Stargazer Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: A need? I did not say it was true for everyone - just that I believed that Jesus still has his stigmata, and will retain it The other question is whether God would permit it if someone with Downs wants to retain their appearance- obviously their behavior will be different I have no reason to believe that God would recognize such a "need" or not so why make anything a hard and fast response? Nobody knows and for me it is a paradigm that does not require such a logical postulation either way. In other words take your pick At least that is the way my brain works. In this thread I have been reacting with a degree of probably unnecessary vehemence over the insistence of certain parties that Down's children (and they remain children in mortality despite their chronological age) will be resurrected as Down's children -- all because they are such "sweet souls." As if they were some kind of pet. I have known a few Downs children, including my own brother-in-law, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that they are sweet, loving and inoffensive souls who deserve to be loved and appreciated in their mortal state, because they help us realize and actuate the overwhelming importance of loving our fellow man, despite, and perhaps even because of their limitations. But to insist that they must remain so in the resurrection (not saying this is your position), just because their condition makes us feel special, has caused me a great deal of annoyance. @pen sunshine lover's thought that these Downs children were sent here to remain unaccountable and unable to sin because they had been found to be valiant enough in the pre-existence so as to not be required to go through this testing really resonates with me -- even if I think it is non-doctrinal (meaning, I've not heard this uttered as actual doctrine, but only as speculation). I wonder, what is their ultimate destiny? I guess I can only wonder. Exaltation, or being raised to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, requires entering into the "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (DC 131:1-3), but the Downs child is sent here unable to enter into it, at least in mortality. But for all I know, there is a special "cutout" provided from the beginning that these children are already joined with an eternal spouse that they are preserved for, and perhaps they are sent here already sealed unto their exaltation, only needing a mortal body to complete them. Or something. That speculation is no less "out there" than the idea that they stay Downs even in the resurrection, because who the heck knows? I have a feeling that I am in need of getting off my high horse on this, because I don't know anything. I still believe I'm not wrong, but persisting in regaling others, especially @Tacenda, about this is beginning to make me feel like a self-righteous jerk. What difference does it make if she thinks that Downs children get resurrected as Downs children? It doesn't hurt anything, even if she's wrong. I may need to take a vacation from this place for a time. And take a chill-pill, as well as a humility supplement. My patriarchal blessing tells me TWICE to be humble. My mission president, himself a patriarch, told me that anything said more than once in a patriarchal blessing constituted a special instruction and needed to be paid attention to. Sometimes I forget this. Okay, I forget this too frequently. My apologies to everyone whom I may have offended in this thread. Except you, Mark. You're tough, you can take it! 😛 3
Rivers Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 On 10/6/2018 at 11:50 AM, provoman said: Gender is eternal. Male + female marriage. So exactly what Christ taught. Awesome 😎
Stargazer Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 10 hours ago, Tacenda said: What?? I don't see Down's Syndrome or being gay to be anywhere near a medical condition, such as having only one arm or being blind. Tacenda, I'm being a insufferable jerk with you today. It doesn't matter what you or I think about what happens to Downs children in the resurrection, because we don't know, and my insistence on my own point of view as if I were some kind of authority is out of place. Even if I'm right it's out of place. Please accept my apology. 3
Navidad Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Jeanne said: Is this true for all? Or just those who are baptized with covenants? I do have to say that in this mortal sphere, no one should ever say....you need to be fixed or that you will be fixed. Ever! I was baptized with covenants. You all seem to forget that! Mormons are not the only ones baptized with commitments and covenants - by immersion and with God's authority through the High Priest Jesus Christ! 1
CMZ Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 1 minute ago, Navidad said: I was baptized with covenants. You all seem to forget that! Mormons are not the only ones baptized with commitments and covenants - by immersion and with God's authority through the High Priest Jesus Christ! You're quoting a person who I don't think is a believing member of the Church (I could be wrong).
