End goal?

[_Moniker]

I'm not going to but if I did I wouldn't tell anyone and I wouldn't claim any sort of credit after the fact either.

If nobody knew it was a curse from God, then what would be the point? I don't see how God would do it as it wouldn't help anyone's eternal salvation. Am I wrong?

I don't even understand how a "loving" God would allow one of his children to "curse" another. The entire proposition really puts God at the disposal of petty spats and makes him an errand boy, no? Also, curses don't seem as if they'd come from a heavenly loving father.

This entire idea that LDS and Christians in general are so loving and morally superior while there is a parallel conversation about cursing others really illustrates quite adequately how there are so many that think that Christianity is a oneupmanship and about spite. It is bizarre.

God, I'm glad I'm a heathen! I bet God is glad too -- or else I might be out cursing people and telling them that they're sluts, or how they're going to burn in hell and are of Satan.

[_Ren]

If you can document one instance where I was cruel, hateful, intolerant, give it a go.

If we were all working to the same standards for the words 'cruel', 'hateful' and 'intolerant', there might be some point to attempting this...

[_wenglund]

I wasn't asking you what I think. I was asking you what you think (which explains my use of the word "you" rather than "I" in the question I asked you).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Did you, in your initial question about stereotyping, imply that stereotyping is an inappropriate use of anger?

No. I was inquiring about what you thought about stereotyping, and did not implying what I think about it (which explains my framing it as a question rather than as a statement).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_amantha]

I wasn't asking you what I think. I was asking you what you think (which explains my use of the word "you" rather than "I" in the question I asked you).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Did you, in your initial question about stereotyping, imply that stereotyping is an inappropriate use of anger?

No. I was inquiring about what you thought about stereotyping, and did not implying what I think about it (which explains my framing it as a question rather than as a statement).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What caused you to ask the question?

[_The Nehor]

I'm not going to but if I did I wouldn't tell anyone and I wouldn't claim any sort of credit after the fact either.

If nobody knew it was a curse from God, then what would be the point? I don't see how God would do it as it wouldn't help anyone's eternal salvation. Am I wrong?

It's not supposed to help anyone's salvation. A curse is there to call a gross sinner to repentance (and them alone), to remove someone from this life before they can sink further into degradation, or to remove someone who in some way directly seeks to thwart the will of God knowing who they are opposing. I've met few people who fit in this category. Infymus is not one of them. If God wants to curse him, he can tell me to or do it himself. He really doesn't need my help.

[_Sethbag]

Sethbag:

I will pray for your soul; may God reclaim you.

The Church is true. The Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith. You're just one of the many God predicted would hold Joseph's name in derision -- as many others on this Board do.

If I start an MLM and sell products with outrageous claims, and predict, in my sales speeches, that there will be many who mock, and many who won't believe my claims, and that there will be many who try to shut me down, and that the government will probably step in and prosecute me, and then all that actually happens, was I being prophetic? Or was I just acknowledging the inevitable in such a way as to attempt to defuse it in advance, and to gain a little more unearned credibility with my true believers, and stoke up a little paranoia and feed the persecution complex?

God didn't say Joseph Smith would be held in derision. Joseph Smith said that, claiming it was God. It's possible that Joseph Smith really did talk to God, and God really did tell him that his name would be had for good and evil around the world. It's also possible that Joseph Smith knew he was making it up, knew that some would figure that out and oppose him, and acknowledged that so as to appear prophetic to his true believers.

I'm as familiar with the issues as you -- and more, much more. I've read it all; understood it all. But, I've also seen the miracle of the Church firsthand.

Your posts are all about "me." "Me, me me." You are here in a public place, cowardly anonymous, attacking a former belief system because of your vanity.

Vanity was the first sin and is the ultimate sin.

You've seen it all, read it all, learned it all, and yet you've chosen to rationalize it all away. You've bought into a worldview whose values and axioms underly your judgment that the evidence of Joseph Smith's not being a real prophet be disregarded, and your own personal revelatory experience be seen to Trump all. Well, it's your mind, and you're free to dispose of it as you will.

RCrocket complaining about internet anonymity again. Surprise, surprise. Bob, the horse is dead, leave it be.

[_asbestosman]

I'm not going to but if I did I wouldn't tell anyone and I wouldn't claim any sort of credit after the fact either.

If nobody knew it was a curse from God, then what would be the point? I don't see how God would do it as it wouldn't help anyone's eternal salvation. Am I wrong?

I don't even understand how a "loving" God would allow one of his children to "curse" another. The entire proposition really puts God at the disposal of petty spats and makes him an errand boy, no? Also, curses don't seem as if they'd come from a heavenly loving father.

I think some curses are blessings in disguise like when Zacharias was cursed while John-the-baptist was in Elisabeth's womb. Zacharias realized how important this child was and was reminded of the power of God. Also the curse was taken away at his son's birth.

