Jump to content

Hawkmoon

Members
  • Posts

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hawkmoon

  1. In response to a magic underwear crack by a friend on Facebook discussing the Romney campaign...

    "Bear with me here... I don't usually discuss my underwear in public but I've noticed a few "magic underwear" comments in reference to Mormons and the current political campaign.

    For the record: I wear my "magic underwear" also known as a sacred temple garment to Mormons day and night. My first pair was placed on me the day I married my wife in the holy temple and serves as a reminder of my covenants to God and my wife. Things like chastity, honesty, sacrifice, faith in Christ and obedience to the gospel.

    The garment is roughly analogous to a yarmulke or prayer shawl but worn privately under my clothing. I have not experienced any magical effects, other than being a very good reminder of modesty.

    If anyone is interested in their own pair of temple garments I would be happy to send you missionaries to teach you the gospel of Jesus Christ as understood by the Latter-day Saints. After a year of faithful membership including no drinking, smoking or extramarital sex plus service, tithing, living honestly and regular attendance at church you could go to the temple and make covenants with the Lord, at which time you would be asked to wear the garment as a reminder of your covenants.

    www.mormon.org is a good place to start learning.

    In short: Please leave my underwear out of your politics."

    Not sure what temple you were married in, but I certainly do not recall this during my wedding ceremony. :pardon:
  2. From the standpoint of LDS doctrine, that is true. But that argument only works for those who accept our doctrine, which our critics do not. For those who don't accept our doctrine, eternal marriage may be anything from a silly idea to a sweet romantic notion to something startling that they've never heard of before -- but in no case is it intrinsic to what marriage is. Our marriages are recognised as marriages by the wider world only to the extent that they have key elements in common with all other marriages.

    And in that regard, the Mormon widower who remarries is indeed doing exactly the same thing as any other widower who remarries.

    Thus, a man who is sealed to one, two, three, five, eight or any other number of deceased spouses while being currently married to one living woman is practicing monogamy as that word is universally understood.

    That's all right. My point is that the correct response to anyone who claims that a Mormon widower remarrying is an instance of polygamy is, "Really? Do you believe that his current and previous marriages are actually of eternal duration, and that he will be reunited with both of his wives and living eternally with them?" Because if the critic does not believe that (and they never do) then they don't believe that he is actually married to more than one woman. And thus, they don't believe he is engaged in polygamy.

    Thus, when they say they do, they are not telling the truth.

    When Mormons talk to Mormons about marriage, we are entitled to talk about marriage in LDS terms. When Catholics talk to Catholics about marriage, they are entitled to talk about marriage in Catholic terms. But as soon as we talk to each other about marriage, we have to be sure that we are talking about the same thing, which means that we have to talk in the terms that everyone understands.

    And in terms of a "common ground" discussion of marriage, a remarrying widower is a monogamist, not a polygamist.

    Regards,

    Pahoran

    You made this far too complicated Pahoran... in either case it is not polygamy. This is due to the sphere that we are currently residing in... which is the mortal sphere. While in this sphere we are dictated by the confines of this sphere, and to the meanings of the words as they apply here-- which in this case is "polygamy is the condition or practice of having more than one (living) spouse at one time". What it means in the hereafter is moot to this argument.

  3. If it is I apologize, but I feel that a person who is given such high praise who I feel has questionable motives should be addressed. But apparently I misstepped.

    Several of these off topic posts have been removed to make it easier to navigate the thread.

    Whether he needs to be addressed or not is hardly the issue... the issue is whether you should do it in a thread that has nothing to with your opinion of him, but, rather, has everything to do with a new publication.
  4. Look, I'm standing pat. If you want to call Dr. Bradford and his cronies nincompoops and mindless bureaucrats off on a lark and without BYU's blessing, by all means do so. I don't think it is legitimate, and particularly if one is anonymous it is a terrible injustice to people with reputations, but I've made my points plenty of times.

    Yes, you have... I believe your point is "I love BYU with all my heart and soul, and I will defend it unto the bitter end with any means at my disposal." Perhaps not the best point, but a point nonetheless.
  5. Yes, it's important. Why? 1) it's just weird no matter what 2) it's the same method used for outlandish and ludicrous treasure hunting schemes in that era which Joseph was a part of.

    No, I'm not scared to answer the questions.

    Hm, except my comment really has nothing to do with how YOU answer nor do your answers impact the questioning of treehuggers comments in any degree.,, strange that you would take the time to answer, but zero in understanding what is being asked, to whom and why. Though this may explain why you are not scared to answer.
  6. Ben, here is my answers to your questions

    If you are concerned with clicking the link, it links to post 21 herein.

    Pertinant part "So what do I think of the face in the hat? It couldn't care less if it have been a cauldron. None of that takes away my testimony, however, I have had experiences that I believe provide me with a stronger confirmation for belief than others experience."

    However, You need to understand, that I regard your thread here and your questions as derail of the point of my thread, my thread is about the quality of Gordon's references, and remember, yes, 40% of Gordon's references were supported Gordon's position, and 60% of Gordon's references did not support his position.

