LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Women do not need to hold the Priesthood to be held in respect... the Priesthood serve the woman. Regardless anyway, it is a non negotiable point. The Lord God, creator of our earth, and our Heavenly Father does not need the advice of mere mortals, and non believing ones at that, as to how He should organise His Church.
Foster Zygote said:
Which implies that men hold offices of power over women. Why should one gender need to be defined as inferior to another? Why can't women earn the same positions of respect as men?
Click to expand...
 
Janadele said:
It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place.

Voices from the dust.
Click to expand...

...and yet you were not "living in that time and place in mortality"...you are making third- and fourth-hand hearsay claims.
Your very claim that the record were "compiled" by "those living at the time" is hearsay.

What about the anachronisms? If "those living at the time" were there, they certainly managed to get a lot of details wrong. Is it as simple as claiming that your 'god' hid the evidence of barley cultivation, of metalsmithing technology, of the existence of domestic animals, just to see whether evidence would mislead any who do not toe the line?
 
Janadele said:
It is not I speaking in the Book of Mormon... it is those who compiled the records, and who wrote them while living at that time and place.

Voices from the dust.
Click to expand...
The BofM details great nations fighting great battles. There is no archeological evidence for the claims made.

I grew up being told that native Americans were the decendants of Hebrews. Turns out that god forgot to tell Joseph Smith that native Americans are NOT Hebrew.
 
Janadele said:
Women do not need to hold the Priesthood to be held in respect... the Priesthood serve the woman. Regardless anyway, it is a non negotiable point. The Lord God, creator of our earth, and our Heavenly Father does not need the advice of mere mortals , and non believing ones at that, as to how He should organise His Church.
Click to expand...
True but it sure makes your deity out to be misogynist. I'm sure that if god wants to commit genocide the way he did in the Bible then that is his right but it makes him a monster. If god wants to condone slavery then he can do that but that also makes him a monster.

If you are correct and your god exists I would not worship him because he is immoral. Morality isn't something god can just declare by fiat. God might like drowning puppies in his spare time but just because he is god doesn't make it moral.

FWIW: There probably is no god, Mormon or otherwise. So relax and be a good person for the sake of goodness.
 
I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal.
DragonLady said:
??? Why in the world are you surprised? This is a skeptic's forum. You'll find that most here have been exposed to many religions, and that many of us have gone through the painful and life-changing process of leaving the faith we've been raised with.
Click to expand...
 
Janadele said:
I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal.
Click to expand...

  • I have been polite to you.
  • I have not misrepresented anything and I resent your accusation.
  • My only loyalty is to the truth.
 
I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal.
Click to expand...

:confused:

Now God is so small that he can't counter my puny criticisms? If the facts of the Book of Mormon, Bible or any other holy writ were plainly verifiable by anyone who wanted to check, do you think it would really be possible for me to misrepresent it?

Ultimate betrayal? There you really lost me. How can any mere created mortal betray an all-powerful God?

According to my upbringing, God didn't need me; rather it was the other way around. Supposedly my long-dead ancestors fell from grace and plunged the whole world into sin. I needed God's mercy to restore my own soul to a satisfactory condition to avoid everlasting punishment.
 
Janadele said:
:confused: Please expain.
Click to expand...
Because so many members claim supernatural protection from Mormon garments that many people pejoratively refer to them as "magic underwear".

60 Minutes said:
Mike Wallace: Do you wear the sacred undergarments?
Willard Marriott: Yes, I do. And I can tell you they do protect you from harm. Mike Wallace: Really?
Willard Marriott: Uh-huh. I was in a very serious boat accident. Fire--boat was on fire, I was on fire. I was burned. My pants were burned right off of me. I was not burned above my knee. Where the garment was, I was not burned.
Mike Wallace: And you believe it was the sacred undergarments.
Willard Marriott: I do. Particularly on my legs, because my pants were gone, but my undergarments were not singed. ("60 Minutes" program on the LDS Church. Aired on CBS TV, April 7, 1996)
Click to expand...
 
Janadele said:
Often the answer to what is sought, is not what the seeker wants to hear nor is willing to accept.
Click to expand...

Quoting clichés doesn't make you sound as profound as you think. You would be a lot more persuasive if you didn't sound like Yoda.
 
Janadele said:
I was once an Anglican, and an active one at that, but never would I consider publicly criticising and misrepresenting the beliefs, doctrine, structure or organisation of that denomination. It is the ultimate betrayal.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of a Mormon belief or doctrine or structure or organisation which has been misrepresented?
 
Richard Masters said:
Agatha, the compass has been around for at least 1000 years.
Click to expand...

DragonLady said:
Here in the Americas? This is where the events of the Book of Mormon supposedly took place.
Click to expand...
Given the narrative from the BofM I don't have a problem with the Liahona (the putative compass). God gave it to Lehi. Granting the existence of god for the purpose of argument then that's no less plausible than Jor-El giving Superman the historical crystals (granting of course the existence of Krypton and Jor-EL).
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
It was not a quote.
Click to expand...

Paraphrasing clichés isn't persuasive either. It's common for Mormons and other religious people to make appeals to ignorance. What you said is equivalent to "The Lord works in mysterious ways", "we are not meant to know", "don't question God's plan".

None of these clichés answer the questions that were posed to you, which comes across as rather convenient and dishonest.
 
RandFan said:
Because so many members claim supernatural protection from Mormon garments that many people pejoratively refer to them as "magic underwear".
Click to expand...

I was puzzled by the "too." Who else gets them?

The concept seems no sillier than a lot of lucky things people wear, and less sillier than, say, what some nuns, priests or the Amish have to wear, or yarmulkes, since at least they're hidden from view, but what I think is funny is how they keep shrinking to keep pace with fashion, always being just shorter than what a typical conservative person would wear in the US. You would think God would lead in fashions, rather than follow.

As I understand it, statements like Marriott's are not backed by doctrine. The garments are supposed to be a reminder of one's religion, not evil-proof kevlar, which is why there's no advantage to them being ankle-to-wrist and why Mormons die in fires and accidents like anyone else.

What really blows my mind is watching Dancing with the Stars, seeing Mormons on there nearly naked, or showing their little panties with leg lifts. I don't know if they've been to the temple, but they could have been. No matter how many time my wife explains, "You're allowed to take them off for athletic activities, which includes dancing," I still don't understand the logic. Not complaining, mind you. Just not reconciled to the logic. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom