rongo Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 My search techniques are not top shell, but it appears to me that one can only access the current year's curriculum from lds.org. Can someone post a link to the Gospel doctrine manual for New Testament (if it's available)? Thanks in advance.In dealing with some critics in my town's online forum, I've run into a brand new angle/approach. The claim is that Mormonism isn't biblical because we don't regard SSA as a sin, but rather acting on SSA (proof text Matthew 5:48). I mentioned that this passage appears in both the BoM and D&C, but I want to be able to post other things (like Gospel Principles and the NT manual) that back me up that we really teach that willfully thinking bad thoughts is a sin. I have differentiated between SSA and unclean thoughts (they are not one and the same), and the critics are claiming that simply having SSA is a biblical sin.Weird criticism, isn't it?
Calm Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) Nope, the past years are included in "other resources" on the various aux. pages: http://www.lds.org/manual/sunday-school?lang=enghttp://www.lds.org/m...manual?lang=enghttp://www.lds.org/m...-guide?lang=engSounds much like the criticism about the LDS stance on abortion.In dealing with some critics in my town's online forumSomeone is using a government site to promote certain religious positions? Edited July 21, 2012 by calmoriah
rongo Posted July 21, 2012 Author Posted July 21, 2012 No, it's not government. It's privately owned, but constitutes "the town's" forum due to patronship.Thanks for the links!
Damien the Leper Posted July 21, 2012 Posted July 21, 2012 Bishop J,I didn't realize that your town (I know which one you live in...and no I'm not a stalker) had such a forum.Anyway, the proof text is worthless.The critics of which you speak are not alone. The WBC picketed Pres. Hinckley's funeral for not condemning sexual orientation and not just sexual sin.Sad ignoramuses they are!
cinepro Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) My search techniques are not top shell, but it appears to me that one can only access the current year's curriculum from lds.org. Can someone post a link to the Gospel doctrine manual for New Testament (if it's available)? Thanks in advance.In dealing with some critics in my town's online forum, I've run into a brand new angle/approach. The claim is that Mormonism isn't biblical because we don't regard SSA as a sin, but rather acting on SSA (proof text Matthew 5:48). I mentioned that this passage appears in both the BoM and D&C, but I want to be able to post other things (like Gospel Principles and the NT manual) that back me up that we really teach that willfully thinking bad thoughts is a sin. I have differentiated between SSA and unclean thoughts (they are not one and the same), and the critics are claiming that simply having SSA is a biblical sin.Weird criticism, isn't it?Be sure to clarify for your audience that just because something appears in the Gospel Principles or NT Teacher's manual, it doesn't mean that LDS teach it or believe it. There may still be a wide variety of views among Church members, each as valid as the other. Edited July 22, 2012 by cinepro
rongo Posted July 22, 2012 Author Posted July 22, 2012 Bishop J,I didn't realize that your town (I know which one you live in...and no I'm not a stalker) had such a forum.I know you're not a stalker! And, I know that you know who I am and where I live. No worries, mate! Our town of ca. 45,000 actually has two fairly high traffic forums, and its own stake.Anyway, the proof text is worthless.The critics of which you speak are not alone.Oh, I know that it's worthless. I was just shocked ----- I had never heard such a thing before (that Mormons are not biblical because we don't condemn SSA as well as homosexual acts a sin).The WBC picketed Pres. Hinckley's funeral for not condemning sexual orientation and not just sexual sin.Is there a link for this? That would be wonderful! While it's a slight logical fallicy, nobody wants to be associated with or seen as having affinity with Westboro . . .cinepro: Be sure to clarify for your audience that just because something appears in the Gospel Principles or NT Teacher's manual, it doesn't mean that LDS teach it or believe it.Of course. The value would simply be in showing that official LDS curricula use Matthew 5:28 (lusting is the same as committing the sin) in the same way that critics actually do. So, the criticism that we don't emphasize thoughts is demonstrably false (i.e., it's not just me claiming this ----- it's a CFR without being asked for one).The need hasn't yet arisen to bring up Mormon curriculum materials, yet, so I haven't posted the links.
rongo Posted July 22, 2012 Author Posted July 22, 2012 There is some background to all of this. I have been a bishop in this town for over five years, and I have also been a teacher/coach at the high school and junior high. My ward has put on some apologetic firesides under the auspices of the stake that have generated a lot of attention (over 130 non-members have attended, and I was invited to to two radio shows with some Phoenix pastors because of them). Those who don't like Mormons and delight in us looking foolish/bad have been distraught at how things haven't gone at all how they thought they would with various anti-Mormon controversies over the years (they are scared of me as an online adversary).My ward clerk was recently elected by a huge margin as mayor. There was a lot of vitriol and premature end zone dancing on the part of those who opposed him, and they were *stunned* that they lost, and by a large margin. I had called them on several of their talking points, and they claimed that they had "deep cover moles" in the ward who were feeding them information about improprieties (i.e., I forced the ward to put campaign stickers on their cars while at church, etc.). Good times! They insisted that my participating in online forums and making them and their attacks and false claims look silly constituted innappropriate behavior by a Mormon clergyman.With that background, here is the thread. My screen name is Rubicon. Chunk is the tech guy for the site (who undertook a massive effort to find out who I was through IP address, etc. He was convinced that I was a "hired gun" brought in by the campaign, not a local person), and he is a nasty, vulgar person. He also throws in gratuitous swipes at Mormons (i.e., magic underwear, etc.) whenever possible.http://forum.maricopa360.com/index.php/topic,10316.0.html
Calm Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 Is there a link for this? That would be wonderful! While it's a slight logical fallicy, nobody wants to be associated with or seen as having affinity with Westboro . . .http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695248839/Church-group-plans-protest-at-Pres-Hinckleys-funeral.html?pg=allhttp://www.deseretnews.com/article/695249686/Four-Westboro-protesters-show-up-to-protest-funeral.html?pg=all
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 My search techniques are not top shell, but it appears to me that one can only access the current year's curriculum from lds.org. Can someone post a link to the Gospel doctrine manual for New Testament (if it's available)? Thanks in advance.In dealing with some critics in my town's online forum, I've run into a brand new angle/approach. The claim is that Mormonism isn't biblical because we don't regard SSA as a sin, but rather acting on SSA (proof text Matthew 5:48). Haters gonna hate.
CASteinman Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 In dealing with some critics in my town's online forum, I've run into a brand new angle/approach. The claim is that Mormonism isn't biblical because we don't regard SSA as a sin, but rather acting on SSA (proof text Matthew 5:48). You are fighting a losing battle anyway. It is always possible to claim that some group isn't biblical.
CASteinman Posted July 22, 2012 Posted July 22, 2012 There is some background to all of this. I have been .....You should delete this post if you want your identity to remain a secret.
rongo Posted July 22, 2012 Author Posted July 22, 2012 My identity isn't really secret, and it wouldn't be a big deal if people could "discover" who I am.
rongo Posted July 22, 2012 Author Posted July 22, 2012 You are fighting a losing battle anyway. It is always possible to claim that some group isn't biblical.It's a losing battle as far as converting "them," but (as always), the real value lies in making a good showing for the Church, not allowing "uncontested slam dunks," and helping the silent lurkers who read but usually don't join the fray. 2
Recommended Posts