Is all truth useful?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

liz3564 wrote:
Why are you worried about posting count? As a Moderator here, I can assure you that there is nothing to worry about as far as posting counts. We encourage large posting counts here. There is no problem with that at all. :D


Hana, I don't know who you are talking about Queen Bee. It is the anti-Mormons and critics who will occasionallyl chide me for a high posting count. I don't want to give them any satisfaction.

But thanks, to you and liz, anyway.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

charity wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Why are you worried about posting count? As a Moderator here, I can assure you that there is nothing to worry about as far as posting counts. We encourage large posting counts here. There is no problem with that at all. :D


Hana, I don't know who you are talking about Queen Bee. It is the anti-Mormons and critics who will occasionallyl chide me for a high posting count. I don't want to give them any satisfaction.

But thanks, to you and liz, anyway.


LOL I believe that Hanna was referring to "she who must not be named" on "the other board". ;)

As far as anyone chiding you for a high posting count on THIS board, next time they say something, tell them to come talk to me. I have over 3000 posts. 8)
Last edited by _Yoda on Sun Jan 13, 2008 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

charity wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Why are you worried about posting count? As a Moderator here, I can assure you that there is nothing to worry about as far as posting counts. We encourage large posting counts here. There is no problem with that at all. :D


Hana, I don't know who you are talking about Queen Bee. It is the anti-Mormons and critics who will occasionallyl chide me for a high posting count. I don't want to give them any satisfaction.

But thanks, to you and liz, anyway.


Until you have more posts than nevermos like me (who is somewhat ashamed of my post count) you shouldn't worry.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Scottie
_Emeritus
Posts: 4166
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 9:54 pm

Post by _Scottie »

charity wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Why are you worried about posting count? As a Moderator here, I can assure you that there is nothing to worry about as far as posting counts. We encourage large posting counts here. There is no problem with that at all. :D


Hana, I don't know who you are talking about Queen Bee. It is the anti-Mormons and critics who will occasionallyl chide me for a high posting count. I don't want to give them any satisfaction.

But thanks, to you and liz, anyway.


Goodness...of all the undeserved criticism/abuse you suffer here, I would think posting count would be the LEAST of your worries.

I, for one, am glad to have the opposing viewpoints that you bring to the board. This board is already critic heavy, and without you apologists, it would just be a toned down RfM.

So, I say run that count up! I want to see you in the ten-thousands!!! ;)

By the way, have I said how much I love the new smilies???
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman

I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

charity wrote:To the road to hana

the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:
If the member comes back and says "the prophet is wrong" he/she has been listening to the wrong source. The Holy Ghost confirms truth. Or fails to give a confirming witness to something that is in error. The only comment the member can make is "I did not receive a confirmation from the Holy Ghost that this was correct."

So Joseph Smith could not have been given a witness that all other religions were wrong. He had to have fabricated that.


Small tutorial, here: There are different operations of the Spirit. The witness of the Holy Ghost is one. Revelations and vision are others. Joseph was given direct instruction by the Lord. Others of us who did not have the vision or the revelations, may seek for confirmation through a witness of the Spirit. As is used often on this board, apples and oranges.


So one can have a confirmation of a negative. It's doubtful that if Joseph Smith indeed sought an answer to a question, he specified or limited the means by which that could be answered. I assume that's generally the case with most people seeking answers to questions. Those who believe in a Supreme Being should believe that that being would be unlimited in its ability to make known an answer should it desire to.

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:the road to hana wrote, quoting examctly, "Again, however, this seems to be doublespeak, because I doubt Elder Packer is applying the same standard to the history and/or leaders of other religions."

So hana replied, "I clearly said history and/or leaders. Not just leaders."


I requested that she back up this claim. Her attempt to do so if found in this reply: "Boyd K. Packer is part of an institution that is founded on the premise that the church which Christ established became corrupt. Not just that the church itself became corrupt, but that its followers and its leaders did. That's foundational to Mormonism. The endowment ritual has in the past contained disparaging references to Christian ministers and leaders, including a reference to Satan buying up "popes and princes," which is a specific reference to clergy."

Do you see a name there? I don't. These are comments on doctrine, not on the personal lives of specific individuals.


So are you suggesting that we can say that LDS leaders are corrupt or the hirelings of Satan, and as long as we don't name specific names we are simply just commenting on doctrine?


charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:We're tiptoeing into dead horse territory again, Charity. History and/or leaders. Is that word history invisible to you? Does the word leaders suggest to you that individual names have to be listed, and that saying that leaders are "evil" or "corrupt" or "wicked" is insufficient? Is making a specific reference in temple ritual to Catholic popes and cardinals too generic for your taste?


