Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 For what its worth, I don't believe you. To defend one's turf is way different than attacking someone elses. I don't go to anyone's elses turf and attack them.Fine, don't believe me. Do you think I've come in here to attack? If I have attacked, I sincerely apologize.
juliann Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 I've seen plenty of attacking on both sides, thank you very much. I did not say that apologists were "the problem." Where would you get such an idea?When you see believing LDS creating multiple websites and message boards to mock and demean another religion do let us know. In the meantime, the disingenousness isn't playing well.
Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 I've seen plenty of attacking on both sides, thank you very much. I did not say that apologists were "the problem." Where would you get such an idea?When you see believing LDS creating multiple websites and message boards to mock and demean another religion do let us know. In the meantime, the disingenousness isn't playing well.Great, now I've been called a liar and disingenuous on the same thread. I have really tried to be polite, to not mock or demean. Maybe I haven't done so well. And for that I am truly sorry.
juliann Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 What world do you live in that thinks calling my God a bigot is "polite"? I'm really curious now!
Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 What world do you live in that thinks calling my God a bigot is "polite"? I'm really curious now!I did not call your God a bigot. The god that Hammer was describing would indeed be a bigot. Even when I was a believing Mormon, I did not believe in such a god.
Hammer Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 What world do you live in that thinks calling my God a bigot is "polite"? I'm really curious now!I did not call your God a bigot. The god that Hammer was describing would indeed be a bigot. Even when I was a believing Mormon, I did not believe in such a god.Really how far can you bend to swurve around the straight on truth. I only stated the truth of doctrines and bibilical teachings. YOU CALLED IT BIGOTRY.
Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 What world do you live in that thinks calling my God a bigot is "polite"? I'm really curious now!I did not call your God a bigot. The god that Hammer was describing would indeed be a bigot. Even when I was a believing Mormon, I did not believe in such a god.Really how far can you bend to swurve around the straight on truth. I only stated the truth of doctrines and bibilical teachings. YOU CALLED IT BIGOTRY.I called your rationalization bigotry.
Hammer Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 What world do you live in that thinks calling my God a bigot is "polite"? I'm really curious now!I did not call your God a bigot. The god that Hammer was describing would indeed be a bigot. Even when I was a believing Mormon, I did not believe in such a god.Really how far can you bend to swurve around the straight on truth. I only stated the truth of doctrines and bibilical teachings. YOU CALLED IT BIGOTRY.I called your rationalization bigotry.There was no rationalization. You don't read scriptures do you?
juliann Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 NQM has apologized in an email. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Next time he will use the when he is spoofing us, right, NQM?
Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 NQM has apologized in an email. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Next time he will use the when he is spoofing us, right, NQM?Yup. Again, I'm sorry for the offense. Hammer's response surprised me, to say the least.
Hammer Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 NQM has apologized in an email. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Next time he will use the when he is spoofing us, right, NQM?Yup. Again, I'm sorry for the offense. Hammer's response surprised me, to say the least.My quoting biblical teachings and attributing them to God surprised you?
Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 NQM has apologized in an email. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Next time he will use the when he is spoofing us, right, NQM?Yup. Again, I'm sorry for the offense. Hammer's response surprised me, to say the least.My quoting biblical teachings and attributing them to God surprised you? Biblical teachings? I missed that part.
Hammer Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 NQM has apologized in an email. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Next time he will use the when he is spoofing us, right, NQM?Yup. Again, I'm sorry for the offense. Hammer's response surprised me, to say the least.My quoting biblical teachings and attributing them to God surprised you? Biblical teachings? I missed that part.Through out the scriptures, if you study them, you will find many mentions of restricted marrying or affiliating with certain races.Do you need quotes?
Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 NQM has apologized in an email. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Next time he will use the when he is spoofing us, right, NQM?Yup. Again, I'm sorry for the offense. Hammer's response surprised me, to say the least.My quoting biblical teachings and attributing them to God surprised you? Biblical teachings? I missed that part.Through out the scriptures, if you study them, you will find many mentions of restricted marrying or affiliating with certain races.Do you need quotes?I'd love to see your quotes. The problem is that all the curse stuff seems to be OT stuff, whereas we are told in the NT that Jesus did away with all that and that there are no longer any restrictions by race, etc. See, for example, Peter's vision of the unclean beasts.
juliann Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Yup. Again, I'm sorry for the offense. Hammer's response surprised me, to say the least.So what? You are on a message board. People will have different opinions. Hammer expressed his respectfully. You have no reason to accuse him of discrimination just because you don't like his interpretation of the Priesthood ban. You will find different opinions here...a good many LDS here (if not the majority) think the ban was cultural. But that doesn't automatically make any of them princes of tolerance, either. Bigot is one of the most loaded and ugly accusations you can sling....I suggest you rachet the rhetoric down unless you have evidence that anyone here is treating another race badly.
Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Yup. Again, I'm sorry for the offense. Hammer's response surprised me, to say the least.So what? You are on a message board. People will have different opinions. Hammer expressed his respectfully. You have no reason to accuse him of discrimination just because you don't like his interpretation of the Priesthood ban. You will find different opinions here...a good many LDS here (if not the majority) think the ban was cultural. But that doesn't automatically make any of them princes of tolerance, either. Bigot is one of the most loaded and ugly accusations you can sling....I suggest you rachet the rhetoric down unless you have evidence that anyone here is treating another race badly.Again, I apologize for being a little over the top in my language. I was surprised at Hammer's response because I hadn't heard anyone use that argument in a long time. I thought that the official reason was "we don't know why," not "God curses some people with dark skin."
Hammer Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 NQM has apologized in an email. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Next time he will use the when he is spoofing us, right, NQM?Yup. Again, I'm sorry for the offense. Hammer's response surprised me, to say the least.My quoting biblical teachings and attributing them to God surprised you? Biblical teachings? I missed that part.Through out the scriptures, if you study them, you will find many mentions of restricted marrying or affiliating with certain races.Do you need quotes?I'd love to see your quotes. The problem is that all the curse stuff seems to be OT stuff, whereas we are told in the NT that Jesus did away with all that and that there are no longer any restrictions by race, etc. See, for example, Peter's vision of the unclean beasts.Christ okayed the gentiles or non-Jews to receive the gospel. What has that got to do with what you have been calling bigotry?Study the Biblical dictionary about Samaritans.Study the Noah story.Study Gen. 24: 3 3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a cwife unto my son of the daughters of the dCanaanites, among whom I dwell: John 4: 9, 39-40 9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the aSamaritans. Matt. 10: 5 5 These twelve Jesus asent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the bSamaritans enter ye not: There are more, but have you every thought that there were bigots among the anti-saints in the early years?
juliann Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 I thought that the official reason was "we don't know why," not "God curses some people with dark skin."The only response is we don't know....there is no paper trail to even determine who started the ban or why. Once it was in place there was no reason to question it considering the prevailing societal attitudes which permeated all religions. Your problem with trying to attach bigotry to Mormons is that studies do not show Mormons to have been anymore racist than anyone else...racism was tied to economic status, education...probably the same factors that are operative today. Evangelicism has great problems today with discriminatory attitudes but EVs have (or had) the lowest educational level when it comes to religions.
Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 I thought that the official reason was "we don't know why," not "God curses some people with dark skin."The only response is we don't know....there is no paper trail to even determine who started the ban or why. Once it was in place there was no reason to question it considering the prevailing societal attitudes which permeated all religions. Your problem with trying to attach bigotry to Mormons is that studies do not show Mormons to have been anymore racist than anyone else...racism was tied to economic status, education...probably the same factors that are operative today. Evangelicism has great problems today with discriminatory attitudes but EVs have (or had) the lowest educational level when it comes to religions.I'm not attaching bigotry to Mormons. I know Mormons to not be a particularly bigoted group, and your explanation of the history of the "ban" is pretty much mine. The explanation given by Hammer seems to belong to another time and plans, which is why it surprised me.
Hammer Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 I'm not attaching bigotry to Mormons. I know Mormons to not be a particularly bigoted group, and your explanation of the history of the "ban" is pretty much mine. The explanation given by Hammer seems to belong to another time and plans, which is why it surprised me.Get a new line. It just doesn't wash any more.
Not quite me Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Get a new line. It just doesn't wash any more.Not sure what you mean, but Okey Dokey.
Catholic Girl Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Not sure what all that other stuff was.....way off topic.Anyhoo, Scott Lloyd asserts that the quote he provided from his authoritative source.....Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God.That this quotecontradict(s) the false notion and claim that Mormonism regards the church of the devil, or the great and abominable church, as being the Catholic Church or any other specific faith group.I do not see myself where this quote in itself EXPLICITY "contradicts" that the Catholic Church "or any other specific faith group" as the Church of the Devil or the Great and Abominable Church. Rather, it does seem to be more inclusive for our Protestant brothers and sisters as asserted by CKS. So I'm curious.....is this Scott Lloyd's own personal interpretation of this quote? Or does this Guide to the Scriptures provide footnotes or further information as to how this is quote is to be officially interpreted?I guess I would just need to see the context.
BCSpace Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 and the Catholic Church is the most abominable.This is not correct. In a certain context (apostasy of the early Christian church, the proto Catholic church qualifies for 'most', but historically and doctrinally, the Catholic church of today was not extant then.The absolute 'most abominable', imho, is the philosophy entered into by Cain and taught to his followers.BCSpace has no problem doing it, enough with the ecumenism, lay it on the line.Amen! Ecumenism is yet another abominable doctrine in it's ultimate result (doctrinal compromise) though it does feel good at first....
juliann Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 So I'm curious.....is this Scott Lloyd's own personal interpretation of this quote? Or does this Guide to the Scriptures provide footnotes or further information as to how this is quote is to be officially interpreted?I guess I would just need to see the context. You have been given scripture. Why are you asking for a guide? With all due respect...they are our scriptures. If you don't want us interpreting your Catholic beliefs for us allow us to interpret ours.
BCSpace Posted November 2, 2006 Posted November 2, 2006 Then I object just as strenuously to your interpretation of it referring to "all non-LDS Christian groups." I don't believe all such groups persecute the Saints and fight against God.That is not the LDS definition. It is (from the Guide to the Scriptures - Devil)..."Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God."But I do agree with the interpretation.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.