Questing Beast Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Hello,I am a seasoned veteran of the Internet by now (been almost nine years). This is the FIRST time that I have joined an LDS-run forum. I've tried out quite a few religious and philosophy-based fora. The latest attempt was over at "Ex-Mormon Forums" - Yeah, that one. Tomorrow would have marked one month since I registered. By popular "consensus", I was encouraged/told to hie off to some TBM forum, since my views only aggravated the denizens. So I bade them all a nice "bon soir" and decided to drop by here instead.I am a BIC (5th generation Mormon), lifelong resident of the Salt Lake Valley (over half a century so far). I live the LDS lifestyle to a "T": which means I feel inclined to dot all my I's and cross all my T's: WofW, personal integrity, sexual morality, etc. I live as I have always lived: as my parents taught me and as my inclinations dictate - thank God I hate fiddling with my brain's natural function, i.e. no booze or mind-altering drugs for this boy! I always have found it distasteful to see normal people turn into idiots at parties, so no "party animal" here either.My reason for joining other fora has been an interest in frank discussion of religion and philosophy. I have found this especially satisfying when in discussion with disbelievers, nonbelievers and agnostics or atheists. In particular I have enjoyed it most when anyone will bring the science we have accumulated thus far into the discussion: because I am a firm believer in the concept that "God" gave us sapience to use it. It's all well and good to go by our metaphysical feelings. But we should never dispense with facts and evidence: which I also firmly believe we are bound to interpret with equal criteria and arrive at the most reasonable hypothesis possible.My reason for joining an LDS-run forum now, is that it is something "new" to me. I have heard many times over the years (and recently on Ex-Mo) that Mormon forums are okay as long as you don't say anything that criticizes the "SCTC". I will lay this out up front: I do not believe in the LDS faith as "... the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth, with which [ ] the Lord, [is] well pleased". Can I hold this to be untrue, both back then and today and always, and yet remain "a member in good standing"? The implication is that I am being duplicitous; a deceiver; or worse (to me) a person lacking in personal integrity.I do not believe that my position is all that rare, especially today. Certainly, the "Ex-Mo" forum and its ilk caters to an angry populous of former members of the LDS Church. They do not welcome any dissent from perceived TBM's "pretending" to be Exmos: that was their conclusion regarding me. But really, all I wanted to do was discuss anything about religion, metaphysics, the real world, and have non (former) Mormons understand the shortcomings of dogma. Instead, I found them predominantly dogmatic in their perceptions vis-a-vis the Mormon faith and its modern form as it relates to its antecedents. Their denial of the LDS Church as a good organization and lifestyle is so strongly held that they do not typically apply the equal criteria for rational judgment that I value so highly. So, I was disappointed. I thought that there would be more rational thought and conclusion. Instead I found raw anger and even hate. Bigotry is an ugly wall to discussion.I've been told that Mormons are the worst bigots; they shun, even drive away any who are too different, etc. Having lived here all of my life, I can confirm that that behavior does exist: but it is not either extreme or even the most common response of most Mormons to their "apostate" family members and neighbors. Yet to defend the Church as enormously good and only a little bit bad is to bring calumny down on your unwitting head!This is an over-long first post. Sorry about that. But I do have one more thing I'd like to say, by way of being candid: I can answer all the temple recommend interview questions "properly", without, imho, being dishonest about it. Because the last one is the most important, I feel that my personal beliefs (questioning, always questioning and questing) are between me and "God". So when asked if I consider myself worthy to enter the temple I unhesitatingly answer "Yes". But I find the place boring in the extreme and almost never go. I have no fears about not being able to get a TR whenever I need one - e.g. for the next family marriage or mission, etc. I believe religion should unite not divide a family. I believe the lifestyle is the best any religion teaches. I just don't accept the doctrines as the final word on the subject of "Existence in the First Place"....
