LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Those who break His commandments will regret and suffer in remorse and pain. Man has his free agency, but GOD WILL NOT BE MOCKED." D&C 63:58.
God is a poopy head.

Yeah, because god is a petty tyrant. In much of our civilized and pre-civilized world speaking out against the ruler carried a penalty of death? That's where the notion came. People at the time figured that god was a narcissist like most kings.

Modern liberal democracies got rid of tyrants and instituted due process. If we were to invent a god today it would be a merciful one with compassion and empathy, one that would value proportional punishment. One that would not infinitely punish people for finite crimes.

I'm afraid your god was invented in the wrong era.
 
Last edited:
However, the relevant quote is from Boyd K Packer. He's the President of the Quorum of the Twelve (advisers under the prophet) and notorious for his anti-gay stance, and his insistence that being gay is not inborn. Why does he believe that? Why because our sweet, loving Heavenly Father wouldn't do such a thing to someone! Lovely chap that he is, he'd destroy the whole world with a flood including innocent children, but wouldn't create someone gay, 'cause that would just be wrong.

God doesn't believe in love? What a piker.
 
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. People in every time in recorded history have felt that a previous time was really all sunshine and rainbows. Usually, they hearken back to their childhood because that was a time when they were protected from the realities and hardships of life, a time when they were kept in ignorance of the adult world. Unfortunately, what they are nostalgic for is not a previous era, but their own ignorance and innocence. That is both impractical and foolish, for it is a necessary part of growing up to recognise that there is injustice and pain in the world, that there has always been injustice and pain, and that some of it is outwith our control, but not outwith our compassion or our attempts to minimise it where we can.

If pressed, most people don't really want to go back to a time where women and poor men were denied a vote, or where millions of people were forcibly removed from their lands to be enslaved by others, or where the world was ravaged by pointless wars. Or where the sort of labour saving devices we have today are unheard of. Where there were no laws against dumping dangerous chemicals at sea, or where big cities were choked with smog every winter. Where children died from preventable diseases and cancer was a death sentence. What they want is simply the ignorance back, where they were unaware of the deaths, the suffering and the disease. Those people are like children, howling for the shiny pretty moon and refusing to believe it's just a lump of rock 384,400 km away.

Further, for the last two thousand years, various Bible believers have held that the end times were nigh. In the 1st century right through to the 21st century, some of them have been so certain that the world is about to end, or that Jesus is about to return, that they have given up good jobs, spent their savings, failed to ensure a financially comfortable future - even taken their own lives. But the only thing they have all had in common as well as this delusion, is that they have all been wrong.

Whether these are the 'end times' or not, every person is responsible for their own behaviour and for ensuring that their children, their families and wider society have a good future. So they should take care of the world, not pollute it. They should love people for who and what they are, and teach their children to do the same. They should make no adverse judgements based on race, colour, gender or sexuality. They should judge people only on what they do, not what they are, and they should recognise that consenting adults can choose to do whatever they want with other consenting adults. They should reach out to those in need and help them, and the same to those who are in pain. They should work towards leaving the world a better place after they've gone, not rely on some cosmic Mr Fix-It to clean up their mess and the damage they've done to others by their intolerance and limited thinking.

Mr Packer is no different from many others in this respect, scared of the adult world, scared of people who are different from him, scared of a world where there is no cosmic Mr Fix-It. Instead of learning to overcome his fear, he's trying to push that fear onto his followers, to keep them safe from that scary adult world where we are all solely responsible for the good and the evil that we do. The more he surrounds himself with people who think like he does, the more he will feel comforted in his childish little world.

Instead of leading his flock towards an understanding that gay people are born that way, he wants to shut his people away from reason, from science, from biology and from tolerance. He wants to return to his childhood where he didn't need to know about adults and sexuality, and he wants his followers to go there too. It's a losing battle, though I'm sure he'll continue to fight it long after the battle is lost. He and his ilk, those who preach intolerance and hatred in the words of a supposedly loving god, will become more and more marginalised as our understanding of the causes of sexuality increases.

[/soapbox] :o
 
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. People in every time in recorded history have felt that a previous time was really all sunshine and rainbows. Usually, they hearken back to their childhood because that was a time when they were protected from the realities and hardships of life, a time when they were kept in ignorance of the adult world. Unfortunately, what they are nostalgic for is not a previous era, but their own ignorance and innocence. That is both impractical and foolish, for it is a necessary part of growing up to recognise that there is injustice and pain in the world, that there has always been injustice and pain, and that some of it is outwith our control, but not outwith our compassion or our attempts to minimise it where we can.

If pressed, most people don't really want to go back to a time where women and poor men were denied a vote, or where millions of people were forcibly removed from their lands to be enslaved by others, or where the world was ravaged by pointless wars. Or where the sort of labour saving devices we have today are unheard of. Where there were no laws against dumping dangerous chemicals at sea, or where big cities were choked with smog every winter. Where children died from preventable diseases and cancer was a death sentence. What they want is simply the ignorance back, where they were unaware of the deaths, the suffering and the disease. Those people are like children, howling for the shiny pretty moon and refusing to believe it's just a lump of rock 384,400 km away.

Further, for the last two thousand years, various Bible believers have held that the end times were nigh. In the 1st century right through to the 21st century, some of them have been so certain that the world is about to end, or that Jesus is about to return, that they have given up good jobs, spent their savings, failed to ensure a financially comfortable future - even taken their own lives. But the only thing they have all had in common as well as this delusion, is that they have all been wrong.

Whether these are the 'end times' or not, every person is responsible for their own behaviour and for ensuring that their children, their families and wider society have a good future. So they should take care of the world, not pollute it. They should love people for who and what they are, and teach their children to do the same. They should make no adverse judgements based on race, colour, gender or sexuality. They should judge people only on what they do, not what they are, and they should recognise that consenting adults can choose to do whatever they want with other consenting adults. They should reach out to those in need and help them, and the same to those who are in pain. They should work towards leaving the world a better place after they've gone, not rely on some cosmic Mr Fix-It to clean up their mess and the damage they've done to others by their intolerance and limited thinking.

Mr Packer is no different from many others in this respect, scared of the adult world, scared of people who are different from him, scared of a world where there is no cosmic Mr Fix-It. Instead of learning to overcome his fear, he's trying to push that fear onto his followers, to keep them safe from that scary adult world where we are all solely responsible for the good and the evil that we do. The more he surrounds himself with people who think like he does, the more he will feel comforted in his childish little world.

Instead of leading his flock towards an understanding that gay people are born that way, he wants to shut his people away from reason, from science, from biology and from tolerance. He wants to return to his childhood where he didn't need to know about adults and sexuality, and he wants his followers to go there too. It's a losing battle, though I'm sure he'll continue to fight it long after the battle is lost. He and his ilk, those who preach intolerance and hatred in the words of a supposedly loving god, will become more and more marginalised as our understanding of the causes of sexuality increases.

[/soapbox] :o

Well said. Nom'd
 
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. People in every time in recorded history have felt that a previous time was really all sunshine and rainbows. Usually, they hearken back to their childhood because that was a time when they were protected from the realities and hardships of life, a time when they were kept in ignorance of the adult world. Unfortunately, what they are nostalgic for is not a previous era, but their own ignorance and innocence. That is both impractical and foolish, for it is a necessary part of growing up to recognise that there is injustice and pain in the world, that there has always been injustice and pain, and that some of it is outwith our control, but not outwith our compassion or our attempts to minimise it where we can.

If pressed, most people don't really want to go back to a time where women and poor men were denied a vote, or where millions of people were forcibly removed from their lands to be enslaved by others, or where the world was ravaged by pointless wars. Or where the sort of labour saving devices we have today are unheard of. Where there were no laws against dumping dangerous chemicals at sea, or where big cities were choked with smog every winter. Where children died from preventable diseases and cancer was a death sentence. What they want is simply the ignorance back, where they were unaware of the deaths, the suffering and the disease. Those people are like children, howling for the shiny pretty moon and refusing to believe it's just a lump of rock 384,400 km away.

Further, for the last two thousand years, various Bible believers have held that the end times were nigh. In the 1st century right through to the 21st century, some of them have been so certain that the world is about to end, or that Jesus is about to return, that they have given up good jobs, spent their savings, failed to ensure a financially comfortable future - even taken their own lives. But the only thing they have all had in common as well as this delusion, is that they have all been wrong.

Whether these are the 'end times' or not, every person is responsible for their own behaviour and for ensuring that their children, their families and wider society have a good future. So they should take care of the world, not pollute it. They should love people for who and what they are, and teach their children to do the same. They should make no adverse judgements based on race, colour, gender or sexuality. They should judge people only on what they do, not what they are, and they should recognise that consenting adults can choose to do whatever they want with other consenting adults. They should reach out to those in need and help them, and the same to those who are in pain. They should work towards leaving the world a better place after they've gone, not rely on some cosmic Mr Fix-It to clean up their mess and the damage they've done to others by their intolerance and limited thinking.

Mr Packer is no different from many others in this respect, scared of the adult world, scared of people who are different from him, scared of a world where there is no cosmic Mr Fix-It. Instead of learning to overcome his fear, he's trying to push that fear onto his followers, to keep them safe from that scary adult world where we are all solely responsible for the good and the evil that we do. The more he surrounds himself with people who think like he does, the more he will feel comforted in his childish little world.

Instead of leading his flock towards an understanding that gay people are born that way, he wants to shut his people away from reason, from science, from biology and from tolerance. He wants to return to his childhood where he didn't need to know about adults and sexuality, and he wants his followers to go there too. It's a losing battle, though I'm sure he'll continue to fight it long after the battle is lost. He and his ilk, those who preach intolerance and hatred in the words of a supposedly loving god, will become more and more marginalised as our understanding of the causes of sexuality increases.

[/soapbox] :o

Well said. Nom'd

Ninja'd, yet again.
 
I read the Eternal Law you call the BoM and it had a lot of stuff in it about horses and steel and barley in early America. How do you account for the divergence from reality in your book?

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.
 
Much like the Wicked Witch of the West, Kimball is morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably dead.

Such a wonderful film.
Still, as is pointed out in Prince Caspian
'Oh, bless his heart, his dear little Majesty needn't mind about the White Lady -that's what we call her- being dead. The Worshipful Master Doctor is only making game of a poor old woman like me when he says that. Sweet Master Doctor, learned Master Doctor, who ever heard of a witch that really died? You can always get them back.'
'Call her up,' said the grey voice.'We are all ready. Draw the circle. prepare the blue fire.'
 
I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.


GodFanClub.jpg
 
I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

Hi, skyrider44.
I can't speak for any other poster here, but when I first saw this thread, I was interested enough to follow it and learn more.
What I learned disgusted me profoundly.

In fact, the more I learn the less I understand anyone can take the LDS seriously.
Is that rampant animosity?
 
I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

Seriously? Janadele started a thread about the LDS church, and we're discussing it. That's what this forum is designed for. :boggled:
 
If a god wants to discuss how I refer to him/her/it all they have to do is come talk to me. If they care that much I'll put a note in the day planner app on my ipad.
That privilege is reserved for those worthy to receive it.
 
Last edited:
I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

You're playing the victim again. Please remember that you came to this thread (which Janadele started) to discuss the LDS. If encountering people who don't believe the stories that you believe makes you feel insulted and angry to the point that you post histrionics like the above, then why are you here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom