Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 2 of 55  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 55 Next
Switch to Forum Live View My Pastor KNOWS better...
8 years ago  ::  Dec 04, 2009 - 5:46PM #11
UwishUwereMe
Posts: 2,352
LOL, you know I was being a little smart a**!  LOL  But really, the bible has been so cut and pasted through out history that it would be interrupting their nature to ask then NOT to cust and paste!  LOL
Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Dec 04, 2009 - 8:36PM #12
Truman47
Posts: 2,423

Dec 4, 2009 -- 9:35AM, UwishUwereMe wrote:


Truman says: If you don't think that most of those of other churches do the same, I think you've got another think coming UWUWM:


Truman, I totally agree with you... but the funny thing is... at the end of the day... some ex roommates of mine (all evangelical) were very peculiar in that... we would talk for several hours about our similarities and our love of the Savior and his role in our lives... and after our talks and a closing prayer... they would then say... well that was cool UWISH, but your still not REALLY a Christian. Then they would say but we still respect you and your [non-christian] religion! It's like, really... they tell me having Christ as my Personal Savior is a PERSONAL thing, but then conclude that he really isn't MY personal Savior... uh... o...k...





Yeah, know what you mean.  I've had the same kind of experience with Mormon missionaries and my Mormon friends. Wink

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Dec 04, 2009 - 8:39PM #13
Truman47
Posts: 2,423

Dec 4, 2009 -- 5:46PM, UwishUwereMe wrote:

LOL, you know I was being a little smart a**! LOL But really, the bible has been so cut and pasted through out history that it would be interrupting their nature to ask then NOT to cust and paste! LOL



Can you give me just a couple examples of the "cut and past" in the Bible?


Honestly . . . the pot should be very careful about calling the kettle black. Wink

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2009 - 11:51AM #14
Lavender
Posts: 1,069

Truman, I can't remember examples off the top of my head, but I can give you generalities. (I was Baptist.) OK, so the pastor gets up to preach his sermon. So, let's say he starts in Titus, reads a verse or two, then goes to Joel and reads a couple verses, and then he ties them together. Don't give mind that they were written centuries apart, and they aren't even close to saying similar things, but they tie it together with a thin cord and call it "theology."

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2009 - 3:03PM #15
Truman47
Posts: 2,423

Dec 5, 2009 -- 11:51AM, Lavender wrote:


Truman, I can't remember examples off the top of my head, but I can give you generalities. (I was Baptist.) OK, so the pastor gets up to preach his sermon. So, let's say he starts in Titus, reads a verse or two, then goes to Joel and reads a couple verses, and then he ties them together. Don't give mind that they were written centuries apart, and they aren't even close to saying similar things, but they tie it together with a thin cord and call it "theology."





Yeah, that kind of "cut & past" is definitely a pet peeve of mine, and . . . I often see it in the ward my wife and I attend too.   But, this is not the kind being referring to.  It's concerning the Biblical text itself re: "The Modern Holy Bible as we know it is a result of "ancient" cutting and pasting by the early [Catholic] Church to fit preconceived notions."

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2009 - 5:52PM #16
Lavender
Posts: 1,069

Truman, are you referring to Uwish's comment?


Back on topic...


I can tell you this because at one time, I was strongly anti-Mormon. (Go figure.) Anyway,  they use scare tactics; I'm sure you're aware that most people shut the door on our missionaries because, "If you let them in, you give place to the devil." And, of course, if that one doesn't work (which it usually does; who wants to give place to the devil?) they have at least ten others.


But they don't mind being friends with us. What a load of crap! Even though "I'm Mormon" doesn't usually come out at the beginning of a friendship, in the course of time, they find out. AND they still are our friends. (Mostly.)