BookofMormonLuvr Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Welcome to the board from a former LDS turned RLDS Restorationist (NOT Community of Christ). I look forward to your comments/questions/etc...
blackstrap Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Welcome,and may the Lord have mercy on your soul !! I'm fairly sure that your brain itch will get scratched around here .
nicolasconnault Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Welcome, looking forward to many enlightening discussions involving you and other free thinkers
TAO Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) Welcome to the forum, questing beast =). I think you will find this forum very adequate for your desires - though the discussion here can get occasionally bitter, it generally gets much less bitter than it can get on other forums.I hope you enjoy your stay =D.I think you will find that we are all free-minded in different ways here as well. I can't guarantee for others, but I promise I won't think badly of you for thinking in a different way than I do. I will disagree, certainly, but I won't think badly =). Edited January 29, 2011 by TAO
jadams_4242 Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Hello,I am a seasoned veteran of the Internet by now (been almost nine years). This is the FIRST time that I have joined an LDS-run forum. I've tried out quite a few religious and philosophy-based fora. The latest attempt was over at "Ex-Mormon Forums" - Yeah, that one. Tomorrow would have marked one month since I registered. By popular "consensus", I was encouraged/told to hie off to some TBM forum, since my views only aggravated the denizens. So I bade them all a nice "bon soir" and decided to drop by here instead.I am a BIC (5th generation Mormon), lifelong resident of the Salt Lake Valley (over half a century so far). I live the LDS lifestyle to a "T": which means I feel inclined to dot all my I's and cross all my T's: WofW, personal integrity, sexual morality, etc. I live as I have always lived: as my parents taught me and as my inclinations dictate - thank God I hate fiddling with my brain's natural function, i.e. no booze or mind-altering drugs for this boy! I always have found it distasteful to see normal people turn into idiots at parties, so no "party animal" here either.My reason for joining other fora has been an interest in frank discussion of religion and philosophy. I have found this especially satisfying when in discussion with disbelievers, nonbelievers and agnostics or atheists. In particular I have enjoyed it most when anyone will bring the science we have accumulated thus far into the discussion: because I am a firm believer in the concept that "God" gave us sapience to use it. It's all well and good to go by our metaphysical feelings. But we should never dispense with facts and evidence: which I also firmly believe we are bound to interpret with equal criteria and arrive at the most reasonable hypothesis possible.My reason for joining an LDS-run forum now, is that it is something "new" to me. I have heard many times over the years (and recently on Ex-Mo) that Mormon forums are okay as long as you don't say anything that criticizes the "SCTC". I will lay this out up front: I do not believe in the LDS faith as "... the only true and living church on the face of the whole earth, with which [ ] the Lord, [is] well pleased". Can I hold this to be untrue, both back then and today and always, and yet remain "a member in good standing"? The implication is that I am being duplicitous; a deceiver; or worse (to me) a person lacking in personal integrity.I do not believe that my position is all that rare, especially today. Certainly, the "Ex-Mo" forum and its ilk caters to an angry populous of former members of the LDS Church. They do not welcome any dissent from perceived TBM's "pretending" to be Exmos: that was their conclusion regarding me. But really, all I wanted to do was discuss anything about religion, metaphysics, the real world, and have non (former) Mormons understand the shortcomings of dogma. Instead, I found them predominantly dogmatic in their perceptions vis-a-vis the Mormon faith and its modern form as it relates to its antecedents. Their denial of the LDS Church as a good organization and lifestyle is so strongly held that they do not typically apply the equal criteria for rational judgment that I value so highly. So, I was disappointed. I thought that there would be more rational thought and conclusion. Instead I found raw anger and even hate. Bigotry is an ugly wall to discussion.I've been told that Mormons are the worst bigots; they shun, even drive away any who are too different, etc. Having lived here all of my life, I can confirm that that behavior does exist: but it is not either extreme or even the most common response of most Mormons to their "apostate" family members and neighbors. Yet to defend the Church as enormously good and only a little bit bad is to bring calumny down on your unwitting head!This is an over-long first post. Sorry about that. But I do have one more thing I'd like to say, by way of being candid: I can answer all the temple recommend interview questions "properly", without, imho, being dishonest about it. Because the last one is the most important, I feel that my personal beliefs (questioning, always questioning and questing) are between me and "God". So when asked if I consider myself worthy to enter the temple I unhesitatingly answer "Yes". But I find the place boring in the extreme and almost never go. I have no fears about not being able to get a TR whenever I need one - e.g. for the next family marriage or mission, etc. I believe religion should unite not divide a family. I believe the lifestyle is the best any religion teaches. I just don't accept the doctrines as the final word on the subject of "Existence in the First Place".... you find the temple boring to the extreme? well i think that says it all; .
Questing Beast Posted January 29, 2011 Author Posted January 29, 2011 you find the temple boring to the extreme? well i think that says it all; ."Not hardly." ::drawl like John Wayne day:: (4 mos -3 days early) How can not enjoying the temple "say it all"?This is probably the most direct shot at what bugs me:"One Dogma to rule them all; One Dogma to find them; One Dogma to bring them all, and in Eternity bind them!"If there is one pigeon hole that simply shouts "Conformity!" it's the temple.Will Bagley said it well (and recently): "I guess I was born without the religious gene".But someone without the religious gene isn't de facto a bad person; not anymore than someone WITH the so-called religious gene is automatically a good person. No. Absence of the "religious gene" simply means that the deficient soul finds dogmatic doctrines, ritual and assertions silly, aggravating and BORING.What is religion for? "To make bad men good and good men better". (somebody famous said that ) But if you're already a good person and depart from active adherence to any religion, and remain a good person, how is this wrong? If you never get any feeling that Jesus Christ is what dogma asserts he is/was, then where is your evidence that your disbelief is mistaken? Surely, adding the temple upon your lifelong doubt won't convince. And it never did....
TAO Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 "Not hardly." ::drawl like John Wayne day:: (4 mos -3 days early) How can not enjoying the temple "say it all"?This is probably the most direct shot at what bugs me:"One Dogma to rule them all; One Dogma to find them; One Dogma to bring them all, and in Eternity bind them!"If there is one pigeon hole that simply shouts "Conformity!" it's the temple.Hmm... have you ever thought of the temple as a place to think... not just to perform ordinances, but also a place to think about things you need to ask God.I think if one tries that, you might find you enjoy it more =).Will Bagley said it well (and recently): "I guess I was born without the religious gene".But someone without the religious gene isn't de facto a bad person; not anymore than someone WITH the so-called religious gene is automatically a good person. No. Absence of the "religious gene" simply means that the deficient soul finds dogmatic doctrines, ritual and assertions silly, aggravating and BORING.What is religion for? "To make bad men good and good men better". (somebody famous said that ) But if you're already a good person and depart from active adherence to any religion, and remain a good person, how is this wrong? People who are without religion aren't bad people, that they are not. But sometimes I do wish they could be a part of it because it could make them more happy =).If you never get any feeling that Jesus Christ is what dogma asserts he is/was, then where is your evidence that your disbelief is mistaken? Surely, adding the temple upon your lifelong doubt won't convince. And it never did....As said, I would think the temple would be more meaningful if you took it on a personal level. It's not just 'doing to do'... it has a sort of purposeful thought behind it, and a lot of things can become clear if you look at it that way.But it's up to you - I'm not you so I don't know how your mind works =P. Good luck with it though =D.Best Wishes,TAO
nicolasconnault Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 "Not hardly." ::drawl like John Wayne day:: (4 mos -3 days early) How can not enjoying the temple "say it all"?This is probably the most direct shot at what bugs me:"One Dogma to rule them all; One Dogma to find them; One Dogma to bring them all, and in Eternity bind them!"If there is one pigeon hole that simply shouts "Conformity!" it's the temple.Will Bagley said it well (and recently): "I guess I was born without the religious gene".But someone without the religious gene isn't de facto a bad person; not anymore than someone WITH the so-called religious gene is automatically a good person. No. Absence of the "religious gene" simply means that the deficient soul finds dogmatic doctrines, ritual and assertions silly, aggravating and BORING.What is religion for? "To make bad men good and good men better". (somebody famous said that ) But if you're already a good person and depart from active adherence to any religion, and remain a good person, how is this wrong? If you never get any feeling that Jesus Christ is what dogma asserts he is/was, then where is your evidence that your disbelief is mistaken? Surely, adding the temple upon your lifelong doubt won't convince. And it never did....I suppose that if I didn't believe that my work in the Temple was efficacious, I would find it boring too. However, since I don't go there for my own entertainment, being bored is not an issue.
