RIP Anti Mormon Literature

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, cacheman said:

Carlos Asay in 1981

"Avoid those who would teardown your faith. Faith-killers are to be shunned. The seeds which they plant in the minds and hearts of men grow like cancer and eat away the Spirit"

IIRC, this talk is used in the current teaching manual (refer to the chapter denigrating apostates).

cacheman

CFR.

"The current teaching manual" and "the chapter denigrating apostates" are too vague of references to be of any help.

And please cite the talk in its entirety so we can view the quote in context.

 

[cacheman]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR.

"The current teaching manual" and "the chapter denigrating apostates" are too vague of references to be of any help.

And please cite the talk in its entirety so we can view the quote in context.

 

The talk: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1981/10/opposition-to-the-work-of-god?lang=eng

The manual: https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-24-be-not-deceived-but-continue-in-steadfastness?lang=eng

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am  talking about what the 19th and early 20th century LDS writers talked about as the great apostasy. Do you have Talmage's Great Apostasy? Please quote for me from therein the concept you just mentioned in your post that his concept of the Great Apostasy included an active Holy Spirit, saving, healing and providing visions in the pre-restoration days. Show me the same in  "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder." Even Morrison in his book "Turning from Truth" doesn't go as far as you do in your understanding of the Great Apostasy. That is my understanding of what I have read - I agree with you in that I think their understanding, teaching, and writing was absurd. I just wouldn't have  used that work - being such a nice Mennonite! I think you are teaching me (and I mean that seriously, I am here to learn) a new, revised concept of the Great Apostasy that Millet and Robinson might endorse, but I just don't see it in classic Mormon apologists.

Ok good now we are having a dialogue.

Of course I have read Talmadge.  Just assume that I know everything you know about Mormonism and more.  Sorry- but it is true because I have lived it and studied it, I have led congregations of Mormons, I have read all the books and answered all the questions and taught Mormons for the last 40 years nearly.   I have been in meetings with leadership ans I know the practicalities of how the church works.  That was all in my first post to you.   I work in the temple and know how it works temporally and spiritually.  I have had discussions with temple presidents about doctrine etc.  I have been an apologist for 9 years and have heard every possible anti-Mormon argument.   This is in no way bragging- I am just trying to convince you that there is no aspect of Mormonism which YOU know that I do not know.  I am trying to save time- just make the reference and I will know what you are talking about!

Of course my ideas do not appear in Talmage- Talmage's ideas appear in Talmage- no one else's!

The strength of Mormonism is continuing revelation to EACH MEMBER.  It has been said we have no "doctrine"- we promote a life-style of behavior.  As long as you can honestly answer the questions in a temple recommend interview- you are a Mormon in good standing.

And do not tell me that other Mormons do not understand that- that is their view not mine.  I am a Mormon in good standing in a leadership position, therefore my beliefs can be held by a Mormon in good standing in a leadership position.  Simple logic.  "But that's not Mormonism......"- I hear that all the time.   But it IS Mormonism!!

We no longer practice 1850, 60 or 70 Mormonism or 1950 Mormonism.   Do some?  Of course!!   We get to have variations that WE FIND BEST.  That is why the "best" belief is important

We are each of us to be "prophets" in our own way- it is said that if you have a testimony of Jesus Christ- that is the spirit of prophecy and you are in a small way, a "prophet"

Which brings us to your other question- why Christianity?

It appears you have never in your life considered, say Buddhism.

Why not?

Why not Zorastrianism?  Do you know anything about it??   Some scholars think that Biblical teachings came out of Zoroastrianism!   Do you know why or why not?  There are many Zorastrian scriptures, the main one is called the "Avesta" and it teaches many things similar to the bible.   In fact the "Three Magi" who came looking for the savior were Zoroastrians who had the same prophecies as found in the Bible.  Zoroastrians are also known as "Parsis" 

Quote

 

"Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the revealed world-religions, and it has probably had more influence on mankind, directly and indirectly, than any other single faith."- Boyce, Zoroastrians, 1979, p. 1.

"Zoroaster was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgment, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgment, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body. These doctrines were to become familiar articles of faith to much of mankind, through borrowings by Judaism, Christianity and Islam; yet it is in Zoroastrianism itself that they have their fullest logical coherence....” - Boyce, op. cit. p. 29.

 

There are many religions which do not believe in Christ!

So why are you a Christian at all?   Have you ever considered other possibilities?  How do you even know the Bible is the revealed word of God?

