salgare Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, bluebell said: And i don't care what the critics answer is to the why. I suppose you might be too close to it to see bluebell http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65982-mormon-noahide-laws/?do=findComment&comment=1209575949 Edited January 7, 2016 by salgare
bluebell Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 46 minutes ago, salgare said: I suppose you might be too close to it to see bluebell http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65982-mormon-noahide-laws/?do=findComment&comment=1209575949 Back at ya. 1
salgare Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 17 minutes ago, bluebell said: Back at ya. I've pointed to other thoughts to back up my observation, do you have nothing else to add other than single line retorts? If you would prefer to be like bobbie and not converse with me bluebell, just say so.
volgadon Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 4 hours ago, Zakuska said: You should have seen how the "molly Mormons" in the ward treated her when we relented and let her get her ears gauged and die her hair blue. I don't care for gauges, but they are hardly the worst thing a teenager can have.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 12 minutes ago, salgare said: I've pointed to other thoughts to back up my observation, do you have nothing else to add other than single line retorts? If you would prefer to be like bobbie and not converse with me bluebell, just say so. I can point to others to support my views too. You've read some on the board already. Have they changed your mind? if I link to a whole bunch of arguments against Christianity, is it going to make you change your opinions on that, and if not, is that because you are just "too close to see it?" The reason I'm not engaging with you on certain posts is because there is nothing to be gained by doing so. 2
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 7 hours ago, consiglieri said: Don't make me come back there, Hamba! Dude, you already came back here. And clearly you're loving it. 1
consiglieri Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Dude, you already came back here. And clearly you're loving it. Stop bullying me. 1
rodheadlee Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 11 hours ago, consiglieri said: This is exactly how I view Mormons who stay in the Church even though it makes them unhappy. I would agree if you are born into the Church and do not know what it is like outside. Converts already know. I'm a convert, there is no reason for me to go backwards in my spiritual journey.
sunstoned Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 On 1/7/2016 at 6:07 PM, salgare said: They know the right thing to do, and have for a very long time. No marriage to be done in the temple, only the sealing. Simple and yet they are totally unwilling to do it, why bluebell? You used to be able to be married for time only in the temple. I don't know if this is still the case or not. Years ago, my aunt was married in the temple for time. She was widowed and this was her second marriage. The same was true with her new husband. Both wanted to remain sealed to their first spouses.
Glenn101 Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: The truth the LDS possess is here explicitly imperfect and incomplete rather than absolute and final. Because the formal claims made for LDS authorities include incompleteness and imperfection, the presence of such should not diminish their authority any more than the imperfections and incompleteness of science diminishes the authority of science. By formal definition, both societies offer not static absolute truths but self-correcting processes. My reading of verse 30, regarding the distinction of the church, suggests that the word “only” applies to the phrase “with which I, the Lord am well pleased.” (Consider a sentence about the “only blue and idling car upon the face of the whole parking lot, with which I, the attendant, am well pleased.” That is not just a florid and emphatic way to say “only blue car” but provides a very different thought.) The “well-pleased” designation in D&C 1 applies to the church and is relative to what “true and living” means as descriptive qualities for church. It happens that the Biblical occurrences of .............................................. FWIW Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Kevin, Are you saying that there are other "true and living" churches out there, but there is or was only one of them with which Jesus was well pleased at the time??? I do agree that the truth that we have found in the LDS church is incomplete. It's sort of like Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men", "You can't handle the truth". We still are being given only that much that we can handle, and we all seem to comprehend the truths that we are given a bit differently. Thanks, Glenn Edited January 8, 2016 by Glenn101 Additions and deletions
Kevin Christensen Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 (edited) On 1/8/2016 at 2:52 AM, Glenn101 said: Kevin, Are you saying that there are other "true and living" churches out there, but there is or was only one of them with which Jesus was well pleased at the time??? I do agree that the truth that we have found in the LDS church is incomplete. It's sort of like Jack Nicholson's character in "A Few Good Men", "You can't handle the truth". We still are being given only that much that we can handle, and we all seem to comprehend the truths that we are given a bit differently. Thanks, Glenn I'm giving a reading of what D&C 1:6 expressly describes as a formal statement of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants." My reading accounts for what we have in D&C 1. I don't think that readings that involve deleting most of the words in the key verse 1:30, and sometimes adding words and expressions that are not there (such as "one and) in order to make it say what we think it says provide viable readings. I got started on this a few decades ago when I tried to account for the dangling "and living" that I saw in the verse but that we typically left out of our testimonies. If another church ever surpasses us in those qualities that make for well-pleasingness, I rather think the statement would be made with an equally substantial set of circumstances (published revelations, witnesses, angelic visitations, theophanies,temples, covenants, etc.). I'm not at all worried about that possibility. I do understand that my reading involves a paradigm shift that can be difficult to make. The first time I presented this reading, at a Sunstone West a few decades back, most of the audience looked like stunned bunnies. Kuhn explains that the most important criteria for making a paradigm shift include testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, aesthetics and simplicity, and future promise. I think my reading does well by all of those. Kuhn also explains that for some what counts most is the authority of a favored teacher. Paradigm change is an individual experience and cannot be forced. Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Edited January 9, 2016 by Kevin Christensen incomplete thought in one sentence 2
bluebell Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 9 hours ago, sunstoned said: You used to be able to be married for time only in the temple. I don't know if this is still the case or not. Years ago, my aunt was married in the temple for time. She was widowed and this was her second marriage. The same was true with her new husband. Both wanted to remain sealed to their first spouses. My grandmother had such a marriage back around 2005. I've heard they don't do that anymore but i'm not sure if that's true. 1
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 12 hours ago, rodheadlee said: I would agree if you are born into the Church and do not know what it is like outside. Converts already know. I'm a convert, there is no reason for me to go backwards in my spiritual journey. I'm a convert, too. What does that do to your argument?
JLHPROF Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 15 hours ago, rodheadlee said: I would agree if you are born into the Church and do not know what it is like outside. Converts already know. I'm a convert, there is no reason for me to go backwards in my spiritual journey. 3 hours ago, consiglieri said: I'm a convert, too. What does that do to your argument? Shows that you chose to go backwards of course.
consiglieri Posted January 8, 2016 Author Posted January 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Shows that you chose to go backwards of course. It only looks backwards to those going in the wrong direction. 1
JLHPROF Posted January 8, 2016 Posted January 8, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: It only looks backwards to those going in the wrong direction. I knew you'd say that. Fortunately the Savior showed the path perfectly. There is only one direction, one way, one path, one access back to God's presence. All others are just deluding themselves.
rodheadlee Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 11 hours ago, consiglieri said: I'm a convert, too. What does that do to your argument? I'm not arguing. I said it would be sad to never challenge yourself. It's an opinion, not an argument. If you feel you need to leave the Church to advance spiritually, then by all means, leave. Each person is responsible for their own spiritual well being.The only opinion that matters on whether or not you have a valid reason to leave the Church is your own opinion. You are the one that will have to live with the decision and it's ramifications. If you are sealed to a wife and have children, then they will have to live with your decision too.
salgare Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 8 hours ago, JLHPROF said: There is only one direction, one way, one path, one access back to God's presence. All others are just deluding themselves. Is that the Orthodox or the Nuanced path? The apologist thinking is evolving. I suppose I'll be long gone before I see exactly which course the Church is pursuing.
MorningStar Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 The only reason to leave the church is if you believe it isn't true.
VideoGameJunkie Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 6 minutes ago, MorningStar said: The only reason to leave the church is if you believe it isn't true. My only reason for leaving would be if I'm excommunicated, but even then I'd try to get back into the church as soon as I'd be allowed, no matter how many years it would take. 1
Glenn101 Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 17 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said: I'm giving a reading of what D&C 1:6 expressly describes as a formal statement of "mine authority, and the authority of my servants." My reading accounts for what we have in D&C 1. I don't think that readings that involve deleting most of the words in the key verse 1:30, and sometimes adding words and expressions that are not there (such as "one and) in order to make it say what we think it says. I got started on this a few decades ago when I tried to account for the dangling "and living" that I saw in the verse but that we typically left out of our testimonies. If another church ever surpasses us in those qualities that make for well-pleasingness, I rather think the statement would be made with an equally substantial set of circumstances (published revelations, witnesses, angelic visitations, theophanies,temples, covenants, etc.). I'm not at all worried about that possibility. I do understand that my reading involves a paradigm shift that can be difficult to make. The first time I presented this reading, at a Sunstone West a few decades back, most of the audience looked like stunned bunnies. Kuhn explains that the most important criteria for making a paradigm shift include testability, accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, aesthetics and simplicity, and future promise. I think my reading does well by all of those. Kuhn also explains that for some what counts most is the authority of a favored teacher. Paradigm change is an individual experience and cannot be forced. Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA Kevin, Sounds like something for another thread. Don't want to hijack this one. Interesting ideas, though. Thanks, Glenn 1
salgare Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Just now, Glenn101 said: Kevin, Sounds like something for another thread. Don't want to hijack this one. Interesting ideas, though. Thanks, Glenn I about started one today ... I agree. I just got around to Kevin's article tonight but have not finished it.
JLHPROF Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 11 hours ago, MorningStar said: The only reason to leave the church is if you believe it isn't true. Still not a "valid" reason. Standing at the judgment bar. God says "I gave you my gospel and you walked away". Child says "I believed it was true but life caused me to change that belief." God says "You discarded my gift to you after I gave you a witness it was true." Child says "I came to doubt that witness so I left/I thought I found a better path to you/I didn't agree with your servants" Now, I'm not saying God won't be merciful, and even forgive completely, but that is still hardly a valid excuse.
The Nehor Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 On January 7, 2016 at 0:11 PM, Gray said: Of course the problem with that is that meetings are very often not uplifting or edifying. Maybe allowing a bit more frank discussion would help? I disrespectfully disagree with your first statement.
bluebell Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Still not a "valid" reason. Standing at the judgment bar. God says "I gave you my gospel and you walked away". Child says "I believed it was true but life caused me to change that belief." God says "You discarded my gift to you after I gave you a witness it was true." Child says "I came to doubt that witness so I left/I thought I found a better path to you/I didn't agree with your servants" Now, I'm not saying God won't be merciful, and even forgive completely, but that is still hardly a valid excuse. But, A Catholic can say the exact same thing to a someone who leaves Catholicism to convert to mormonism. From our perspective, would that be a reason for the Catholic to stay Catholic? All we can do is what we sincerely believe God wants of us. Someone else's opinion of what God wants for us shouldn't matter, regardless of what religion they belong to. Trying to sincerely follow God's will for us is a valid excuse, even when we are wrong. How can God ask more of us than that? 2
Recommended Posts