New Book on Polygamy

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are advocating extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence. 

Absolutely Not! I suggest it be more of a grass-roots individual initiative thing and not involve mobs at all.

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are advocating that people of one political stripe use arbitrarily-imposed labels ("fascist" and "Nazi") to justify the use of violence intended to silence and/or punish people of another politcal stripe.

No, I am suggesting people punch real fascists and real Nazis.

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are, as I understand it, a member of the Church (I don't know, but that's my assumption). 

I think this is a very problematic posture for a member of the Church to take.  It is not congruent with the counsel we have received from the First Presidency.  Again, from January 2021:

I am a member. At least they haven't booted me yet. Maybe if I punch more Nazis?

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are advocating extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence against other people, which is not congruent with "treat{ing} one another and all of God's children with respect, diginty and love."

I am following the Golden Rule. I make this broad declaration. If I ever advocate for Fascism, Nazism, or White Supremacy I want to be punched repeatedly until I stop doing that.

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are advocating extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence against other people, which is not congruent with "honor{ing} democratic institutions and processes" or with "obey{ing}, honor{ing}, and sustain{ing} the law."

I hope you reconsider what you are advocating here.

Sometimes the only way to sustain the law is to punch people who feel themselves not bound by its strictures and through secret combinations attempt to shield themselves from the consequences of their crimes. Fighting them within the system may not suffice as they do not consider themselves bound by the rules of the system.

In short:

I will never stop advocating for the punching of Nazis. Until they are all gone. Then I will retire and take up a new hobby. Probably advocating for the punching of mimes. I was going to say clowns but then I remembered that there were clown counter-protests in some parts of the world against fascists. A clown even punched a Nazi once.

Even the Joker is for punching Nazis. The Greatest Generation got that way punching Nazis. Punching Nazis is good. It is cathartic. It makes those crybaby Nazis make hilarious videos whining about how oppressed they are that are best viewed while consuming popcorn.

DOWN WITH FASCISM! DOWN WITH NAZIS!!!

How did this become a controversial stand?

Edited August 4, 2021 by The Nehor

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

DOWN WITH FASCISM! DOWN WITH NAZIS!!!

How did this become a controversial stand?

Yours are unserious remarks about a serious topic.  I'll leave you to it, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yours are unserious remarks about a serious topic.  I'll leave you to it, then.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am being very serious with a touch of fun. Fascism often works within the system but its goal is to destroy the system. If it becomes entrenched and starts to take over action should be taken.

To put it in perspective God appears to have endorsed the American Revolution. The oppression and damage King George was threatening the colonies with is nothing compared to what fascists can do to it. I am not even advocating revolution. I am advocating punching them. Oh, and also deplatform them and humiliate them at every opportunity.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am being very serious with a touch of fun.

Doesn't look like it.  You are using "a touch of fun" to gloss over the ugly and immoral nature of what you are advocating: the justification of and advocacy for extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence.

30 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fascism often works within the system but its goal is to destroy the system. If it becomes entrenched and starts to take over action should be taken.

Meh.  We've had this discussion before.  If someone were to label you a "Nazi" or a "fascist," and then proceed to beat you to a pulp and destroy or steal your property, I don't you would respond with "a touch of fun."

But here you are, advocating for such violence against other people summarily and arbitrarily targeted by violent mobs.  You have bragged about how you will "giggle" at and "cheer" such violence.

Yours are unserious remarks about a serious topic.  Or else they are repugnant and vile comments that glorify and rationalize extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence, in flagrant contravention of the counsel we have received from prophets and apostles.  Or you are using unserious remarks to evade addressing the repugnant and vile nature of what you are advocating.

-Smac

Edited August 4, 2021 by smac97

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Doesn't look like it.  You are using "a touch of fun" to gloss over the ugly and immoral nature of what you are advocating: the justification of and advocacy for extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence.

Like the Allies in World War 2? Sure, I can go with that.

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  We've had this discussion before.  If someone were to label you a "Nazi" or a "fascist," and then proceed to beat you to a pulp and destroy or steal your property, I don't you would respond with "a touch of fun."

True, I would punch them back and even try to have a “touch of fun” doing it.

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But here you are, advocating for such violence against other people summarily and arbitrarily targeted by violent mobs.  You have bragged about how you will "giggle" at and "cheer" such violence.

Yeah, punching Nazis is funny and people should rejoice when it happens. It is what united the Greatest Generation. Everyone should unite in joy at things that frustrate, stop, or harm Nazis.

They weren’t arbitrarily targeted. If I was laughing they were fascists at the least and probably Nazis.

51 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yours are unserious remarks about a serious topic.  Or else they are repugnant and vile comments that glorify and rationalize extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence, in flagrant contravention of the counsel we have received from prophets and apostles.  Or you are using unserious remarks to evade addressing the repugnant and vile nature of what you are advocating.

Why are you so worried about fascists and Nazis not getting punched? That seems more repugnant and vile then wanting to form a fist and landing a few jabs on a Nazi.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

 

Why are you so worried about fascists and Nazis not getting punched? That seems more repugnant and vile then wanting to form a fist and landing a few jabs on a Nazi.

This polygamy book thread took a strange detour.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Doesn't look like it.  You are using "a touch of fun" to gloss over the ugly and immoral nature of what you are advocating: the justification of and advocacy for extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence.

Like the Allies in World War 2?

No.  Not like.  The conduct of the Allies during World War II cannot be reasonably characterized as "extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence."

Surely you have heard of the Geneva Convention of 1929?  The "Rules of Land Warfare" promulgated by the War Department?  The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907?

What you are advocating is lawless, mobocratic violence and thuggery.  It is evil.  It is wrong.  Our ancestors endured the things you are saying you want to "giggle" about and "cheer" on.

Yours is an unserious and facile position.  That you are nevertheless apparently genuine and sincere in your desire to see such things is contemptible.  As bad or worse than the terrible things said by those #DezNat guys.

-Smac

Edited August 5, 2021 by smac97

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

believe it must include kindness and a willingness to "receive" whatever the struggling person is offering without debate, education, citations, advice, or even dialogue about it.

This needs to be the starting point.  And you need to stay there until the person you are trying to help knows you understand well enough to trust you are not diminishing their concerns, but trying to present viable options to work with them.  I know some are fearful of increasing fears if we take them seriously and start with temporary solutions that approach the fears as realistic, but this might get the person to feel secure enough to start looking at the situation in a different way…but they are unlikely to just because someone tells them they are wrong.

This may be all they need in fact.  If they do need more help, then we need to be careful not to step out of that trust by shifting into ‘I have listened to you, now listen to me’….which a lot of people think is empathy, but it is not.

And any solutions offered need to be tailored to the person and circumstances. Someone with performance anxiety due to some bad experiences in the past may be helped with desensitization for example, but someone experiencing that because of depression and chronic anxiety….desentization efforts may make things worse because feelings stay as extreme, just proving they were right to be anxious in the first place.

This is one reason it may be helpful to encourage the person to come up with their own solution and be supportive of that rather than go to the ‘let me solve your problems for you’ approach.  If the solution is unworkable or unlikely to be successful, push them to come up with more, help  with brainstorming, but let them own it.

Edited August 5, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

If someone came up to you and, without invitation, launched into a diatribe insulting and disparaging the character and virtues of someone you know and love - your mother or your spouse, for example - would you excuse such ugilness because the provcateur is "strugglilng?"  Would you let accusations you know to be false to go unanswered and unchallenged?  

I wouldn't.  I would defend the honor and character and reputation of my mother, or my wife.  

Do you help the person become kinder and less prone to insulting others, do you want to change the person’s mind so that in the future they don’t do this, or do you want to be a witness for the truth, a defender?

All approaches have their place and are worthy endeavors, but if you assume you can immediately defend the honor of your wife and help the person attacking her at the same time, in most cases you would be wrong.

Edited August 5, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

All approaches have their place and are worthy endeavors, but if you assume you can immediately defend the honor of your wife and help the person attacking her at the same time, in most cases you would be wrong.

Such a great point.  Sometimes defending honor is the right choice, but sometimes helping the person doing the attacking is.  Christ used both, but He seemed to more often lead with charity and a desire to help than to condemn and defend.