Questing Beast Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 The temple: briefly my history with it goes like this: first time through as I took out my endowments for my full-time mission. I was ready for the underwear but not the Masonic content; that was so completely unlike the everyday Church that I was flummoxed. Ritual and symbolism are distinctly lacking, deliberately so, in the outward Mormon faith. As I grew up I was taught that "the restored gospel" isn't like apostate Christianity (esp. not like the RCC) with its tradition of heavy ritual and symbolism. So it was quite a contrast to see that that's all the temple is: symbolism and repetitive ritual. I got over that. Between the first time through and my marriage in the Salt Lake temple seven years passed; in the meantime I have been back to the temple maybe half a dozen times. Upon marrying, however, my wife and I started attending the temple monthly with my parents, and later with my brother and his wife as well; we made it a monthly family thing until he moved out of Utah. For years my wife and I attended once a month with few exceptions. When I embarked on my intense study of the Church I increased my temple attendance to twice a month. And twice I attempted to attend weekly, lasting for up to three months of this frequency till I backed off out of desperation! I was dreading the weekly event and could tell that my interest just wasn't there. When I finally recognized that the temple was merely part of this manmade religion I no longer felt any guilt over my lack of interest and I quit going altogether, all at once. I've been back a few times in the last c. six years to escort three of my sons and attend a couple of family marriages.You see, all this time I have never felt any closer to the "Spirit" in the temple than I do in my own home. When I want to think about something I simply devote more thought to it. I don't require a special, quiet refuge away from the world. And inside the temple I can be just as annoyed as outside it by people; more so in fact, on occasion. I see people meditating and praying in the celestial room and it's just not the kind of approach to getting "closer to God" that resonates with me. I don't believe in places having any special significance to "God" at all; except the human soul as it were; and that "place" goes wherever you do. "No matter where you go, there you are"....
nicolasconnault Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 The temple: briefly my history with it goes like this: first time through as I took out my endowments for my full-time mission. I was ready for the underwear but not the Masonic content; that was so completely unlike the everyday Church that I was flummoxed. Ritual and symbolism are distinctly lacking, deliberately so, in the outward Mormon faith. As I grew up I was taught that "the restored gospel" isn't like apostate Christianity (esp. not like the RCC) with its tradition of heavy ritual and symbolism. So it was quite a contrast to see that that's all the temple is: symbolism and repetitive ritual. I got over that. Between the first time through and my marriage in the Salt Lake temple seven years passed; in the meantime I have been back to the temple maybe half a dozen times. Upon marrying, however, my wife and I started attending the temple monthly with my parents, and later with my brother and his wife as well; we made it a monthly family thing until he moved out of Utah. For years my wife and I attended once a month with few exceptions. When I embarked on my intense study of the Church I increased my temple attendance to twice a month. And twice I attempted to attend weekly, lasting for up to three months of this frequency till I backed off out of desperation! I was dreading the weekly event and could tell that my interest just wasn't there. When I finally recognized that the temple was merely part of this manmade religion I no longer felt any guilt over my lack of interest and I quit going altogether, all at once. I've been back a few times in the last c. six years to escort three of my sons and attend a couple of family marriages.You see, all this time I have never felt any closer to the "Spirit" in the temple than I do in my own home. When I want to think about something I simply devote more thought to it. I don't require a special, quiet refuge away from the world. And inside the temple I can be just as annoyed as outside it by people; more so in fact, on occasion. I see people meditating and praying in the celestial room and it's just not the kind of approach to getting "closer to God" that resonates with me. I don't believe in places having any special significance to "God" at all; except the human soul as it were; and that "place" goes wherever you do. "No matter where you go, there you are".... It's interesting that in all this description, you don't talk once about going to the temple to do proxy work, you only talk about going as a sort of religious requirement, or to try to get closer to God. The temple is meaningless when stripped of its sacrificial aspect.
TAO Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) The temple: briefly my history with it goes like this: first time through as I took out my endowments for my full-time mission. I was ready for the underwear but not the Masonic content; that was so completely unlike the everyday Church that I was flummoxed. Ritual and symbolism are distinctly lacking, deliberately so, in the outward Mormon faith. As I grew up I was taught that "the restored gospel" isn't like apostate Christianity (esp. not like the RCC) with its tradition of heavy ritual and symbolism. So it was quite a contrast to see that that's all the temple is: symbolism and repetitive ritual. I got over that. Between the first time through and my marriage in the Salt Lake temple seven years passed; in the meantime I have been back to the temple maybe half a dozen times. Upon marrying, however, my wife and I started attending the temple monthly with my parents, and later with my brother and his wife as well; we made it a monthly family thing until he moved out of Utah. For years my wife and I attended once a month with few exceptions. When I embarked on my intense study of the Church I increased my temple attendance to twice a month. And twice I attempted to attend weekly, lasting for up to three months of this frequency till I backed off out of desperation! I was dreading the weekly event and could tell that my interest just wasn't there. When I finally recognized that the temple was merely part of this manmade religion I no longer felt any guilt over my lack of interest and I quit going altogether, all at once. I've been back a few times in the last c. six years to escort three of my sons and attend a couple of family marriages.You see, all this time I have never felt any closer to the "Spirit" in the temple than I do in my own home. When I want to think about something I simply devote more thought to it. I don't require a special, quiet refuge away from the world. And inside the temple I can be just as annoyed as outside it by people; more so in fact, on occasion. I see people meditating and praying in the celestial room and it's just not the kind of approach to getting "closer to God" that resonates with me. I don't believe in places having any special significance to "God" at all; except the human soul as it were; and that "place" goes wherever you do. "No matter where you go, there you are".... Let me tell you Questing Beast, where God is for you is where you value the most. For some, it is on a high mountain, for others in their home, for some in the celestial room, others, on their way to work. It depends on the person. I am one who prefers total isolation when I think of things, my room will due, and even, thinking of myself in another isolated place will due. The important thing for me, is that nobody else is watching, and then I may open myself up and find truth.You say you do not feel the "Spirit" any more in the temple than you do in your own home. That may be. But it also may be you holding yourself back, because of others. Were you around other people in the temple, I ask... it makes it harder to talk to God, does it not?About ritual symbolism - truly, all religion has some ritual symbolism. Baptism, is a ritual symbolism. Even having faith, in a way, is a ritual symbolism of something greater. As Mormons, we place alot of weight on action, that we do, and I think you might like the temple better if you thought about it for each person individually. Each person baptized for the dead, that specific spirit rejoicing. Each celestial mairrage occurring, two sealed together forever, and staring at each other through opposite mirrors, their posterity shadowing behind them, already partially substanced due to their love for each other. Each endowment, where a person kneels down and makes very specific promises to Father and Christ - and each of these people have specific experiences.Indeed, the temple is much more about serving, an action. It is a place where services are performed, and when those services are performed, one must remember one is performing it for a real person - with a real personality - who would probably be a great friend if he could meet you. That is really, I think why I value the temple so much - because I'm doing it for people - I'm not just doing it for pieces of paper, but for real people with real personalities.But yes... perhaps the temple is not your place for thought, I do not know. I do know though, that perhaps if you imagined yourself in the room, with no people there to bug you, late at night, you might feel more inclined for it.Sorry if my post sounded rather wierd and sporadic =P. I'm like that at times XP.Best Wishes,TAO Edited January 30, 2011 by TAO
