kiwi57 Posted November 26, 2017 Posted November 26, 2017 On 11/25/2017 at 3:34 AM, Calm said: Help with the Tolkien quote please...normally I would get it, but very sleep deprived. So now feeling indignant my mind won't naturally provide it. It's from The Lord of the Rings, 1991 Edition, p. 568: Quote 'Will I come down?' [Saruman] mocked. 'Does an unarmed man come down to speak with robbers out of doors? I can hear you well enough here. I am no fool, and I do not trust you, Gandalf. They do not stand openly on my stairs, but I know where the wild wood-demons are lurking, at your command.' 'The treacherous are ever mistrustful,' answered Gandalf wearily. 2
Bobbieaware Posted November 26, 2017 Posted November 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Umm, Bobbie? I was agreeing with you. I think Cinepro supposes there was something nefarious in the omission, so I was challenging him about it. I hope that clears things up. I thought I was quoting and responding directly to Cinepro. If I quoted and responded to you instead, it was a mistake. All the best... file
Calm Posted November 26, 2017 Posted November 26, 2017 28 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: It's from The Lord of the Rings, 1991 Edition, p. 568: Thank you
why me Posted November 26, 2017 Posted November 26, 2017 (edited) On 11/20/2017 at 8:19 PM, cinepro said: It's a fair point (and when I teach, I'm always very aware of those goals.) I certainly don't think we need 48 lessons each year that go into this kind of depth. But maybe it's not a bad thing to cover this specific subject with a little more rigor once every four years in the class about "Church History". In the past, it may have been well and good to give the Hallmark-card version of this lesson, but based on the comments from different class members, this is a subject that continues to be brought up by non-LDS in conversations about the Church, and it might not be a bad thing for LDS to be prepared with the best information. For some reason, mormons need to be experts on their history. But members of other churches do not. What church studies their history in sunday school? Most are looking at bible verses and commenting about them. The critics of the lds church have controlled this conversation since the beginning of the internet by exclaiming that lds history is important to know and to show where the church did not teach this aspect of their history. And then exclaim for all to hear: the church has lied. And many members fell away because of this. And so, there is a 40 minute lesson on blacks in the priesthood with many stickies stuck on a white board with a teacher with a message. What needed to be done as it is done in an university history class...before the lesson, maybe two weeks before, people needed a handout to look at and study to prepare for the lesson. Or a chapter in a book to read. And then comments from the 'students' in sunday school can be reflective and evaluative of the material. If church members need to be experts, then they need to be treated as students and not as members. Edited November 26, 2017 by why me 2
Web Of Slime Posted December 4, 2017 Posted December 4, 2017 Quote Oh, what I wouldn't give for a school of the prophets like they had in Brigham Young and John Taylor's day. Isn't there a School of Prophets based out of Salem, Utah, by the Dream Mine?
cinepro Posted December 5, 2017 Author Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) On 11/25/2017 at 10:04 PM, why me said: For some reason, mormons need to be experts on their history. But members of other churches do not. What church studies their history in sunday school? Most are looking at bible verses and commenting about them. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. What church emphasizes their recent history in any way similar to the way we do? Members of other churches (I presume) don't have problems with their 19th century history because they teach that Jesus was the only perfect man and source of inspiration, and the Bible is the source of doctrine and authority. If I went to a Baptist Church and asked to learn about it in an hour, they aren't going to spend 1/3 of that hour talking about James Robinson Graves and how I can return to live with God because of what James Robinson Graves taught and the authority he had. They aren't going to present Roger Williams' journals and writings as inspired scripture, equal or better than the Bible. I'm not going to attend one of their meetings on Sunday morning and join them in singing "Praise to the Man" to John Clarke. If the LDS Church wants to make claims about early leaders and events in Church History as a basis for the truth claims of the Church, then those leaders and events will be fair game for investigation and faith will be lessened if it appears that the claims aren't true. That's the risk you take. And for the record, other religions that also focus on a more recent charismatic leader, such as Scientology with L. Ron Hubbard, do have problems with members learning that what the church has been teaching them about his life may be a little different than what a more unbiased historical record might show. This isn't just a Mormon problem. Edited December 5, 2017 by cinepro 4
why me Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 19 hours ago, cinepro said: You live by the sword, you die by the sword. What church emphasizes their recent history in any way similar to the way we do? Members of other churches (I presume) don't have problems with their 19th century history because they teach that Jesus was the only perfect man and source of inspiration, and the Bible is the source of doctrine and authority. If I went to a Baptist Church and asked to learn about it in an hour, they aren't going to spend 1/3 of that hour talking about James Robinson Graves and how I can return to live with God because of what James Robinson Graves taught and the authority he had. They aren't going to present Roger Williams' journals and writings as inspired scripture, equal or better than the Bible. I'm not going to attend one of their meetings on Sunday morning and join them in singing "Praise to the Man" to John Clarke. If the LDS Church wants to make claims about early leaders and events in Church History as a basis for the truth claims of the Church, then those leaders and events will be fair game for investigation and faith will be lessened if it appears that the claims aren't true. That's the risk you take. And for the record, other religions that also focus on a more recent charismatic leader, such as Scientology with L. Ron Hubbard, do have problems with members learning that what the church has been teaching them about his life may be a little different than what a more unbiased historical record might show. This isn't just a Mormon problem. I do think that Lutherans should spend time discussing martin luther and his anti-semetic leaning. I also think that he condoned polygamy for a prince. Why wouldn't that be important? Lutheranism depends much on history also. And the same for Knox and Wesley. They should be discussed too by faiths who consider them important. I suppose that the lds church has been very brave in putting some history in their lessons. They certainly did not need to. They could be like the other christian churches and ignore history.