That's why I love the phrase "never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved" by President Monson.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

In order to empathize with someone you do have to "join in". 

Well said. Mourn with those that mourn. Don’t tell them they shouldn’t be sad because (fill in the blank)… “Jesus wept”

Edited August 5, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  Not like.  The conduct of the Allies during World War II cannot be reasonably characterized as "extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence."

Surely you have heard of the Geneva Convention of 1929?  The "Rules of Land Warfare" promulgated by the War Department?  The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907?

What you are advocating is lawless, mobocratic violence and thuggery.  It is evil.  It is wrong.  Our ancestors endured the things you are saying you want to "giggle" about and "cheer" on.

Yours is an unserious and facile position.  That you are nevertheless apparently genuine and sincere in your desire to see such things is contemptible.

-Smac

War “laws” are broken in every war. Repeatedly. So yes, extralegal. All wars are politically motivated. All wars are violent.

Punching Nazis is not wrong and my church ancestors did not just get popped in the mouth for advocating white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and wiping out all inferiors. I didn’t advocate for burning down the homes of Nazis………..yet.

Now beating up fascists is contemptible? Oh boy. No wonder this nation is going down the toilet. We are okay with cops beating people, immigrants being beaten, suspects being murdered while in custody, incarcerated prisoners being mistreated inhumanely, and minorities being marginalized and denied equal protection under the law BUT don’t you dare punch someone who is out to destroy our government and laws completely and is trying to bring misery to millions. THAT WOULD BE WRONG! 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

War “laws” are broken in every war. Repeatedly.

Yes.  But the laws are there.

You, meanwhile, are giggling (your word) and cheering at (again, your word) the prospect of wanton, mobocratic, anarchistic violence in the streets.  Not by trained soldiers defending their countrymen, solders with a chain of command and subject to the laws of warfare, but by a mob of thugs who answer to nobody, who roam the streets destroying property, terrorizing passersby, and summarily meting out violence - including killing - of anyone they choose to target, for any reason or no reason at all.

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Punching Nazis is not wrong

You wouldn't be saying that if you were summarily and arbitrarily called a "Nazi" and beaten up for it.

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

and my church ancestors did not just get popped in the mouth for advocating white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and wiping out all inferiors. I didn’t advocate for burning down the homes of Nazis………..yet.

"Yet."

The mind reels.  At least the #DezNat yahoos came to realize the danger - to their own reputation and livelihoods if nothing else - of advocating for wanton extra-legal violence.  Many have deleted their accounts and gone silent.  Meanwhile, you carry on with continuing threats of extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence. 

I hope you reconsider what you are saying (threatening) here.

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Well said. Mourn with those that mourn. Don’t tell them they shouldn’t be sad because (fill in the blank)… “Jesus wept”

• "Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people."  (Luke 2:10.)
• "But when Jesus heard it, he answered him, saying, Fear not: believe only, and she shall be made whole."  (Luke 8:50.)
• "And it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi did stand forth and began to speak unto them, saying: Fear not, for behold, it is God that has shown unto you this marvelous thing, in the which is shown unto you that ye cannot lay your hands on us to slay us."  (Helaman 5:26)
• "See that ye strengthen Lehi and Teancum in the Lord; tell them to fear not, for God will deliver them."  (Alma 61:21.)
• "Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full."  (D&C 101:36.)
• "Verily I say unto you my friends, fear not, let your hearts be comforted; yea, rejoice evermore, and in everything give thanks."  (D&C 98:1.)
• "Fear not, little flock, the kingdom is yours until I come. Behold, I come quickly. Even so. Amen."  (D&C 35:27.)
• "Therefore, be ye strong from henceforth; fear not, for the kingdom is yours."  (D&C 38:15.)
• "Go thy way and do as I have told you, and fear not thine enemies; for they shall not have power to stop my work."  (D&C 136:17.)
• "Fear not, little children, for you are mine, and I have overcome the world, and you are of them that my Father hath given me; And none of them that my Father hath given me shall be lost."  (D&C 50:41-42.)
• "Therefore, hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with thee; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever."  (D&C 122:9.)
• "Fear not to do good, my sons, for whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap; therefore, if ye sow good ye shall also reap good for your reward.  Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail. ... Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.  Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen."  (D&C 6:33-34, 36-37.)
• "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done."  (Matthew 21:21.)
• "O then despise not, and wonder not, but hearken unto the words of the Lord, and ask the Father in the name of Jesus for what things soever ye shall stand in need. Doubt not, but be believing, and begin as in times of old, and come unto the Lord with all your heart, and work out your own salvation with fear and trembling before him."  (Mormon 9:27.) 
• "Search diligently, pray always, and be believing, and all things shall work together for your good, if ye walk uprightly and remember the covenant wherewith ye have covenanted one with another."  (D&C 90:24.)