One might argue that cursing Sherem in the Book of Mormon was good because Sherem confessed that he was wrong. I think it helped Sherem as well as the people who witnessed the confession. Another example that comes to mind is of Jesus cursing the fig tree. I think that one is an especially benign cursing though as it was a tree, not a person.


On the other hand, there are some parts to cursing I'm not so sure about. Dusting of one's feet--what does it accomplish to further salvation? I don't get it.

[_The Nehor]

I don't even understand how a "loving" God would allow one of his children to "curse" another. The entire proposition really puts God at the disposal of petty spats and makes him an errand boy, no? Also, curses don't seem as if they'd come from a heavenly loving father.

This entire idea that LDS and Christians in general are so loving and morally superior while there is a parallel conversation about cursing others really illustrates quite adequately how there are so many that think that Christianity is a oneupmanship and about spite. It is bizarre.

God, I'm glad I'm a heathen! I bet God is glad too -- or else I might be out cursing people and telling them that they're sluts, or how they're going to burn in hell and are of Satan.

Moniker, it's important to note that unless God wants them cursed it WILL NOT HAPPEN. I've been snubbed, belittled, used, threatened, and attacked (physically) but I would not and have not tried to use God or my Priesthood as some kind of tool of vengeance. I was given this power to bless others and aid them in any way I can. I would not use this power to harm another unless God told me to. He never has. I hope he never does. In the New Testament Christ used his power to destroy once and in mercy he demonstrated it on a tree. He showed the power he has but chose not to wield it. I hope to 'go and do thou likewise'.

[_Moniker]

I wonder what Satan would think of an angry LDS (Charity) calling women "sluts", and women that are abused "weak" and "dumb"... I mean, that's not angry, or devilish, eh?

That is a bald faced lie. I never called women "sluts."

You said the unofficial name for the course you taught was "nuts and sluts". Why bring that up? What was the point of that? That is NOT the official course name -- yet you brought that into the conversation. You apparently thought of the course in that manner since you brought it on the board. Why did you do that Charity? You saying women that fit under the definition of that class are "sluts"!

And yes, there are women who chose their own interests over their children. A strong woman would put her children first. So yes, they are weak. Protecting children is what women do. Who do you think enjoys seeing children abused? Satan.

You said women that are with abusive men are weak and dumb! Do you think that is charitable? Compassionate? WHERE IS YOUR EMPATHY!? I am boggled by your lack of concern!

I think there is plenty of anger on this site. Dogdude, you want to see a bunch of angry folks on a bulletin board that are active take a looksie at the MAD board.

And when there are some who display that anger, what do you think made them angry? People lying about them, their leaders, their church. People mocking their deeply held religious beliefs.

Riiiight. That's why there was 20+ pages of mocking the descendents of the MMM massacre. Didn't see the descendents riling the good LDS folk on the board. Nope they put themselves into a frothy, frenzy of angst and hatred all by their lonesome! Who was goaded them to anger?

Charity, I am sooo sick of your self righteous patting yourself on the back. Your behavior has been despicable! You are cruel, hateful, and intolerant! Trying to put yourself into some elevated moral position in this thread sickens me! YOU ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE ANGRY EX-MOS YOU CRITICIZE! Look in the mirror!

Get a grip, girl. Rock throwing is not very attractive. Your characterization is incorrect. If you can document one instance where I was cruel, hateful, intolerant, give it a go. You know how to do the quotes. And in spite of your vitriol, I am not angry with you. You are probably just having a bad day.

I have a firm grip -- on reality. That you are so incapable of seeing how your posts come across to others speaks of your complete lack of social skills. I'm having a great day! I'm just tired of people saying that others are evil and of Satan. That is not your call! Who are you to know that? Who are you to know these people and their lives? Their hearts? You do not! You do not stand as final judge on their souls and deeds! It makes me bristle.

Pointing out how others are "angry" while you insinuate that they are of Satan is just astounding!

[_charity]

This is one of the big fallacies of the anti-Mormon and ex-mormon rationalization. That if only Person X could think clealry and not be "shackled" with "indoctrination" from their childhood, then they could be"enlightened" like we are. I am living proof that intelligent people can come to the LDS faith with no early teaching, can study and learn and actively CHOSE it.

And yet another strawman, charity. I'm really disappointed in you. I think most of us here would agree that intelligent people can study and learn and actively choose to believe in Mormonism. Where we disagree is in the idea that those of us who choose not to believe are somehow deceived, stupid, or evil.

No, we aren't in disagreement on what I bolded. Didn't you read my earlier post where I said two people who know the same things can come up with different interpretations? I was mainly referring to you and me. You know from our long history, that I don't think you are deceived, stupid or evil. ( I think you have misinterpreted some things. That doesn't mean you are deceived. )

I was responding in the earlier part of my post to sethbag's statement that people who chose to stay in the Church are shackled, their vision clouded, mired down,well, you read it.

And thank you for the acknowledgement that we TBM's can be intelligent, can study and learn and chose to believe. But I think if you did a poll, you would find most of the inhabitants of this board consider us seriously mentally challenged.