Post Reply
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
Switch to Forum Live View Mormonism 101: Do some Latter-day Saints wear temple garments?
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 8:49AM #41
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,048

Apr 26, 2012 -- 8:32PM, Svetlana wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:28AM, Ironhold wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 8:54AM, Unworthyone wrote:


So why not answer honestly?  Why withhold that information from someone considering the church?  Would it be honesty if a car dealer withheld gas mileage information? Would it be honest if a realtor withheld property taxes info?  Would it be honest if pharmaceutical companies withheld possible side effect information?


"We want you to join our club, but we aren't going to tell you all the rules until after you have joined."  What's up with that?



Again - if I had to take a guess, I'd say that most members just don't think to actually bring it up.


In that sense, it's an honest goof.



On the contrary.  No one is at all speaking of waiting for Mormons to bring up the subject.  The point is entirely about the refusal to discuss the detailed significance of the garments when asked directly.  That was too great an evasion to work, Iron, they have to be far more subtle.


If wearing the undergarments is so mundane, and all Mormons are comfortable with wearing them and with their meaning, why in the world WOULDN'T you discuss them in detail with those who are respectfully curious?  And DON'T evade with the obvious nonsense that no one is ever respectfully curious.




Well, when one's faith is all about excuses and dodges, Iron's self-defence is like a house-of-cards. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 27, 2012 - 7:04PM #42
Svetlana
Posts: 11,151

Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:53PM, Ironhold wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 8:32PM, Svetlana wrote:


On the contrary. No one is at all speaking of waiting for Mormons to bring up the subject. The point is entirely about the refusal to discuss the detailed significance of the garments when asked directly. That was too great an evasion to work, Iron, they have to be far more subtle.


If wearing the undergarments is so mundane, and all Mormons are comfortable with wearing them and with their meaning, why in the world WOULDN'T you discuss them in detail with those who are respectfully curious? And DON'T evade with the obvious nonsense that no one is ever respectfully curious.



Unfortunately, the garment has been so openly mocked and disrespected by "Good Christians" and the like over the history of the church that past a certain point, the average member is going to start getting wary concerning the intentions of anyone getting too agressive about discussing them.


In other words, your fellows ruined it for the rest of you.



People who behave that way are no more my fellows than they are yours.  No good Christian, or even decent person, behaves that way.  You know that perfectly well, so why do you harm your own position with such ugliness?  What do you GAIN by that, Iron, except a reputation for ignorance and unreasonableness?  Remember, too, that many Mormons consider themselves the only good Christians, so your very ugliness itself will send that absurdity right back into your face.  You are not nearly as ignorant as you pretend to be, and you seem to forget that ignorance is no excuse for hatefulness, nothing is.


Please make up your mind:  Are garments so mundane that most Mormons forget to discuss them, or are Mormons so paranoid about them that they refuse to discuss them?  The positions are mutually exclusive, so you're going to have to pick one and stick with it.


You're right that some fools mock your garments, but the very secretiveness about them very probably contributes to that.  For members to discuss them openly and in detail would completely defuse much of the mockery and ugliness.  It surprises me very much that your leaders have never considered this, it's so obvious to everyone else.

"No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it."  ~ (common sense)

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma."  ~ Gracie Allen

"I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"I wonder sometimes if we ever give God a headache." ~ Dontay Hall, age 8
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 6:31PM #43
Unworthyone
Posts: 1,956

Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:53PM, Ironhold wrote:

In other words, your fellows ruined it for the rest of you.




When the missionaries come to my door, I always invite them in.  I am polite, respectful, and I expect the same in return.  When the polite discussion turns to the matter of the temple garments, respect includes being forthright and honest.  I want to know about the oaths and the symbols associated with them.  They will not discuss these matters.


Don't come to my door, suggest I consider your church, and then refuse to discuss future obligations I will have relating to my eternal salvation if I were to join your church.  That, IMO, is disrespectful.

I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.  Thomas Jefferson

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein

You can get anything you want out of life if you will just help enough other people get what they want. Zig Ziglar

Here's the difference between a capitalist society and a communist society:  Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's the other way around.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 29, 2012 - 9:33PM #44
Svetlana
Posts: 11,151

Apr 29, 2012 -- 6:31PM, Unworthyone wrote:


Apr 26, 2012 -- 9:53PM, Ironhold wrote:

In other words, your fellows ruined it for the rest of you.




When the missionaries come to my door, I always invite them in.  I am polite, respectful, and I expect the same in return.  When the polite discussion turns to the matter of the temple garments, respect includes being forthright and honest.  I want to know about the oaths and the symbols associated with them.  They will not discuss these matters.


Don't come to my door, suggest I consider your church, and then refuse to discuss future obligations I will have relating to my eternal salvation if I were to join your church.  That, IMO, is disrespectful.



It's deceitful.  It says outright that I will obligated to do things that you cannot defend, or you would when I ask you about them.  If YOU, the Mormon missionary in my living room, and comfortable with the whole concept, then why would you hide it from me?  You are implying either that I am not good enough in some way to have this information, or that you cannot defend the practice as acceptable in anyway, but I will be expected to obey anyway.  Neither implication is at all respectful, they're not even self-respectful.

"No matter how big and bad you are, when a two-year-old hands you a toy phone, you answer it."  ~ (common sense)

"Never place a period where God has placed a comma."  ~ Gracie Allen

"I care not for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it." ~ Abraham Lincoln

"I wonder sometimes if we ever give God a headache." ~ Dontay Hall, age 8
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 5  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook