SeekingUnderstanding

Is it just the phrase ex-Mormon you object to? What’s the difference between saying, “I’m an exmormon” and “I’m a former Mormon”. Or “I’m an ex-Catholic” vs “I’m a former Catholic”. Or “I’m her ex-husband” vs “I’m her former husband”. To me they are synonymous. If someone asks me for my religious affiliation (like at a hospital) I simple state I don’t have one. Does that mean I’m not a former Latter Day Saint?

Except I was not replying to opening post, but rather this. I'm sorry, but if people don't identify as a member of your group, they aren't a member of your group.. They aren't "inactive" members. They are former members - ex-mormon - if you will. As for those that join Reddit or listen to John Dehlin, those are the ex-mormons that had particularly strong community ties that most former Latter-day Saints lack.

You are making this too complicated. Baptized members at one point considered themselves as Latter-day Saints. These surveys show a significant number of them no longer do. This makes them ex-Mormons.

This is a ridiculously narrow way to define exmormon. Better to look at self identified members versus church records. In Mexico for instance only 20 percent of people on the church roles identify as Latter-day Saint (80 percent exmormon) see here (https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2022/07/self-affiliated-latter-day-saints-in.html?m=1). Surveys show Utah as 50 percent Latter-day Saint vs 2/3 via church records. So 25 percent exmormon in a place where identifying as Latter-day Saint faces the most favorable conditions. For the United States as a whole the 60000 person CCES survey discussed here shows 1.14 percent self identify as Latter-day Saint. This if true would give 45 percent exmormon. See discussion here:

Huh. I wasn’t aware that any biblical translations used the word “apostle” in any of these verses. It’s been a while since I’ve conversed with someone so over confident in their own abilities. The idea that a dictionary, google, and chat gpt gives puts one’s knowledge above people that have dedicated their lives to a subject field is beyond me. Good luck with that and good night!

I don't mean anything by it. I'm quoting Paul. Look. No one in this thread is unaware of the etymological root of the word apostle. Sent one. Emissary. That is indeed what it means and meant. What you refuse to acknowledge, is that it was coopted by the early church leaders as a title. That is why every single bible translation renders it as such. You know by the people that actually know first century greek and don't have to go ask Chat GPT. Dude, I'm saying Paul called her prominent. Because he did. He said "Junia is prominent among the apostles". Not that I am aware My source is every single bible translation. Here is your King James version: "Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." So what makes her Apostleship different than Paul for example here in Corinthians: ""And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one untimely born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" Is Paul an Apostle? Yes? Then Junia is as well. Your problem is that you assign special meaning to the term Apostle. That it means the same to call Dallin Oaks an apostle as it does when Paul calls himself an apostle. I think such ideas are nonsense. You have no background in Greek or biblical translation. You contradict those that do (such as the translators of the KJV the NIV the NRSV etc). You cite no sources except etymology. Take it up with them You'll have to point me to where I denied it. I am merely pointing out that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you point to the New Testament to determine that Paul was an Apostle, then you also have to accept the New Testament when it says Junia is an Apostle. Paul says Junia is an Apostle. Paul says Paul was an Apostle. You are the one that wants to assign one meaning in one place and another in the other place.

This is just me being a poor editor. Paul referred to Junia and Andronicus as Apostles (called them apostles) in the same sense of the word as when he called himself an apostle. This is the wrong question. You should be asking what made them prominent (of note, important), to Paul. https://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/16-7-compare.html#google_vignette Um, I’m saying Paul calling them “of note” or “prominent” makes them prominent. Are we talking about the same verse here? https://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/16-7-compare.html#google_vignette Can you find a translation of the Bible that distinguishes the kind of apostle Paul was and the kind of Apostle Junia was? So you have no training in the understanding of 1st century CE Greek. Who could have guessed? Maybe spend sometime pondering why not a single biblical translation renders the term ‘sent’ in this specific verse? Then spend some time looking up the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy. Then ask yourself if you would be disputing any of this if it was Junias instead of Junia.

I wasn’t aware that you were fluent in 1st century CE Greek. Where did you get your degree. Have you published in the field? On what credential do you claim to speak with authority on this subject? Can you point to an analysis done by someone who actually has broad experience in Greek that agrees with you when it comes to Junia? The only misogynistic apologetics I’ve seen either see to claim Junia must have been male, or they claim that Junia was simply known to the apostles (based on possible Greek usage dating five centuries prior). Please educate me!

I mean Paul called Junia as a prominent “Apostle” in the same sense that Paul calls himself an “Apostle.”

Nah. The history and consensus among biblical scholars all confirm Junia as female and prominent among the apostles (as a calling not one who is sent). The only people arguing otherwise are people with an ideological ax to grind.

Especially since the interviewee was relating his experience as a sexually abused child. Teachings like Elder Scott's and those say found in miracle of forgiveness (better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle) aren't erased by talks like Hollands. Not directed at @webbles, but at those who find Hansen worth defending: And Hansen's apologetics are laughably weak. Saying others teach a gospel of shame and guilt too is a pretty weak defence. And the false dichotomies! What's the alternative to teaching shame and guilt about children masturbating? Hansen says the only alternative is "We don't need to bridle our impulses in any way. @8:19" This is what you find convincing? Really? You seriously need to get out more.

"Celestial Glory" not Celestial Kingdom though? We have standardized language now, but not so much back at church founding. Celestial as described by webster in 1831: https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Celestial "Heavenly; belonging or relating to heaven; dwelling in heaven;" So in Heaven there are three heavens or degrees. Seems like it could apply to three kingdoms rather than three subdivisions of the highest kingdom. Or maybe not.

Yes. Not outright saying it but using dog whistles instead. Kirk didn’t “advocate” for the stoning of gays. He merely pointed out “Gods perfect word” did. Such a huge difference 🙄

I like this option just for the phrase. “Interregnum”. Makes me feel educated.

Only if you made your living pushing them out into the world. Are we keeping score? Really? I’m sure you were equally horrified when the state of Florida defaced the Pulse nightclub rainbow cross walk memorial right? Right? Or is it only bad when one side does it. See I happen to think defacing Kirk’s memorial should be criminally punished. If I have it right though, you put the guy in office who pardoned every single cop beater from the January sixth hang Mike pence political riot. Correct? You voted for (or at least support one of his chief sycophants in Kirk) the guy that thinks Paul Pelosi’s brutal attack is a joke. You are here lionizing Kirk who also made fun of the Pelosi’s attack. So spare me your fake phony outrage. I personally think all political violence is horrible and you’d never *ever catch me voting for anyone that’s hunky dory with it as long as it’s done to the other side. I hope they throw the book at Robinson. Note to mods - I’ll see myself out lol.

Sorry, I’m saying that sometimes it’s ok to speak ill of the dead. It was true for my friend. Here, Kirk centered his life around controversial debates living in the public eye. He had many people that looked up to him and many that found his views as promoting evil (say debating “Palestine” or “genocide”). The idea that we can’t speak our minds about such a person is foreign to me on a “discussion” forum and seems at odds with the way Kirk lived his life.

A good friend’s mother passed away a couple of years ago. To the outside world she was a model mother. Fulfilled church callings, was cheerful, nice etc etc. At home she was severely emotionally abusive. Several at children at the funeral, without discussing it before hand said as much at her funeral. It was cathartic for them to tell their stories. When someone’s life causes so much pain, it is unreasonable to expect silence on death.

Well stated, but I would just say that his words *did do damage. But no one deserves that. His death will only bring division and pain.

Vile:

So this is not board specific, only a lament on the state of society.

I haven’t seen a single person in this thread advocate for violence, or say anything close to Kirk “deserved” to die. If that’s what you are claiming, CFR.

Sure. It’s amazing how you can only view the divine feminine as “mocking and condescending.” What’s the saying? To the privileged equality feels like oppression or some such. It is genuinely too bad. I too embrace consequences for bad behavior. I think it’s derogatorily called cancel culture. I wonder when people that called for the former presidents execution* (Kirk), or mocked the Minnesota deaths (Lee) or mocked Paul Pelosi’s brutal attack will be seeing their cancelation? *for unspecified treason

Sorry I should have specified. It was a general question inspired by your thoughts but not directed at you. I started back when I still believed. Based on a strong desire for the latent feminism in church teachings (Heavenly Mother, blessings by the laying on of hands, an independent Women's organization etc), Asherah in ancient Isreal, and the idea expressed in scripture that women are just as much made in the image of "God" as men. I liked it too, because it's a a subversion of the normal thought process that automatically genders all things divine as male. Is there a teasing aspect now that I don't believe? I had to think about it and I'd say yes, but that is secondary. For example, Gopher feels mocked and trolled by pointing out the Godhood of Heavenly Mother, and I'd just simply like to know why? Given the all importance that traditional christians are putting on gender, gender roles etc, I am not so subtly pointing out the not so subtle absence of the divine feminine to emulate. Labels are hard, but I don't believe in God. I don't judge or begrudge you your faith however. Everyone has different experiences and perhaps God was more persuasively revealed to you. See above!

Yes, I do think that this is very similar

IMO the current owner of the platform doesn’t care.