Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,144 Excellent

1 Follower

About stemelbow

  • Rank
    Creates Man & Woman

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,608 profile views
  1. What if some non-Mormon gets far more inspiration and revelation than anyone in the Church ever has? That'd be interesting in light of you deciding they are entitled to some measure... What does scripture say about modern day abortion rights? I"m just pointing out that you are suggesting what is legitimate and what is not, in terms of revelation, it seems to me. Elective abortion is not brought up. So why do you think anyone would invoke scripture on this topic? Someone opposing abortion has no biblical basis, it seems to me.
  2. Thanks I got access to it, but I signed in through a library. I guess I could have done that before. I read it and read his previous paper and find them interesting but would conclude they leave us far short of evidence for God. The second paper doesn't really get into the details of the experiences, but each one, as summarized, seems as easily attributed to previous influence as it is to the presence of a God. One need not posit a God for spiritual experience to be taken seriously. Many naturalists accept spiritual experience. One may need to connect religious experience with spiritual
  3. Your link seems to link one back to your OP. I looked it up and I'm blocked from accessing it from the couple of locations I find it. I'd like to see it. I can't really understand how counter-culture spiritual experience is evidence of external spiritual guidance.
  4. I mean that's fine but believers extend far outside of Mormonism. If a non_mormon Christian prays to God and is impressed that God has said an abortion for her is a good thing, and does it, then you can disagree that it was God if you want, but that doesn't do much but suggest you think you know God more than she. The "god is unreliable unless someone else agrees with Smac" doesn't seem to get us very far. Very possibly. It's been so in the past and will likely be so again, even if your a believer that's likely and possible. Me too. Are you thinking of the US o
  5. What if women who have elective abortions are inspired by God to do so? Some, no doubt, pray for his help and guidance...so it may be that God is not opposed to them in the first place. I'm less interested in whether they should be legal or not. But if there is a God, can we really consider them a morally bad choice? He of course set it up so that abortion was the norm...It took humans to overcome his plan in order to figure out how to preserve the life of fetus' and mothers. I'm not sure how it would happen, exactly. But if certainly feels like women are left high and dry
  6. I like the 3rd one too, and loved your comments, meadowchik. I will add 2 points: 1. If the intent is to decrease the amount of abortions then believers need to be better at prayer. Only god, if he is there, can stop or cause abortions that aren't elective...and in truth many abortions that are elective, hes at fault for too. Afterall women who choose abortions likely seek wisdom from god in so choosing. 2. I would include in meadowchik's list from her last paragraph, education, and putting more onus on the man.
  7. Some of the details of the study are interesting. 90+ of the participants are considered "white race". If you consider non-Hispanic whites only, that's 60% of the country. With Hispanic whites, that's 72%. So the data seems skewed to a certain race. "Nearly 60% of the participants attended religious services at least weekly" When nation-wide the number of people who attend Church weekly is around 23%. The data seems skewed to those who attend Church. Studies from 1999, 2007, 2010, 2013? This seems like a study of rich white youth spanned across a few years time.
  8. I'm not sure I'm following you. One victim counts. But there has to be a victim. If Dehlin did something abusive to McMullin, vague allusions to LHP masking Dehlin isn't sufficient to suggest there was abuse. As I recall, as McMullin, who was always vaguely accusatory, was most vocal about Dehlin's misdeeds there was very little reason to conclude abuse. She accused Dehlin of assaulting her, one night. When I sympathized, ready to accept the accusation she explained by saying with clarity that Dehlin's misdeed was found in his manipulation holding her attention during an emotional affair
  9. I should simply step out of this conversation, but how McMullin managed to bring her being victimized by Lindsay Hansen Park and John Dehlin into this discussion is nutty. I'll repeat my previous comment in a different way, the sins that anyone, as I've seen, been able to squeeze out of McMullin since her accusations came out, demonstrate Dehlin and as a result LHP shouldn't possibly be considered anything near the predator Tom apparently was. I will say she is being terribly dishonest with herself for perpetrating this mess.
  10. Anything is possible including, Jesus is not. That's the most likely of the options it seems to me. If Jesus doesn't like someone then what's his problem?
  11. Either way, it seems to me. If Jesus didn't like people who are hypocrites as we use the term today, or if Jesus didn't like people who interpreted what they read in scripture, then it seems Jesus doesn't like any of us anyway. Every person has acted the hypocrite at some point. Every person has attempted to interpret what they read.
  12. Agreed. My mistake. I thought I had heard 88 percent and mistyped that. But it looks like I was wrong on that anyway. Thanks.
  13. I forgot more about the Dehlin episode then I remember. I have no doubt. I'm going completely on my memory of my old impressions, rather than the stories themselves. I don't remember Kate Kelly had complaints about Dehlin. And it may be true I'm thinking there was less credibility than was actual. I haven't thought much of Dehlin since, either. I recall an anonymous lady accusing him of something akin to assault but then she backed away as I asked her, suggesting it was just some misunderstanding. She followed up noting, as I recall, her biggest gripe about him was he used his influence
  14. I have no doubt Anne is great at what she does. But I can't help how messy her responses are. She put her foot in her mouth about a dozen times (Ok an exaggeration, but when you see it once it feels like twice and if you see it again it feels like a half dozen times) with her attempts to define a true advocate, it seems to me. And really, these two pieces are the only things I know her by. I think Smac raises interesting points in his response. And I won't comment about whether he always defends a man.
  15. I think it's definitely worth bringing up.. It can get problematic enough it deserves conversation. On that note, I appreciate it.
  • Create New...