Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stemelbow

  1. Looks like fairmormon is promoting violence against people they don't like: I thought FM was wanting to go back to tactics 20-30 years ago, with deception and angry ad hominem, but by promoting murder....sounds like they want to take it back near 2 centuries. I know most members would agree FM is losing it by supporting this stuff, but even for those defending FM, one must wonder,,,a bridge too far?
  2. Lol. Fun game calm. As I said I'm not interested to verify your claims. As I said I wouldn't doubt if someone out there is saying apostles don't believe. You have me curious though, I wonder if Holland is reading these disreputable sites. Why might he be concerned whether people think he genuine in his belief?
  3. Who has actually said Holland doesn't really believe? The more I think about it the more I wonder what inspired this video. Does he think people don't find him sincere? Has he been questioned? If not this feels a little insecure.
  4. I followed that with "I think most critics would think he believes, but is wrong in his assumptions. " I leave room for the possibility that someone out there thinks he doesn't really believe--"most" leaves that possibility on the table. All I mean to point out is I haven't seen it. Again my impression--critics who say something akin to apostles don't really believe, are stating it in exasperation, as in "I can't really believe this kind of thing"... I certainly may be wrong.
  5. What claim would you like me to support? I thought I suggested in my experience I've seen a few people say something along the lines of "how can they believe this" type of thing and followed by saying its certainly possible someone out there is claiming the apostles don't believe. I meant that as less a challenge and more of a commentary on the purpose of this thread.
  6. Judging by my skimming of this thread, it appears many defenders and members do not like these videos for various reasons. THat's what seems to be going on. I tried to listen to a couple and found them lacking anything interesting, new, or thoughtful. There might be some good info somewhere in one or a few, but I haven't seen it and it appears others haven't either. Why are you so concerned about people objecting to these, so much so you are willing to question other member's intentions? Seems like you're taking this too far.
  7. I pointed out my impression. I don't care to support your claims or concerns. If there are critics who think the apostles don't sincerely believe...fine by me. But again, in my experience, from what I've seen, most who say something about this stuff seem far more exasperated that the leaders actually believe the church and its teachings--in a "how could they believe this" kind of way. Thanks for sharing the video. Its certainly a much nicer approach than the Fairmormon videos people have been talking about.
  8. I think he's passed. As I recall he claimed to know of a high level church authority who did not believe and that this one claimed others were in a similar boat--not really believing but were supported leaders. But, in terms of claiming that the apostles themselves weren't really believers, I think most have simply offered exasperated comments that they couldn't possibly not really know. With that said, I grant there is likely some critic out there who maintains that none of them believe it. From what I did see, those dirty word Fairmormon videos exploited the strawman tactics. This kind of feels similar. No one really thinks Holland doesn't believe it. I think most critics would think he believes, but is wrong in his assumptions.
  9. I think I've seen a person who two claiming something along the lines of "they must know it's all a scam" in exasperation--in a "how can they possibly not know" kind of way. If there is no God, for instance, then it doesn't really matter much if the apostles know its a scam or not, I suppose. As per his question--how can he show Jesus is real and is the LORD? If the story and accounts in the NT about Jesus are true, then Jesus spit on a blind guy and heeled the blindness...He yelped out at a dead man and raised him from the dead. If we are to believe in this Jesus, maybe Holland needs to start doing Jesus-y things. If not, he's merely posturing, it seems to me. He mentioned the pandemic and said God can heal people suffering from the pandemic. Maybe if God did do such a thing, there'd be reason to accept his sincere hopes and teachings.
  10. How could it be absurd if most of Christianity has no loyalty to "his Church" at all? are you suggesting the Mormon Church is not "his Church"? Or are you suggesting most of Christianity can't possibly be loyal to Christ?
  11. Which friends are you accusing of what, exactly? Where'd you get the idea I said it doesn't work?
  12. It feels to me like a return to old styles and tactics, wherein the responses are filled with bravado, strawmen and ad hominem. It may be the Fairmormons decided the old style was best. Even though it sends some people packing, it also gives others a false sense of hope, shaming those who might otherwise explore their thoughts. Maybe there's reason to think these old tactics reprised in a new package work better in the long run than efforts to engage thoughtfully. Interesting play on Fairmormons part. It'll be interesting to see the Church and it's many affiliates as each youthful generation comes along finding more and more reason to exit the Church.
  13. If we remain intent in suggesting abortion is murdering someone then why does the church allow for abortion in some cases? This debate goes nowhere so often because there is little common ground and when someone points out possible common ground people are intent to respond with some sort of inconsistency. And again if it's such a moral issue why did god set abortion as the norm until, with a secular enlightenment move, we humans fought way to limit the abortions? The strong arm moral appeal isn't very reasonable.
  14. You want to direct what I am grateful for after coming after me for expressing something I'm grateful for? I didn't know he put stipulations on what we should be grateful for. I'm still not sure why you are trying to exclude me, but again I mean no offense. It appears you guys are offended, so have fun. I apologize for the hurt I caused.
  15. Whose the "us" you want me excluded from? I figured president nelson wanted everyone to express gratitude. If I'm grateful for something why does it bother you? I'll happily leave if that's what is preferred. I don't mean to be a bother.
  16. Are we supposed to condemn other people's posts of gratitude? If that is Nelson's intent then never mind, I guess. I cant help that the church has been divisive. I'm grateful to be free of it.
  17. Okily dokily. #give thanks. I'm grateful to be freed from the divisive religious dogma that is the church.
  18. Its a silly unserious attempted correlation. Why would we do that? Are you suggesting people who fall into a coma aren't really people? No. This is not a one side vs another side thing. As it is even the Church officially allows women to chose in some circumstances. I think they say at 22 weeks is about the time survival is possible. So is abortion before that time ok? It's a matter of opinion. You are stuck thinking pre-22 week fetus' really are persons. I'd suggest they are not. They are still just a growing set of cells in another person. As such the ending of the growth is not the big offense it is to you, in my view. And, as I pointed out previously, if there be a God he seems to agree with me.
  19. No one argued that zygotes are a collection of cells therefore it's okay to enslave black people. That's silly. My only point is to call attention to the difference of opinion here. Can we call them person if outside the womb they simply wouldn't survive? As God set it up, most pregnancies would end in death. That's how he wanted it, apparently. That is one absurd argument to hold. Fetus' can't survive outside the womb. They aren't even people, on a naturalist take. You are comparing apples and oranges again.
  20. The debate gets complicated I do think. I don't know that it's on the abortion advocates to prove a collection of cells called a fetus is a person. The fetus is not a collection of cells that can get along on by itself.
  21. That's certainly not the distinction, particularly from a naturalist perspective. At what point is a collection of cells a person? I get if one wants to assume that some collection of cells called fetus is granted human status and is a person all because one assumes a spirit or an eternal being. I am certain you are not going to grant a position because I've already seen you complain that a fetus is a human and thus it must be a killing. But again, if a natural death is all due to God, then a natural death is simply a killing to. You are assuming a certain collection of cells is a human with rights and privileges. If a collection of cells known as a fetus is simply a growing seed and is not a person that changes things. I'm certainly not a free for all abortion advocate, but I also can imagine why this issue is far more complicated than the way you wish to paint it.
  22. Oh do not mistake me, I have not quite adopted the Hawking idea that there was no cause. Who knows what might have happened before the Big Bang? He might be on to something in suggesting nothing really need to have happened before--I mean we're talking quantum arena size here. But it could be along the lines that I've heard Sean Carroll postulate in that the Big Bang or what might have caused it, is the central point extending time back infinitely to a previous universe. But, since I brought up Sean Carroll I'd side with him in declaring the God arguments are just really bad arguments all around. I'd side with both Carroll and Hawking in suggesting there really is not room for God in what we're learning in science. And lets face it those are two prominent names, but most involved on their level of thinking, on their level of science agree with them. The few that magically think God is there, do so at the perile of having to hold to really bad arguments.
  23. And what is that difference? I did treat it serious. It doesn't appear you have thought this in the big picture type of way. If God doesn't care whether abortion happens, He's used it to teach lessons to people in the past, and may even be behind inspiring people to decide to abort these days, then why would any believer think it a moral issue? Maybe it doesn't matter at all, the abort fetus isn't spirited.
  24. Its not a pro-choice argument. It's a point to question whether the moral snootiness of believers carries consistency. If God does not care about abortion and does not see it as a question of morality (I mean how can he since he promoted them from the beginning) then why would anyone today think it an evil thing? As it is any one or every one of the elective abortions performed could be God's will. The individual prays to God and feels inspired by God to proceed with the decision. It wasn't until humans learned to keep mother and child safe did we contravene God's plan of seeing most fetus' dying to flipping the script. If we say it was God who inspired humans to learn to keep mother and child safe, then why did he wait so long? He cold have inspired such millennia ago and saved millions of millions from abortion. It certainly makes it seem like God does not view fetus' as real people to begin with. The ending of a fetus' life is something akin to the ending of a planted seeds life. It seems likely on the notion of God that God does not feel concerned whether fetus' live or die. If most of them die, that was how it was supposed to be anyway, to teach mothers and fathers lessons. If they live it's all because of his grace in letting one come to full term. Or would you say believers were wrong to view it that way? If we take the position that God is opposed to abortions then we have a number of questions, it seems to me. If God opposes abortions and the only way to have stopped most abortions was He intervening to stop them, then why did he not intervene? To teach humans a lesson? If that is true, then it seems teaching some a lesson at the expense of other's being able to live, is far more important to him. That is to say what is more important than human life, in God's view? Well it certainly seems that human life is expendable in order to teach his favored and unfavored a lesson. Human life matters less to him than to keep people meek and humbled..apparently. If we suggest that in the past only God's grace could help women carry to full term and keep the mother safe, then it is apparently all on God. When mother or fetus died, it was only God who could have changed things. If this is all true, then when women elect to abort today maybe God's decision to inspire such a decision has some of these things in mind. Maybe it is his will, and as such he doesn't see fetus' as children or people at all. And yet, it seems, many of his follower today are simply fighting against God's eternal will. So if one suggests something like, "well in the past the abortions that happened which far outnumber elective abortions today, were done because of nature. They just naturally happened, and we don't know, exactly, what caused them or if God could intervene." One could say that, but such is not being very consistent. If God couldn't intervene then he ceases to be God. If God commands the mountains to move, or waters to divide, then He, too, can command the fetus to live. So he could intervene, and believers of the past felt inspired to think he did intervene in order to save fetus and mother's lives when they were saved. It is true, then, God could have changed nature so abortion did not happen. But He did not. God could have intervened individually or large scale and stopped them, but he did not. God could have inspired humans to implement practices the lessened the frequency of these mother and fetus killings, but He did not.
  • Create New...