Birth of Christ

[mfbukowski]

On 12/24/2016 at 4:18 PM, Calm said:

I am not a mod and cannot lock threads or this would have already been locked hours ago when .i first saw it.  Nor would I post guidelines in hope that the poster will agree to abide on them on their own so we don't have to wait for a mod to show up.I really wish people would stop spreading the rumor of me being a mod around.  It got old after the first five years of it.

I would have thought the length of time it can take mods to respond would have ruled me out as a mod eons ago considering how much time I spend on here, usually checking in multiple times every day.

And then they say they cannot be contacted any more and seem not to be working on it- the message is permanent I suppose.

Unless the sentence is incomplete- contact us broken.........  us broken what?  us broken moderators?  I would not leave that message up for one minute with its ambiguity which suggests who knows what-  at least admitting rather obviously that the board is not working properly and no one seems to care   

For three months?  Dated for all to see?

What ARE "normal channels"?

Edited December 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And then they say they cannot be contacted any more and seem not to be working on it- the message is permanent I suppose.

Unless the sentence is incomplete- contact us broken.........  us broken what?  us broken moderators?  I would not leave that message up for one minute with its ambiguity which suggests who knows what-  at least admitting rather obviously that the board is not working properly and no one seems to care   

For three months?  Dated for all to see?

What ARE "normal channels"?

And why is the identity of the mods here such a protected secret?  Who cares if we know who they are?   I've never been on a forum where the moderators weren't just out in the open and were honest contributors who were there to interact with the members and help them rather than rule with an iron fist.  It's all very odd and creepy, IMO. 

Edited December 26, 2016 by JulieM

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And why is the identity of the mods here such a protected secret?  Who cares if we know who they are?   I've never been on a forum where the moderators weren't just out in the open and were honest contributors who were there to interact with the members and help them rather than rule with an iron fist.  It's all very odd and creepy, IMO. 

To maintain the appearance of neutrality and objectivity.  They'd be accused of bias every time they closed a thread they participated in if their identities were known.  And if they let everything slide we'd be as unpleasant a community as the other board for "discussions".

Edited December 26, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

To maintain the appearance of neutrality and objectivity.  They'd be accused of bias every time they closed a thread they participated in if their identities were known.  And if they let everything slide we'd be as unpleasant a community as the other board for "discussions".

That's not true.  I participate on many forums where the mods are open and honest with the members and there is a mutual respect and honesty that exists on these boards.  Members actually like the mods, are friendly with them and are free to contact and communicate with them in a fair and balanced manner (and members are actually respected enough to receive responses from the mods when they have questions or comments ......go figure???).   I think the secrecy here is over the top ridiculous, but I'm sure it won't change.  So discussing it is pretty senseless.   

And now, we should probably get back to the topic and no more derail.

Edited December 26, 2016 by JulieM

[Rain]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

That's not true.  I participate on many forums where the mods are open and honest with the members and there is a mutual respect and honesty that exists on these boards.  Members actually like the mods, are friendly with them and are free to contact and communicate with them in a fair and balanced manner (and members are actually respected enough to receive responses from the mods when they have questions or comments ......go figure???).   I think the secrecy here is over the top ridiculous, but I'm sure it won't change.  So discussing it is pretty senseless.   

And now, we should probably get back to the topic and no more derail.

I've been on another board where the miss were secret,  for good reason. Too many people have been searched for their real identity and found.  Bosses and police called. Family members facebook messaged etc. Being a mod puts you up front and center.  If someone is banned they may easily become a target.

On another board the moderators are known,  but the discussions are less emotion filed than they are here or the first board I talked about.  

[Calm]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And then they say they cannot be contacted any more and seem not to be working on it- the message is permanent I suppose.

Unless the sentence is incomplete- contact us broken.........  us broken what?  us broken moderators?  I would not leave that message up for one minute with its ambiguity which suggests who knows what-  at least admitting rather obviously that the board is not working properly and no one seems to care   

For three months?  Dated for all to see?

What ARE "normal channels"?

The report function still works, it is emails...

[Calm]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

That's not true.  I participate on many forums where the mods are open and honest with the members and there is a mutual respect and honesty that exists on these boards.  Members actually like the mods, are friendly with them and are free to contact and communicate with them in a fair and balanced manner (and members are actually respected enough to receive responses from the mods when they have questions or comments ......go figure???).   I think the secrecy here is over the top ridiculous, but I'm sure it won't change.  So discussing it is pretty senseless.   

And now, we should probably get back to the topic and no more derail.

I was constantly hassled, begged, 'thought you were better than that' and other forms of manipulation,told I didn't have a right to post my personal opinions, etc. as a mod on ZLMB.  The majority were great, I would say 5% or less were the ones that turned moderating into an almost full time job (several hours a day, sometimes five or six when dealing with someone who wouldn't go with a call or who wanted to know confidential information or something else) as therapist, mediator, etc. A few went nasty, one death threat.  My style was the same there as here, maybe even less assertive and more cooperative.

I suspect the experience of the mods on ZLMB was the reason for the secrecy on this successor board.

[RevTestament]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 2:50 PM, 3DOP said:

Presumaby, the plains would not wish to defend any of the doctrines which you label as heresy, except perhaps original sin. But you guys believe in the Immaculate Conceptions of not just God's Mother, but everybody. You don't believe Mary was conceived in original sin, do you? Company just arrived. Maybe more later...

Rory, Merry Xmas

Sorry, but I view the immaculate conception as a ridiculous concept only necessitated by the equally ridiculous concept of original sin. It is not sin to fulfill the measure of one's creation to procreate as we are designed to do. Such thinking is what led Catholics to teach the celibacy of priests against 2 Timothy which advises that Bishops should be married.

Newborns are not mired in original sin, but rather every male is born "holy to the Lord." Luke 2:23. The scriptures also teach that the son is not responsible for the sin of his father. This alone contravenes the doctrine of original sin. It is simply a false, human-made construct of Middle Age theology.

The sin of Adam was to disobey God by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - not in having a child. However, it was a catch 22 for Adam - man could not fulfill the measure of his creation without eating of this tree so that he could become like God. In this, traditional Christianity has erred - presuming that God created this world to be an Eden for man for all time. When one thinks about it, that notion is just silly.

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The sin of Adam was to disobey God by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - not in having a child. However, it was a catch 22 for Adam - man could not fulfill the measure of his creation without eating of this tree so that he could become like God. In this, traditional Christianity has erred - presuming that God created this world to be an Eden for man for all time. When one thinks about it, that notion is just silly.

Which is why Adam's "sin" is called "transgression" by Joseph Smith.

Sin meaning "moral wrongdoing, injury, mischief, enmity, feud, guilt, crime, offense against God"
Transgress meaning "‘stepped across"

Adam's "sin" wasn't as much a sin as many may think.

[3DOP]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Sorry, but I view the immaculate conception as a ridiculous concept only necessitated by the equally ridiculous concept of original sin. It is not sin to fulfill the measure of one's creation to procreate as we are designed to do. Such thinking is what led Catholics to teach the celibacy of priests against 2 Timothy which advises that Bishops should be married.

Newborns are not mired in original sin, but rather every male is born "holy to the Lord." Luke 2:23. The scriptures also teach that the son is not responsible for the sin of his father. This alone contravenes the doctrine of original sin. It is simply a false, human-made construct of Middle Age theology.

The sin of Adam was to disobey God by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - not in having a child. However, it was a catch 22 for Adam - man could not fulfill the measure of his creation without eating of this tree so that he could become like God. In this, traditional Christianity has erred - presuming that God created this world to be an Eden for man for all time. When one thinks about it, that notion is just silly.

See below for my edited reply. In a quote box. Me quoting me. But replying to what is in the quote box directly above. My apologies for any confusion.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

25 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Ah...nice...from the author of a thread on how Mormons might reach out to disaffected Christians...I have not looked at the thread, but If this reply is any indication of your strategy, I would have to think you believe insults to the intelligence of non-Mormons will hasten an acceptance of the Reformed Gospel! Surely not. I do not believe that any Mormon teachings are ridiculous, but if I did, I wouldn't think that telling them so would incline them to my own views.