The Lord sure seems to be telling us that we "shouldn’t be sad because (fill in the blank)."  Quite a bit, actually.

I find these to be marvelously encouraging.  Uplifting.  Full of hope and light and joy.  I can certainly understand someone having concerns about how the Lord will sort these things out, but I can't get on board with the idea that we ought to wallow in fretting and fear, or encourage others to do so.  Particularly when doing so is based predominantly on ignorance and speculation.

I'm with Marilla Cuthbert:

Quote

Anne Shirley: Can't you even imagine you're in the depths of despair?

Marilla Cuthbert: No I cannot. To despair is to turn your back on God.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 5, 2021 by smac97

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But the laws are there.

Laws that are not followed and have no method of enforcement are only called laws as a kind of courtesy.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You, meanwhile, are giggling (your word) and cheering at (again, your word) the prospect of wanton, mobocratic, anarchistic violence in the streets.  Not by trained soldiers defending their countrymen, solders with a chain of command and subject to the laws of warfare, but by a mob of thugs who answer to nobody, who roam the streets destroying property, terrorizing passersby, and summarily meting out violence - including killing - of anyone they choose to target, for any reason or no reason at all.

That doesn’t sound like punching Nazis to me. Seems like you are trying to expand the definition by quite a bit there.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You wouldn't be saying that if you were summarily and arbitrarily called a "Nazi" and beaten up for it.

No, I would still be in favor on punching Nazis. I would probably have to punch the idiot (and possible Nazi) who claimed I was a Nazi too. But that is just a regular bump in the road for the dedicated Nazi Puncher.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Yet."

The mind reels.

Yes, your mind does seem to do a lot of that. You may want to have it checked.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

At least the #DezNat yahoos came to realize the danger - to their own reputation and livelihoods if nothing else - of advocating for wanton extra-legal violence.  Many have deleted their accounts and gone silent.  Meanwhile, you carry on with continuing threats of extra-legal, politically-motivated, mobocratic violence. 

Wait, you think they stopped? That is adorable. They just went to different platforms where they think they can hide better and are continuing to spew hatred and plans for murder. They are fascists. That is what they do. Until someone comes along and punches them.

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 I hope you reconsider what you are saying (threatening) here.

First they came for the Nazis and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Nazi.

Then they came for the fascists and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a fascist.

Then they came for the White Supremacists and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a white supremacist.

Then they stopped. And the nation was a better place.

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This polygamy book thread took a strange detour.

It is not about the destination. It is about the journey.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Now beating up fascists is contemptible? Oh boy. No wonder this nation is going down the toilet. We are okay with cops beating people, immigrants being beaten, suspects being murdered while in custody, incarcerated prisoners being mistreated inhumanely, and minorities being marginalized and denied equal protection under the law BUT don’t you dare punch someone who is out to destroy our government and laws completely and is trying to bring misery to millions. THAT WOULD BE WRONG! 

That is a straw man mostly as I doubt there is anyone who has protested your endorsement here of punching out Nazis that is okay with anything of the above at least phrased that way. I believe I have seen positions that marginalize minorities and equal rights, but the rest are not an appropriate accusation (and yes, I realize those of you who I believe support a system and behaviours that marginalize minorities do not believe you are doing it and if you could be shown that you were, you wouldn’t).

