Five Solas Posted June 17, 2017 Author Posted June 17, 2017 On 6/15/2017 at 10:58 PM, mfbukowski said: Yes exactly. And Cinco Solas ( a much better name) now wants us to believe that white supremacy is not a major portion if the article, while simultaneously not defining what the alternative right even is. Well I reject everything about life which not fair or nice and I will stomp my feet til everyone talks about what I want to talk about. So there! Yes, exactly. The SBC leadership was rash & unjustified to have repudiated the Alt-Right movement without first establishing definitions. The Only True and Living Church would never do that! That defenders of the LDS Church are forever going on about definitions and can seemingly sniff out the slightest ambiguity--well, that's what sets them apart. It proves they are what they claim. ;0) I really should have set a poll for this thread. There's a palpable lack of enthusiasm from LDS posters on the board for following SBC's example (for various reasons, including yours)--but I've left it unquantified. That was a mistake--as now we're being treated to various post-1978 quotes from LDS leaders and left unanswered is whether the responders think any of it connects to the Alt-Right Movement. Because when it suits the thing you hold dear, you make ambiguity your friend. --CS _________________________________________ Full of a glory never seen They made it through the whole machine To never question anymore Hypnotic trance, they never saw --Joy Division "Walked In Line"
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 11 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: BTW, what I did not make clear before, I grew up as a Southern Baptist, where racism was the order of the day. Of course I was born in 1957 (in Georgua), so no surprise. When I entered the Army in 1976, I was reminded to not list Baptist as my religion, but Southern Baptist (which was changed to "LDS/Mormon, since I joined while in the Army living in Germany). There is a reason that people still insist on calling themselves "Southern Baptists". I remember a Sunday when a black gentleman (new to the area) showed up at our small Church. Two Deacons got up and (this needs to be said) "very gently" told him that he could not attend, and gave him the addresses of Black Churches, again they were very polite about it. Despite their being polite, my mother got so angry that he was asked to leave, so she insisted that our entire family leave. So we did leave, but returned the following Sunday. I was only eight or nine, so I did not get a vote. So I understand how many groups want to distance themselves from the past, concerning matters of race, including our own. But why do "Southern Baptists" what to hang on to, the Southern part is clear. Until I became LDS, I had never attended a Church meeting with anyone of another race. To this day when I go to Southern Baptist Chuches because something good is happening via family or friends, it is still only whites in attendance. However I am hopeful it is now only cultural, as (I hope) certainly they would not ask someone to leave, but I do know members would probably go elsewhere. Unlike Mormons people are not assigned as we are by Ward boundaries. and our Ward here in Georgia (certainly the South) has a number of members of a numbers of different races. More importantly we have had two African Americans members baptized just this last Saturday. Thankfully, we as a Faith now ordain members of all races, instead of just giving lip service to the issue. A few years ago, a long time friend who is African American served as Bishop in our Stake. I am thankful that I found the Church in 1979, because I fear that if the "Priesthood Ban" were still in effect, I might have never even listened, you see I have my Mother's heart, for which I give thanks. One of my many cousins served a Baptist mission in Jamacia (I spelled that right) and married a Black woman, and ended up in the "Church of God" because of the reception he received in the Church he grew up in for his entire life. When he married her, all of my Grandma's children gathered around her to tell her. Her only question was "well, she is Christian isn't she.", when they told her "yes", there was nothing more to be said. Such is the stature and respect of the "Southern Matriarch", a near godlike being you dare not oppose. Thanks- I was not aware of all this.