Are Mennonites "closer to the truth" than Zoroastrians?  How do you know either way?

Quote

 

Every time you write in a post to me that I don't understand, I agree with you. Please understand that! I am trying to understand, but all this talk about authority is not understandable to me at this moment. I am not being obstinate or I wouldn't take the time to do this. You are not either, for the same reason. I will say however, I think I am trying to understand you, perhaps a teeny bit more than you are trying to understand my faith. I guess I understand that as well. I am the interloper this week. You didn't wake up Monday morning, rise up in bed and say to yourself "Wow, I think I will seek a better understanding of evangelicals this week." I want to know all about their view of faith!" I am conscious of being the interruptor of your debates about angels and needles and such. I am the investigator, maybe not in the way you typically define it, but in my own way I am sincere in that. By the way, I am going to read Robinson again today. I think one reason his work appeals so to evangelicals is that nowhere in his little book does he mention authority or exaltation; two concepts that are foundational to the Mormon self-concept but completely foreign to others. Again, I have to re-read it for those concepts. I may be wr......wr........wr......ong!

 

Fair enough, and I think we are so far apart culturally that we don't even really speak the same language, so I get that.   Sorry for going too fast.  We are aliens to you and you are aliens to us.  When you said you were neither Protestant nor Catholic- I could not figure out how you could be "Evangelical" and not "Protestant" because Evangelicalism is, to me, a branch of Protestantism.  

But then I did a little more research and found out you come from the Anabaptist movement, which is essentially restorationist, as we are!

So you believe that your beliefs go back and restore in some measure the teachings of Christ.  Great!

As far as other churches which believe in authority are the Catholics and Orthodox churches.  So these notions are HARDLY "completely foreign to  others.   I mentioned in other posts that Catholics or Orthodox do not accept Mormon baptism.   I presume that Mennonites DO accept Mormon Baptism.

Worldwide wikipedia says there are about 260 million members of Orthodox churches, and about 1.2 billion Catholics, and about 800 million Protestants.  Only a portion of the Protestants do not believe that authority is required for baptism.

But of course that has nothing to do with who is "right"

It just seemed totally inconsistent to me, for you to say that authority for baptism was "completely foreign to others" while ALSO affirming that all doctrines are the same to God and none is "better"

So I am glad we finally have something to talk about!   Was any of that clearer?

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

OK. Now you have done it. You have hurt my feelings! Our whole self concept is based on being different. . . a third way! A peculiar people (sound familiar?) A group who has experienced martyrdom like no other.  A people who have known exodus like no other. Say you're sorry!   ........................................................... Please know I am saying that tongue-in-cheek. I enjoy humor. You really didn't hurt my feelings.....yes you did......no you didn't! 

Well yes I am sorry, but happy to help you perhaps think this thing through!!  It is hard to see yourself as others see you- and we know that well especially here.

We get that every dang day here all day, without end.   I don't think there are many "anti-Mennonites" on the internet!!  You are such wonderful and peaceful people who could object to being peaceful and simple??

Maybe you get it just a little bit now!

Yes you guys including (Anabaptists) HAVE been persecuted even more than Mormons by a long shot and over a longer time

But IS that idea of being "different" just A LITTLE connected to being "special"???   And "right" when others are wrong?

It is hard to face persecution without KNOWING that it is "worth it" in some way because you are "right" and Mormons have that as well!!

So maybe that is actually something we have in common though you win the persecution prize.   YAY! 

 

[Marginal Gains]

On 01/09/2017 at 1:14 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Seriously? You believe this is advocating "shunnng"? 

You have disingenuously taken the words of the discourse out of context. I quickly lose patience when people do that. 

As is obvious from Calm's contextual quotation, he was not talking about shunning at all but about having the courage to embrace the Church of Jesus Christ despite the disapproval of relatives. 

Not at all the same thing. I am incredulous that you don't grasp the distinction. 

If anything, the shunning is on the part of relatives who refuse to have anything to do with one who join the Church. On the other hand, the Church encourages the convert to foster good relations with family to the extent they will allow it. 

 

 

On 01/09/2017 at 2:37 PM, Marginal Gains said:

Can you explain, specifically, the difference(s) that you see between what Christofferson labels the Amish “shunning” their relatives for leaving the Amish faith, and what he describes as Mormons showing “higher love” by suspending familial relationships with those Family members who leave Mormonism? 

Is it appropriate to bump a post if you think a poster to whom you have asked a question appears to have missed responding to it?

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok good now we are having a dialogue.

Of course I have read Talmadge.  Just assume that I know everything you know about Mormonism and more.  Sorry- but it is true because I have lived it and studied it, I have led congregations of Mormons, I have read all the books and answered all the questions and taught Mormons for the last 40 years nearly.   I have been in meetings with leadership ans I know the practicalities of how the church works.  That was all in my first post to you.   I work in the temple and know how it works temporally and spiritually.  I have had discussions with temple presidents about doctrine etc.  I have been an apologist for 9 years and have heard every possible anti-Mormon argument.   This is in no way bragging- I am just trying to convince you that there is no aspect of Mormonism which YOU know that I do not know.  I am trying to save time- just make the reference and I will know what you are talking about!

Of course my ideas do not appear in Talmage- Talmage's ideas appear in Talmage- no one else's!

The strength of Mormonism is continuing revelation to EACH MEMBER.  It has been said we have no "doctrine"- we promote a life-style of behavior.  As long as you can honestly answer the questions in a temple recommend interview- you are a Mormon in good standing.

And do not tell me that other Mormons do not understand that- that is their view not mine.  I am a Mormon in good standing in a leadership position, therefore my beliefs can be held by a Mormon in good standing in a leadership position.  Simple logic.  "But that's not Mormonism......"- I hear that all the time.   But it IS Mormonism!!

We no longer practice 1850, 60 or 70 Mormonism or 1950 Mormonism.   Do some?  Of course!!   We get to have variations that WE FIND BEST.  That is why the "best" belief is important

We are each of us to be "prophets" in our own way- it is said that if you have a testimony of Jesus Christ- that is the spirit of prophecy and you are in a small way, a "prophet"

Which brings us to your other question- why Christianity?

It appears you have never in your life considered, say Buddhism.

Why not?

Why not Zorastrianism?  Do you know anything about it??   Some scholars think that Biblical teachings came out of Zoroastrianism!   Do you know why or why not?  There are many Zorastrian scriptures, the main one is called the "Avesta" and it teaches many things similar to the bible.   In fact the "Three Magi" who came looking for the savior were Zoroastrians who had the same prophecies as found in the Bible.  Zoroastrians are also known as "Parsis" 

There are many religions which do not believe in Christ!

So why are you a Christian at all?   Have you ever considered other possibilities?  How do you even know the Bible is the revealed word of God?

Are Mennonites "closer to the truth" than Zoroastrians?  How do you know either way?

Fair enough, and I think we are so far apart culturally that we don't even really speak the same language, so I get that.   Sorry for going too fast.  We are aliens to you and you are aliens to us.  When you said you were neither Protestant nor Catholic- I could not figure out how you could be "Evangelical" and not "Protestant" because Evangelicalism is, to me, a branch of Protestantism.  

But then I did a little more research and found out you come from the Anabaptist movement, which is essentially restorationist, as we are!

So you believe that your beliefs go back and restore in some measure the teachings of Christ.  Great!

As far as other churches which believe in authority are the Catholics and Orthodox churches.  So these notions are HARDLY "completely foreign to  others.   I mentioned in other posts that Catholics or Orthodox do not accept Mormon baptism.   I presume that Mennonites DO accept Mormon Baptism.

Worldwide wikipedia says there are about 260 million members of Orthodox churches, and about 1.2 billion Catholics, and about 800 million Protestants.  Only a portion of the Protestants do not believe that authority is required for baptism.

But of course that has nothing to do with who is "right"

It just seemed totally inconsistent to me, for you to say that authority for baptism was "completely foreign to others" while ALSO affirming that all doctrines are the same to God and none is "better"

So I am glad we finally have something to talk about!   Was any of that clearer?

Good morning: I will never assume I know 10% as much about Mormonism as you do; rest assured about that. I would guess however that I know significantly more about Mormon history and doctrine than 95% of those who you would term investigators. I might even know more about the Mexican Mormon colonies than most members of this forum! (TIC) - I think I will have to use TIC to make sure you know I am speaking tongue in cheek when I am doing so, because I do that a lot! I have made extensive graduate study of church history and world religions, especially those of the Parthian Empire. So yes, I know about the Zoroastrian beliefs. I also know that no one knows who the Magi were. Without some new discovery no one will ever know. They might also have been Nabateans, or Zoroastrians who were living in Nabatea. We will never know.

The vast majority of evangelicals (a word I prefer because it is inclusive, not exclusive - it includes folks from the Protestant, Catholic, Anabaptist, and yes Mormon traditions as) believe that authority exists, yes. We believe it exists in Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:18 assures us of that. There is also authority involved in polity, but that isn't related to beliefs, it is related to what I think you call "order." From what I read here and elsewhere I think Mormons, by and large don't recognize that Protestants, Catholics and other groups are not monolithic entities. There is a lot of diversity, just as you acknowledge exists among Mormons. I read that Calvinists believe......Protestants believe.......Catholics believe.......I assure you there is tremendous difference within those groups about many things. That is an observation, not a criticism. 

I also believe that no baptism is necessary for salvation. So yes we have a core difference in a core belief. Please read what I am writing - I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I keep hearing that I am doing that in these posts. I may have a blind spot, but I truly believe I would have no reason to do that since I am pretty sure that hermeneutics is not an exact science. I am probably wrong about many things, but I do my best. You have a great deal of confidence that your doctrine, beliefs, and conclusions are correct. You have far more assurance in that regard that I do. I believe it is a strong dynamic of your Mormon culture. I also believe it comes from a lack of exposure to other interpretations of Scripture. Most Mormons I know (a small percentage of total Mormons) would ask me why they should study other interpretations when they already have the truth. As you say in a future post "they have the plain facts." 

Why did I choose Christianity? Because I have a testimony of the truth of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is not something I struggle with. He is my Lord and Savior. I live my life according to Col. 3:17 as best as I am able. - Sound familiar? I hope that resonates with you. 

I never said "All the doctrines are the same to God." What I am saying is that certain are pivotal to make one a Christian. Many others are not. I would also say that doctrinal perspectives are rarely based on "plain facts." They are based on personal beliefs, interpretations, and most importantly of all "faith." 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

The vast majority of evangelicals (a word I prefer because it is inclusive, not exclusive - it includes folks from the Protestant, Catholic, Anabaptist, and yes Mormon traditions as) believe that authority exists, yes. We believe it exists in Jesus Christ. Matthew 28:18 assures us of that. There is also authority involved in polity, but that isn't related to beliefs, it is related to what I think you call "order." From what I read here and elsewhere I think Mormons, by and large don't recognize that Protestants, Catholics and other groups are not monolithic entities. There is a lot of diversity, just as you acknowledge exists among Mormons. I read that Calvinists believe......Protestants believe.......Catholics believe.......I assure you there is tremendous difference within those groups about many things. That is an observation, not a criticism. 

I also believe that no baptism is necessary for salvation. So yes we have a core difference in a core belief. Please read what I am writing - I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. I keep hearing that I am doing that in these posts. I may have a blind spot, but I truly believe I would have no reason to do that since I am pretty sure that hermeneutics is not an exact science. I am probably wrong about many things, but I do my best. You have a great deal of confidence that your doctrine, beliefs, and conclusions are correct. You have far more assurance in that regard that I do. I believe it is a strong dynamic of your Mormon culture. I also believe it comes from a lack of exposure to other interpretations of Scripture. Most Mormons I know (a small percentage of total Mormons) would ask me why they should study other interpretations when they already have the truth. As you say in a future post "they have the plain facts." 

Why did I choose Christianity? Because I have a testimony of the truth of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is not something I struggle with. He is my Lord and Savior. I live my life according to Col. 3:17 as best as I am able. - Sound familiar? I hope that resonates with you. 

I never said "All the doctrines are the same to God." What I am saying is that certain are pivotal to make one a Christian. Many others are not. I would also say that doctrinal perspectives are rarely based on "plain facts." They are based on personal beliefs, interpretations, and most importantly of all "faith." 

OK we are definitely making progress, according to my assessment, regardless of a few bumps.

I think the last post and this one make progress.  I only quoted what was relevant in your post.

Again, let me tell you that I was an atheist who felt the stirrings of the spirit from my Catholic youth, but I was actually "converted" to religion through a philosophical belief based on William James, that spiritual experience can be seen as philosophically "rational" because my "religion" (agnosticism) was that everything needed to be "logical" for me to accept it.  So for me the first step was essentially to discover that what Christians call a "testimony" was in fact a "rational" thing to follow.

<<< Read this in the margin- I am not kidding about that.  I chose a Picasso self portrait as my avatar to symbolize that there are many ways to see everything including one's "self" as it unfolds.

So I take "Hermeneutics" very seriously in scripture and everywhere else.  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/

The bottom line here is that Hermeneutics essentially says that "the meaning of any text is in the eye of the beholder" BECAUSE there is no other reference which can be used to say which interpretation is "better" than any other-- OBJECTIVELY.  Also I have NO "Mormon culture" so my beliefs are NOT based on that but on my testimony.

So that is where we are stuck- even our interpretation of which view is "best"- the question itself is lacking.  Best for what would be the follow up question.  And again all we have is testimony to tell us that.

Please give me an exact definition of Evangelical as you are using it.  I think it is such an ambiguous world as to be useless, so we might not even include it here.  To me the word means exclusively "Non-denominational Christians Protestants" which makes it impossible to know exactly what their doctrine is.  

I am glad you understand that Mormons like others are NOT "monolithic entities" which is why I get frustrated with you complaining that I do not agree with much of what Talmage, for instance, said.  I could give you a list of sayings from each prophet, some of which I would agree with and others of which I would not.  Each must be evaluated independently.  Do all Mormons believe that?  Probably not.  Do I have support for my opinions- always!  But it becomes a question of HERMENEUTICS  (interpretation) in each case.

We may have a difference in core belief about baptism, but I do not think the "Mormon Scriptures" differ much from your position when one factors in the preaching of the gospel after death. 

I want to do more research on that point- so you have raised an interesting issue.  What I do know is that I personally will stick to the scriptures in such cases, where the general beliefs of the church differ from my interpretation of the scriptures, because I believe it is my God-given duty that my conscience and testimony trump everything, which is implied directly by Moroni 10: 4, Alma 32, Thessalonians and 1 James.  That is God's guard against "blind obedience" and we have statements from General Authorities who agree that.

So I do not know that there IS much of a difference in "core belief" since we believe that all will hear the gospel after death, and all will accept it, according to the "every knee will bow" scripture.

Scripturally I personally do not see at this moment that the statement "Mormon baptism is necessary to be saved" makes any sense at all.   I am sure there have been statements to that effect, but I take the scriptures and my own interpretation thereof above statements of others.

And I am a Mormon in good standing.  Honest.

So on one hand you affirm diversity in everyone's faith, and yet you think that Mormons are "monolithic" in their beliefs??   How does that make sense?   And we still have not solved the "exclusivity" problem- the choice of any denomination makes one "more right" than the others, or choice would not be necessary.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Is it appropriate to bump a post if you think a poster to whom you have asked a question appears to have missed responding to it?

Quite appropriate. 

It is also appropriate, in my view, to ignore what appears to be repetitive questioning on points on which a response has already been made.

That said, the following quote from the Christofferson talk will underscore the obvious difference between so-called "shunning" and what Elder Christoffeerson talked about. 

"In reality, the best way to help those we love—the best way to love them—is to continue to put the Savior first. If we cast ourselves adrift from the Lord out of sympathy for loved ones who are suffering or distressed, then we lose the means by which we might have helped them. If, however, we remain firmly rooted in faith in Christ, we are in a position both to receive and to offer divine help. If (or I should say when) the moment comes that a beloved family member wants desperately to turn to the only true and lasting source of help, he or she will know whom to trust as a guide and a companion. In the meantime, with the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide, we can perform a steady ministry to lessen the pain of poor choices and bind up the wounds insofar as we are permitted. Otherwise, we serve neither those we love nor ourselves."

[Michael Sudworth]

I mourn the loss of high-quality anti-Mormon literature. At its height it became a literary form unto itself; the Godmakers being one of the most incredible examples of propaganda in modern history. Within we see the tropes of a noble and brave Ed Decker fight against the evil empire of the LDS Church.  The book brings to mind themes from Star Wars and 1980's pop-satanism, all wrapped up in a neat package of a good Christian man vs. Satan him/herself.

Nowadays all we are left with is enquirer-esque garbage from Jeremy Runnels and Richard Packham; simply repackaging of the Tanners for a mostly non-Christian audience.  I miss the good ole' days.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I mourn the loss of high-quality anti-Mormon literature. At its height it became a literary form unto itself; the Godmakers being one of the most incredible examples of propaganda in modern history. Within we see the tropes of a noble and brave Ed Decker fight against the evil empire of the LDS Church.  The book brings to mind themes from Star Wars and 1980's pop-satanism, all wrapped up in a neat package of a good Christian man vs. Satan him/herself.