Questing Beast Posted January 30, 2011 Author Posted January 30, 2011 Now we are hitting directly at the fundamental problem I have with the foundation of LDS/Mormon religion: a too-limited set of concepts defining "God" and immortality.Even as a child I never felt any connection to the afterlife as a "place" where the departed are gathered waiting for sleepy, distracted mortals to get off their kiesters and save them from spirit prison. I've had this doctrine drummed in my ears my whole life - especially lately, since the temple is now encouraged as "the symbol of our faith" (bleh! - I thought Jesus Christ was supposed to be the symbol of our faith). The notion of saving our kindred dead (everyone is included, as we are all "cousins" at the very least) is both charitable and limiting: I can think of far more lofty, inspiring (to me) concepts for eternity, than pigeon-holing everyone through a single expedient set of signs and covenants.The trouble I have always had sitting (not "kneeling") through yet another endowment session, is that I cannot and never could believe that the person was there happy as a clam to finally be delivered from damnation; so they could get on with "eternal life" because their temple work had finally been done. I can imagine it being true; but only in the same sense that I can suspend belief enough to enjoy a good work of fiction or movie. I cannot accept that THIS is the only way that people can be "saved" from damnation.Because of the enormous variety in people - no two of us exactly alike in all the multiverse throughout all eternity - it is inconceivable that our personal religions must conform to one, finite set of covenants in order to wind up back in "God's" presence.And with that, I will segu
TAO Posted January 30, 2011 Posted January 30, 2011 Now we are hitting directly at the fundamental problem I have with the foundation of LDS/Mormon religion: a too-limited set of concepts defining "God" and immortality.I think you will find that it isn't quite so limited after you spend some time here... indeed... I was disagreeing with another on a point a few days ago. It is not so clear-cut indeed.Even as a child I never felt any connection to the afterlife as a "place" where the departed are gathered waiting for sleepy, distracted mortals to get off their kiesters and save them from spirit prison. I've had this doctrine drummed in my ears my whole life - especially lately, since the temple is now encouraged as "the symbol of our faith" (bleh! - I thought Jesus Christ was supposed to be the symbol of our faith). The notion of saving our kindred dead (everyone is included, as we are all "cousins" at the very least) is both charitable and limiting: I can think of far more lofty, inspiring (to me) concepts for eternity, than pigeon-holing everyone through a single expedient set of signs and covenants.Na, it's not to save them from spirit prison... it's to free them so they can be with their other family members, and be happy. Spirit Prison, I think, is not so much a terrible space as it is a white room with a locked door and no windows. That is terrible in itself, I suppose, but it is the isolation that I think is what is terrible about it.In any case, I wouldn't recommend going with a doctrine just because it is drummed - explore what it means yourself, for you can get much more meaning in that. I would in fact prefer if you didn't take my words all that seriously, but rather explored the things yourself... but that's neither here nor there =P.Also indeed, I do not think doing acts for the dead is limiting. What people desire most is to be happy. This is opening it up to them. There is two types of happiness - joyful happiness, and pleasureful happiness. We can't allow the second because it comes at the cost of others and the cost of being prideful. Thus, being happy in paradise only consists of the first. Or at least, those are my thoughts on it.The trouble I have always had sitting (not "kneeling") through yet another endowment session, is that I cannot and never could believe that the person was there happy as a clam to finally be delivered from damnation; so they could get on with "eternal life" because their temple work had finally been done. I can imagine it being true; but only in the same sense that I can suspend belief enough to enjoy a good work of fiction or movie. I cannot accept that THIS is the only way that people can be "saved" from damnation.It isn't that direct, you are right... after that... they must receive heavenly missionary lessons... and after that, they must make the choice to accept it or not. I cannot guarantee they will all be happy with what you have done for them (some will reject it), but I think some of them are. Also... it isn't saving them from damnation... they haven't recieved that yet, if I remember correctly. What it is, is allowing them to be happy =).Also yes... I'm 17, so I haven't been through an endowment session, that's why I used 'kneeling'. Either way, I think kneeling gives the proper tone to what I meant better than sitting does.Because of the enormous variety in people - no two of us exactly alike in all the multiverse throughout all eternity - it is inconceivable that our personal religions must conform to one, finite set of covenants in order to wind up back in "God's" presence.Questing Beast, no two ordinances are the same for this reason. The baptism is symbolic, the endowment is symbolic, the temple mairrage is symbolic, but what also matters, that is only recorded by God is the promises you make in your heart in addition to what you say out loud. That is how different people apply - they make different promises in their hearts.Also, remember that the point of this life is to be like God is. That is aiming towards a single thing. But it is also what is wanted most - people will give up everything for it. It matters not if it is a single thing, if it is what you desire most.And with that, I will segu
HiJolly Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Welcome, QB, truly. It was with great pleasure and dare I say entertainment that I have read this thread. Ha! HiJolly
Questing Beast Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 It appears that the "Was God once a man" thread is "locked"? All I get is: "You're banned from this topic. You can't read it." I emailed the forum "bosses" about it but never received a reply. Bummer, if it is, because I was enjoying that thread....
TAO Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 The post inside the thread says this, if you wanted to know =/.Questing Beast, not only is temple content not allowed but your insulting remarks like this, "I began to disbelieve the Pillsbury Doughboy white beings on the screen: and to believe, instead, the (now defunct) preacher dude's theology!" are insulting. You are banned from this thread and I suggest you review the Board Guidelines before posting further. 1
Questing Beast Posted February 9, 2011 Author Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Ah, Thanks for letting me know. I must tread more softly ... or not, depending. That has never been a quality I come easily by.I'll allow that cyberspace might have eaten a reply from the bosses hereabouts. But probably they just spaced communication to me altogether. Otherwise, it makes no sense to REPLY to me in a thread I cannot any longer open and read?!... Edited February 9, 2011 by Questing Beast
DoctorX Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Hi Questing beast,Judging from your intro, you might like some of the other boards more, such as NewOrderMormon.org, or Further Light and Knowledge (thefoyer.org). They're not quite as vitriolic as the Ex-mo boards, but more open to vocal dissent than this one seems to be. I'm new on Mdd, too, so I might be off-base, but that's the feeling I've gotten so far.
TAO Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) mmm.... I would suggest that it not be NOM.Not gonna explain why, you'll just have to trust me on it. Edited February 11, 2011 by TAO
Questing Beast Posted February 13, 2011 Author Posted February 13, 2011 I wouldn't use the term "New Order Mormon" to describe my religious situation. What I "am" in my metaphysical thinking is not organizable so I am not searching for an "org" to belong to. I'll stick "in" Mormon society because culturally that is where I belong. It doesn't matter if anyone else understands my religious exegesis: "God" is only speaking to me so I don't expect what I think I know to apply to anyone else.All I ask of my neighbors is justice and charity toward all. And Mormonism teaches those most essential ethics tolerably well, imho....
TAO Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I wouldn't use the term "New Order Mormon" to describe my religious situation. What I "am" in my metaphysical thinking is not organizable so I am not searching for an "org" to belong to. I'll stick "in" Mormon society because culturally that is where I belong. It doesn't matter if anyone else understands my religious exegesis: "God" is only speaking to me so I don't expect what I think I know to apply to anyone else.All I ask of my neighbors is justice and charity toward all. And Mormonism teaches those most essential ethics tolerably well, imho....Don't worry about it, your welcome here =D. I was just saying that I didn't recommend NOM for other reasons... not because of who you are XD.
Recommended Posts