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 8 hours ago, Five Solas said: Yes, exactly. The SBC leadership was rash & unjustified to have repudiated the Alt-Right movement without first establishing definitions. The Only True and Living Church would never do that! That defenders of the LDS Church are forever going on about definitions and can seemingly sniff out the slightest ambiguity--well, that's what sets them apart. It proves they are what they claim. ;0) I really should have set a poll for this thread. There's a palpable lack of enthusiasm from LDS posters on the board for following SBC's example (for various reasons, including yours)--but I've left it unquantified. That was a mistake--as now we're being treated to various post-1978 quotes from LDS leaders and left unanswered is whether the responders think any of it connects to the Alt-Right Movement. Because when it suits the thing you hold dear, you make ambiguity your friend. --CS _________________________________________ Full of a glory never seen They made it through the whole machine To never question anymore Hypnotic trance, they never saw --Joy Division "Walked In Line" You really need to lose the chip on your shoulder about the church. Get on with your life- you are wasting your time tilting at windmills here. So what? You are witnessing so we all go to hell? Do you actually think you present a convincing case for your faith or that you can somehow damage our faith with your snarky posts? Why go back looking for old quotes and dredging up all this old stuff? Why do you believe in the Catholic invented trinity? If you want to dredge up old nonsense at least look at the origins of your own beliefs. You have as much pagan Greek neoplatonism in your beliefs as the catholics. The Nicene Creed? Really? Consubstantiality? Where is that in the bible? I mean sola scriptura itself, within the context of modern bible studies just doesn't make it. If you are so concerned about the origins of Mormonism, I would suggest you do some serious Bible study into where it REALLY came from. How is sola scriptura NOT self contradictory since the whole notion that is is all to be found in the bible is itself NOT in the bible, and was an idea invented by the reformers? The 5 solas themselves were invented by non-prophets who had no authority to even dictate those as "true religion". What biblical prophet lists the 5 solas? It's all the interpretation of men At least we are consistent with an open canon. Why believe Luther or Calvin if the Bible is the only source of religious truth? It's absurd on its face! Religious belief itself functions simply to give us comfort and give us a plausible explanation for the big questions and is based strictly on religious experience. If you think that is because the bible is the only path to God- good for you. There is no evidence for any of it other than what God speaks to one's heart. Others disagree with you, and yet your position cannot accommodate that discrepancy, except with a dogmatic "You are wrong", without any rational argument. It's childish- "I am right and you are wrong, so neener neener" Don't go criticizing others because your beliefs are just as ridiculous to them as you think theirs are. Simply how it is just that we are punished for Adam's sin which we had nothing to do with, is a major problem. I mean if you want to get into it, ok, but why bother? It would be as much a waste of time on my part as you are wasting your time here. And how can a just God condemn his children for not hearing of Christ? How can you believe that? "Because I am right". Not too convincing. AND you have still NOT defined your position on alt-right while decrying others for not being able to read your mind and comment on what is in your brain and nowhere else. I am not a mind reader so I cannot comment on what YOU think the alt-right movement is, except for your vague repeated phrase "white supremacy" 4
Vance Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 16 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You really need to lose the chip on your shoulder about the church. Get on with your life- you are wasting your time tilting at windmills here. So what? You are witnessing so we all go to hell? Do you actually think you present a convincing case for your faith or that you can somehow damage our faith with your snarky posts? Why go back looking for old quotes and dredging up all this old stuff? Why do you believe in the Catholic invented trinity? If you want to dredge up old nonsense at least look at the origins of your own beliefs. You have as much pagan Greek neoplatonism in your beliefs as the catholics. The Nicene Creed? Really? Consubstantiality? Where is that in the bible? I mean sola scriptura itself, within the context of modern bible studies just doesn't make it. If you are so concerned about the origins of Mormonism, I would suggest you do some serious Bible study into where it REALLY came from. How is sola scriptura NOT self contradictory since the whole notion that is is all to be found in the bible is itself NOT in the bible, and was an idea invented by the reformers? The 5 solas themselves were invented by non-prophets who had no