LDS II: The Mormons

[Brainache]

Im sorry, but moderators, why is this thread still here? I thought that proselytisation was against the MA?

I think that only applies to people selling real things.

Spooks don't count.

 

[tsig]

The question was, "Which of the woman's seven husbands will she be married to 'in the resurrection'?". It is difficult to believe that the compilers who attributed Luke 20:35 (&pp) intended his answer, that those worthy of resurrection would not "marry" (γαμέω) nor "be given in marriage" (ἐκγαμίσκω) only to apply to new, post-resurrection marriages, since the question had to do with the woman's seven legal marriages.

The traditional xianist interpretation has been to take the words attributed to Jesus to mean that the institution of marriage will not exist in heaven.

Looks like no marriage in heaven:

Matthew 22:30

New International Version (NIV)

30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

 

[Rincewind]

Shrillness?
And how would she know who to shout at???

So you met my ex, did you?

 

[Janadele]

Looks like no marriage in heaven:

Only for those who are worthy, and have been married for eternity in the Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[tsig]

Only for those who are worthy, and have been married for eternity in the Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Then before Joe Smith no one was actually married?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Only for those who are worthy, and have been married for eternity in the Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Thank you for making my point that your lot have different "rules" than christians do...

 

[Janadele]

LDS Doctrines are clearly available for all to read at http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Janadele

Do you think what you are telling us is anything new?

If you live in the Western Hemisphere you know the basic Biblical stories. We've heard these fairy tales before. Hearing them repeated to us again verbatim isn't going to change our minds.

That's the whole flaw in proselytizing. No one is going to go "Wait... what... there's some giant invisible sky genie? And he has a set of rules for us to follow? And if I do it I will be rewarded? Why I have never heard that before! This is totally new information!"

Evangelicals of all stripes seem to be incapable of grasping this simple fact, Jack Chick being a shining example. Many of his characters are Americans who have lived in the USA for their entire lives yet never heard of Jesus.

 

[Craig4]

LDS Doctrines are clearly available for all to read at http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng

But Smith was a liar so LDS sources don't have any value.

 

[Iamme]

I knew that the tall tales were garbage when I was six years old.

Seriously? Quite remarkable.
How were you about the belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy? Or arent those customs over in your part of the world?

 

[Iamme]

I wish both Bill Nye and Ken Ham would visit our site here, prior to their debate. A lot of interesting things have been said. I found post #153 to be quite interesting. It raises a very logical question many of us have had, i`m sure.

 

[skyrider44]

...according to the things your club have added to, and altered in, the xianist scriptures; addenda and appendices of macculate provenance, demonstrable a-historicity, and impeachable authorship. Again I say: you have my permission to do whatever woo! you do, with consenting adults in the privacy of your clubhouses. You can even re-write the xianist books, and edit your own books (as the laws change); you may argue with xinianists all you want.

You continue to commit the fallacy of Ignorantiam, argumentum ad, in which you use your lack of knowledge about something to imply that the opposite is the case. Madsen Pirie* puts it this way: "The fallacy consists of the intervention of irrelevant material, in the shape of our own ignorance, into an argument which is about something else." *Author, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, Continuum, 2007.

The fact that you know The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a club and its buildings are not clubhouses does not absolve you of having committed the fallacy. Consequently, your rant about xianists and "amended scriptures" is difficult to take seriously.

 

[Janadele]

So true.

 

[Akhenaten]

The fact that you know The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a club and its buildings are not clubhouses does not absolve you of having committed the fallacy. Consequently, your rant about xianists and "amended scriptures" is difficult to take seriously.

I'd dare to suggest that the idea of a pervert and con man discovering the revealed word of god on some gold plates with the aid of an angel, a magic hat and some rocks is far more difficult to take seriously than anything Slowvehicle has to say about the club Cult of LDS.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
...according to the things your club have added to, and altered in, the xianist scriptures; addenda and appendices of macculate provenance, demonstrable a-historicity, and impeachable authorship. Again I say: you have my permission to do whatever woo! you do, with consenting adults in the privacy of your clubhouses. You can even re-write the xianist books, and edit your own books (as the laws change); you may argue with xinianists all you want.

You continue to commit the fallacy of Ignorantiam, argumentum ad, in which you use your lack of knowledge about something to imply that the opposite is the case. Madsen Pirie* puts it this way: "The fallacy consists of the intervention of irrelevant material, in the shape of our own ignorance, into an argument which is about something else." *Author, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, Continuum, 2007.

The fact that you know The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a club and its buildings are not clubhouses does not absolve you of having committed the fallacy. Consequently, your rant about xianists and "amended scriptures" is difficult to take seriously.

I don't know if there's a formal term for it; but concentrating on a single word in someone's argument that isn't even central to the argument, and pretending that that somehow answers the actual point of the argument, certainly seems like a fallacy in itself. Consequently, etc., etc.... (Maybe "theological fallacy" would be a good term, since so much of theology seems to depend on that sort of thing)

 

[dafydd]

Seriously? Quite remarkable.
How were you about the belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy? Or arent those customs over in your part of the world?

They used to bring me money and presents. I smelled a religious rat from the first day that I was sent to Sunday School.

 

[dafydd]

The fact that you know The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a club and its buildings are not clubhouses does not absolve you of having committed the fallacy. Consequently, your rant about xianists and "amended scriptures" is difficult to take seriously.

Old Joe didn't amend Christian scriptures?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'd dare to suggest that the idea of a pervert and con man discovering the revealed word of god on some gold plates with the aid of an angel, a magic hat and some rocks is far more difficult to take seriously than anything Slowvehicle has to say about the club Cult of LDS.

So true.

 

[halleyscomet]

CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES: The Word of God.

Christian Scriptures include:

...

The Book of Mormon. The Pearl of Great Price. The Doctrine and Covenants.

You are uttering pagan blasphemies.

In a Christian nation you would be burned the stake for advocating such lies.

You're free to consider those books to be holy text for your beliefs, but don't you dare call them Christian. They're not.

 

[Foster Zygote]

As you usually are.

Could you be wrong?