    Actually, depending on how you answered the pertinent questions which are simply-- Do you feel the hat is a significant part of the process or story? If so, why? Until you answer this in a straight-forward manner you are simply bloviating. Significantly, the accuracy of Scott's answers may very well not be as you have purported based upon this discussion which may very well be why you are not being forthcoming.
  7. Is it ironic that when the apostate cries foul, a general authority steps in to have his back. And when you guys cry foul, you end up getting fired. Is something wrong with this picture. There seems to be some assumptions going on that you don't have right. Let me help you with them. This is not a case of MI defending the church against brutal apostates. This is a case of Mormons attacking other Mormons in a way that the church is not pleased with, and has stepped in and intervened.

    I think you are starting to fantasize far too much... this is not what has happened whatsoever. Wake up man.

  8. Some day, if not already, I think you and Dr. Peterson will come to regret the way this was handled.

    I am not quite following you... why is it you blame them for the way it was handled? Are you saying Dan fired himself while he was away? Are you suggesting that Bill was the leaker? Did they conspire with the Bedlam Board to create this debacle? While I understand your defense of BYU in general, your seemingly cavalier stance to how utterly incompetent (or possible vindictive?) Bradford handled this, and, therefore by extension BYU, is odd at best. There was an appropriate way to handle this, and this was was most defintely not it. To be frank, if this would have been a company I owned-- Bradford would have fired for it.

  9. The doctrine of the Church is to have "Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." This "Faith that our fallible leaders are using tithing money in a way we deem appropriate" might be many good things, but it's not doctrine. Openness and accountability are also principles in the Church.

    But even if that were not the case, it's quite possible that open books would require more faith from the tith-paying members, not less, so that would be a good thing.

    You keep acting as if people here really believe in the infallibility of fallible leaders mantra you keep repeating, but it is simply a distraction from the discussion since no one is implying such.

    While I do agree in principle with "Openness and accountability"-- in practice how would this work? Are we a democracy? Who holds who accountable? If we do not like a deal, or where money is allocated, can we nix it? Would you care to explain this in detail?

  10. In an analysis how Mormons compare to everybody else when it comes to charitable giving, I doubt you’d say tithing doesn’t count because the church isn’t a charity.

    In any case, the principle is the same.

    No it isn't. Just because you keep saying it doesn't it make it true. The Church is not a charitible institute nor does it solicit funds the way you imply. It closer to voluntary dues than to what you suggest.

  11. If I looked at the Church as just an organization I donate to, then I understand that perspective.

    I look at the Church as my life and something that could affect my family forever(if I choose). The peace of mind that would come from a financial statement would be invaluable. It would make me more willing to teach my children the gospel without reservations.

    Huh? Are you serious? If a financial statement would give me "invaluable" peace of mind about "something that could affect my family forever"... then I would start doing some serious soul-searching... I'm just saying. :sad:

  12. Few critics think that way, and you are totally missing the point. As a general principle, every church or organization that solicits donations from the public should provide their audited financial reports to anybody who asks. That is simply the right thing to do, irrespective of whether or not I or anybody else agrees or disagrees with the organization’s mission and how it goes about pursuing it.

    Unitarian churches ought to disclose their financials to everybody who asks. Evangelical Churches ought to disclose their financials. NPR radio stations ought to. The United Way ought to. The Red Cross ought to. Harvesters Food Bank ought to. And the Mormon Church ought to.

    I have no reason to believe that any of these organizations are doing anything unscrupulous with their money. But that doesn’t change the fact that like all organizations that ask for donations from the public, they ought to provided audited financial reports to anybody who asks, because doing is the right thing to do.

    Actually, it quite apparent from the part I bolded above you are the one missing the point. The Church is NOT an organization that solicits donations from the public, and I think you rather understand that. The Church is an organization that requires tithes for attendance to the temple, but does not require it to be a member. How you have twisted this to be soliciting for donations from the public is beyond me-- the Church never sends out donation requests to the public... nor does it send out solicitations to its membership. You can pay or not, and if you are not a member they do not ask for any "donations" whatsoever. So, no they should not disclose thier financials to anyone who asks.... this is simply silly.

  13. I'm glad to see that the same arguments from yesteryear are still being endlessly debated in this corner of the net... I must say I found it a bit tedious before, and expect little to change now. With that said-- I find this whole debate even more tedious than most. The concept is really quite simple:

    If you believe the Gospel is true, and, by extension, the LDS Church-- there are zero issues. Why? Because tithing is not about whether the Church uses it in a way you deem appropriate, but rather it is about faith and obedience.

    So, if you do NOT believe the Gospel is true, then, of course, you think it should be transparent so the Church can be exposed for what you believe it is... false.

    In the end, it is rather simple-- if you believe then you will pay tithing without such strings attached. OTOH, If you must include strings-- then you probably shouldn't pay tithing. Of course, if you neither believe nor pay tithing then perhaps you should simply be quiet, and let others waste their money as they see fit?

×
×
  • Create New...