Darth J wrote:Since the Savior has suffered anything and everything that we could ever feel or experience, He can help the weak to become stronger. He has personally experienced all of it.
Where, in any of your misrepresentations, does it say "the savior physically had the sensation of a male sexual organ entering a female sexual organ"
Simon Belmont wrote: There are core doctrines that the church will not bend on, and then there are teachings that have some wiggle room for interpretation.
And now Belmont will tell us which are which ...
Simon Belmont wrote:While one leader might state one thing, it's okay for a future leader to state it in a different way as long as it doesn't interfere with the core doctrines.
Aha! Does does that luminous post point towards a working definition of 'core doctrine'? Maybe "Core doctrine is that set of doctrines that are common to all sets of doctrines taught by all prophets to date".
No, that won't work ... in order to allow for all future prophets, it will have to be modified to:
"Core doctrine is that set of doctrines that are common to all sets of doctrines taught by all prophets to date. and those sets of doctrines which will be taught by all prophets in the future".
Problem: since we cannot tell what future prophets will teach, we shall only know what 'core doctrine' actually is once the sequence of prophets has ended with the last one ... so the concept of 'core doctrines' is not really much help to us today, is it?
Last edited by Guest on Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Darth J wrote:Since the Savior has suffered anything and everything that we could ever feel or experience, He can help the weak to become stronger. He has personally experienced all of it.
Where, in any of your misrepresentations, does it say "the savior physically had the sensation of a male sexual organ entering a female sexual organ"
Yet another misrepresentation by Darth J.
Rape comes under the category of "anything and everything." But you knew that.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Darth J wrote:Since the Savior has suffered anything and everything that we could ever feel or experience, He can help the weak to become stronger. He has personally experienced all of it.
Where, in any of your misrepresentations, does it say "the savior physically had the sensation of a male sexual organ entering a female sexual organ"
Yet another misrepresentation by Darth J.
Elder Faust says "anything and everything." Does "anything and everything" include "the sensation of a male sexual organ entering a female sexual organ"? Or is that excluded for some reason? Your post entails tearing into what this General Authority said--i.e., for your claim to hold water, you'd have to disavow Elder Faust's comment, essentially spitting in his face.
As I said: you are drifting ever closer to apostasy. You either have to accept that Darth J is correct, or you have to accept that you are in a state of apostasy.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
James E. Faust, November 2001 EnsignJ wrote:Since the Savior has suffered anything and everything that we could ever feel or experience, He can help the weak to become stronger. He has personally experienced all of it.
Where, in any of your misrepresentations, does it say "the savior physically had the sensation of a male sexual organ entering a female sexual organ"
Yet another misrepresentation by Darth J.
1. Women who are raped feel the sensation specified by Belmont. 2. According to James E. Faust, the Savior suffers everything we could feel. 3. Therefore the Savior suffers the feeling specified by Belmont.
I can't really see the difference between feeling a pin being stuck into me, and 'physically' feeling it, so far as the feeling is concerned. If all Belmont means is that the mechanical actions performed on the raped woman by the man raping her were not performed on the Savior, then of course he is correct. But according to Faust, he suffers the feeling all the same, even in the absence of the mechanical action.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I have tried on this board to offer a witness and a warning about what happens when a Latter-day Saint turns to the bastardized, pseudo-Mormonism invented by Mopologists. Their arguments and theories are not persuasive, nor are they intellectually satisfying. Mopologetics also fails to satisfy emotionally or spiritually. When a person claims to believe in the teachings of the LDS Church, but is actually a disciple of Mopologetics, continued efforts to convince people that LDS-ism (that particular denomination of Mormonism) and Moplogetics are equivalent will eventually turn that person into a babbling, hysterical mess. Simon Belmont is a case study in this phenomenon.
Reviewing Simon Belmont's persona since he joined this board, you will see the gradual devolution from his bravado of how he's going to prove the critics wrong once and for all, to his suggestion that he wants reasoned, scholarly discussion, to his phase of shrieking "bigotry" to anyone who dares question the faith-promoting narrative, to where he is now: pathetic, delusional rants.
On message boards, you sometimes rhetorical phrases overused. Among these are "straw man," "moving the goal posts," and "projection." In this thread, Simon Belmont is actually demonstrating all three.
Straw man: I never claimed that the LDS Church teaches that there is any particular mechanism known to man by which Christ was able to experience all of the sorrows and tribulations we experience in mortal life. I only said that the Church teaches that Christ did experience it all, somehow. In an ironic twist in a thread calling out Simon for falsely stating that I misrepresent the teachings of the LDS Church, Simon is arguing against a position I never took. I never said that the Church teaches that Christ physically experienced a woman's rape. I quite clearly distinguished between the hypothetical woman actually experiencing rape and Christ vicariously experiencing it. Simon Belmont is attempting to refute an argument I did not make.