authority to even dictate those as "true religion". What biblical prophet lists the 5 solas? It's all the interpretation of men At least we are consistent with an open canon. Why believe Luther or Calvin if the Bible is the only source of religious truth? It's absurd on its face! Religious belief itself functions simply to give us comfort and give us a plausible explanation for the big questions and is based strictly on religious experience. If you think that is because the bible is the only path to God- good for you. There is no evidence for any of it other than what God speaks to one's heart. Others disagree with you, and yet your position cannot accommodate that discrepancy, except with a dogmatic "You are wrong", without any rational argument. It's childish- "I am right and you are wrong, so neener neener" Don't go criticizing others because your beliefs are just as ridiculous to them as you think theirs are. Simply how it is just that we are punished for Adam's sin which we had nothing to do with, is a major problem. I mean if you want to get into it, ok, but why bother? It would be as much a waste of time on my part as you are wasting your time here. And how can a just God condemn his children for not hearing of Christ? How can you believe that? "Because I am right". Not too convincing. AND you have still NOT defined your position on alt-right while decrying others for not being able to read your mind and comment on what is in your brain and nowhere else. I am not a mind reader so I cannot comment on what YOU think the alt-right movement is, except for your vague repeated phrase "white supremacy" I regret that I have but one rep point to give. 2
SeekerB Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 On 6/15/2017 at 8:18 AM, The Nehor said: You are okay with white nationalists? That is disturbing. If your viewpoint of white nationalists is based on how the mainstream media portrays it, it is most likely incorrect. There is a wide variety of opinions from face tatooed skinheads who are dangerous to people justifiably concerned about BLM with their kill whitey rhetoric and groups like La Raza who have publicly stated they plan to retake the southwest and drive whites out. Violence is always the method used for these undertakings. Do not bring racial rhetoric to this forum.
Calm Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) "justifiably concerned" I think I would debate the "justifiably" if we are thinking about the same groups. Edited June 19, 2017 by Calm
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 On 6/16/2017 at 1:14 PM, Vance said: And if you want a government that is strong enough to not be ignored at all, I highly recommend Venezuela Choosing which of two extremes is the worst is one of the devil's favorite games. I would prefer to just agree both are bad and seek out a happy medium.
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 On 6/16/2017 at 1:55 PM, Darren10 said: Except the winner is exceptional at creating and maintaining a free nation. Okay, that was funny. You do have a sense of humor after all.
Darren10 Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 50 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Okay, that was funny. You do have a sense of humor after all. I had forgotten saying this and had to read up in order to remember its background. If you think Israel is not an exceptional nation and has maintained freedom for decades, far beyond any and all of its surrounding neighbors thrn I think you're either in an alrernative universe or read too much New York Times, Chomsky, and CNN.
Vance Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Choosing which of two extremes is the worst is one of the devil's favorite games. I would prefer to just agree both are bad and seek out a happy medium. The problem is that in your thinking there is a rightward extreme and a leftward extreme, when in reality they are just slight variations of the same statist/tyrannical approach. Statism of any type is diametrically in opposition to individual liberty including freedom of religion.
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, Vance said: The problem is that in your thinking there is a rightward extreme and a leftward extreme, when in reality they are just slight variations of the same statist/tyrannical approach. Statism of any type is diametrically in opposition to individual liberty including freedom of religion. True, all states are evil and individual liberty must rule unchecked. That is why when the Savior returns he shall institute glorious anarchy! May the Savior return soon and not reign at all! 1
The Nehor Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 2 hours ago, Darren10 said: I had forgotten saying this and had to read up in order to remember its background. If you think Israel is not an exceptional nation and has maintained freedom for decades, far beyond any and all of its surrounding neighbors thrn I think you're either in an alrernative universe or read too much New York Times, Chomsky, and CNN. Yeah, and China is an exceptional nation and maintains vast freedoms compared to its neighbor North Korea. Israel is a bastion of liberty....if you grade on a curve.