And honestly punching out Nazis sounds too much like “let’s settle this like men” for me to be comfortable with the idea that it would actually help and not just make things worse in the long run, but I have never dealt personally with fascists that I know of, so admit I may be wrong to extrapolate from other behaviour; at this point I prefer boycotts and such and lots and lots of surveillance. But Captain Moroni,  after all, did more than punch to deal with those he saw as traitors after giving them a chance to repent. 

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm with Marilla Cuthbert:

And because of that you are one of those that I would never seek counseling or support from when my depression gets bad. But then that makes you typical, it is the rare non chronically depressed nonprofessional that gets it and quite a few professionals as well.  It is not an accusation, so please don’t feel attacked. I can’t comprehend what it might be like to be blind or not hear and would be useless I suspect in counseling someone in that situation. The only thing I would choose to do is sit and listen and let them tell me. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/3/2021 at 2:45 PM, Tacenda said:

Would you have a problem if your wife was able to have more than one husband in the hereafter? Or even several husbands? Maybe that's the problem, men's usual take about the women only able to be sealed to one man from early on in the church. Because as has been mentioned somewhere on this thread, what if there were more righteous men than women? 

@Stargazer mentioned how in his experience or mind, not sure, women were more spiritual and kinder than men. Well, I counter that, in my experience I've seen women be the opposite and put on acts at church. And I've seen very, very kind and spiritual men. 

Heh, I certainly didn't say that all women are more spiritual and kinder than men. I can counter with bad examples, too. On both sides.  One can come up with counterexamples for any generalization. But just because you know some women or men who buck the trend doesn't disprove the trend. 

People exist on a continuum. For example, when you look at intelligence graphs separated by sex, you will see that the "bell curve" is narrower for women, and wider for men. This means that there are more women in the middle of the curve, and fewer men. Also, that there are more men on the extremes, both high and low. One can come up with counterexamples for the trend very easily. But again, just because there are both utterly brilliant and really stupid women does not change the fact that there are more men at both extremes than women.

I don't know if there is any objective standard for kindness and spirituality (how would one measure it?), but I believe, from what I have observed in my life, that women tend to be kinder and more spiritual. The key word here is "tend". And like you, I have seen exceptions to this. 

 

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

But just because you know some women or men who buck the trend doesn't disprove the trend. 

So I see one trend and you see another…and that leaves us with proving nothing since it is all bias anyway. 

Quote

For example, when you look at intelligence graphs separated by sex, you will see that the "bell curve" is narrower for women, and wider for men. This means that there are more women in the middle of the curve, and fewer m

Except the studies don’t actually measure intelligence but how well groups perform on questions others think measure intelligence. Unless you think minorities and such are really not as intelligent as the rest of us.  Set up a different group of intelligence questions and positions may change. 
 

Due to our culture women have been trained to be kinder and gentler. Being less physical strong, it is a good defense mechanism. Whether it is a learned behaviour that mirrors the individual’s heart or protective covering is a good question. 
 

And women are more likely for that same reason to be kinder and gentler in front of men than in front of other women. So honestly when a man says in his experience women are so much nicer, my reaction is of course they are. If you couldn’t physically defend yourself against the person in front of you if they got angry, you might be perceived as nicer than you typically are. 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 8/3/2021 at 3:38 PM, Navidad said:

Thank you for the very thorough and clear response to my questions. I also agree Christ was clear with Nicodemus, but my understanding of Christ's words in that passage bring me to a very different conclusion as to what he was communicating to this esteemed Jewish rabbi and scholar. It was a literal conversation between two men representing the old and the new covenants. Nicodemus asked a question. Christ answered it in the OT concept of cleansing or purifying by water that Nicodemus would have understood.  Nicodemus understood Ezekiel 36: 24-28 - which detailed a great Jewish hope. I think Christ was using a metaphor of water that Nicodemus would have understood and the light could have dawned in his (Nicodemus) mind. Christ was, in his atonement all about the fulfillment of the promise of Ezekiel 36. Christ was a role model of a great teacher. He taught in ways his listeners (whether 5000 or 1) could understand given their own knowledge and background. I do not believe that Christ was ever "arbitrary," especially not based on his mood! I am not sure where that came from! When Christ was talking to Nicodemus, the atonement had not yet even taken place, but He was still at that point the Son of God. He could and did declare to others (with certitude, not with arbitrariness) and with perfect assurance "your faith has made you whole (sodzo - to be protected, be healed,  to be rescued-saved from destruction)." That indeed was a judgment and was valid for all eternity!

Anyway, thanks so much for your thorough and clear reply. It is greatly appreciated. We simply have a very different view of the efficacy of ordinances, especially as related to what I understand about the final judgment. There may be many criteria that Christ takes into consideration as He ponders our final destiny, but I think faith, given the light we have received (special and general revelation combined) carries the greatest weight, according to my understanding of the New Testament. The idea of obedience taking precedence over sacrifice was an OT concept based on the covenant of the law. Christ came to introduce a new covenant via the atonement.

If baptism is not required, then why does it even exist?

I apologize in advance if I offend you in saying this, but your interpretation of Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus sounds very much like an attempt to explain away an inconvenient fact. And it sounds like a very modern innovation. Do you really think that God is that loosy-goosy?

Up until very recently, Christian missionaries at all times and all places have first, taught investigators the gospel, and second, once the investigator has accepted the gospel, they are baptized. Invariably so. The examples of this in the New Testament are abundant, and I hope you won't think I am being too detailed here, but...

• Acts 2 : On the day of Pentecost, when the people listening to Peter's sermon are convinced at his preaching, they asked "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" We all know Peter's answer: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
• Acts 8 : Phillip went into Samaria and taught the people the Gospel, and as they believed, they were baptized; later Peter and John came in order to complete the ordinances by conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost.
• Acts 8 : Phillip is then commanded by the Spirit to join with the eunuch from Ethiopia, and after he teaches him the gospel, the eunuch says; "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Whereupon Phillip baptizes him.
• Acts 9 : After Paul is blinded through his conversation with Christ, Ananias is sent to him to heal him, and upon being healed, the first thing he does is get baptized. We learn in Acts 22:16, from Paul's own description of the event, that this is part and parcel of forgiveness, as he reports Ananias words to him: "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
• Acts 10 : Peter is summoned to teach the Gospel to the centurion Cornelius as well as his household and friends. They all believe and as evidence of their faith, the Holy Ghost works upon them. Peter then says "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" And he commands that they be baptized.
• Acts 13:14-41 : Paul preaches to the Jews in Pisidia and during his teaching he describes John the Baptist's mission (v. 24): "When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel." The case in point here is Paul's description of John's mission as the baptism of all of the people of Israel.
• Acts 16:14,15 : Lydia of Thyatira hears the gospel from Paul, and the first thing that happens then is her baptism.
• Acts 16:25-34 : After healing a woman of an evil divining spirit, Paul and Silas are accused and cast into prison; the prison is broken by an earthquake sent by God, and after stopping the warden from committing suicide because of the apparent escape, they teach him the gospel. He believes, and they baptize him.
• Acts 18:7,8 : Crispus and his house believe Paul's teaching, and is baptized.
• Acts 19:1-7 : Paul comes upon 12 men who claimed to have been baptized. But upon inquiring upon whether they had received the Holy Ghost, he discovers that they hadn't heard of the Holy Ghost. Paul takes this as evidence that they had not been baptized properly, and not only baptizes them, but also confers the gift of the Holy Ghost upon them. Whereupon the Holy Ghost falls on them and they speak with tongues and prophesy.

At no time are these new converts told they don't need to be baptized, or that it is optional. It is done without question. There are occasions when baptism isn't mentioned, but does it need to be mentioned every single time in order to be necessary?

When Jesus came to John the Baptist for his own baptism, John questioned him about the propriety of it, saying "I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Whereupon Jesus replied "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him."

If there was any being in Creation who had no need of baptism, it was Jesus. Yet still he had it done, with words that clearly stated its necessity: "to fulfill all righteousness." Paul explained this in Romans 6:3-5... 

3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Clearly, baptism is in similitude of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and are we not expected to follow Christ's example?

The Roman church, the Orthodox church, and all the rest baptized all new converts, and all children, without exception for the better part of 2000 years. Even the rebellious Protestant churches baptized all communicants, without exception. Whether sprinkled or immersed, done to babes or to adults, all were baptized. And only fairly recently was it suddenly "discovered" by certain innovators that baptism was just "nice". You can find these "refutations" of the need for baptism all over the place. One fine example is found on the "Grace to You" website: Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation? 

That website comes up with all kinds of convoluted arguments against baptism. I don't have time to go over them all and why they are bunk. But they are.

Again I pose the question: if it isn't necessary, why did Christ get baptised? If any ordinance is just for fun, why does it even exist? And if the dead don't need it, why does Paul use baptism for the dead as a teaching tool?

Edited August 5, 2021 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

On 8/3/2021 at 7:36 PM, Teancum said:

Why is it a silly question? Oh wait, this whole thread and discussion is rather silly. It is based on false premises that are not real. So much angst over something that will never be.

Yeah, you busy yourself quite a lot trying to refute things that you think are silly. Why bother? 

If you were here trying to encourage people to find salvation through something other than "Mormonism", your activity here would at least make sense. Or are you trying to make us as happy as you are in your unbelief? Perhaps you're being altruistic about it. 

By the way, I answered your question in a separate post. 

[Stargazer]

On 8/4/2021 at 4:04 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Every knee will bend…..

Yes, but though every knee will bend, that's only at the end once Christ has completed His work. Those who rejected Him will at the end bend the knee, but it will be too late for them, since they will be doing so in full knowledge of who He was and is.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So I see one trend and you see another…and that leaves us with proving nothing since it is all bias anyway. 

My bias was admitted. I have observed something, and as far as I can tell the observation is telling. It's quite subjective. You think I'm wrong and maybe I am.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Except the studies don’t actually measure intelligence but how well groups perform on questions others think measure intelligence. Unless you think minorities and such are really not as intelligent as the rest of us.  Set up a different group of intelligence questions and positions may change. 

What is intelligence? Well, let's try a CFR on "the studies don’t actually measure intelligence but how well groups perform on questions others think measure intelligence". 

Do people with high IQ, or who perform well on these tests, not also perform well in learning and general accomplishment? Do those with low IQ, or who perform poorly on these tests, not also have great difficulties in learning and in general accomplishment? How many people with low IQ are you aware of that have doctorates in physics? Maybe how well questions are answered leading to IQ scores do have some indicative value after all. 

As for minorities not being as intelligent "as the rest of us", where do you get that? I realize there's plenty of racists out there, but I'm not one of them. There is no scientific evidence that the average IQ scores of different population groups can be attributed to genetic differences between those groups. In other words, race is not a factor. But there is growing evidence indicating that environmental factors, not genetic ones, explain whatever racial IQ gaps that seem to exist (q.v.).

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Due to our culture women have been trained to be kinder and gentler. Being less physical strong, it is a good defense mechanism. Whether it is a learned behaviour that mirrors the individual’s heart or protective covering is a good question. 

You think it's just our culture? Can you name a culture where women are trained to not be kinder and gentler? Girls like playing with dolls shaped as babies only because they are trained to do so? I noticed distinct differences in behavior tendencies between my own children and grandchildren. Boys were different from girls even as babies, well before gross physical differences became apparent, and even before any training occurred. 

And you seem to be saying that you women are only playing at being kind and gentle because us men will beat you up if you're not. Calm, I have a great deal of respect for your intelligence, but you seem to be going out on a pretty desperate limb trying to refute my belief in the sweetness and loving kindness of women.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And women are more likely for that same reason to be kinder and gentler in front of men than in front of other women. So honestly when a man says in his experience women are so much nicer, my reaction is of course they are. If you couldn’t physically defend yourself against the person in front of you if they got angry, you might be perceived as nicer than you typically are. 

OK, fine. Have it your way: you're all just as mean and nasty as men, and sneaky about it, too. Does this make you feel better?

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

OK, fine. Have it your way: you're all just as mean and nasty as men, and sneaky about it, too. Does this make you feel better?

Lots of evil done by lots of women throughout history.  It makes me feel better when people can acknowledge that women have just as much of the natural man in them as men do. It's not like you guys fell further than we did.