It is a sobering thought that a person's first brush with LDS are friends; and even though I'm not "officially" representing the church, I do to that friend, and what I do or don't do now may affect their decision to be taught at a future date.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2009 - 7:20PM #17
MMCSFOX
Posts: 1,785

I do find the comments here interesting in that I don’t seem to get that from my friends in my community who are mostly not LDS. I have found that the people I work with in my community know I am LDS and it is no problem. Last Thursday the Methodist Optimist Club president asked me again to do the invocation and introduced me as Pastor Fox, with a smile, though everyone knows I am Mormon. I think that as long as we continue to be good community examples there is no problem among good people. We will always have the nit-pickers and nay-sayers, but we can for the most part ignore them and just go about being good citizens and laugh them off. I do find that the world is full of good people who are doing good no matter what religion they are.


 Jesse F.


*


“If I try to be like him, who will be like me?”


Yiddish proverb

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2009 - 10:08PM #18
Ironhold
Posts: 12,363

Currently, I am corresponding by e-mail with an anti-Mormon named Russ Bales. It started earlier this week when I sent him a polite e-mail to inform him that he was jumping to conclusions about a particular issue. I think you all can judge for yourself what kind of person he is.


My messages are in green; his are in red.


> While reading through your site, I noted this particular page.
>   
> Owing to the (literally) gross exaggerations often made by critics of  the church regarding this issue, this has become something of a sore spot for  me.
>  
> The argument, as is presented on your page and  elsewhere, is that by "natural" means these assorted leaders of the church must  mean "sex."
>  
> This argument is significantly flawed.
>   
> By Dictionary.com, this is the first definition of a miracle: "an  effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known  human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
>   
> So what, praytell, could be a "natural" occurance that would result in  the birth of Jesus, if not sex?
>  
> For starters, in the world  of science there's the matter of parthenogenesis
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis). This is a  situation wherein an ovum (egg) begins the process of cell division dispite not  having come in contact with a sperm cell.
>  
> Is it a  hypothetical? No; it's been noted in a number of animal species, most  significantly komodo dragons. Under normal circumstances, the offspring will be  female. However, komodo dragons are unique in that *male* offspring have been  noted.
>  
> Given this, one could make a counter-argument that  parthenogenesis may be the "middle ground" as to how Jesus' birth could be  natural without the implications of sex that critics typically raise.
>   
> Darren XXXXX.


Darren:

I rejoice that you do not agree with former LDS authorities. 

Neither was Jesus conceived by "in vitro fertilization."

LDS  critics hardly exaggerate.

Russ Bales


[next two were sent to me simultaneously]


I think you missed my point. LDS leaders are quite clear as evidenced by the  quotes I sent you.

McConkie said that it happened by "natural action."  How were you conceived? Same as me, right? :-)


Parthenogenesis is rather natural, too.
 
That was the whole substance of  my initial message.
 
BTW, my e-mail provider keeps e-mails indefinately;  I can maintain an archive of our entire conversation.


P.S. In case you're interested:

Is Jesus the brother of Satan?


Only in the sense that all of us are spirit siblings, with  Jesus as our Elder Brother.
 
It's elementary Mormonism.

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Dec 05, 2009 - 11:16PM #19
Ironhold
Posts: 12,363

Here's more.


[in response to the brothers bit and a YouTube vid he posted:]


Oh, come on.

Look at what McConkie said. Look at Young. "In the same  way....."


(link to video in question)


*For the bit with "Catherine," note that she said "a brother." The  article there makes a world of difference, as it means that there are multiple  other siblings - specifically, us. I have spoken with athiests about this  matter, and even they grasped it on the first go-around.


 


*Likewise, some critics of the church (such as Ed Decker and Jack Chick) have  become so synonymous with telling falsehoods that their name alone is generally  enough to discredit a work.


 


And yes, there are indeed critics who ask questions of missionaries not  because they wish to learn but because they wish to "trap" them or play games. I  myself have had a few people try to play games, and it's never worked.


 


Given this, Catherine was actually correct in attempting to ascertain where  you were coming from and what stance you held, so as to better assemble her  response.


 


*The logo bit? It's also a point of contention.


 


A common tactic is for critics to go out of their way to avoid anything  actually put out by the church when doing research and instead go for the most  obscure material they can find, as it reduces the likelihood of someone sitting  down and fact-checking their citations. Thus, it becomes important to find out  where someone got their info. For example, while reading through one of  Chick's writings on the church, I noted that some "quotations" he had from  McConkie's Mormon Doctrine simply did not exist; a best-case scenario  is that he got the page numbers wrong or was using an older edition (often,  reprintings of books end up with different page numberings), while a worst-case  scenario is that he was using fabricated quotes.