I have proposed many times that "successful error", false beliefs that are held by millions of people who are not insane, are always plausible and never ridiculous. Ridiculous beliefs are always different from "successful errors". Ridiculous beliefs are obvious except to those who are mad. That is why ridiculous propositions are always unsuccessful errors. However attractive the error, if it is truly ridiculous, worthy of ridicule, millions of people in their right minds cannot be content to believe it. Only the crazy. If I am not mistaken, this theory has met with a little bit of approval on this board over the years. At face value, your post would lead me to think that you disagree with my theory about "successful error" and "unsuccessful error".  

Of course you think the doctrines you mention are false, but do you really wish to raise the bar as high as you have suggested? Sometimes people use words like absurd, ridiculous, silly, and incredible with ghastly imprecision. So allow me to ask, before I decide how to reply, or whether it is even worthwhile to reply to your assertions, do you really think that the Catholic doctrines you seem to despise are ridiculous and silly, or only wrong?

I am hopeful that I could never believe in the apostasy that precludes every LDS claim. Someone like Daniel C. Peterson, who named his son Thomas, after the "Angelic Doctor" of the Middle Ages, has sometimes given me pause. But I can't listen to someone who thinks Thomas Aquinas in particular or scholastic theology in general is worthy of ridicule. It is my turn to be sorry, but only an ignoramus could think so.There are a very small few here on this board who I have sensed have a deep respect for my beliefs, while disagreeing with them. These Mormons know that apostasy does not necessarily equal stupid. But it seems to me like a great percentage of "Mormondom" has a need to take comfort in the idea that my beliefs are ridiculous. Ridiculous is untenable. If I were ever somehow to become a Mormon, I could never under any circumstances propose that my former beliefs were silly or ridiculous.  

------------------------------------

For the record, the post which came to your attention was intended as a light hearted remark to Robert about the irony that according to LDS theology, Catholics are wrong about everybody except the Virgin Mary. It seemed like you all who hate original sin could at least congratulate us for excluding Mary from the taint of original sin. We believe in one Immaculate Conception; you believe in billions of immaculate conceptions! It seemed amusing at the time.

3DOP

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by 3DOP

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/24/2016 at 10:57 PM, JulieM said:

Nope.  You must not have really studied what Brigham Young stated.  That might be what you wish he'd said, but it's absolutely not what he (and other leaders) stated about how Christ was conceived.  Complete wishful thinking on your part.  Do you also believe he never stated that Adam was our God and the Father of Christ?

These statements disagree with you:

• Brigham Young (Mormonism's 2nd president-prophet): “Now Remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. … When the Virgin Mary conceived the Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost… What a learned idea' Jesus, our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven.”  [Journal of Discourses, vol. 1:8]
• Joseph Fielding Smith (Mormonism's 10th president-prophet): “CHRIST NOT BEGOTTEN OF THE HOLY GHOST … Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God! ... They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement.”  [Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18]
• Ezra Taft Benson (Mormonism's 13th presiden-prophet): “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost”  [The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 7.]

LDS only assert that God the Father is the father of Jesus.  Methodology of how this was done has never been explained by general authorities and its not really entertained by the general membership.  My experience usually has the non-LDS people deciding for LDS what Brigham Young and others meant by some statement and then forcing it upon LDS to accept their interpretation because LDS themselves fail or refuse to interpret it as they do.  I believe if a fertility doctor in 2016 can get a virgin pregnant, God has a few other tricks up his sleeve that the fertility doctor does not know about to also cause it to happen. 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

 

Well 3DOP suffice it to say that I view those doctrines as wrong. I cannot say that I ever fully embraced them. It is not my intent to poke fun at ur beliefs, but my intent is more a reflection of I guess a slight resentment at being taught these doctrines. Those who are unwilling to look at another  side of the coin, are not going to accept LDS interpretation of the scriptures or join the church anyway. I am just glad that I am no longer hampered by man-made constructs. I feel like I have walked through the veil of the temple and am looking back at people who for whatever reason won't even look through. How does one convince others to even test out the other side?

I do appreciate your humor, and your oulook, and I truly apologize if I offended you. I realize people do often take their religious belief very seriously, and that is preferable to having no belief in our Savior at all.

[Guest]

On December 24, 2016 at 3:35 PM, theplains said:

The LDS Church seems to continue to propagate its teaching that Jesus was born to Mary and 
Heavenly Father in a literal sense, according to natural law (even using the term Celestial 
Sireship).  This is from the 2015/2016 "Jesus Christ and the Everlasting Gospel Teacher'sManual",
chapter 7.

Would this mean Mary was not really a virgin when Jesus was born in the manger?  Or does the 
LDS Church still consider Mary a virgin because a mortal virgin cannot lose her virginity if 
she has physical relations with an immortal glorified man of flesh and bones?

In the Book of Mormon, Nephi says of Mary "A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other 
virgins ... And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms."

Luke 1:28 says, "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, 
the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."

In what ways do you consider that Mary was highly favoured?  Was it because of Nephi's view
of her outward appearance?

Thanks,
Jim

Elohiem, gave his half of the chromosomes...it was not "date night". Jesus is the Son of God, speculation about how this cam to be is silly and unproductive. 

[3DOP]

39 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Well 3DOP suffice it to say that I view those doctrines as wrong. I cannot say that I ever fully embraced them. It is not my intent to poke fun at ur beliefs, but my intent is more a reflection of I guess a slight resentment at being taught these doctrines. Those who are unwilling to look at another  side of the coin, are not going to accept LDS interpretation of the scriptures or join the church anyway. I am just glad that I am no longer hampered by man-made constructs. I feel like I have walked through the veil of the temple and am looking back at people who for whatever reason won't even look through. How does one convince others to even test out the other side?

I do appreciate your humor, and your oulook, and I truly apologize if I offended you. I realize people do often take their religious belief very seriously, and that is preferable to having no belief in our Savior at all.

Rev Testament,

Thanks. No hard feelings. So you are a convert too, although to a different side? I am afraid that we have more of a tendency to overstate the case sometimes. Maybe this weekend I can speak to celibacy and original sin. I would try to show that we agree about more than we usually admit. Thanks again for your gracious reply.

3DOP

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Rev Testament,

Thanks. No hard feelings. So you are a convert too, although to a different side? I am afraid that we have more of a tendency to overstate the case sometimes. Maybe this weekend I can speak to celibacy and original sin. I would try to show that we agree about more than we usually admit. Thanks again for your gracious reply.

3DOP

I was raised mostly Baptist or Protestant. I do have decent knowledge of Catholicism tho. You converted to Catholicism?

Edited December 28, 2016 by RevTestament

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I was raised mostly Baptist or Protestant. I do have decent knowledge of Catholicism tho. You converted to Catholicism?

I was raised without religion. By 1978 I was searching, listening to the radio. I joined a Baptist Church, went to a Baptist college and pastored from 1985 to 1992. For the next three years I pondered The Eastern Church, the Roman Church, and Restoration movements, chiefly Salt Lake LDS. The reason I narrowed my choices to these was because everybody else balked at being identified as the one true church. I converted to Roman Catho!icism in 1995. Only a few years later and I was getting to know serious Mormons at ZLMB. Some came here. I came here in 2004.

I hang around, but my interest in Mormonism has flagged of late. I don't appreciate how they now seem to feel so blithe about distancing themselves from early Mormonism. Go too far and foundations are undermined. To be fair, most modern Catholics have disdain for their fathers too. Moderns never care about one true church. I would suggest that traditional Catholics and traditional Mormons have a lot in common. I share little with moderns in either camp.

Rory

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

I was raised without religion. By 1978 I was searching, listening to the radio. I joined a Baptist Church, went to a Baptist college and pastored from 1985 to 1992. For the next three years I pondered The Eastern Church, the Roman Church, and Restoration movements, chiefly Salt Lake LDS. The reason I narrowed my choices to these was because everybody else balked at being identified as the one true church. I converted to Roman Catho!icism in 1995. Only a few years later and I was getting to know serious Mormons at ZLMB. Some came here. I came here in 2004.

I hang around, but my interest in Mormonism has flagged of late. I don't appreciate how they now seem to feel so blithe about distancing themselves from early Mormonism. Go too far and foundations are undermined. To be fair, most modern Catholics have disdain for their fathers too. Moderns never care about one true church. I would suggest that traditional Catholics and traditional Mormons have a lot in common. I share little with moderns in either camp.

Rory

I so respect that you know who you are and what you believe..and stick to it.  I had no idea and had thought you LDS for a long time.  At least, you are not so confused as many of us are in both camps.