Moving the goal posts: As is the standard Mormon defense mechanism, Simon Belmont cannot allow the possibility that a person could be familiar with and understand the doctrines of the Church, and yet reject the Church's truth claims. Frequently, a Mormon who is himself struggling with the plausibility of those truth claims will insist that a former believer simply never understood the Gospel, since to admit otherwise would be to admit that it is not self-evident that "the Church is true!!!"
The issue in this call-out thread, which Simon Belmont has been manufacturing for over a year, is my supposed misrepresentation of the teachings of the LDS Church. Since it is obvious that I am not---I provided numerous, recent citations from Church teachings about Christ suffering for us---Simon Belmont is instead arguing that what I am proposing does not make sense. However, I have never made any claims or guarantees about Church teachings making sense. I have only said that this is what the Church and its leaders teach. Whether it is credible, logical, or coherent is an entirely different matter. Simon Belmont is attempting to address a question that is not at issue.
Projection: Having created a statement that I did not make---Christ was literally raped in the Garden of Gethsemane---Simon is now arguing that it does not make sense, since Christ, not having a vagina, could not know what it is like for a woman to be raped. I agree, but I never made that claim. The Church teaches that Christ experienced our suffering in some methaphysical way that we do not understand. Simon acknowledged that previously in this thread. However, since he is a Moplogist disciple and not a real Mormon, he cannot let it go at just taking it on faith that it was a miracle. He has to over-analyze it until he realizes that it does not make sense.
Simon is thus projecting his crisis of faith onto me, acting as if I must have misrepresented church teachings because what the church teaches does not make sense. True, it does not make sense how Christ could know what it is like for a woman to be raped because he was not a woman. But think of the questions this same line of reasoning invites.
Suppose you robbed a bank, then get converted to the Church and want to repent. How could you trust that Jesus suffered for your sins, since Jesus never robbed a bank?
Or you are a faithful Mormon, dying of cancer in a hospital bed. How can you turn to Christ for comfort, since Christ never died of cancer?
Perhaps you are a grieving parent, who recently witnessed your child run over and killed by a car. How can Christ succor and console you, since he never had a child who was killed by a car?
I never raised any of these questions. I left it at the Church teaching that Christ experienced everything, without proposing a way of how it might have happened. It is Simon projecting his questions onto me, and then lashing out at me because of his doubts.
Take this as a warning, ye disciples of Mopologetics. See the hysterical, neurotic mess that Simon Belmont has become? See the nervous breakdown he has gradually descended into during his time on this board? That's what's going to happen to you. Give up your Mopologist heresies. No man can serve two masters. If you want to be a believing Mormon, then stop coming up with ludicrous theories and arguments. Just take it on faith, accept it as a miracle, a marvelous work and a wonder. For once you start down the Mopologist path, forever will it dominate your destiny (that's a shout-out to when Simon went by Oxygenadam and made more Star Wars references).
How long halt ye between two opinions? If the Church is true, follow it. Or, you can follow the false gospel of Mopologetics and become a pathetic shell of a believing Mormon. Just like Simon Belmont.
It was just your gentle sophistry which was meant to lead people to believe something you didn't actually say, right?
When you said:
Christ suffered this woman's afflictions so that even though she actually experienced the pain and trauma of being raped, he vicariously experienced it, too, and that way they both suffer,
You didn't mean to say that Jesus experienced rape, right? If that's the case, you didn't misrepresent the church. But I know you better than that. I think that, by trying to sarcastically prove a point to Stemelbow, you severely misrepresented the church and it's teachings, as is your wont.
You asked for an example, and I found one on the first page of the search results. There are about 6,000 more.
It was just your gentle sophistry which was meant to lead people to believe something you didn't actually say, right?
When you said:
Christ suffered this woman's afflictions so that even though she actually experienced the pain and trauma of being raped, he vicariously experienced it, too, and that way they both suffer,
You didn't mean to say that Jesus experienced rape, right? If that's the case, you didn't misrepresent the church. But I know you better than that. I think that, by trying to sarcastically prove a point to Stemelbow, you severely misrepresented the church and it's teachings, as is your wont.
You asked for an example, and I found one on the first page of the search results. There are about 6,000 more.
Simon, do you know what "vicariously" means? It appears you don't.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.