Forums → WEPR → Mormonism

428	91272

offline

Linktopast30

109 posts

Jester

Posted January 10, '11 9:35pm UTC

I'm starting this topic to "continue" a conversation started in the Christians vs. Catholics thread. I will include some of the details from there, but the rest are up to anyone new to read up on. I will specifically post the contents of one post, more or less.

We did not baptize Adolf Hitler. That is a lie. After people baptized for Obama's mother, an official release was sent out saying that unless you specifically know the person who's name you are bringing in to do temple work for (not the names that they already have) or they are in your family, you cannot do temple work for them.

We are not barred from being around ex Mormons. We do not necessarily believe they are with Satan. We excommunicate people for their good. In our views, it gives them a second chance. They can rejoin the church later, and their sins will be gone, just as they were when they were first baptized. I know many ex Mormons, and I do not get in trouble for being with them.

South Park is in no way an authority on anything. The fact that you're trying to cite that is pathetic.

Yes, there was polygamy. But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons). Joseph Smith did not try to burn down a newspaper place. He was taken to jail for no real reason. If he shot back, it was only because they were shooting at him.

The reason non members are not allowed in the temple is because of the sacred things that go on in there. If just anyone was allowed in, the spirit would be disrupted. I will expound on this if needs be.

I am personally ashamed of the acts of other Latter-Day Saints who have done temple work for people without permission from relatives of that person. It is wrong, and we know it.

Tithing... It was actually in Christ's day when it started. The only reason it affects our worthiness to enter the temple (not our standing in general). The Lord gave us everything we have, and all he asks is 10% of what we earn. I'd say that's a pretty small price for life, liberty, and happiness.

Also, we believe in Agency and Accountability. You can choose to do what you want, but you will have to accept the consequences.

I have a testimony of Jesus Christ. He is my savior and my redeemer. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that Thomas S. Monson is the living prophet today. I believe the Bible to be true as far as it is correctly translated. I know that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven for our sins and return to live with our Heavenly Father. I have seen the Atonement in action in my life. I know that God listens to all prayers to him. He answers them in his own way. I know that I can make it to the Celestial Kingdom if I but do my best to keep the commandments of God.

I'm starting this topic to "continue" a conversation started in the Christians vs. Catholics thread. I will include some of the details from there, but the rest are up to anyone new to read up on. I will specifically post the contents of one post, more or less.\r\n\r\nWe did not baptize Adolf Hitler. That is a lie. After people baptized for Obama's mother, an official release was sent out saying that unless you specifically know the person who's name you are bringing in to do temple work for (not the names that they already have) or they are in your family, you cannot do temple work for them.\r\n\r\nWe are not barred from being around ex Mormons. We do not necessarily believe they are with Satan. We excommunicate people for their good. In our views, it gives them a second chance. They can rejoin the church later, and their sins will be gone, just as they were when they were first baptized. I know many ex Mormons, and I do not get in trouble for being with them.\r\n\r\nSouth Park is in no way an authority on anything. The fact that you're trying to cite that is pathetic.\r\n\r\nYes, there was polygamy. But it was revoked in the 1890's (even if only for legal reasons). Joseph Smith did not try to burn down a newspaper place. He was taken to jail for no real reason. If he shot back, it was only because they were shooting at him.\r\n\r\nThe reason non members are not allowed in the temple is because of the sacred things that go on in there. If just anyone was allowed in, the spirit would be disrupted. I will expound on this if needs be.\r\n\r\nI am personally ashamed of the acts of other Latter-Day Saints who have done temple work for people without permission from relatives of that person. It is wrong, and we know it.\r\n\r\nTithing... It was actually in Christ's day when it started. The only reason it affects our worthiness to enter the temple (not our standing in general). The Lord gave us everything we have, and all he asks is 10% of what we earn. I'd say that's a pretty small price for life, liberty, and happiness.\r\n\r\nAlso, we believe in Agency and Accountability. You can choose to do what you want, but you will have to accept the consequences.\r\n\r\nI have a testimony of Jesus Christ. He is my savior and my redeemer. I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that Thomas S. Monson is the living prophet today. I believe the Bible to be true as far as it is correctly translated. I know that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we can be forgiven for our sins and return to live with our Heavenly Father. I have seen the Atonement in action in my life. I know that God listens to all prayers to him. He answers them in his own way. I know that I can make it to the Celestial Kingdom if I but do my best to keep the commandments of God.

428 Replies

offline

Einfach

1,448 posts

Nomad

Posted January 25, '11 6:52am UTC

But it's not based on personal experience, it's based on objective evidence of what happens when a tree falls.

But how do we come up with these "laws" - such knowledge can only be acquired empirically.

If personal experience is fallible, than how do you know that it's fallible? If it's fallible, and you learned this from experience, because that's where all things come from aside from theorys, and even those are somewhat derived from experience, then you're just not arguing. You can't argue something like that, because it doesn't even make sense to argue for.

It's a thought experiment - I am testing MageGreyWolf's claim.

offline

Kasic

5,552 posts

Jester

Posted January 25, '11 6:53am UTC

Also - theists will argue that there were several accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection? This, according to your philosophy, would be a greater degree of certainty.

I could get some of my friends together and we could all make up a story about the flying spaghetti monster, but that doesn't make it any more true either.

offline

Einfach

1,448 posts

Nomad

Posted January 25, '11 6:55am UTC

Finally, an example from 1984 - is insanity statistical?

Winston Smith was one of the only people who questioned the "Big Brother" government. According to your claims, then the people who believe the government are more likely right because of the degree of certainty.

I could get some of my friends together and we could all make up a story about the flying spaghetti monster, but that doesn't make it any more true either.

Yes - Mage, what about the flying spaghetti monster - does belief make it more likely to be real?

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted January 25, '11 6:56am UTC

If personal experience is fallible, than how do you know that it's fallible? If it's fallible, and you learned this from experience, because that's where all things come from aside from theorys, and even those are somewhat derived from experience, then you're just not arguing. You can't argue something like that, because it doesn't even make sense to argue for.

There is a difference between personal experience and something that can be objectively perceived. We can further go out and test our personal perceptions and see if they match.
For instance someone might see a blue pen as red, their personal experience tells them the pen is red. However they can test this by measuring the light waves coming from the pen and see objectively that the wavelength falls in the blue spectrum.

offline

Einfach

1,448 posts

Nomad

Posted January 25, '11 6:58am UTC

There is a difference between personal experience and something that can be objectively perceived. We can further go out and test our personal perceptions and see if they match.

How does one differentiate personal experience and objective perception? Only through their own perceptions, which are themselves fallible...

However they can test this by measuring the light waves coming from the pen and see objectively that the wavelength falls in the blue spectrum.

Which was only based off of the perception of other people, which in itself is fallible.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted January 25, '11 7:05am UTC

Also - theists will argue that there were several accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection? This, according to your philosophy, would be a greater degree of certainty.

What do we have to objectively determine this?

How does one differentiate personal experience and objective perception? Only through their own perceptions, which are themselves fallible.

Which is why we can't be 100% certain only have certainty to a degree.

Which was only based off of the perception of other people, which in itself is fallible.

Same answer.

Love to continue this but I have to get back to adding stuff to my store before I'm to tired.

offline

Einfach

1,448 posts

Nomad

Posted January 25, '11 7:11am UTC

What do we have to objectively determine this?

From a skepticist's point of view, how does one differentiate between objective and subjective, since they are both dependent on perception?

I'm assuming you'd say: Which is why we can't be 100% certain only have certainty to a degree.

To which I reply: But you can only determine this degree of certainty by looking at the majorities, and this is where contradictions erupt - most of the world is theist and has little common sense (as explained before, common sense is not so common) - does this mean that atheists are wrong, and that common sense doesn't exist, since their degrees of certainty are relatively low compared to their alternatives?

I say if we want to continue this, we need to relocate to another thread.

offline

k4th3r1n3

195 posts

Farmer

Posted January 25, '11 10:46am UTC

I couldn't sleep so I just read through this entire thread.... Uuuaargh! A least it was interesting half the time.

I'm Mormon, I'm an endowed member (meaning I can go into the temple, oooh) and really, it's no big deal. You wear white, sit down, watch a short movie on the creation then hang out in a quiet sitting room and read scripture or ponder deep thoughts. That's it! If you are at least twelve years old and a member you can do baptism by proxy for the dead. There's REALLY nothing secret, it's just a place members hold sacred.

I have to set the record straight though, Mormons are NOT considered Christian by the Christian organizations. The reason why is because we believe that the Godhead are three separate beings. Christians believe that the Father and the Son are literally one, we don't. That's just the facts.

Personally I don't care what people label me, I grew up in Louisiana (where Mormons are a severe minority) and in high school as soon as word got out that I was Mormon I was approached on a daily basis with anti-Mormon literature and questions intended for arguing. I've heard it all. One thing that sets the Mormon church apart from others is that we don't preach anti-others' religion on Sunday. We focus on what we believe.

Also about non-members going to church, You can walk in anytime you want when someone's there no matter who you are. I've seen for myself investigators show up in jeans, halter tops, etc. and no one said a word about it, they were just greeted. There's a weekly youth group get-together at the meetinghouse where the kids are encouraged to invite a friend. I hope that's taken care of.

I could explain in detail every misconstrued idea in this thread, but I feel it's pointless because It's coming mostly from E1337, and no offense to you, but you seem really angry about the church and don't want to know facts. That's fine though.

Anyway, this SO made me laugh...

At least christianity has archeological backing to a degree.
For example, a virgin birth is possible due to the hymen not being hydrophobic but rather, semi-porous.

So I guess Joseph performed a cesarean section to pull out baby Jesus, and Mary never consummated the marriage, just so she could keep that hymen in tact, huh? Come on, even if you're gay you probably took sex-ed, right? The rest of you don't have excuses. I can't believe no one caught this.

I couldn't sleep so I just read through this entire thread.... Uuuaargh!  A least it was interesting half the time.\r\n\r\nI'm Mormon, I'm an endowed member (meaning I can go into the temple, oooh) and really, it's no big deal.  You wear white, sit down, watch a short movie on the creation then hang out in a quiet sitting room and read scripture or ponder deep thoughts.  That's it!  If you are at least twelve years old and a member you can do baptism by proxy for the dead.  There's REALLY nothing secret, it's just a place members hold sacred.  \r\n\r\nI have to set the record straight though, Mormons are NOT considered Christian by the Christian organizations.  The reason why is because we believe that the Godhead are three separate beings.  Christians believe that the Father and the Son are literally one, we don't.  That's just the facts.  \r\n\r\nPersonally I don't care what people label me, I grew up in Louisiana (where Mormons are a severe minority) and in high school as soon as word got out that I was Mormon I was approached on a daily basis with anti-Mormon literature and questions intended for arguing.  I've heard it all.  One thing that sets the Mormon church apart from others is that we don't preach anti-others' religion on Sunday.  We focus on what we believe.\r\n\r\nAlso about non-members going to church, You can walk in anytime you want when someone's there no matter who you are.  I've seen for myself investigators show up in jeans, halter tops, etc. and no one said a word about it, they were just greeted.  There's a weekly youth group get-together at the meetinghouse where the kids are encouraged to invite a friend.  I hope that's taken care of.\r\n\r\nI could explain in detail every misconstrued idea in this thread, but I feel it's pointless because It's coming mostly from E1337, and no offense to you, but you seem really angry about the church and don't want to know facts.  That's fine though.\r\n\r\nAnyway, this SO made me laugh...\r\n\r\n[quote]At least christianity has archeological backing to a degree.\r\nFor example, a virgin birth is possible due to the hymen not being hydrophobic but rather, semi-porous.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSo I guess Joseph performed a cesarean section to pull out baby Jesus, and Mary never consummated the marriage, just so she could keep that hymen in tact, huh?  Come on, even if you're gay you probably took sex-ed, right?  The rest of you don't have excuses.  I can't believe no one caught this.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted January 25, '11 12:01pm UTC

I say if we want to continue this, we need to relocate to another thread.

I agree. But anyway one last post here.

From a skepticist's point of view, how does one differentiate between objective and subjective, since they are both dependent on perception?

It's objective if it's independent of ones personal views and feelings. In other words anyone can look at the evidence, run a test and get the same results. It's evidence that can be independently evaluated.
With subjective evidence, it can not be evaluated in this way, because it's just one persons personal view point, and you either have to accept or reject the claim based solely on that.

To which I reply: But you can only determine this degree of certainty by looking at the majorities, and this is where contradictions erupt

Then I'm lucky here because it's not based on majorities, it's based on repeatability.
let's say I have a box, and I claim there is a zombie cat inside the box. The box is closed, and there are no noises coming from it, or smells or any indication what so ever that a zombie cat or anything is inside the box. Now I get 1000 to believe me and also claim there is a zombie cat inside the box. But one person finally goes up to the box and opens it and sees the box is empty. Now he can take that box and show everyone the box is empty. That one person who believes the box is empty and can show the empty box trumps the 1000 people who claim the box has a zombie cat in it. Because he has objective evidence, that he can repeatedly show and get the same result. He doesn't even need to be the one to show it anyone can just look in the box for them self and see that it is indeed empty.

Okay back to Mormons.

You wear white, sit down,

You see that kind of kills it for me right there, I don't really do white except maybe my skin gets a bit close. I'm more of an earth tone sort myself.

watch a short movie on the creation

That show "How It's Made" is okay I guess.

then hang out in a quiet sitting room and read scripture or ponder deep thoughts.

(Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't have eaten those bean burritos last night?)

I have to set the record straight though, Mormons are NOT considered Christian by the Christian organizations. The reason why is because we believe that the Godhead are three separate beings. Christians believe that the Father and the Son are literally one, we don't. That's just the facts.

Really? So maybe there was something to what E1337 was saying, that Mormonism isn't a monotheism after all.

Anyway to clear up the situation of Mormonisms relation to Christianity, here's a handy image.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/religion_pngaebd9899-e348-409b-ad53-a83b71cb00f7.jpg

The rest of you don't have excuses. I can't believe no one caught this.

Didn't I mention that depends on how you define virgin, or was that one of the posts that got ate and I didn't bother to retype?

[quote]I say if we want to continue this, we need to relocate to another thread.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI agree. But anyway one last post here.\r\n\r\n[quote]From a skepticist's point of view, how does one differentiate between objective and subjective, since they are both dependent on perception?[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt's objective if it's independent of ones personal views and feelings. In other words anyone can look at the evidence, run a test and get the same results. It's evidence that can be independently evaluated. \r\nWith subjective evidence, it can not be evaluated in this way, because it's just one persons personal view point, and you either have to accept or reject the claim based solely on that.\r\n\r\n[quote]To which I reply: But you can only determine this degree of certainty by looking at the majorities, and this is where contradictions erupt[/quote]\r\n\r\nThen I'm lucky here because it's not based on majorities, it's based on repeatability.\r\nlet's say I have a box, and I claim there is a zombie cat inside the box. The box is closed, and there are no noises coming from it, or smells or any indication what so ever that a zombie cat or anything is inside the box. Now I get 1000 to believe me and also claim there is a zombie cat inside the box. But one person finally goes up to the box and opens it and sees the box is empty. Now he can take that box and show everyone the box is empty. That one person who believes the box is empty and can show the empty box trumps the 1000 people who claim the box has a zombie cat in it. Because he has objective evidence, that he can repeatedly show and get the same result. He doesn't even need to be the one to show it anyone can just look in the box for them self and see that it is indeed empty.\r\n\r\nOkay back to Mormons.\r\n\r\n[quote]You wear white, sit down,[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou see that kind of kills it for me right there, I don't really do white except maybe my skin gets a bit close. I'm more of an earth tone sort myself.\r\n\r\n[quote]watch a short movie on the creation[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat show "How It's Made" is okay I guess.\r\n\r\n[quote]then hang out in a quiet sitting room and read scripture or ponder deep thoughts.[/quote]\r\n\r\n(Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't have eaten those bean burritos last night?)\r\n\r\n[quote]I have to set the record straight though, Mormons are NOT considered Christian by the Christian organizations.  The reason why is because we believe that the Godhead are three separate beings.  Christians believe that the Father and the Son are literally one, we don't.  That's just the facts.[/quote]\r\n\r\nReally? So maybe there was something to what E1337 was saying, that Mormonism isn't a monotheism after all.  \r\n\r\nAnyway to clear up the situation of Mormonisms relation to Christianity, here's a handy image.\r\n\r\n[img]http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/religion_pngaebd9899-e348-409b-ad53-a83b71cb00f7.jpg[/img]\r\n\r\n[quote]The rest of you don't have excuses.  I can't believe no one caught this.[/quote]\r\n\r\nDidn't I mention that depends on how you define virgin, or was that one of the posts that got ate and I didn't bother to retype?

offline

k4th3r1n3

195 posts

Farmer

Posted January 25, '11 1:31pm UTC

You see that kind of kills it for me right there, I don't really do white except maybe my skin gets a bit close. I'm more of an earth tone sort myself.

You'd hate it, even your shoes are white. On the plus side, you can wear white slippers there and no one cares.

(Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't have eaten those bean burritos last night?)

The room is so quiet you could hear a pin drop on the carpet, so everyone would hear your burritos, haha. But it's actually really nice, and really beautiful. I just thought about this, if there's a temple where you live they renovate the temples every few years, and when they do before rededicating it they have an open house, where anyone can go in and have a tour. It's actually really beautiful in there, if you get a chance you should check it out.

Anyway to clear up the situation of Mormonisms relation to Christianity, here's a handy image.