Tacenda Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Tacenda, I'm being a insufferable jerk with you today. It doesn't matter what you or I think about what happens to Downs children in the resurrection, because we don't know, and my insistence on my own point of view as if I were some kind of authority is out of place. Even if I'm right it's out of place. Please accept my apology. That's ok Stargazer, I guess when I met the little girl I've worked with for many weeks that has Down's Syndrome, I guess in my heart I believe that she is perfect in every way. Except maybe there are things she'll need and want in the hereafter that would ease her life more. But in my mind's eye and heart again, I believe it's in her chromosomes that she is how she is, and that's how I believe the gays are as well, or bisexuals. Some have varying degrees of Down's. So there is that also, and some have varying degress of sexual attraction to the same sex or opposite sex. I guess we just need to love, love and love some more on everyone and not do as Oaks did in making the people who choose to be who they are as gays and love who they love, and make them feel like they don't belong in the eternities with the rest if they don't change. That's all, and I thank you for your apology, that was very kind. Edited October 8, 2018 by Tacenda
Navidad Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Gosh I suggest you do a little more studying of LDS doctrine before you go off half-cocked making up stuff about what you do not understand. https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-john/chapter-28-john-20-21?lang=eng His wounds are badges of his identity. Also this, which is more scholarly, look down the page about 3/4. Too much to copy here https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-14-number-1-2013/crucifixion-reclamation-cross I am sure that if that is the case for anyone else, they can also retain their wounds as well. We are not as harsh as somehow you make us and neither is God. I don't know where you get this stuff. Plucked from air. I am beginning to understand more and more about why the Missourians fought back against the Mormon mobs. Your half-cocked response to me has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. It is ad-hominem and mean spirited. Your responses are plucked from your own hot air and arrogant self-assurance. Thanks for helping me more each day understand the arrogance and scripture-twisting that is Mormonism! 1
Avatar4321 Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 I'm seeing some saying that conference was a weekend of hate because of President Oaks's talks. Some claiming mass suicides have occured. Some people are delusional
CMZ Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 1 minute ago, Navidad said: I am beginning to understand more and more about why the Missourians fought back against the Mormon mobs. Your half-cocked response to me has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. It is ad-hominem and mean spirited. Your responses are plucked from your own hot air and arrogant self-assurance. Thanks for helping me more each day understand the arrogance and scripture-twisting that is Mormonism! It's some individuals in the Church that can sometimes be like that. But they need to learn to not be like that.
Tacenda Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stargazer said: In this thread I have been reacting with a degree of probably unnecessary vehemence over the insistence of certain parties that Down's children (and they remain children in mortality despite their chronological age) will be resurrected as Down's children -- all because they are such "sweet souls." As if they were some kind of pet. I have known a few Downs children, including my own brother-in-law, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that they are sweet, loving and inoffensive souls who deserve to be loved and appreciated in their mortal state, because they help us realize and actuate the overwhelming importance of loving our fellow man, despite, and perhaps even because of their limitations. But to insist that they must remain so in the resurrection (not saying this is your position), just because their condition makes us feel special, has caused me a great deal of annoyance. @pen sunshine lover's thought that these Downs children were sent here to remain unaccountable and unable to sin because they had been found to be valiant enough in the pre-existence so as to not be required to go through this testing really resonates with me -- even if I think it is non-doctrinal (meaning, I've not heard this uttered as actual doctrine, but only as speculation). I wonder, what is their ultimate destiny? I guess I can only wonder. Exaltation, or being raised to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, requires entering into the "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (DC 131:1-3), but the Downs child is sent here unable to enter into it, at least in mortality. But for all I know, there is a special "cutout" provided from the beginning that these children are already joined with an eternal spouse that they are preserved for, and perhaps they are sent here already sealed unto their exaltation, only needing a mortal body to complete them. Or something. That speculation is no less "out there" than the idea that they stay Downs even in the resurrection, because who the heck knows? I have a feeling that I am in need of getting off my high horse on this, because I don't know anything. I still believe I'm not wrong, but persisting in regaling others, especially @Tacenda, about this is beginning to make me feel like a self-righteous jerk. What difference does it make if she thinks that Downs children get resurrected as Downs children? It doesn't hurt anything, even if she's wrong. I may need to take a vacation from this place for a time. And take a chill-pill, as well as a humility supplement. My patriarchal blessing tells me TWICE to be humble. My mission president, himself a patriarch, told me that anything said more than once in a patriarchal blessing constituted a special instruction and needed to be paid attention to. Sometimes I forget this. Okay, I forget this too frequently. My apologies to everyone whom I may have offended in this thread. Except you, Mark. You're tough, you can take it! 😛 You don't have to feel bad for having a strong reaction or opinion. I might be wrong, and in my post to you just a minute ago I mentioned that maybe they will want to return to a different body or have their problems fixed. My niece is a Medium, don't know what you think of them, but she was given a gift of having the spirits communicate with her. She said that my mom still has some affects of her Alzheimer's disease in the afterlife, but that it's not as bad as it once was, so I'm so hoping it disappears completely. I am a skeptic sometimes, but I can't imagine my niece lying. But that's a topic for a different time. Anyhow, did you read the post on Stiff Neckedness before making these apologies? (lol, just kidding!) Oh, and I like you posting here, so don't go for long, are you heading back to England soon? And BTW, I feel as if you're a friend, ever since your posts when your late wife was dying, God Bless her soul. Take Care! Edited October 8, 2018 by Tacenda
Navidad Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 37 minutes ago, Stargazer said: In this thread I have been reacting with a degree of probably unnecessary vehemence over the insistence of certain parties that Down's children (and they remain children in mortality despite their chronological age) will be resurrected as Down's children -- all because they are such "sweet souls." As if they were some kind of pet. I have known a few Downs children, including my own brother-in-law, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that they are sweet, loving and inoffensive souls who deserve to be loved and appreciated in their mortal state, because they help us realize and actuate the overwhelming importance of loving our fellow man, despite, and perhaps even because of their limitations. But to insist that they must remain so in the resurrection (not saying this is your position), just because their condition makes us feel special, has caused me a great deal of annoyance. @pen sunshine lover's thought that these Downs children were sent here to remain unaccountable and unable to sin because they had been found to be valiant enough in the pre-existence so as to not be required to go through this testing really resonates with me -- even if I think it is non-doctrinal (meaning, I've not heard this uttered as actual doctrine, but only as speculation). I wonder, what is their ultimate destiny? I guess I can only wonder. Exaltation, or being raised to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, requires entering into the "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (DC 131:1-3), but the Downs child is sent here unable to enter into it, at least in mortality. But for all I know, there is a special "cutout" provided from the beginning that these children are already joined with an eternal spouse that they are preserved for, and perhaps they are sent here already sealed unto their exaltation, only needing a mortal body to complete them. Or something. That speculation is no less "out there" than the idea that they stay Downs even in the resurrection, because who the heck knows? I have a feeling that I am in need of getting off my high horse on this, because I don't know anything. I still believe I'm not wrong, but persisting in regaling others, especially @Tacenda, about this is beginning to make me feel like a self-righteous jerk. What difference does it make if she thinks that Downs children get resurrected as Downs children? It doesn't hurt anything, even if she's wrong. I may need to take a vacation from this place for a time. And take a chill-pill, as well as a humility supplement. My patriarchal blessing tells me TWICE to be humble. My mission president, himself a patriarch, told me that anything said more than once in a patriarchal blessing constituted a special instruction and needed to be paid attention to. Sometimes I forget this. Okay, I forget this too frequently. My apologies to everyone whom I may have offended in this thread. Except you, Mark. You're tough, you can take it! 😛 Good evening-- My only issue with your position is when your characterize others as having "insistence that Down's children will be resurrected as Down's children" I have read this thread and contributed to it. I haven't seen anyone insist anyone. That is a great way to marginalize people. I said on several occasions and even thanked you all because I have never thought about this before. It never dawned on me that we would all be perfect the moment we ring heaven's doorbells. Neither I, nor anyone else is "insisting" on anything - that is a product of your own projection. I am so discouraged by this forum. I ask questions and get radically different answers from Mormons on this forum and then get attacked for asking the questions. You all are hardening me against Mormoism (not Mormons) by the day! Too much attacking of those who are either struggling to understand or who have, in individual areas arrived at contrary conclusions. 1
Navidad Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 17 minutes ago, CMZ said: It's some individuals in the Church that can sometimes be like that. But they need to learn to not be like that. I am so discouraged. I have tried so hard. I know most of you don't believe that, because if I had really tried and really prayed, I would have seen the light. So even, for the one like me who remains so confused, you can only assure me that I am less than , wrong, or I misunderstand. How can I possibly understand the vast array of answers that come out of this forum? You seem to prefer to banter among yourselves about hermaphrodites! Is that the best you can do? It seems like this is all a fun game to most of you. You banter, mock, tease, and demean each other, all in good fun. It isn't fun to some of us who are truly and openly trying to understand and who are in trouble from all sides for having done so. Some of you have taught me that being a Mormon is something I never want to be.
USU78 Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 On 10/6/2018 at 7:09 PM, mfbukowski said: It's not my thread. Elder Oaks most important point was how he defined truth and has vast implications. It seems of course everyone gravitated to the lowest common denominator which was yet another gender thread. Truly a shame but it is to be expected I suppose. And yes, one gets thread-banned in my experience for discussing differences between men and women and in supporting the notion that the commandments prohibit gay behavior. The board appears saturated with political correctness of late, and the usual tactic of shouting down free speech. But that is the board, not church doctrine, thank God. If one speaks against what is considered "politically correct" in our secular society, though it be church doctrine, one is likely to be thread banned. We shall see if that happens- just watch and see. But maybe I will start a thread on what Elder Oaks said about truth- which is essentially the view I have taken for years and of course I am sure he has as well, but it is incredible to hear an apostle say that scientific truth is not the same as religious truth. Mormonism has Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints typically have been quite fundamentalist in maintaining a world wide flood, no evolution, and a six day creation, while NOT still arguing about heliocentrism, at least. So it's ok to not believe Bellarmine on heliocentrism and so Galileo wins over Bellarmine, (science wins over a literal Bible) AND BYU teaches evolution as any University would, BUT the leadership typically still affirms a six day creation and world wide flood. (Bible literalism over science) I think Elder Oaks blew the need for such literalism out of the water today I take the position is that these are different paradigms- literalism works for some, and not for others. But the notion that "both could be right if it helps your understanding of Christ" is quite foreign to most LDS folks Truth is contextual in Moroni, Alma, James, and Section 93, yet bible literalism and scripture over science still reigns in the hearts of most LDS. By maintaining that science and religion have different kinds of truth, the door is open to changing all that. And, Elder Oaks is the next in line to be prophet at this time. I like it. 🤙🤙, brother. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: I wish I could upvote this 100 times. I wish you could too. Thanks
Stargazer Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Navidad said: Good evening-- My only issue with your position is when your characterize others as having "insistence that Down's children will be resurrected as Down's children" I have read this thread and contributed to it. I haven't seen anyone insist anyone. That is a great way to marginalize people. I said on several occasions and even thanked you all because I have never thought about this before. It never dawned on me that we would all be perfect the moment we ring heaven's doorbells. Neither I, nor anyone else is "insisting" on anything - that is a product of your own projection. I am so discouraged by this forum. I ask questions and get radically different answers from Mormons on this forum and then get attacked for asking the questions. You all are hardening me against Mormoism (not Mormons) by the day! Too much attacking of those who are either struggling to understand or who have, in individual areas arrived at contrary conclusions. Perhaps you need to stop assuming that disagreement constitutes an attack. And when in a conversation someone (such as myself and others) says the same thing over and over again, that might just constitute "insisting," or be taken as "insistence." I do insist upon certain things, I admit it! The things I "insist" on are very frequently things I believe strongly -- though sometimes I can be persuaded to reverse or modify these things. If others repeat themselves about something, then that signifies that perhaps they believe it strongly, and it seems quite alright in that case to take that as "insistence." And it might be that when someone has a belief or a position that they hold strongly to, which I am sure applies to both you, me, and others, they will write strongly about it rather be all Harvey Milquetoast over it. Sometimes some of us express ourselves a bit too strongly about some things. Sometimes we even recognize this and try to pull back from the fray. And we're not all "Mormons" (or "Mormos") here. Some of us are atheists, some are Catholics, and some are other things. And some of the "Mormons/Mormos" are very much not standard LDS in their beliefs, and those of us are more standard have some very rough-and-tumble affrays of words over these differences. You've put 220 posts onto this forum, which means you're still a bit of a newbie. Nothing wrong with that, but note this: many of us have been here for a good long time and are familiar with a lot of arguments. So when we see an argument we are very familiar with (or think we are familiar with), we will sometimes rush in like gangbusters. And sometimes we are rushing in all out of proportion to the provocation. By the way, what the heck is a "Mormo"? Quote I am so discouraged. I have tried so hard. I know most of you don't believe that, because if I had really tried and really prayed, I would have seen the light. So even, for the one like me who remains so confused, you can only assure me that I am less than , wrong, or I misunderstand. How can I possibly understand the vast array of answers that come out of this forum? You seem to prefer to banter among yourselves about hermaphrodites! Is that the best you can do? It seems like this is all a fun game to most of you. You banter, mock, tease, and demean each other, all in good fun. It isn't fun to some of us who are truly and openly trying to understand and who are in trouble from all sides for having done so. Some of you have taught me that being a Mormon is something I never want to be. As I said, we are not all Mormons. @Jeanne, for example, used to be, but no longer. @Tacenda is, but is questioning. And I am wondering what it is exactly you were thinking to accomplish here? Until this thread you hadn't really come to my attention, so I'm somewhat puzzled by your discouragement. Puzzled in a genuinely questioning way. From your posts it seems like you were more-or-less here to dispute with members of the Church over questions of doctrine, to present your own ideas in perhaps mild contention to what LDS beliefs are (perfectly OK, by the way), and that you were not here to be instructed, necessarily. Perhaps that assessment of mine is out of line with the facts. And like I said earlier, if I have offended or discouraged you, I apologize. Edited October 8, 2018 by Stargazer 1
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: I'll have to remember that one. It's good to have these little tidbits in store for instant use. On the other hand, do I want a reputation as a complete jerk? I may be developing one, I fear. Do you remember Al Jaffee's "Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions"? (Here's a link to a few genuine Jaffee versions, and some user-created ones. If you want some laughs) Oh that's great stuff! That kind of stuff fits my jerky personality perfectly! 1
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 37 minutes ago, Navidad said: I am so discouraged. I have tried so hard. I know most of you don't believe that, because if I had really tried and really prayed, I would have seen the light. So even, for the one like me who remains so confused, you can only assure me that I am less than , wrong, or I misunderstand. How can I possibly understand the vast array of answers that come out of this forum? You seem to prefer to banter among yourselves about hermaphrodites! Is that the best you can do? It seems like this is all a fun game to most of you. You banter, mock, tease, and demean each other, all in good fun. It isn't fun to some of us who are truly and openly trying to understand and who are in trouble from all sides for having done so. Some of you have taught me that being a Mormon is something I never want to be. Sorry if I offended you but perhaps you do not know that your comments are often VERY offensive and I get carried away Saying that you side with the Missouri murderers for example does not exactly put you on the favorable list at least for me. And on it goes. You post some VERY offensive stuff. My next post will detail some - I will simply bold the offensive parts. 3
Navidad Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 11 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Perhaps you need to stop assuming that disagreement constitutes an attack. And when in a conversation someone (such as myself and others) says the same thing over and over again, that might just constitute "insisting," or be taken as "insistence." I do insist upon certain things, I admit it! The things I "insist" on are very frequently things I believe strongly -- though sometimes I can be persuaded to reverse or modify these things. If others repeat themselves about something, then that signifies that perhaps they believe it strongly, and it seems quite alright in that case to take that as "insistence." And it might be that when someone has a belief or a position that they hold strongly to, which I am sure applies to both you, me, and others, they will write strongly about it rather be all Harvey Milquetoast over it. Sometimes some of us express ourselves a bit too strongly about some things. Sometimes we even recognize this and try to pull back from the fray. And we're not all "Mormons" (or "Mormos") here. Some of us are atheists, some are Catholics, and some are other things. And some of the "Mormons/Mormos" are very much not standard LDS in their beliefs, and those of us are more standard have some very rough-and-tumble affrays of words over these differences. You've put 220 posts onto this forum, which means you're still a bit of a newbie. Nothing wrong with that, but note this: many of us have been here for a good long time and are familiar with a lot of arguments. So when we see an argument we are very familiar with (or think we are familiar with), we will sometimes rush in like gangbusters. And sometimes we are rushing in all out of proportion to the provocation. By the way, what the heck is a "Mormo"? As I said, we are not all Mormons. @Jeanne, for example, used to be, but no longer. @Tacenda is, but is questioning. And I am wondering what it is exactly you were thinking to accomplish here? Until this thread you hadn't really come to my attention, so I'm somewhat puzzled by your discouragement. Puzzled in a genuinely questioning way. From your posts it seems like you were more-or-less here to dispute with members of the Church over questions of doctrine, to present your own ideas in perhaps mild contention to what LDS beliefs are (perfectly OK, by the way), and that you were not here to be instructed, necessarily. Perhaps that assessment of mine is out of line with the facts. And like I said earlier, if I have offended or discouraged you, I apologize. 11 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Perhaps you need to stop assuming that disagreement constitutes an attack. And when in a conversation someone (such as myself and others) says the same thing over and over again, that might just constitute "insisting," or be taken as "insistence." I do insist upon certain things, I admit it! The things I "insist" on are very frequently things I believe strongly -- though sometimes I can be persuaded to reverse or modify these things. If others repeat themselves about something, then that signifies that perhaps they believe it strongly, and it seems quite alright in that case to take that as "insistence." And it might be that when someone has a belief or a position that they hold strongly to, which I am sure applies to both you, me, and others, they will write strongly about it rather be all Harvey Milquetoast over it. Sometimes some of us express ourselves a bit too strongly about some things. Sometimes we even recognize this and try to pull back from the fray. And we're not all "Mormons" (or "Mormos") here. Some of us are atheists, some are Catholics, and some are other things. And some of the "Mormons/Mormos" are very much not standard LDS in their beliefs, and those of us are more standard have some very rough-and-tumble affrays of words over these differences. You've put 220 posts onto this forum, which means you're still a bit of a newbie. Nothing wrong with that, but note this: many of us have been here for a good long time and are familiar with a lot of arguments. So when we see an argument we are very familiar with (or think we are familiar with), we will sometimes rush in like gangbusters. And sometimes we are rushing in all out of proportion to the provocation. By the way, what the heck is a "Mormo"? As I said, we are not all Mormons. @Jeanne, for example, used to be, but no longer. @Tacenda is, but is questioning. And I am wondering what it is exactly you were thinking to accomplish here? Until this thread you hadn't really come to my attention, so I'm somewhat puzzled by your discouragement. Puzzled in a genuinely questioning way. From your posts it seems like you were more-or-less here to dispute with members of the Church over questions of doctrine, to present your own ideas in perhaps mild contention to what LDS beliefs are (perfectly OK, by the way), and that you were not here to be instructed, necessarily. Perhaps that assessment of mine is out of line with the facts. And like I said earlier, if I have offended or discouraged you, I apologize. Stargazer: A Mormo is a typo. I am very sorry. Please show me where I have posted in a manner to dispute questions of doctrine. You are projecting that on me. What was I trying to accomplish here? I was trying to get answers to my many questions about Mormonism. I am not a closet anti-Mormon (although this forum is pushing me in that direction). I am not proselyting anyone here. I have asked questions, thanked those who have made me think and suggested that I believe that Mormon exceptionalism is a difficult concept for many of us who are non-Mormon and that I think that Mormons have many inaccurate ideas and perceptions about Protestants in general and evangelicals in particular. Those are not doctrinal debates. I have also repeatedly said I think they are more sociological in nature due to the Saint's identity as a group that has been "innocently persecuted" (something share by us Mennonites) and maintaining a sense of "otherness" as a group. I have had no intention of being a provocateur. I think maybe one of my 220 posts or however many you said I have posted was provocative. I talked about testimonies, prayers, and talks all seeming alike and seeming to me like they were parroted. As I thought on that, I came to the conclusion that wasn't kind. I also have come to the conclusion that this forum is not the place for a genuine questioner. It is a place you all come to play; to challenge each other; and to debate over hermaphrodites. Not the place for me. I go away and keep coming back. That isn't because I want to fight; it is because I so badly want answers that I can't get locally here. Oh well. As I have been told on this forum before, I need to get over it. Again, I am very sorry. 1
Stargazer Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Navidad said: I am beginning to understand more and more about why the Missourians fought back against the Mormon mobs. Because the Mormon "mobs" were abolitionists and many of the Missourians were all gung-ho for slavery is one of the reasons. Actually, the term "mobs" seems to apply more to the Missourians than the Mormons. I suggest a perusal of the Wikipedia article on the subject for a more in-depth understanding of the matter. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War. As for the reasons for the conflict, from the article here's an extract: Quote Smith's followers, commonly known as Mormons, began to settle in Jackson County in 1831 to "build up" the city of Zion. Tensions built up between the rapidly growing Mormon community and the earlier settlers for a number of reasons: They believed—after a revelation recorded on June 6, 1831—that if they were righteous they would inherit the land held by others ("which is now the land of your enemies") in Missouri. Their economic cohesion allowed the Mormons to dominate local economies. They believed that the Native Americans were descendants of Israelites, and proselytized among them extensively. Most Mormon immigrants to Missouri (which was at the time a slave state) came from areas which were sympathetic to abolitionism. They tended to vote in blocs. Where there was a critical mass of Mormons in the community, they were frequently viewed as having sold the election to the highest bidder, although there is no recorded proof of this ever taking place. These tensions led to harassment and mob violence against the Mormon settlers. In October 1833, anti-Mormon mobs drove the Mormons from Jackson County. At that time, opponents of the Mormons used a pattern that would be repeated four times, culminating in the expulsion of the Mormons from the entire state. Lilburn Boggs, as a Jackson county resident, and as Lieutenant Governor, was in a position to observe and assist in executing the tactics described by one Mormon historian: Quote In 1833 Boggs passively saw community leaders and officials sign demands for Mormon withdrawal, and next force a gunbarrel contract to abandon the county before spring planting...anti-Mormon goals were reached in a few simple stages. Executive paralysis permitted terrorism, which forced Mormons to self-defense, which was immediately labeled as an "insurrection," and was put down by the activated militia of the county. Once Latter-day Saints were disarmed, mounted squads visited Mormon settlements with threats and enough beatings and destruction of homes to force flight. Forcefully deprived of their homes and property, the Latter-day Saints temporarily settled in the area around Jackson County, especially in Clay County. Mormon petitions and lawsuits failed to bring any satisfaction: the non-Mormons in Jackson refused to allow the Mormons to return and reimbursement for confiscated and damaged property was refused. In 1834, Latter-day Saints attempted to effect a return to Jackson County with a quasi-military expedition known as Zion's Camp, but this effort also failed when the governor failed to provide the expected support. Now, understand that even the Lord thought the Mormons in Missouri were not without fault in the matter of Missouri -- a revelation to Joseph Smith expressed as much. It might be seen as somewhat unseemly or even unfriendly to blame the victims for their oppression. Just sayin'. And just because some of the posters here are a bit rough-and-ready might not be a reason to reject what they believe. Including the ones that are actually more opposed than in favor of LDS beliefs. You have not found a conflict-free zone, I am afraid. The moderators keep this place from breaking out into outright warfare (check out the forums where the moderators are downright hostile to LDS beliefs if you want to see an instructive contrast), but it still gets a bit fresh around here. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 1 hour ago, Navidad said: I am beginning to understand more and more about why the Missourians fought back against the Mormon mobs. Your half-cocked response to me has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. It is ad-hominem and mean spirited. Your responses are plucked from your own hot air and arrogant self-assurance. Thanks for helping me more each day understand the arrogance and scripture-twisting that is Mormonism! Bold added. So the Missourians were right to murder Mormons at Haun's Mill, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haun's_Mill_massacre Wars are never one sided Your comment is highly offensive. Yes 22 people were killed in those events and some related, but 17 of those were Mormons. My responses are plucked from BYU scholars and General Authority statements, not MY arrogant self assurance. We call these kind of repeated statements of belief "doctrine" and your opinion that I plucked it out of thin air is completely unfounded. I cited my sources. And NONE of it was ad-hominem. Yes my tone was snarky and I apologize for responding to you in kind. I should have been kinder and not responded in kind. So if teaching you Mormon beliefs is "scripture twisting", so be it. That is your opinion- don't blame me for how you interpret scripture. How you can be so confident of your interpretation over ours while maintaining your beliefs are not "better" in some way and therefore "extraordinary" is beyond my understanding. Indeed if this is your opinion of Mormonism, there is nothing I can do to change that.
Stargazer Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Sorry if I offended you but perhaps you do not know that your comments are often VERY offensive and I get carried away Saying that you side with the Missouri murderers for example does not exactly put you on the favorable list at least for me. And on it goes. You post some VERY offensive stuff. My next post will detail some - I will simply bold the offensive parts. You might want to put a sock in it for the moment. Or dial it back quite a bit. Do you have a "Mild" setting? I think @Navidad, is being misunderstood and taken for what he is not. I'll admit to it anyway. See his responses to my recent posts. 2
Stargazer Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Navidad said: I think that Mormons have many inaccurate ideas and perceptions about Protestants in general and evangelicals in particular. I should point out that while some of us here were born into the Church, a good number of us (such as I) were not, and include a number who were Protestants and even evangelicals. And some of the "inaccurate ideas" about them come from very close acquaintanceship and familiarity with them. Edited October 8, 2018 by Stargazer
Navidad Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Sorry if I offended you but perhaps you do not know that your comments are often VERY offensive and I get carried away Saying that you side with the Missouri murderers for example does not exactly put you on the favorable list at least for me. And on it goes. You post some VERY offensive stuff. My next post will detail some - I will simply bold the offensive parts. 3 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Because the Mormon "mobs" were abolitionists and many of the Missourians were all gung-ho for slavery is one of the reasons. Actually, the term "mobs" seems to apply more to the Missourians than the Mormons. I suggest a perusal of the Wikipedia article on the subject for a more in-depth understanding of the matter. You can find it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War. As for the reasons for the conflict, from the article here's an extract: Now, understand that even the Lord thought the Mormons in Missouri were not without fault in the matter of Missouri -- a revelation to Joseph Smith expressed as much. It might be seen as somewhat unseemly or even unfriendly to blame the victims for their oppression. Just sayin'. And just because some of the posters here are a bit rough-and-ready might not be a reason to reject what they believe. Including the ones that are actually more opposed than in favor of LDS beliefs. You have not found a conflict-free zone, I am afraid. The moderators keep this place from breaking out into outright warfare (check out the forums where the moderators are downright hostile to LDS beliefs if you want to see an instructive contrast), but it still gets a bit fresh around here. My questions have been about Mormon beliefs, not history. As you say, the Saints were not without fault in the matter of Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Mexico, or Utah from 1857 to 1868 and later into the 20th century. And now we are even - after 30 years of studying Mormon history, you are referring me for a "more in-depth understanding to Wikipedia. I invite you any time to visit my library of hundreds of Mormon history books or I can send you talks and articles I have written for MHA conferences and journal, and LDS firesides. Now I am offended, so we are even! 😁 Certainly Mormons were at times victims, my study of LDS history also assures me they have had their share of being the victimizers and have a huge blind spot (something else I have said here that I guess is offensive) when it comes to self-reflection about their identity and history. Anyway, this isn't the place for me. Once again I have come to realize that. I just keep coming back . . . not sure why I do that! Take care.