Are you suggesting that there were no leaders in the past history of the Catholic Church or the Lutheran or others, who were evil, corrupt and wicked?


No. Are you suggesting that there were no leaders in the past history of the LDS Church who were evil, corrupt or wicked?

charity wrote:We are commanded to teach that there was an apostacy.


By whom?

charity wrote:But we don't go around telling Lutherans that Martin Luther hated Jews. We don't send our missionaries to knock on people's doors and ask people have they heard the latest scandal about some televangelist gone wrong. There is a difference.


So other denominations who preach that the LDS Church is an apostate or false religion are okay in doing so as long as they don't specifically reference any individual, even if they send out missionaries to do so?

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:By that logic, it should be acceptable to say that LDS temple worship is false doctrine, that God was once a man is false doctrine, that baptisms for the dead are false doctrine, and as long as no one is saying anything disparaging about an LDS leader, past or present, it doesn't matter how much someone criticizes the doctrines or practices.
Indeed, to say that the LDS Church is a false and apostate religion, born of the devil and filled with evil, should be all right.
If that's your standard.


For anti-Mormons, I expect that. Those who fight against the Church will say those kinds of things.


You said that earlier. Are you suggesting that those who say that about Mormonism are bad, but if Mormons say it about others it's not bad? If someone says a religion is "hatched in hell" that's okay?

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote: What kinds of things? Those are exactly the "kinds of things" that leaders of the LDS Church have said regarding other churches, but according to you, it's really all right because no individual leaders are being disparaged in the process. Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"


God will decide who is right and who isn't. I am confident of His judgement.


One more time: Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
You missed the temple reference? You missed the "corrupt," "evil" and "wicked" references?


You are inserting specific names into what you remember the temple ceremony used to be, I guess. But I can testify, there weren't any.


Who said anything about specific names? Ministers as hirelings of Satan? Buying up "popes and princes?" If a non-LDS religion had a ritual that mocked a member of LDS leadership or priesthood, would you consider that admirable?

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:You want evidence of an Ensign article that disparages leaders or history of other religions?

Address to CES Educators, 6 February 2004, Salt Lake Tabernacle

"The world and the Christian churches have discarded the Old Testament."


Statement of fact.


Balderdash. Call for references. That would be like a non-LDS church saying that Mormonism had discarded the Book of Mormon.

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:Ensign, November 1992

Quote:
There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world—something of the “sky is falling, chicken licken” of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults.

Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true. The Brethren, by virtue of traveling constantly everywhere on earth, certainly know what is going on, and by virtue of prophetic insight are able to read the signs of the times.

Do not be deceived by them—those deceivers. If there is to be any gathering, it will be announced by those who have been regularly ordained and who are known to the Church to have authority.

Come away from any others. Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.


Names? Denominations? You have not supplied a single one, in all your attempts to do. Discussions of the FACTS of the apostacy, yes. Personal attcks, no. You keep missing the differences.


What FACTS of the apostasy? I see none present. I see multiple citations of deception, corruption, evil and wickedness. Again, what I'm trying to point out to you is that if another religion said the same thing about Mormonism, even if they omitted specific names of LDS leaders, you would consider it unacceptable and likely even reprehensible.

And just as an aside, it's apostasy with an 's' and not a 'c.'
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

the road to hana wrote:So one can have a confirmation of a negative. It's doubtful that if Joseph Smith indeed sought an answer to a question, he specified or limited the means by which that could be answered. I assume that's generally the case with most people seeking answers to questions. Those who believe in a Supreme Being should believe that that being would be unlimited in its ability to make known an answer should it desire to.


No, there is not positive confirmation of a negative. as I have been discussing with you. Did you read what I said about different operations of the Spirit? Joseh Smith had visions, revelations, visitations. Most of the rest of us do not. God is not limited, except by eternal laws and principles. When He speaks, He says anything He wants. When I pray for an answer to whether or not Joseph's revelation, vision, etc. was true, God does not come and personally tell me. The Holy Ghost gives confirmation that it was. There is a difference.
the road to hana wrote:
So are you suggesting that we can say that LDS leaders are corrupt or the hirelings of Satan, and as long as we don't name specific names we are simply just commenting on doctrine?
You can say anything you want. You should just be sure that what you say is correct and not false.

the road to hana wrote: Are you suggesting that there were no leaders in the past history of the LDS Church who were evil, corrupt or wicked?


No, obviously there were, and they became apostate.

the road to hana wrote:charity wrote:
We are commanded to teach that there was an apostacy.

By whom?


Do you not undestand that this is the dispensation of the Restoration? If there wasn't an apostady (thanks for the spelling correction) there would be no need for a Restoratin!
the road to hana wrote:
So other denominations who preach that the LDS Church is an apostate or false religion are okay in doing so as long as they don't specifically reference any individual, even if they send out missionaries to do so?


They aren't "okay" since that would be preaching falsehood and fighting against the true Church. That is generally a practice which is frowned on in the scriptures.

the road to hana wrote:charity wrote:
For anti-Mormons, I expect that. Those who fight against the Church will say those kinds of things.


You said that earlier. Are you suggesting that those who say that about Mormonism are bad, but if Mormons say it about others it's not bad? If someone says a religion is "hatched in hell" that's okay?


Truth is always a defense. If the Lord tells you to say that, then I suppose it would be okay, but not tactful. People always forget that it wasn't Joseph Smith who said all the religions were corurpt and their professors corrupt. It was Jesus Christ. He gets to say what He wants.
the road to hana wrote:

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
What kinds of things? Those are exactly the "kinds of things" that leaders of the LDS Church have said regarding other churches, but according to you, it's really all right because no individual leaders are being disparaged in the process. Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"


God will decide who is right and who isn't. I am confident of His judgement.


One more time: Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"


Why would it? I believe in Christ. I'm a Christian.

the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:


You missed the temple reference? You missed the "corrupt," "evil" and "wicked" references?
Who said anything about specific names? Ministers as hirelings of Satan? Buying up "popes and princes?" If a non-LDS religion had a ritual that mocked a member of LDS leadership or priesthood, would you consider that admirable?


Is it true? Did the Lord inspire it? Remember, Jesus can say what He wants to.,


the road to hana wrote:
What FACTS of the apostasy? I see none present. I see multiple citations of deception, corruption, evil and wickedness. Again, what I'm trying to point out to you is that if another religion said the same thing about Mormonism, even if they omitted specific names of LDS leaders, you would consider it unacceptable and likely even reprehensible.


Of course I would, becaue it would be fighting against the true church. That's a no no.Besides it is all falsehood. I am never for teaching falsehoods. Go ahead, jump on that one.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

charity wrote:[qyite="Jason Bourne"]
So God has told me Joseph made a major error with polygamy, that the two earring deal is just Pres. Hinckley's opinion. Do you disagree with me?


Of course. This is why we don't get answers from the bottom up.



Charity. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. First you say it is the members responsibility to pray and get their own revelation to find out if what the prophet says or does is right. Then when we pray you say we don't get answers from the bottom up.

So why pray and ask if all we are after is confirmation that what they say is truth. That is a waste of time. Just say it. What they say is truth, there is not debating it, we do not need to find out on our own. And this in essence equals infallibility.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Basically, all of Charity's defenses are predicated upon the church being true. If the church is not true, then, according to what she's said herself, criticism is merited.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Post by _ludwigm »

charity wrote: ... Believers are told to pray and find out that what the leader says IS the truth not if it is true. If the member comes back and says, no, what the prophet says is not of God then the member is in trouble. ...


If a church (even the ONLY ONE) is teaching this, then that church is in trouble, not the members.

I have a simple, straight question:
Was one case, in the ~180 years history of the Church, when the prophet (any of them from Joseph Smith to GBH) has said anything was not of God?

Anything? Please tell me one. If there was such thing, what was the answer of the Holy Ghost to the prayers?
Or was everything OK? (Polygamy, AdamGod, blacks, earrings, baseball-baptism, temple oaths, symbolic anointing, ethernal progression, any?)

If the answer to any question may be the "YES" only, then that question is unnecessary.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_the road to hana
_Emeritus
Posts: 1485
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:35 pm

Post by _the road to hana »

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:So one can have a confirmation of a negative. It's doubtful that if Joseph Smith indeed sought an answer to a question, he specified or limited the means by which that could be answered. I assume that's generally the case with most people seeking answers to questions. Those who believe in a Supreme Being should believe that that being would be unlimited in its ability to make known an answer should it desire to.


No, there is not positive confirmation of a negative. as I have been discussing with you. Did you read what I said about different operations of the Spirit? Joseh Smith had visions, revelations, visitations. Most of the rest of us do not. God is not limited, except by eternal laws and principles. When He speaks, He says anything He wants. When I pray for an answer to whether or not Joseph's revelation, vision, etc. was true, God does not come and personally tell me. The Holy Ghost gives confirmation that it was. There is a difference.


So God can say anything he wants to anyone he wants, including you and me. If he wanted to come to either of us, he could, including to tell us confirmation of a negative if that's what he wanted to do.

Is that correct?


charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:So are you suggesting that we can say that LDS leaders are corrupt or the hirelings of Satan, and as long as we don't name specific names we are simply just commenting on doctrine?


You can say anything you want. You should just be sure that what you say is correct and not false.


Are you suggesting that there were no leaders in the past history of the LDS Church who were evil, corrupt or wicked?


No, obviously there were, and they became apostate.


And how is that not an apostasy, if they became apostate?


charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:We are commanded to teach that there was an apostacy.


By whom?


Do you not undestand that this is the dispensation of the Restoration? If there wasn't an apostady (thanks for the spelling correction) there would be no need for a Restoratin!


I doubt there's a person on this board who doesn't understand that an apostasy is absolutely necessary for a church which is founded on the premise of it being a restoration. If there is no apostasy, there is no need for the church to exist. So one is presumed and asserted on the basis of the assertion of the other.


charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
So other denominations who preach that the LDS Church is an apostate or false religion are okay in doing so as long as they don't specifically reference any individual, even if they send out missionaries to do so?


They aren't "okay" since that would be preaching falsehood and fighting against the true Church. That is generally a practice which is frowned on in the scriptures.


But again you're assuming that the "true church" referred to in the scriptures is your church, which might not be the case. In order for you to be correct, two things have to be true: (1) that the church being referred to is specifically and only the LDS Church, and (2) the scriptures are correct.

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:For anti-Mormons, I expect that. Those who fight against the Church will say those kinds of things.


You said that earlier. Are you suggesting that those who say that about Mormonism are bad, but if Mormons say it about others it's not bad? If someone says a religion is "hatched in hell" that's okay?


Truth is always a defense. If the Lord tells you to say that, then I suppose it would be okay, but not tactful. People always forget that it wasn't Joseph Smith who said all the religions were corurpt and their professors corrupt. It was Jesus Christ.


Or was it Joseph Smith saying that Jesus Christ said it? Do you think that the Jesus Christ you believe in would say that Christianity was "hatched in hell?"

charity wrote: He gets to say what He wants.


Who? Joseph Smith? Or Jesus Christ?


charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:
charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:What kinds of things? Those are exactly the "kinds of things" that leaders of the LDS Church have said regarding other churches, but according to you, it's really all right because no individual leaders are being disparaged in the process. Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"


God will decide who is right and who isn't. I am confident of His judgement.


One more time: Does that make you, or the church, "anti-Christian?"


Why would it? I believe in Christ. I'm a Christian.


If someone claiming to be LDS said that Mormonism was "hatched in hell," would that make them "anti-Mormon?"

charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:You missed the temple reference? You missed the "corrupt," "evil" and "wicked" references? Who said anything about specific names? Ministers as hirelings of Satan? Buying up "popes and princes?" If a non-LDS religion had a ritual that mocked a member of LDS leadership or priesthood, would you consider that admirable?


Is it true? Did the Lord inspire it? Remember, Jesus can say what He wants to.


Do you imagine that Jesus Christ personally wrote the LDS endowment ritual, and decided later to remove references that might have been seen as inflammatory to Protestant and Catholic clergy, on reflection?


charity wrote:
the road to hana wrote:What FACTS of the apostasy? I see none present. I see multiple citations of deception, corruption, evil and wickedness. Again, what I'm trying to point out to you is that if another religion said the same thing about Mormonism, even if they omitted specific names of LDS leaders, you would consider it unacceptable and likely even reprehensible.


Of course I would, becaue it would be fighting against the true church. That's a no no.


So, to summarize, it's okay in your view to criticize other faiths, their history and their leaders, because they are false and corrupt. It's not okay to criticize Mormonism, because it is the true church.

Does that pretty much sum up your appraisal of the situation?

charity wrote:Besides it is all falsehood. I am never for teaching falsehoods. Go ahead, jump on that one.


Charity, I don't doubt that you are sincere in your beliefs, and believe with all your heart that what you believe is true. I also imagine that you believe that there have been thousands of non-LDS people in the history of this world who have felt the same regarding their own closely held beliefs. They wouldn't subscribe to it if they thought it was falsehood, they wouldn't teach it if they thought it was falsehood, and they wouldn't pass it on to their children if they thought it was falsehood.

You are really no different.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
Post Reply