That's pretty funny. Scientology's fan fiction is so much cooler though, I'm a little jealous.

Didn't I mention that depends on how you define virgin, or was that one of the posts that got ate and I didn't bother to retype?

You did didn't you? I don't know how you can define "not virgin" as virgin though...

[quote]You see that kind of kills it for me right there, I don't really do white except maybe my skin gets a bit close. I'm more of an earth tone sort myself.[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou'd hate it, even your shoes are white.  On the plus side, you can wear white slippers there and no one cares.\r\n\r\n[quote](Hmmm... maybe I shouldn't have eaten those bean burritos last night?)[/quote]\r\n\r\nThe room is so quiet you could hear a pin drop on the carpet, so everyone would hear your burritos, haha.  But it's actually really nice, and really beautiful.  I just thought about this, if there's a temple where you live they renovate the temples every few years, and when they do before rededicating it they have an open house, where anyone can go in and have a tour.  It's actually really beautiful in there, if you get a chance you should check it out.\r\n\r\n[quote]Anyway to clear up the situation of Mormonisms relation to Christianity, here's a handy image.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's pretty funny.  Scientology's fan fiction is so much cooler though, I'm a little jealous.\r\n\r\n[quote]Didn't I mention that depends on how you define virgin, or was that one of the posts that got ate and I didn't bother to retype?[/quote]\r\n\r\nYou did didn't you?  I don't know how you can define "not virgin" as virgin though...

offline

Asherlee

5,001 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 25, '11 2:07pm UTC

Scientology's fan fiction is so much cooler though, I'm a little jealous.

Aliens do make a great twist!

...objective and subjective, since they are both dependent on perception?

Mage gave a great answer, but I have to ask, I'm having a hard time determining how objectivity is dependent on perception in the first place? If it were, that would be subjectivity, would it not?

offline

Linktopast30

109 posts

Jester

Posted January 25, '11 5:29pm UTC

Holy crap! 7 pages of posts in less than 24 hours!? This is going to be, um, fun to answer... I apologize in advance to any of you whose question I don't get to. It looks like I've also got some new people in this thread.

From the look of it, this thread has been reduced to somewhat of a shouting match. I'll address that in a separate post.

@MageGrayWolf: I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, or I may have just posted wrong. Anyways, I was first responding to you saying it wasn't unnatural, and then I was responding to you saying that man naturally seeks to be happy. At the end of my post, I stated it was not instinct for man to do things like that. That should be proof enough that it is unnatural. And I know that man is part of the Animal kingdom, so perhaps this will help: beasts have that instinct. Humans do not. Also, I said that because I personally have nothing more to offer on homosexuality. Maybe one of the other posters will.

On the topic of sins, we were sent to Earth to be tested and tried. What would the point of agency and accountability be if there was no sin? If there was no sin, Lucifer's plan could just have easily been implemented without a problem.

@Einfach: It's not necessarily a "moral laziness" view. I have an atheist friend, and it's not because of moral laziness. You are trying to point out something that's simply not there. Laziness is a lack of effort. Most atheists aren't lacking effort. One I knew had tried praying several times, and said he wasn't receiving answers. That isn't laziness. You are also oversimplifying the possible causes. When one denies God after having a testimony of him, it is not necessarily one of those things. Let me put it this way: If you saw a miracle happen, and God or angels came down, and you were then to rebel against God and deny his existence, and proceed to persecute those who believe in him, that would be purely wrong. Not irrational, and definitely not believing in stronger evidence against. You definitely wouldn't be a theist.

Yes, the bible says God created us in his image. But, once again, you are taking me out of context. The Natural Man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam. Man was not a natural man until Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. Pain, suffering, mortality, and weakness were introduced, and we then were separated from God. Overcoming the natural man also includes overcoming our weaknesses.

My original post was taken down partially because I used the very same example in that sentence that E1337 used in a post two before that. It is the CHOICES you make that condemn you, not the homosexuality in and of itself.

@E1337 It actually WAS my choice to be a Mormon, so kindly screw off. If I had chosen NOT to be a Mormon, I would not be posting right now. There are many times where I have fallen into doubt, only to be brought back through prayer. If I were to deny God now, I would never forgive myself, because I know he lives and that he cares for all of his children. As for you being gay, you can do as you please. I won't judge you for that. I'll only judge your attitude toward me, which is caustic and biting. You're toying with a fine line, and you're about to cross it. Don't.

I'm also noticing that people are taking quotes from each other and posting them somewhat out of context. Stop doing that. That's the way confusion is created. A lot of those out-of-context quotes are from my posts.

Holy crap! 7 pages of posts in less than 24 hours!? This is going to be, um, fun to answer... I apologize in advance to any of you whose question I don't get to. It looks like I've also got some new people in this thread.\r\n\r\nFrom the look of it, this thread has been reduced to somewhat of a shouting match. I'll address that in a separate post.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n@MageGrayWolf: I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying, or I may have just posted wrong. Anyways, I was first responding to you saying it wasn't unnatural, and then I was responding to you saying that man naturally seeks to be happy. At the end of my post, I stated it was not instinct for man to do things like that. That should be proof enough that it is unnatural. And I know that man is part of the Animal kingdom, so perhaps this will help: [i]beasts[/i] have that instinct. [i]Humans[/i] do not. Also, I said that because I personally have nothing more to offer on homosexuality. Maybe one of the other posters will.\r\n\r\nOn the topic of sins, we were sent to Earth to be tested and tried. What would the point of agency and accountability be if there was no sin? If there was no sin, Lucifer's plan could just have easily been implemented without a problem.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n@Einfach: It's not necessarily a "moral laziness" view. I have an atheist friend, and it's not because of moral laziness. You are trying to point out something that's simply not there. Laziness is a lack of effort. Most atheists aren't lacking effort. One I knew had tried praying several times, and said he wasn't receiving answers. That isn't laziness. You are also oversimplifying the possible causes. When one denies God after having a testimony of him, it is not necessarily one of those things. Let me put it this way: If you saw a miracle happen, and God or angels came down, and you were then to rebel against God and deny his existence, and proceed to persecute those who believe in him, that would be purely wrong. Not irrational, and definitely not believing in stronger evidence against. You definitely wouldn't be a theist.\r\n\r\nYes, the bible says God created us in his image. But, once again, you are taking me out of context. The Natural Man is an enemy to God, and has been from the [b]fall of Adam[/b]. Man was not a natural man until Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit. Pain, suffering, mortality, and weakness were introduced, and we then were separated from God. Overcoming the natural man also includes overcoming our weaknesses.\r\n\r\nMy original post was taken down partially because I used the very same example in that sentence that E1337 used in a post two before that. It is the CHOICES you make that condemn you, not the homosexuality in and of itself.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n@E1337 It actually WAS my choice to be a Mormon, so kindly screw off. If I had chosen NOT to be a Mormon, I would not be posting right now. There are many times where I have fallen into doubt, only to be brought back through prayer. If I were to deny God now, I would never forgive myself, because I know he lives and that he cares for all of his children. As for you being gay, you can do as you please. I won't judge you for that. I'll only judge your attitude toward me, which is caustic and biting. You're toying with a fine line, and you're about to cross it. Don't.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nI'm also noticing that people are taking quotes from each other and posting them somewhat out of context. Stop doing that. That's the way confusion is created. A lot of those out-of-context quotes are from my posts.

offline

Asherlee

5,001 posts

Shepherd

Posted January 25, '11 5:48pm UTC

it was not instinct for man to do things like that [homosexuality]. That should be proof enough that it is unnatural

What do you mean, exactly? Because then you turn around and say this:

And I know that man is part of the Animal kingdom, so perhaps this will help: beasts have that instinct.

we were sent to Earth to be tested and tried. What would the point of agency and accountability be if there was no sin? If there was no sin, Lucifer's plan could just have easily been implemented without a problem.

Circular justification does not work as evidence for or against accountability and agency.

offline

Linktopast30

109 posts

Jester

Posted January 25, '11 6:13pm UTC

You have a point, Asherlee.

You did, however leave one sentence off of one of my arguments you posted. I added that Humans do not have that instinct.

I just don't see a point in having choice if there is no "bad" choice. Sure, there's the argument that you could choose what's best for you, but that's usually the right thing to do anyways (as opposed to a sin). If you could expound a bit on your side of it, I could address it more fully.

@Everyone Else
Now, about that shouting match...

Most of it is about taking each other out of context, or it is simply flaming each other. Flaming, I believe, is against the rules of the forum. I would recommend you stop. Can you perhaps change your arguments into something more productive?

offline

Linktopast30

109 posts

Jester

Posted January 25, '11 6:17pm UTC

I hate to double post, but I have something to say.

@k4th3r1n3: thank you for your input. Your post(s) are really helping me out. In a way, they were probably more straightforward than any of mine. Maybe you could post some more?

First
9
10
11
12
13
Last

Showing 151-165 of 428

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Mormonism