Darren10 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yeah, and China is an exceptional nation and maintains vast freedoms compared to its neighbor North Korea. Israel is a bastion of liberty....if you grade on a curve. You admit that there are freedom problems in the Middle East. Yet right smack dab in the middle of it is a country which allows freedom of religion, allows great prosperity for a people it occupies, a people which once waged war upon it and still do, allow free elections which even people of the same ethnicity, ditto for them to serve as judges, and their courts frequently rule in favor of Palestinians. What does China do for Tibetans? A nation is exceptional not because of economic prosperity. Economics has nothing do with exceptionalism. Nor does it have anything to do with military might. And it's not even related to freedom, at least not directly. It is based on the idea that people have freedoms, known politically as rights, because they are "endowed by their Creator" with these rights. The foundation of this belief is the biblical reference that an is created in the image of Deity. Christians and Jews understand this far more than any other groups of people in the world. The united States is explicitly founded on this principle and Israel is not too far behind in principle. China is nowhere near exceptional. The ideas of superiority extend from this but this is the bases of exceptionalism. It is what makes the United States and in this case, Israel, distinct in the world. 1
USU78 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 On 6/18/2017 at 9:57 PM, SeekerB said: If your viewpoint of white nationalists is based on how the mainstream media portrays it, it is most likely incorrect. There is a wide variety of opinions from face tatooed skinheads who are dangerous to people justifiably concerned about BLM with their kill whitey rhetoric and groups like La Raza who have publicly stated they plan to retake the southwest and drive whites out. Violence is always the method used for these undertakings. Do not bring racial rhetoric to this forum. Unbelievable. 1
Five Solas Posted June 20, 2017 Author Posted June 20, 2017 On 6/17/2017 at 11:17 PM, mfbukowski said: You really need to lose the chip on your shoulder about the church. Get on with your life- you are wasting your time tilting at windmills here. So what? You are witnessing so we all go to hell? Do you actually think you present a convincing case for your faith or that you can somehow damage our faith with your snarky posts? Why go back looking for old quotes and dredging up all this old stuff? Why do you believe in the Catholic invented trinity? If you want to dredge up old nonsense at least look at the origins of your own beliefs. You have as much pagan Greek neoplatonism in your beliefs as the catholics. The Nicene Creed? Really? Consubstantiality? Where is that in the bible? I mean sola scriptura itself, within the context of modern bible studies just doesn't make it. If you are so concerned about the origins of Mormonism, I would suggest you do some serious Bible study into where it REALLY came from. How is sola scriptura NOT self contradictory since the whole notion that is is all to be found in the bible is itself NOT in the bible, and was an idea invented by the reformers? The 5 solas themselves were invented by non-prophets who had no authority to even dictate those as "true religion". What biblical prophet lists the 5 solas? It's all the interpretation of men At least we are consistent with an open canon. Why believe Luther or Calvin if the Bible is the only source of religious truth? It's absurd on its face! Religious belief itself functions simply to give us comfort and give us a plausible explanation for the big questions and is based strictly on religious experience. If you think that is because the bible is the only path to God- good for you. There is no evidence for any of it other than what God speaks to one's heart. Others disagree with you, and yet your position cannot accommodate that discrepancy, except with a dogmatic "You are wrong", without any rational argument. It's childish- "I am right and you are wrong, so neener neener" Don't go criticizing others because your beliefs are just as ridiculous to them as you think theirs are. Simply how it is just that we are punished for Adam's sin which we had nothing to do with, is a major problem. I mean if you want to get into it, ok, but why bother? It would be as much a waste of time on my part as you are wasting your time here. And how can a just God condemn his children for not hearing of Christ? How can you believe that? "Because I am right". Not too convincing. AND you have still NOT defined your position on alt-right while decrying others for not being able to read your mind and comment on what is in your brain and nowhere else. I am not a mind reader so I cannot comment on what YOU think the alt-right movement is, except for your vague repeated phrase "white supremacy" For someone who insists he's not a mind reader--you're working *awfully* hard to read mine ("chip on shoulder," etc.), mfbukowski. And as you endeavor to discern my mental/emotional state, suggest you keep in mind I'm not the one who spent Father's Day posting on the MDDB. I'm not asking you (or anyone) to comment on what I think the alt-right movement is. I've merely asked whether LDS think they/their church should do as the SBC. Many of them don't seem very pleased with this question. And you in particular seem to be getting downright personal about it (while racking up rep points in the process--congratulations). Just a thought--maybe you should ask yourself why this question is so uncomfortable. If my math is correct (~40 years, as you've shared previously) you joined the LDS Church just prior to the 1978 "revelation." A sophisticated guy like you, who spent time in NYC, etc.--what an interesting choice! Chips, shoulders, etc.--how about you go first. I'll follow, I promise. :0) --Erik PS. That beverage offer in Seattle still stands (and always will). I love dialogue & debate and I'm nearly impossible to offend. I trust you feel the same (else I wouldn't feel free to state things so bluntly).