Nowadays all we are left with is enquirer-esque garbage from Jeremy Runnels and Richard Packham; simply repackaging of the Tanners for a mostly non-Christian audience.  I miss the good ole' days.

Welcome to the board, Michael. 

I presume (and hope) that is your real name. I like a man who posts under his real name. 

[Michael Sudworth]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Welcome to the board, Michael.

Thank you, Scott Lloyd. I've been reading this message board for a a month or so and have decided to jump into the fray.  

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Thank you, Scott Lloyd. I've been reading this message board for a a month or so and have decided to jump into the fray.  

I'm glad we didn't frighten you away.

 

[Marginal Gains]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Quite appropriate. 

It is also appropriate, in my view, to ignore what appears to be repetitive questioning on points on which a response has already been made.

That said, the following quote from the Christofferson talk will underscore the obvious difference between so-called "shunning" and what Elder Christoffeerson talked about. 

"In reality, the best way to help those we love—the best way to love them—is to continue to put the Savior first. If we cast ourselves adrift from the Lord out of sympathy for loved ones who are suffering or distressed, then we lose the means by which we might have helped them. If, however, we remain firmly rooted in faith in Christ, we are in a position both to receive and to offer divine help. If (or I should say when) the moment comes that a beloved family member wants desperately to turn to the only true and lasting source of help, he or she will know whom to trust as a guide and a companion. In the meantime, with the gift of the Holy Spirit to guide, we can perform a steady ministry to lessen the pain of poor choices and bind up the wounds insofar as we are permitted. Otherwise, we serve neither those we love nor ourselves."

But couldn’t that be said from the Amish perspective? In that they are simply suspending familial relationships out of a higher love and continuing to put the Saviour first etc.

The only difference I can see is the label Christofferson chooses. He’s being one-eyed in my opinion, and is advocating shunning by another name. But that’s just my opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

But couldn’t that be said from the Amish perspective? In that they are simply suspending familial relationships out of a higher love and continuing to put the Saviour first etc.

The only difference I can see is the label Christofferson chooses. He’s being one-eyed in my opinion, and is advocating shunning by another name. But that’s just my opinion.

I'm not here to denigrate the Amish faith.

But no, I see nothing in what Elder Christofferson has described that, to a reasonable mind, could even remotely be characterized as "shun," which an online dictionary defines as "to persistently avoid, ignore, or reject (someone or something) through antipathy or caution."

 I believe I've made that point clearly enough that I'm not going to keep responding to your repetitive questioning. And I observe that you have already been warned by a moderator against "goading" the Mormons on this board. So I will help you by not responding to it, thus lessening the prospect of eventual sanctions against you.

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Vance]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:32 AM, california boy said:

In all honesty, I think the church has been more vocal about shunning only in the last 10 years.  Before that, members were in conflict as to what to do.  I know my family felt that if they embraced me, it would mean that they embraced me being gay.

And, of course, you didn't require them to embrace your homosexuality as part of embracing you, right?

 

No, you would NEVER do that, right?

 

You just flaunted it every time you were around them. Perhaps even exaggeratedly so.  Similar to taking up smoking and then always lighting up in front of them and blowing it in their faces.

 

And then you wonder why they don't want to be around you.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Vance

[Michael Sudworth]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm glad we didn't frighten you away.

 

On the contrary.  This is a lively and intelligent board.  I look forward to participating as time permits.

[ALarson]

58 minutes ago, Vance said:

And, of course, you didn't require them to embrace your homosexuality as part of embracing you, right?

 

No, you would NEVER do that, right?

 

You just flaunted it every time you were around them. Perhaps even exaggeratedly so.  Similar to taking up smoking and then always lighting up in front of them and blowing it in their faces.

Why would you make such an accusation?  How would you know that california boy "flaunted it" or exaggerated it around his family members?  From what I've read about his experience, he did just the opposite and was very respectful of their beliefs (and he still is).

We have a statement from an apostle that family members can be supportive of gay family members and can even privately support gay marriage without their membership being in jeopardy or loosing their temple recommend. Why wouldn't family members embrace a gay member of their family? 

Edited September 4, 2017 by ALarson

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

But couldn’t that be said from the Amish perspective? In that they are simply suspending familial relationships out of a higher love and continuing to put the Saviour first etc.

