New four-volume comprehensive history of the Church to emerge next year

[Marginal Gains]

Scott, given that Mormons believe all other religions are missing vital pieces, and actively proselyte to that end, does that make Mormons anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim and anti-atheist and anti-etc?

If not, why not?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

The church also teaches that church leaders speak for God and know His will.  Many times, that is simply not true.  Sometimes that is a hard lesson for members to learn.

And that is the damaging thing the church does. Takes that away from it's members so that they don't know what's up or down without a leader telling them. Not all members, but a few. And I know the leaders teach that members get a witness, but sometimes past quotes don't help the reader or listener.

ETA: Without the leaders input and an individual is all on their own, maybe stemming from a faith transition, amazing things can happen. They have to do the work and figure out their way. And that could lead to something bigger and better than before.

About the doubt thing, this article is interesting: Doubt is of the devil? http://religionnews.com/2017/06/08/mormon-leader-says-doubt-is-dangerous-of-satan/

Edited June 13, 2017 by Tacenda

[Pete Ahlstrom]

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because it is a perfectly serviceable term to identify some individuals, and I am all about retaining options in my vocabulary.

Why don't you level with us? Your lecturing is leading up to telling us we should eliminate the term anti-Mormon from our vocabulary, isn't it? It's about political correctness, which, in turn, is about controlling the message.

Labels are misapplied all the time. Doesn't meant they should be eliminated. The term white supremacist has been unjustly applied ad nauseam from the recent presidential election on into the current administration. Yet that doesn't mean the term should be eliminated. There are, in fact, white supremacists to whom the term accurately applies.

You don't need to eliminate your word from your vocabulary. You can call your opponents or perceived opponents "devils" or "anti-mormons" as much as you like. One must dog whistle the black and white, us v. them thinking occasionally, I guess, to keep up the fear and keep people in line, and keep them away from uncorrelated thinking.  Avoid those devilish anti-mormons who are always trying to tell a less faithful (sugar coated) story.

[Johnnie Cake]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

You don't need to eliminate your word from your vocabulary. You can call your opponents or perceived opponents "devils" or "anti-mormons" as much as you like. One must dog whistle the black and white, us v. them thinking occasionally, I guess, to keep up the fear and keep people in line, and keep them away from uncorrelated thinking.  Avoid those devilish anti-mormons who are always trying to tell a less faithful (sugar coated) story.

Its a classic tool of organizations who want to suppress examination of their claims to "other" those who offer alternatives to preferred narratives...

Edited June 13, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Thanks for your post.  It gives me real insight into how the far right think about Democrats and politics.  It is such a different view to what I believe in and quite frankly live around in California.  I feel really blessed to have been able to start a business and earn a good living for many years.  Society and the government helped me make that possible.  No one likes paying taxes.  But I do realize that not everyone has had the opportunities that I have had in my life.  For me, it is part of living in the great state of California.  Providing some base line care for all is a concept I am committed to and is actually an extension of how I feel about Christ.  I rarely give to a homeless person on the street.  For the most part, religion has walked away from feeding the poor.  Private groups like Project Open Hand have stepped up to fill those needs.  Some of the money they get to run their program comes from government grants.  Most of it comes from private donations.  I feel pouring more resources into things like soup kitchens and shelters is a more efficient way of serving the poor.  I have a clear belief that the money I give through these programs is going for basic needs and  not harmful drugs that only trap the poor.  Is that a communist or socialist idea?  Yeah probably more than a strict capitalist idea.  I don't really care what label is put on it.  I feel better that the poor are getting some help.  Most of which come from other states that do not have these kinds of basic support for them.  I am not saying that everything is perfect in how California takes care of the poor.  But for the most part, I think the state does a good job of managing this very human need.

You are conflating welfare with socialism and communism. They are totally separate beasts. From your comments you obviously consider me "far right." I am not. I consider myself to be a fiscally conservative liberal. I am not against taxation for welfare for the disabled, etc, which I consider to be a service, so I am not a libertarian. However, I am not a leftist. I consider leftist those who want to use taxation to redistribute wealth and "equalize" everyone - they use equality of result as their measuring stick - a bad or unequal result means someone must have done something wrong or has been wronged. Such policies disincentivize the capitalistic system. Why work your butt off and invent stuff if it is basically all going to get taxed away to pay for Joe Shmoe who is happy to sit home? 

Quote

The people of California must agree with me.  There is not a single state wide office held by a Republican.  That is not to say that other states are just as red with not a single Democrat holding state wide office.  Isn't it great that we have a choice of where we live in this great country.

Yes, it is great. California can't help but think of itself as progressive, but its Senate seems to have passed a health care bill it can't pay for. The nurses organization which sponsored the bill promises that Californians could save tens of billions of dollars annually under such a system through lowering of drug prices and elimination of administrative overhead. Now where have I heard that before? Didn't Obamacare promise lower premiums instead of the more than 100% increase we've seen? We'll see how long all the companies want to stay there when they have to pay all their profits for healthcare in a state which is already unaffordable to live in. Companies aren't in business to be non-profits or for the sake of creating wealth to support the population. Being that California is already broke, I wish you well. Maybe it can actually come up with something that works - at least for a little while. $400 billion is a big bite to chew off, but probably not big enough.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are, of course, entitled to read or not read anything you like.

That said, I find your response remarkable. I've told you I'm indifferent toward Catholicism. Yet I would jump at the chance to read a four-volume, comprehensive history of the Catholic church, especially if I could access it free online or even obtain it in an inexpensive paperback edition, and especially if I were in the habit of going on Catholic-oriented message boards and commenting. I would want to have a reasonably solid base of knowledge to ensure I knew what I was talking about.

And it would be all the more appealing to me if the multi-volume history were published by the Catholic church itself. By definition, the content would thus be authoritative, and I would be at least as interested in receiving an authoritative message as I would be one filtered through the lens of some critic or antagonist or apostate.

The length of the history would not be a deterrent to me. I'm by nature a rather slow reader anyway, and I don't put deadlines on my reading, unless I'm taking a college course or something. I like to take time to ponder and absorb.

Yes, I would be interested in the controversies, but I would be just as interested in the more benign aspects of the history. I anticipate that there are likely aspects of the Catholic religious experience that I would like to adopt as my own. Krister Stendahl, the now-deceased bishop of the Lutheran church in Stockholm, called that attitude "holy envy." I fully endorse it.

There are a number of histories written of the Catholic Church - a good number of which have received the imprimatur of the Church. However, if you're like me one runs into the problem of when the RCC  began. It of course says it began with Peter. Well the other orthodox churches basically make that claim too. IMHO by the time of the Nicene council the bishop began to take on the role of the apostles, and with the rise of the state church, we begin to see a vying for power to lead the Church, and control of beliefs through creeds. 

Quote

Right now, I'm reading the multi-volume collected writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, even though I believe the authority and keys to administer the church of Jesus Christ were lost from the earth even before days of the ante-Nicene Fathers. I have found, nonetheless, that the bulk of what they wrote resonates with me and is consistent with the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Note: Lest some be confused, the prefix ante- does not mean the same thing as anti-. Ante- means before or prior to, so the ante-Nicene Fathers would be the church fathers who were around prior to the adoption of the Nicene Creed.

The "Ante-Nicene Fathers" is essentially a loose term for Christian scholars which happened to have interpretations with which the state church came to agree, and wanted to promote. It is ironic that such scholars such as Tertullian, who is called the Father of Latin Orthodoxy, wrote of a time when the Son was not... There were actually a good number of varying views about the nature of God before the Nicene Council, which of course formulated the Nicene Creed which became the basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Edited June 13, 2017 by RevTestament

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Scott, given that Mormons believe all other religions are missing vital pieces, and actively proselyte to that end, does that make Mormons anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim and anti-atheist and anti-etc?

If not, why not?

We are not opposed (anti) to these religions.  We view them as building blocks of faith.  We do not oppose the step that they may be standing on as much as we invite them to take the next step.   

I am having a hard time finding the quote, but I remember President Hinckley saying something to the effect that, "we encourage Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, etc. to be the best Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, etc. that they can be."

Here is a great quote by President Hinckley that I did find:

Quote

When asked by Larry King about the LDS church telling Catholics (for example) to leave their church and faith and become a Mormon, Hinckley said, "I say this to other people: you develop all the good you can. We have no animosity toward any other church. We do not oppose other churches. We never speak negatively of other churches. We say to people: you bring all the good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it."

 

[longview]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I was thinking more of some of those you listed, who have swung from the extreme left to the extreme right -- as with Ronald Reagan, for example.

Reagan was a Democrat in his early years and served as president of the Screen Actors Guild (union).  He became more conservative only because of his "real world" experience in various segments of California society (and not purely due to "emotism").  David Horowitz started out as a radical communist because of his parents and was deeply involved in the "New Left" and the 60's Black Panther Party.  He too learned from his experiences and the "scales of darkness" gradually fell off his eyes.  Now he runs an extensive website with its wonderful database of personalities and historical tidbits (see frontpagemag.com).

But none of the conservatives that I have listed should be considered "extreme right."  That label is typically attached to white supremacists, Jew haters, and such.  Principled conservatives reject those things.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no substance to such emotional and jarring shifts, and there is no such thing as a "conservative" or a "liberal."

Strange statement.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 In the end, it has more to do with the totalitarian temptation which one sees in an Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi -- that is all the extreme left and extreme right have to offer.  In the rush to smite enemies, the principles of justice, tolerance, and love are left behind in the dirt.

In the Book of Mormon, we read about Captain Moroni responding to attempts of "kingmen" to overthrow the system of judges (righteous rule of law) and to install their "charismatic" leader to be king of the land (despotic and totalitarian).  Moroni thought it was important enough to put his life and those of his followers on the line to resist and overcome the conspiracy.

Hard Left is about increasing the power and size of government (sliding towards totalitarianism).  Rule of Law is about keeping the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land and maintaining the rights and property of the common people.  The Left believes it can reform carnal man through "enlightened" policies of the Super State.  Constitutionalists recognize men to be naturally prone to corruption and worked to put in place "checks and balances" and numerous "separation of powers".  Which side would you choose?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And that is the damaging thing the church does. Takes that away from it's members so that they don't know what's up or down without a leader telling them. Not all members, but a few. And I know the leaders teach that members get a witness, but sometimes past quotes don't help the reader or listener.

ETA: Without the leaders input and an individual is all on their own, maybe stemming from a faith transition, amazing things can happen. They have to do the work and figure out their way. And that could lead to something bigger and better than before.

About the doubt thing, this article is interesting: Doubt is of the devil? http://religionnews.com/2017/06/08/mormon-leader-says-doubt-is-dangerous-of-satan/

Was God wrong for sending prophets in the past?  Why was it good then but bad today?  Do you understand why prophets are important to your understanding of God and your personal relationship with Him? 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Scott, given that Mormons believe all other religions are missing vital pieces, and actively proselyte to that end, does that make Mormons anti-Catholic and anti-Muslim and anti-atheist and anti-etc?

If not, why not?

Absolutely not. Please bear in mind the distinction I have drawn between disagreement and overt opposition as I have offered my definition of anti-Mormon.

Beyond that, I would commend Pogi's response to your post. I don't know that I could improve on it.

 

Edited June 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

You don't need to eliminate your word from your vocabulary. You can call your opponents or perceived opponents "devils" or "anti-mormons" as much as you like. One must dog whistle the black and white, us v. them thinking occasionally, I guess, to keep up the fear and keep people in line, and keep them away from uncorrelated thinking.  Avoid those devilish anti-mormons who are always trying to tell a less faithful (sugar coated) story.

Sarcasm replete with well-poisoning and broad-brush generalization.

I've not used the word "devils" in this discussion, nor do I cop to your sneering accusation about "black-and-white, us v. them,  ... uncorrelated thinking" or "sugar-coating."

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

We are not opposed (anti) to these religions.  We view them as building blocks of faith.  We do not oppose the step that they may be standing on as much as we invite them to take the next step.   

I am having a hard time finding the quote, but I remember President Hinckley saying something to the effect that, "we encourage Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, etc. to be the best Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus, etc. that they can be."

Here is a great quote by President Hinckley that I did find:

 

Do you think the church should revise the abomination language in the 1838 first vision account to comport to how the church supposedly feels about other religions today?

Anti-Mormon is a legitimate word and can be used appropriately on this board. 

Thread will be closed: politics. Finish up everybody

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sarcasm replete with well-poisoning and broad-brush generalization.

I've not used the word "devils" in this discussion, nor do I cop to your sneering accusation about "black-and-white, us v. them,  ... uncorrelated thinking" or "sugar-coating."

Doesn't your tagline insert "anti-mormon" in place of what the bofm has the devil saying?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Of course there are people against the church just like there are those who are against the former members and the questioners.  So why do you feel it necessary to do the labeling when it really doesn't mean anything? Either your church is true or not. Labeling the non-believer won't change that.

I'm revisiting this post to additionally highlight well-poisoning on your part, in this instance more subtle than the ham-handed effort in your subsequent post.

See the portion I put in boldface. I thought I had made it clear to you that I don't regard mere disagreement or unbelief as anti-Mormonism. From the definition I gave you, it is clear that I place those who disagree or don't believe in a separate category from those who actively oppose or malign the Church of Jesus Christ.

So from what I see, no one here, other than you, is talking about "labeling the non-believer." It is as though you are determined to pigeon-hole me in a stereotype that you harbor, despite the fact that nothing I've said warrants it. Productive discourse is impossible under such conditions.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Reagan was a Democrat in his early years and served as president of the Screen Actors Guild (union).  He became more conservative only because of his "real world" experience in various segments of California society (and not purely due to "emotism").  David Horowitz started out as a radical communist because of his parents and was deeply involved in the "New Left" and the 60's Black Panther Party.  He too learned from his experiences and the "scales of darkness" gradually fell off his eyes.  Now he runs an extensive website with its wonderful database of personalities and historical tidbits (see frontpagemag.com).

But none of the conservatives that I have listed should be considered "extreme right."  That label is typically attached to white supremacists, Jew haters, and such.  Principled conservatives reject those things.

In 1948, Ronald Reagan touted this line, which he later completely abandoned:

Quote

You know me as a motion picture actor but tonight I’m just a citizen concerned about the national election next month and more than a little impatient with those promises the Republicans made before they got control of Congress a couple years ago. I remember listening to the radio on election night. Joseph Martin, the Republican Speaker of the House, said very solemnly and I quote, “We Republicans intend to work for a real increase in income for everybody by encouraging more production and lower prices without impairing wages or working conditions,” unquote. Remember that promise: a real increase in income for everybody. But what actually happened? The profits of corporations have doubled, while workers wages have increased by only one-quarter. In other words, profits have gone up four times as much as wages, and the small increase workers did receive was was more than eaten up by rising prices, which have also bored into their savings….the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, which reported a net profit of $210 million after taxes for the first half of 1948; an increase of 70% in one year. 

In other words, higher prices have not been caused by higher wages, but by bigger and bigger profits. The Republican promises sounded pretty good in 1946, but what has happened since then, since the 80th Congress took over? Prices have climbed to the highest level in history, although the death of the OPA was supposed to bring prices down “through the natural process of free competition”, unquote. Labor has been handcuffed with the vicious Taft-Hartley law. Social Security benefits have been snatched away from almost a million workers by the Gearhart bill. Fair employment practices, which had worked so well during war time, have been abandoned. Veterans’ pleas for low cost homes have been ignored, and many people are still living in made-over chicken coops and garages. Tax reduction bills have been passed to benefit the higher-income brackets alone. The average worker saved only $1.73 a week. In the false name of economy, millions of children have been deprived of milk once provided through the federal school lunch program. This was the payoff of the Republican promises. And this is why we must have new faces in the Congress of the United States: Democratic faces. This is why we must elect not only President Truman, but also men like Mayor Hubert Humphrey of Minneapolis, the Democratic candidate for Senator from Minnesota. Mayor Humphrey, 37, is one of the ablest men in public life…. Mayor Humphrey is fighting for all the principles advocated by President Truman. For adequate low-cost housing, for civil rights, for prices people can afford to pay, and for a labor movement freed of the Taft-Hartley law.

This is typical of opportunists, like Reagan and Trump.  In the end, any lie is alright, and principles mean nothing.  You failed to take my advice to read Eric Hoffer.

Quote

..................................................

In the Book of Mormon, we read about Captain Moroni responding to attempts of "kingmen" to overthrow the system of judges (righteous rule of law) and to install their "charismatic" leader to be king of the land (despotic and totalitarian).  Moroni thought it was important enough to put his life and those of his followers on the line to resist and overcome the conspiracy.

Hard Left is about increasing the power and size of government (sliding towards totalitarianism).  Rule of Law is about keeping the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land and maintaining the rights and property of the common people.  The Left believes it can reform carnal man through "enlightened" policies of the Super State.  Constitutionalists recognize men to be naturally prone to corruption and worked to put in place "checks and balances" and numerous "separation of powers".  Which side would you choose?

in the longview, your ideological predeterminism is showing -- in which you mix truth with conspiratorial nonsense.   I highly recommend that you go to BYU and get a degree in political science.  Only then is it likely that you will begin to understand the nature of American govt and American history.  For example, you say something about an imaginary "hard left" being in favor of "increasing the power and size of government," when in fact it is precisely the Republican Party in power which has done exactly that.  You might also want to consult the writings of Hugh Nibley on the "Nephite disease" evident in the Book of Mormon, in which greed, pride, and ostentation led the Nephites to their own destruction.  It is always fun to point the finger at the "Lamanites," and to ignore one's own foibles.

Edited June 13, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Doesn't your tagline insert "anti-mormon" in place of what the bofm has the devil saying?

My tagline is by way of pointing out that anti-Mormons are wont to say they are not anti-Mormons because there is no such thing. They use the same fallacious objection that the Book of Mormon passage highlights.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Its a classic tool of organizations who want to suppress examination of their claims to "other" those who offer alternatives to preferred narratives...

As you are doing with this post.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My tagline is by way of pointing out that anti-Mormons are wont to say they are not anti-Mormons because there is no such thing. They use the same fallacious objection that the Book of Mormon passage highlights.

Of course this will be shut down. Will anyone be banned too?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Of course this will be shut down. Will anyone be banned too?

That's not my decision, although I did predict the shutdown.