Stargazer Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 Just now, Navidad said: My questions have been about Mormon beliefs, not history.... If you don't mind my saying so, you do come across as having more of a fixed opinion that you want to get across to us than really wanting to know more. Which isn't unusual for this place; we get that sometimes. If one asks questions, one gets answers to questions. But if one provides one's own take on answers (because one has already studied up on it and has definite opinions to express), then one is more likely to get responses, and not necessarily answers. Be that as it may, I will admit to being insufficiently humble, forbearing and conciliatory too frequently, and I am sorry for that. Just now, Navidad said: I just keep coming back . . . not sure why I do that! Take care. You're like the rest of us addicts, I guess! 1
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: In this thread I have been reacting with a degree of probably unnecessary vehemence over the insistence of certain parties that Down's children (and they remain children in mortality despite their chronological age) will be resurrected as Down's children -- all because they are such "sweet souls." As if they were some kind of pet. I have known a few Downs children, including my own brother-in-law, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that they are sweet, loving and inoffensive souls who deserve to be loved and appreciated in their mortal state, because they help us realize and actuate the overwhelming importance of loving our fellow man, despite, and perhaps even because of their limitations. But to insist that they must remain so in the resurrection (not saying this is your position), just because their condition makes us feel special, has caused me a great deal of annoyance. @pen sunshine lover's thought that these Downs children were sent here to remain unaccountable and unable to sin because they had been found to be valiant enough in the pre-existence so as to not be required to go through this testing really resonates with me -- even if I think it is non-doctrinal (meaning, I've not heard this uttered as actual doctrine, but only as speculation). I wonder, what is their ultimate destiny? I guess I can only wonder. Exaltation, or being raised to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, requires entering into the "the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" (DC 131:1-3), but the Downs child is sent here unable to enter into it, at least in mortality. But for all I know, there is a special "cutout" provided from the beginning that these children are already joined with an eternal spouse that they are preserved for, and perhaps they are sent here already sealed unto their exaltation, only needing a mortal body to complete them. Or something. That speculation is no less "out there" than the idea that they stay Downs even in the resurrection, because who the heck knows? I have a feeling that I am in need of getting off my high horse on this, because I don't know anything. I still believe I'm not wrong, but persisting in regaling others, especially @Tacenda, about this is beginning to make me feel like a self-righteous jerk. What difference does it make if she thinks that Downs children get resurrected as Downs children? It doesn't hurt anything, even if she's wrong. I may need to take a vacation from this place for a time. And take a chill-pill, as well as a humility supplement. My patriarchal blessing tells me TWICE to be humble. My mission president, himself a patriarch, told me that anything said more than once in a patriarchal blessing constituted a special instruction and needed to be paid attention to. Sometimes I forget this. Okay, I forget this too frequently. My apologies to everyone whom I may have offended in this thread. Except you, Mark. You're tough, you can take it! 😛 Take it and dish it back! I simply reject the idea that they will come back as Downs "children" simply because it is incompatible, in my opinion to having the intelligence necessary to become like God. And speaking of these wonderful, completely pure people as "cute" is demeaning. I don't understand how that fits with the gospel. The glory of God is intelligence or at least that is the paradigm. I do not see a consistent logical way to make those two ideas fit- that one who lacks "normal" intelligence can become like God. Show me how that works and I will change my opinion And I cannot figure out the temple rites if the Savior does not have His wounds. They make no sense. I see all Adams as Thomases. Thomas is Everyman, if he ever existed. It is hard to imagine the story as "true" to me if 1- he was an apostle and witnessed miracles and 2- simply visually saw the Savior after being with him for 3 years. He would have known Him instantly. But the story works well with the temple narrative in making Adams, Thomases. I hope that is cryptic enough yet communicates about the temple for those who understand it.
Recommended Posts