mfbukowski Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Five Solas said: For someone who insists he's not a mind reader--you're working *awfully* hard to read mine ("chip on shoulder," etc.), mfbukowski. And as you endeavor to discern my mental/emotional state, suggest you keep in mind I'm not the one who spent Father's Day posting on the MDDB. I'm not asking you (or anyone) to comment on what I think the alt-right movement is. I've merely asked whether LDS think they/their church should do as the SBC. Many of them don't seem very pleased with this question. And you in particular seem to be getting downright personal about it (while racking up rep points in the process--congratulations). Just a thought--maybe you should ask yourself why this question is so uncomfortable. If my math is correct (~40 years, as you've shared previously) you joined the LDS Church just prior to the 1978 "revelation." A sophisticated guy like you, who spent time in NYC, etc.--what an interesting choice! Chips, shoulders, etc.--how about you go first. I'll follow, I promise. :0) --Erik PS. That beverage offer in Seattle still stands (and always will). I love dialogue & debate and I'm nearly impossible to offend. I trust you feel the same (else I wouldn't feel free to state things so bluntly). I'll be glad to oblige next time I get up that way, but increasingly with all the winks and nods that I am supposed to understand, I have NO idea what you are talking about most of the time. The question is not "uncomfortable" - I don't even know what question you are talking about that is supposed to be uncomfortable. You mean that we have not come out against a movement you cannot even define? Why on earth would we? The church does not make political announcements. That should be obvious. No one appears to actually espouse whatever the alt right is about around here. California is liberal to say the least. I joined the church in 1980 so 40 years is an approximation. If that has some significance to you in numerology I have no clue what you are talking about, nor what that has to do with the 1978 revelation. In 1978 I thought Mormons were people who believed that the Indians were Saints in some kind of offshoot of Catholicism, who didn't drink beer. My kids took me out for dinner on the Saturday before Fathers day and I wanted to have fun on Father's day and was enjoying not having an 8 hour Sunday. So I played on the internet after I got home. If that has some significance to you, so be it. You're getting a little scary there dude. But I still don't know what the heck you are talking about. In a nice way of course. 1
MiserereNobis Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 7 hours ago, Darren10 said: which allows freedom of religion, I thought the LDS church was not allowed to proselytize in Israel...? 2
The Nehor Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I thought the LDS church was not allowed to proselytize in Israel...? It is not. In fact if it had not been for early Mormon missionaries there proving we had a historical presence legally we probably would not be allowed at all. Darren has a loose interpretation of religious liberty. Look up Israel's immigration laws if you want to see religious liberty and equality exemplified. Edited June 20, 2017 by The Nehor
USU78 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: I thought the LDS church was not allowed to proselytize in Israel...? By agreement, not by law
USU78 Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: It is not. In fact if it had not been for early Mormon missionaries there proving we had a historical presence legally we probably would not be allowed at all. Darren has a loose interpretation of religious liberty. Look up Israel's immigration laws if you want to see religious liberty and equality exemplified. Place was designed as a sanctuary for Jews. Why should they not be preferred immigrants by law? 2
Recommended Posts