ttribe Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, why me said: I do think that Lutherans should spend time discussing martin luther and his anti-semetic leaning. I also think that he condoned polygamy for a prince. Why wouldn't that be important? Lutheranism depends much on history also. And the same for Knox and Wesley. They should be discussed too by faiths who consider them important. I suppose that the lds church has been very brave in putting some history in their lessons. They certainly did not need to. They could be like the other christian churches and ignore history. The Lutherans don't claim Martin Luther: 1) Saw God; 2) was chosen as a Prophet; 3) translated a book of scripture; 4) received Priesthood keys through the ministration of angels; and 5) received ongoing revelation to administer day-to-day affairs in a fledgling restored church. The LDS Church's history bears directly on its truth claims; it's inseparable. Any pointing at "other" Christian churches and their lack of historical focus is nonsense in that light. 3
JLHPROF Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 23 hours ago, Web Of Slime said: Isn't there a School of Prophets based out of Salem, Utah, by the Dream Mine? A fundamentalist group, yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mormon_fundamentalist_leaders#School_of_the_Prophetshttp://www.2bc.info/onias/Home.html
poptart Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) Snap that's impressive, why is it I never found people like that in any ward? I bet he would know what my Icon means, wonder if anyone else here does... Edited December 5, 2017 by poptart
kiwi57 Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 1 hour ago, ttribe said: The Lutherans don't claim Martin Luther: 1) Saw God; 2) was chosen as a Prophet; 3) translated a book of scripture; 4) received Priesthood keys through the ministration of angels; and 5) received ongoing revelation to administer day-to-day affairs in a fledgling restored church. The LDS Church's history bears directly on its truth claims; it's inseparable. Any pointing at "other" Christian churches and their lack of historical focus is nonsense in that light. Ah, so special pleading is the order of the day. Got it. 1
rongo Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, poptart said: Snap that's impressive, why is it I never found people like that in any ward? I bet he would know what my Icon means, wonder if anyone else here does... You've got German state flags / German-speaking country flags with a crucifix. What does it mean?
poptart Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) Holy Roman empire flag. The Pope used to have a lot more control, until Luther came along...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coats_of_arms_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire Edited December 5, 2017 by poptart
ttribe Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 17 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: Ah, so special pleading is the order of the day. Got it. You don't agree that LDS Church's history is far more important to its doctrines and claims than most other Christian churches?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ttribe said: The Lutherans don't claim Martin Luther: 1) Saw God; 2) was chosen as a Prophet; 3) translated a book of scripture; 4) received Priesthood keys through the ministration of angels; and 5) received ongoing revelation to administer day-to-day affairs in a fledgling restored church. The LDS Church's history bears directly on its truth claims; it's inseparable. Any pointing at "other" Christian churches and their lack of historical focus is nonsense in that light. As you say, I think its important to realize that all (I think) protestant religions claim authority from the bible and not from any man. So if you want to go after protestants, you undermine the bible - and the historical claims of the bible are under attack from many different angles (historical criticism from those like Bart Erhman, and scientific criticism from many atheistic thinkers). Mormons derive authority via our prophets and their angelic visitations and revelations. Edited December 5, 2017 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
kiwi57 Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, ttribe said: You don't agree that LDS Church's history is far more important to its doctrines and claims than most other Christian churches? All forms of Christianity are rather determinedly historical.
ttribe Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said: All forms of Christianity are rather determinedly historical. That's interesting. I'd like to hear more of what you consider the same and/or different between us and the rest of the Christian crowd on this issue. I never thought my position would be a controversial one. SeekingUnderstanding provided a nice summary that I agree with, though (above).
rongo Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 49 minutes ago, poptart said: Holy Roman empire flag. The Pope used to have a lot more control, until Luther came along...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coats_of_arms_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire It has up-to-date flags, though, that would be anachronistic for the Holy Roman Empire. Like Sachsen-Anhalt, and others, for instance.
poptart Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 Always had to chuckle, The Pope had the reich under his thumb for a while, only had 2 german popes one of which resigned, yet it was the Italian city states and the French who were the biggest pain. Suuuure, blame those drunken Germans, meanwhile lets overlook the anti-pope fiasco.
clarkgoble Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 1 hour ago, ttribe said: You don't agree that LDS Church's history is far more important to its doctrines and claims than most other Christian churches? I'd certainly agree it is. Whether all the things matter that critics claim matters is a different matter entirely. However I think the main issue is whether one believes a flawed human being can be inspired by God. To the degree one believes Luther was inspired and not merely rational then that in turn affects that thesis. To Mormons (and I suspect many other Christians) prophets can be flawed. While I don't necessarily buy all the narrative of Jonah, I think it is a great example teaching how a very flawed person can still receive revelation from God and be commanded to teach it to the people. 3
why me Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 On 12/5/2017 at 11:59 PM, ttribe said: The Lutherans don't claim Martin Luther: 1) Saw God; 2) was chosen as a Prophet; 3) translated a book of scripture; 4) received Priesthood keys through the ministration of angels; and 5) received ongoing revelation to administer day-to-day affairs in a fledgling restored church. The LDS Church's history bears directly on its truth claims; it's inseparable. Any pointing at "other" Christian churches and their lack of historical focus is nonsense in that light. http://www.history.com/topics/martin-luther-and-the-95-theses History is important for the Lutheran Church too,
ttribe Posted December 6, 2017 Posted December 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, why me said: http://www.history.com/topics/martin-luther-and-the-95-theses History is important for the Lutheran Church too, [sigh] I didn't say it was unimportant; I said it wasn't crucial to claims of truth with respect to the church being the one, and only, direct line to God. Edited December 6, 2017 by ttribe
Recommended Posts