The only difference I can see is the label Christofferson chooses. He’s being one-eyed in my opinion, and is advocating shunning by another name. But that’s just my opinion.

I'm not sure the background of this conversation, but I can assure you that Amish shunning is not practiced today with any regularity. The three major Anabaptist groups (together with their subgroups) have modernized beliefs and doctrine in much the same as have the Saints. Shunning in an Amish sense is an nineteenth and early-mid twentieth century practice that is rarely implemented today in its traditional sense. Yes, Amish, as are Saints are endogamous and to a much greater degree, practice separation from the world than do the Saints. We joke about second degree separation where it is required that we (Amish and Mennonites) separate from those who don't separate from the world. 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Vance said:

And, of course, you didn't require them to embrace your homosexuality as part of embracing you, right?

 

No, you would NEVER do that, right?

 

You just flaunted it every time you were around them. Perhaps even exaggeratedly so.  Similar to taking up smoking and then always lighting up in front of them and blowing it in their faces.

 

And then you wonder why they don't want to be around you.

Are you representing a Latter Day Saint??  Amazing. 

[Vance]

On 9/4/2017 at 10:10 AM, ALarson said:

Why would you make such an accusation?  How would you know that california boy "flaunted it" or exaggerated it around his family members?  From what I've read about his experience, he did just the opposite and was very respectful of their beliefs (and he still is).

We have a statement from an apostle that family members can be supportive of gay family members and can even privately support gay marriage without their membership being in jeopardy or loosing their temple recommend. Why wouldn't family members embrace a gay member of their family? 

The better question is, Why would a person embrace homosexual behavior at the expense of their family?

Or better yet, Why would a person embrace homosexual behavior at the expense of their eternal salvation?

Edited September 10, 2017 by Vance

[Vance]

On 9/4/2017 at 10:41 AM, Jeanne said:

Are you representing a Latter Day Saint??  Amazing. 

Be sure and whine to the moderators.

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, Vance said:

Be sure and whine to the moderators.

No..that is i okay...just wondering. 

[Marginal Gains]

17 hours ago, Vance said:

The better question is, Why would a person embrace homosexual behavior at the expense of their family?

No, the better question is why would a family turn their back on one of their loved ones simply because they are in a same sex relationship?

On another thread I demonstrated the inconsistency in the way Elder Christofferson saw this very subject. To paraphrase his words, he told of an Amish person who joined the Church and was subsequently distanced from their family. Elder Christofferson called what the Amish did “shunning”. Then, in almost the same breath, Christofferson went on to encourage members of the Church to suspen relationships between themselves and family members who made choices that perhaps were difficult to embrace or condone because they went against the families religious beliefs. In that case he called it “showing a higher love”. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/03/finding-your-life?lang=eng

Why when the Amish suspend family relationships is it “shunning”, but when Mormons do it it’s “showing a higher love”?

The blatant double standard in Christofferson’s article is staggering to me.

Edited September 11, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[Vance]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

No, the better question is why would a family turn their back on one of their loved ones simply because they are in a same sex relationship?

On another thread I demonstrated the inconsistency in the way Elder Christofferson saw this very subject. To paraphrase his words, he told of an Amish person who joined the Church and was subsequently distanced from their family. Elder Christofferson called what the Amish did “shunning”. Then, in almost the same breath, Christofferson went on to encourage members of the Church to suspen relationships between themselves and family members who made choices that perhaps were difficult to embrace or condone because they went against the families religious beliefs. In that case he called it “showing a higher love”. 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2016/03/finding-your-life?lang=eng

Why when the Amish suspend family relationships is it “shunning”, but when Mormons do it it’s “showing a higher love”?

The blatant double standard in Christofferson’s article is staggering to me.

No double standard at all.  Show just one sentence where Elder Christofferson complains about the "shunning" that he mentions.  There isn't one.

[california boy]

On 9/4/2017 at 4:12 PM, Vance said:

And, of course, you didn't require them to embrace your homosexuality as part of embracing you, right?

 

No, you would NEVER do that, right?

 

You just flaunted it every time you were around them. Perhaps even exaggeratedly so.  Similar to taking up smoking and then always lighting up in front of them and blowing it in their faces.

 

And then you wonder why they don't want to be around you.

WOW!!!

Do you always make such offensive assumptions about people who are gay?

unbelievable and very offensive   

 

I suppose that that since you are Mormon you have a couple of wives and hate blacks