 


As such, I - and others - have to remind people of what is and isn't regarded  as a valid source. 


 


*What two passages did Catherine link you to?


 


It's somewhat dishonest of you to merely hand-wave them as not actually  relating to your question. As with the above point, such information is  important for the purpose of fact-checking.


 


*The audio you have for Catherine is surprisingly jerky; is that an actual  audio recording of "Catherine," or were you using a bot to read her text for the  purpose of your video? If the latter, then you've just gone and left yourself  open to accusations that "Catherine" doesn't exist, especially since you failed  to cite the verses she gave you. Fabricating sources is alarmingly common when  it comes to decrying religions people do not agree with; the ultimate example of  this would probably be the Taxil Hoax.


 


All in all? Sounds more like you met with an overly-cautious and possibly  somewhat green missionary than anything else.




**


 


 


Yes, email is nice that way. Computers never forget and I'm happy that LDS  leaders were such good record keepers too. That way, when Mormons say that their  faith if misrepresented, the documentation exists so that the interested  investigator can decide for himself.

God bless!

In Him, 

Russ


 


Let it sink in for half a second, folks, that he apparently didn't realize what I was getting at. Tongue out

Quick Reply
Cancel
8 years ago  ::  Dec 06, 2009 - 3:17AM #20
BillThinks4Himself
Posts: 3,242

Dec 4, 2009 -- 9:35AM, UwishUwereMe wrote:

Truman says:  If you don't think that most of those of other churches do the same, I think you've got another think coming  UWUWM:  Truman, I totally agree with you... but the funny thing is... at the end of the day... some ex roommates of mine (all evangelical) were very peculiar in that... we would talk for several hours about our similarities and our love of the Savior and his role in our lives... and after our talks and a closing prayer... they would then say... well that was cool UWISH, but your still not REALLY a Christian.  Then they would say but we still respect you and your [non-christian] religion!  It's like, really... they tell me having Christ as my Personal Savior is a PERSONAL thing, but then conclude that he really isn't MY personal Savior... uh... o...k...


I'm not trying to insinuate anything about you or your conversations with others (which I obviously wasn't present to know anything about) but it does seem to me that many Latter-day Saints set themselves up for this type of rejection, without realizing it.


I'm of the opinion, at this point, that Mormons should not be so eager or desperate to convince anyone that they are Christians, too.  It's weak, pathetic, clingy and the kind of thing that just gives these people power to reject the application out of hand.


Without being total jerks about it, Mormons should confidently state what they believe.  If someone says, "But you're not a real Christian," the smart reply goes something like this: "It's not up for you to decide."  If they persist, then ask them the following: "If you're such a Christian, why do you contradict the Savior?"


As these are fighting words, you'll immediately get some kind of question along the lines of, "What do you mean I contradict the Savior?"


"Well," you say, "Didn't Jesus say, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'?  What makes you so much better than the Son of God?"


You can just imagine the turmoil such a statement would cause.  It puts people on the defensive, which is where they ought to be.  How dare they judge Mormons when, just a few hundred years ago, their ancestors were having to defend their own faith against sectarian charges that their kind weren't real Christians.  In fact, the real reason they come after Mormons is that Mormons are among the few groups left to pick on.  A kind of cease-fire has occurred between the major denominations, with each agreeing not to pick up a rock against any group it thinks might hurl one back.


But Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists and Seventh-day Adventists are fair game.  


I'm not suggesting that one become overly contentious, especially when the Jesus of the Book of Mormon (I'm being a jerk here) said, "He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me."  I'm just saying that Mormons need not ask anybody for permission to call themselves Christian.  In fact, the very expression of doubt that Mormons are "proper Christians" should be met by comments like, "Who are you to decide who's a Christian and who's not?"


These people have had it easy for at least a century or so.  They've long since lost the fear of persecution, so now they're heaping it on others.  It's an old story.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 55  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 55 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook