes a teaching. It hasn't been included in any Sunday School, Priesthood, Relief Society, Seminary, Institute or Primary manuals as far as I know.

    Mormon apologists create unnecessary bad feelings when they can't acknowledge embarrassing things that were taught by prophets from the pulpit. There is no way around it. We have to simply own it and accept it. My approach to accepting it might be different from yours but denial gives Mormon apologists a bad reputation. We loose all credibility and respect when we deny what was taught.

    It was a mistake, an ugly mistake but God is real, he loves us and the mistakes don't mean the true revelations and doctrines didn't come from God.

  12. I'm not interested in that - you pretended to respond. Do, therefore, respond.

    ?? I don't believe in blood atonement, neither does the church. Only someone who believes in blood atonement can respond to the question. It sounds like maybe you believe in blood atonement. If so, I think you should respond.

  13. Why does the reality of the Atonement mean that the repentance process for murder would never include giving up one's own life?

    Where is the scriptural support? Where is the revelation for this doctrine? There is no clear scriptural support nor is there any revelation for this doctrine. Furthermore, there is no record that Joseph Smith ever taught it. In contrast, I think we could find several scriptures that would contradict blood atonement. We have all the same problems with blood atonement that we had with the priesthood ban.

  14. Blood atonement is one of those faith defining doctrines (or teachings that was taught by past prophets). The 2010 statement came as a big shocker for me and caused me to reevaluate my faith in the Prophet and priesthood leaders. When I coupled blood atonement with several past statements surrounding the priesthood ban I realized that I have to govern myself regardless of what church leaders say. Blood atonement and the priesthood ban came to me as two witnesses that the modern church is subject to the "mistakes of men" and that perhaps even my own beloved "true and living church" does err in many things. I try not to condemn the things of God despite the mistakes of men.

  15. The Book of Mormon is the keystone. You'd have to totally crush all evidence suggesting that the book is what it claims to be and prove that where it came from is not what Joseph claimed. I realize that there is evidence against the Book of Mormon but there is evidence for it as well and it's pretty impressive. Couple that with the fact that no book on earth has moved me like the Book of Mormon, I don't see any way that someone could convice me that the church is not true.

  16. I hold a current temple recommend and a calling. I'm not totally convinced that the ban was entirely racist or that it was entirely a mistake made by imprefect prophets. However, I am leaning that direction. The church does admit that any explanation for the ban was and is out of line. Even explanations previously made by prophets seers and revelators. I think the priesthood ban weakens the credibility of modern prophetic leadership. They obviously don't always know what they are talking about. I do think the church is getting better though and is doing a decent job of correcting mistakes.

    The salvation of the church is that it does correct it's mistakes. Unlike the church during Lehi's time or Jesus's time, modern prophets do listen to the world around them and do make corrections. In the past the church would degenerate to the point of wanting to kill outspoken critics.

×
×
  • Create New...