Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Diversity of this forum


Recommended Posts

On 3/24/2023 at 1:33 AM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Which group is hot, which group is cold, and which group is lukewarm?

I am cold. Cold as ice.  The chance the Mormonism is the alleged God's true path is so minuscule small that it is not worth trying to compute it.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

As for sectarian Christianity, what truths do you expect to find from then that you can’t find in the standard works or the restored gospel from the true and living church?

I am not sure what you mean by "sectarian Christianity?" Could you amplify? Is not the restored gospel sectarian? You are welcome to use the Mennonite church if you would like as a contrast with the "restored gospel." What are the differentiations between the "restored gospel" and "sectarian Christianity?"

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

True, however those who are firm and unwavering in their defense of the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel have always been despised, rejected, maligned, and derogatorily mischaracterized as aggressive zealots or what have you. 

You seem to have a pretty strong persecution complex going there. "Always been?" Really. I can think of perhaps two men in our ward who I would characterize as aggressive zealots because, well because they are. I know the other ward here pretty well too. I can't think of anyone in that ward who I think is an aggressive zealot. There are hundreds of really nice kind people.

I am unsure I have ever met a non-LDS Christian personally in my adult life who despises, rejects, maligns and derogatorily mischaracterizes LDS folks. Those are awfully strong words. I do know non-LDS folks who reject LDS doctrine, but then again I know loads of LDS folks who reject my doctrine. I even reject some points of doctrine from within my own group! Certainly none of the folks I have ever met in a Spanish speaking ward here are aggressive zealots. I've never met an aggressive zealot at MHA. The only place I have encountered aggressive zealot LDS folks has been on this forum. I can think of two over six years now. Now, lets get back to that "sectarian" Christianity you keep bringing up. In what way am I a sectarian Christian, yet you are not. Remember my priorities, I am Christian first, Evangelical second, and Mennonite third. What makes me sectarian and you not? Perhaps we have different definitions of the word? Thanks.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Of course. But neither does being despised and maligned for holding views that people find offensive or threatening mean that one is doing anything wrong.

Those who boldly taught the truth, were always despised and rejected by the majority, while those who taught falsehoods and soothing flattering doctrines were upheld and praised by the majority. 

I agree.

It’s just that when something applies to both sides equally, it makes it pretty useless. A action really doesn’t mean anything if both the “good” guys and the “bad” guys do it. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A action really doesn’t mean anything if both the “good” guys and the “bad” guys do it.

I disagree. While being rejected, despised, and maligned by the majority is not proof positive that someone is speaking the truth, it is one of the signs we can expect to see of someone who is preaching the truth. 

On the other hand, if the majority support and praise an individual for their teachings or views, then this is a clear sign that they are likely in error. 
 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There’s a lot to be learned from science books and other educational books about all kinds of topics. However, if a book causes you to set aside what the scriptures teach in favor of the philosophies of men, than that’s a huge problem. 

Agreed.  Our iron rod is our iron rod, but what if new information causes us to reconsider our interpretation of the scriptures in a way that doesn't contradict the scriptures? 

I asked this before, and you didn't answer:   What about having different opinions on how to interpret scripture and doctrine?  Where does that fit in your view?  Do you think different opinions on scripture [interpretation] and doctrine fit within the church?

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

As for sectarian Christianity, what truths do you expect to find from then that you can’t find in the standard works or the restored gospel from the true and living church?

What do you think Joseph Smith had in mind when he used sectarian Christianity as an example of places where we should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up?  He certainly expected to find truth in them, or he wouldn't have made the statement that he did, right?

I'll answer for myself:  There is much to learn about the scriptures from people that see things differently than we do.  This goes back to the quote I provided from Joseph Smith about proving contraries.  Sometimes people who believe differently than we do put way more emphasis on a particular point of doctrine from scriptures than we do, or even believe doctrines that focus on some verses in the Bible and not others, ending up with a view that is completely wrong (from our point of view).  They may be wrong in doing this, but there are truths about the scriptures that we can learn from them by trying to understand how they derive their doctrines from the scriptures, and sometimes this helps us expand our own understanding of our own doctrines.  

For nearly fifteen years I attended a weekly Bible study group where there were anywhere from three to ten other men participating, and I was the only Latter-day Saint in the bunch.  I learned many things from the other participants in that group, including the realization that some other faiths believe things that are quite similar to what we believe.  I also saw the love and humility and sincere desire to follow Jesus Christ in some of the participants.  We had a few disagreements, but those also led to greater understanding of one another when we hashed things out.  We stopped our regular meetings with COVID hit, but I still communicate with one of them regularly.  And through it all I gained greater insight into my own faith and the doctrines of the Church.

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

True, however those who are firm and unwavering in their defense of the teachings and doctrines of the restored gospel have always been despised, rejected, maligned, and derogatorily mischaracterized as aggressive zealots or what have you. 

Sure, sometimes despised, rejected, maligned, and derogatorily mischaracterized, but not always.  Some had great success in spreading the gospel (I'm thinking of people like Ammon in the Book of Mormon).  Those that show love for their fellowman often have the greatest success, even as they stand firm and unwavering in their teachings. 

But as Jesus said, "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?" (Matthew 10:25).  Name calling can sometimes go with the territory.  But that's very different than actually behaving like an aggressive zealot.  

Can you show me where Jesus was ever called anything like an aggressive zealot?  

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You seem to have a pretty strong persecution complex going there.

Not at all. Just pointing out that those who are unwavering in declaring or defending the truth have always been rejected and despised by the majority. 

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

"Always been?"

Yes. For example, Joseph Smith said: 

The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God, they considered to be false prophets, and hence they killed, stoned, punished and imprisoned the true prophets, and these had to hide themselves ‘in deserts and dens, and caves of the earth’, and though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their society as vagabonds, whilst they cherished, honored and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men.

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure what you mean by "sectarian Christianity?"

All Christian sects that are not the true and living church of Christ, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

What about having different opinions on how to interpret scripture and doctrine?  Where does that fit in your view?  Do you think different opinions on scripture [interpretation] and doctrine fit within the church?

To certain extent yes. Most scriptures have multiple layers of interpretation and there are multiple insights that can be gleaned from them. 

People are also free to have their own personal opinions about things, including having erroneous ideas (which all of us do to one extent or another). Having erroneous ideas or misunderstandings doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is headed down the wrong path. 

However, those who advocate for teachings that are not in harmony with the restored gospel and the word of God in the scriptures, are headed down the wrong path and need to return to the straight and narrow path before they get too far off track and are lost. 
 

46 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

What do you think Joseph Smith had in mind when he used sectarian Christianity as an example of places where we should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up?

He meant that there are many truths found among sectarian Christians. Which only makes sense, since they believe in the Bible, which is full of truth. However, I don’t think he was suggesting that the sectarians had access to any truths that weren’t found in the scriptures or within the restored gospel and true and living Church.

I agree that we can definitely learn things from members of other Christian faiths though. Many of these individuals are great examples of Christlike love and service and many of them know the Bible extremely well, far better than the average LDS member. 

46 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Sure, sometimes despised, rejected, maligned, and derogatorily mischaracterized, but not always.  Some had great success in spreading the gospel (I'm thinking of people like Ammon in the Book of Mormon).  Those that show love for their fellowman often have the greatest success, even as they stand firm and unwavering in their teachings. 

They were pretty much always despised and rejected by the majority. Even Ammon and the other sons of Mosiah and their missionary companions only had limited success among the Lamanites as a whole. They had great success in a few areas, although with the exception of Ammon, they all suffered great persecution first. But the majority of the Lamanites rejected them and sought to kill them and their converts. 

We all know that the Savior was despised and rejected by the majority, and was the perfect example of how to teach and stand for the truth. 

46 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Can you show me where Jesus was ever called anything like an aggressive zealot?  

And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation… And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. (Luke 23:1-2, 5)

Edited by Grug the Neanderthal
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree. While being rejected, despised, and maligned by the majority is not proof positive that someone is speaking the truth, it is one of the signs we can expect to see of someone who is preaching the truth. 

On the other hand, if the majority support and praise an individual for their teachings or views, then this is a clear sign that they are likely in error. 
 

Lots of people with minority followings were clearly in error too. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Lots of people with minority followings were clearly in error too. 

Yes, but this doesn’t change what I’m saying. 

If people are being upheld by the majority as have the true and correct teachings or views, then the odds are extremely high that they are in error, and those who are unwavering in proclaiming or defending the truth will almost always be rejected and disdained by the majority. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, but this doesn’t change what I’m saying. 

If people are being upheld by the majority as have the true and correct teachings or views, then the odds are extremely high that they are in error, and those who are unwavering in proclaiming or defending the truth will almost always be rejected and disdained by the majority. 

Could you give us an example of just who you are thinking about?  What religion or group has the majority of support and are not ridiculed by some??  And what error makes them popular with the masses?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Could you give us an example of just who you are thinking about? 

Traditionally the vast majority of Christians accepted pretty much all Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox to be Christians and part of the church or body of Christ, while rejecting Mormons as Christians. They reject the Book of Mormon, the revelations in the D&C, and the ordinances of the temple. 

Within the United States the Holy Trinity is almost universally accepted and the idea of faith without works is extremely popular among Christians.

And of course the United States and the rest of the once predominantly Christian world has become largely secular. Most people, including a large number of so-called Christians believe that it’s okay to do all sorts of things that are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, like watching worldly tv shows and movies or listening to worldly music that depicts immoral and sinful lifestyles as normal and acceptable, partying, getting drunk or doing drugs, dressing immodestly, wearing costly apparel, engaging in premarital sex, and having elective abortions. Support for LGBTQ lifestyles, including sex is also rapidly growing and at an all time high. 

Edited by Grug the Neanderthal
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

The sustaining vote in General Conference must be a difficult time for you.

You mean the same General Conference that only a minority group (at most 25%) even attends or views and were at least 2/3 of the membership is completely inactive and wants nothing to do with the church? This is to say nothing of the total percentage of people among the world’s population who cast a sustaining vote in General Conference. What percentage is less than 5 million people out of 8 billion?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

You mean the same General Conference that only a minority group (at most 25%) even attends or views and were at least 2/3 of the membership is completely inactive and wants nothing to do with the church? This is to say nothing of the total percentage of people among the world’s population who cast a sustaining vote in General Conference. What percentage is less than 5 million people out of 8 billion?

You’re selling yourself way too short here. Find yourself a nice LDS fundamentalist fringe group. Think of how right they must be with less than a hundred members. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

You’re selling yourself way too short here. Find yourself a nice LDS fundamentalist fringe group. Think of how right they must be with less than a hundred members. 

Nah. Face it bud, your attempt to make me look stupid failed miserably. 

These snarky and immature remarks tell me that you either haven’t read or don’t understand the scriptures and statement by Joseph Smith and other early leaders of the church about the role and destiny of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the last days.

 

Edited by Grug the Neanderthal
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

To certain extent yes. Most scriptures have multiple layers of interpretation and there are multiple insights that can be gleaned from them. 

People are also free to have their own personal opinions about things, including having erroneous ideas (which all of us do to one extent or another). Having erroneous ideas or misunderstandings doesn’t necessarily mean that someone is headed down the wrong path. 

Agreed.

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

He meant that there are many truths found among sectarian Christians. Which only makes sense, since they believe in the Bible, which is full of truth. However, I don’t think he was suggesting that the sectarians had access to any truths that weren’t found in the scriptures or within the restored gospel and true and living Church.

When Joseph Smith talked about finding truth in other Christian denominations, I don't believe he was limiting that to truths derived from the Bible.  He didn't qualify it at all and I don't think we should either.  We put limits on our ability to see truth if we prejudice ourselves with invalid assumptions.  And your statement about other faiths not having access to truths that aren't also within the restored gospel and true and living Church is potentially problematic, if for no other reason than the fact that Joseph Smith defined "Mormonism" as encompassing all truth wherever it is found.  And Joseph specifically said truths beyond the Bible: "we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation.... with all our hearts, all things whatsoever is manifest unto us by the highest degree of testimony that God has committed us, as written in the old and new Testament, or any where else, by any manifestation, whereof we know that it has come from God:  and has application to us, being adapted to our situation and circumstances; age, and generation of life" (quoted in my post here, from Letter from Joseph Smith to Isaac Galland, Mar. 22, 1839)

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I agree that we can definitely learn things from members of other Christian faiths though. Many of these individuals are great examples of Christlike love and service and many of them know the Bible extremely well, far better than the average LDS member. 

This is very true.

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation… And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. (Luke 23:1-2, 5)

This is a good example, but I don't think it quite reaches the definition of an aggressive zealot (as defined earlier).  

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

If people are being upheld by the majority as have the true and correct teachings or views, then the odds are extremely high that they are in error, and those who are unwavering in proclaiming or defending the truth will almost always be rejected and disdained by the majority. 

You aren't being clear on who is your sample population for the "majority" or "minority".  Consequently, I think the point that Smiley McGee was trying to make went right over your head, causing you to lambast him by saying he was making "snarky" and "immature" statements.  But I think you completely misunderstood him.  And then you wonder why some people down vote your response.

You say "If people are being upheld by the majority as have the true and correct teachings or views, then the odds are extremely high that they are in error".  You say this as if it is axiomatic.  But what "people"?  What is your data set?  Smiley McGee's point was that the majority attending general conference sustain their leaders.  It's not until you put the people that attend general conference into the world population that you can try to make your point.  Smiley McGee's other comment about a fundamentalist group was to counter your response, and you missed his point again.  The point being, that even a small fundamentalist group can have one hundred members in the world population and can be wrong.  He said, "Think of how right they must be with less than a hundred members."  I don't think he wasn't trying to be snarky, he was showing that your logic doesn't hold up.

And, obviously what you were asserting is not always true, as explained below:

Quote

25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
(Mosiah 29:25–27)

It's possible that our nation has crossed the line defined in verse 27 above.  But let God be the judge of that.  We will soon know.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And of course the United States and the rest of the once predominantly Christian world has become largely secular. Most people, including a large number of so-called Christians believe that it’s okay to do all sorts of things that are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, like watching worldly tv shows and movies or listening to worldly music that depicts immoral and sinful lifestyles as normal and acceptable, partying, getting drunk or doing drugs, dressing immodestly, wearing costly apparel, engaging in premarital sex, and having elective abortions. Support for LGBTQ lifestyles, including sex is also rapidly growing and at an all time high. 

Yep, this is all new. Until recently Christians were devout and didn’t go to Shakespeare plays with all their crass sexual innuendo, premarital sex was basically unheard of, and getting drunk and throwing parties is a very recent phenomenon. Oh, and abortion is brand new. It is not as if women were literally injuring or poisoning themselves as far back as we know to get rid of unwanted children.

The rose-colored glasses some people have of the past is mind-boggling to me.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Gotta love the constant downvotes I receive from two or three individuals on this board. 

They act like fans at a sporting event who love to constantly boo and heckle the opposing teams superstar. So I guess I will start wearing the downvotes as a badge of honor. 

You are truly* the superstar of an obscure internet message board.

 

 

 

 

*not actually truly

Link to comment
8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

And your statement about other faiths not having access to truths that aren't also within the restored gospel and true and living Church is potentially problematic, if for no other reason than the fact that Joseph Smith defined "Mormonism" as encompassing all truth wherever it is found. 

I asked you this question earlier, but you didn’t give a clear answer: 

As for sectarian Christianity, what truths do you expect to find from then that you can’t find in the standard works or the restored gospel from the true and living church?

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:
14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation… And they were the more fierce, saying, He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place. (Luke 23:1-2, 5)

This is a good example, but I don't think it quite reaches the definition of an aggressive zealot (as defined earlier).

Jesus claimed to be the promised Messiah, the son of God, the king of Israel, and that salvation was only possible through following him and his teachings. These are the things his accusers said he was going around throughout all the land “perverting the nation” and stirring up the people” with. That definitely sounds like they accused of being an aggressive zealot to me. 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think the point that Smiley McGee was trying to make went right over your head, causing you to lambast him by saying he was making "snarky" and "immature" statements.

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Smiley McGee's point was that the majority attending general conference sustain their leaders.  It's not until you put the people that attend general conference into the world population that you can try to make your point.  Smiley McGee's other comment about a fundamentalist group was to counter your response, and you missed his point again.  The point being, that even a small fundamentalist group can have one hundred members in the world population and can be wrong.  He said, "Think of how right they must be with less than a hundred members."  I don't think he wasn't trying to be snarky, he was showing that your logic doesn't hold up.

I think he was just trying to be snarky. 

I never said that the fact that only a small group believed something proves that they are correct. I acknowledged to Bluebell a couple of times that this is not the case. My point is that those who have the truth will be in the minority and rejected by the majority. And the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors back me up. I don’t have to show who my days set is. Even within the church, which make ups up only a tiny sliver of the world’s population, only a minority group sustain the leaders and believe and follow most of the core teachings. 
 

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

And, obviously what you were asserting is not always true, as explained below:

Quote

25 Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord.
26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.
(Mosiah 29:25–27)

It's possible that our nation has crossed the line defined in verse 27 above.  But let God be the judge of that.  We will soon know.

Good scripture. I think he is talking more about good and bad when it comes to politics, not religion. But you make a fair point. Even among the majority who voted for good leaders and laws, all manner of sin and false teachings were accepted, which is why Alma, the chief judge, gave up his seat and went about preaching throughout the land. 

I think our nation has definitely crossed the line and reached the point of no return. I think it will still be a little while before we implode completely and either self destruct or are destroyed by an outside force, but we’re definitely becoming more and more ripe for destruction all the time. 

In our current condition, I believe that this scripture is fitting:

26 …if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil.
27 But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.
28 Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him.
(Helaman 13)

Edited by Grug the Neanderthal
Link to comment

Here is some words of wisdom and humility from an old "Old Colony" Mennonite hymn:

Demut ist die schönste Tugend,
Aller Christen Ruhm und Ehr’,
Denn sie zieret unsere Jugend
Und das Alter noch viel mehr.

Humility is the most beautiful virtue,
The glory and honor of all Christians,
For it adorns our youth
And old age even more so.

I love Andrew Lloyd Weber's music, lyrics, and overall brilliance. I have however, never watched Jesus Christ, Superstar. It seems like equating Christ or his followers to "superstars" was simply not something that honored Him or them. Maybe, since now we are equating faithful Christians with superstars, I will find it on some site where I can rent and watch it. I think it is time!

A lot of the folks in our ward really really really like Elder Dieter Uchtdorf. I once heard a sacrament talk about humility using quotes from him on the subject. Now that I think of it, I am going to ask the fellow for a copy of his talk if he still has it. I don't have any of those quotes at hand, but I do believe that humility is an attribute of True Christianity (I recommend Johann Arndt's book by that title (Lutheran who quotes Catholic sources); the same title by Charles Finney (Presbyterian); and Authentic Christianity by Ray Stedman (Non-denominational Evangelical, my friend, and expert bull rider!). Each (including the quotes from Uchtdorf) was written in a different century. I like that. It shows that True Christianity lives on over the centuries and regardless of "sectarian Christian group" (including the LDS church).

I need to go back and read or listen to each of these wonderful books again. As many of you know, I have not yet mastered quiet humility. I would like that to adorn my "old age!" Best to everyone this sabbath day.

 

 

Edited by Navidad
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...