What good does it do to criticize?

[_beastie]

Harmony,

You didn't know that the atonement is limited?

But maybe they can spill their own blood and be forgiven, eh?

[_harmony]

Once, you get to repent. Twice you don't.

Whoa. Where did that come from? I'd really like to see a reference for that, please. Because my understanding of the atonement is it's there to be used as many times as necessary.

If a person has been excommunicated for adultery once, and then committ adultery a second time, they cannot be rebaptized and their blessings restored.

Doctrine and Covenants 42: 24-26 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out. But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it ano more, thou shalt forgive; But if he doeth it aagain, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

I thought you were talking about premarital sex, not extramarital.

You realize I think the D&C is manmade, right?

[_beastie]

So I may analyze posters here with regards to their reasons for posting, which are pertinent? That's good to know.

Was that sleight of hand on purpose, or your normal sloppiness? Analysis of personal traits is not necessarily an ad hom when it directly pertains to the topic at hand. Analyzing posters for "their reasons for posting" is quite another topic. But then why are you pretending you haven't already been doing just that?

The criticism which is the topic here is of leaders, specifically, not of ideas.

Oh, and if I decide to insult posters, you will really know it. I have been extremely restrained. Especially in the face of what has been thrown at me.

Another sleight of hand. I wasn't distinguishing between criticizing leaders versus criticizing ideas. I was distinguishing between criticizing leaders and criticizing nonleaders.

It will never cease to amuse me that you cannot bring yourself to admit you insult people, charity. That's part of the reason I bring it up - just to see you read your own words in black and white and then still insist you didn't insult anyone. You "exposed the flaws in my reasoning", and now, apparently, you haven't "decided to insult posters". LOL!! Are you fooling yourself, because I doubt you're fooling anyone else, and it would be a shame if your spin didn't even work on you, either.

2 or three, um, three or four is getting there. I never stated that it was my opinion that more than one was promiscuous.

Yes, I attributed the number THREE to you, and I was correct.

Once, you get to repent. Twice you don't. I assume you knew that already?

by the way, I said "sex outside of marriage", which includes unmarried people and is not just restricted to adultery. Is this another sleight of hand?

It is my opinion, backed up by psychologists, that criticism of people does not produce positive results. I think I can safely criticize "things." The CoC building in Independence, MO is really ugly.

Apparently your leaders believe that some criticism is deserved, and it's just harsh, unrestrained criticism that is inappropriate (which I, and I suspect most others here, would agree with). The only time criticism is NOT appropriate - EVER - is when it is directed at leaders.

[Guest]

Once, you get to repent. Twice you don't.

Whoa. Where did that come from? I'd really like to see a reference for that, please. Because my understanding of the atonement is it's there to be used as many times as necessary.

If a person has been excommunicated for adultery once, and then committ adultery a second time, they cannot be rebaptized and their blessings restored.

Doctrine and Covenants 42: 24-26 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out. But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it ano more, thou shalt forgive; But if he doeth it aagain, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

you are wrong. I asked that question one time to someone in the stake presidency and he said it isn't likely but why would they want to come back a third time.

If an 18 year old female gets pregnant and is excommunicated, is rebaptized and at 25 say she has divorced the child's father, gets pregnant by him again and again is excommunicated are you telling me she can not come back into the Church.

by the way - where does it talk about rebaptism in the scriptures.

[_charity]

So I may analyze posters here with regards to their reasons for posting, which are pertinent? That's good to know.

Was that sleight of hand on purpose, or your normal sloppiness? Analysis of personal traits is not necessarily an ad hom when it directly pertains to the topic at hand. Analyzing posters for "their reasons for posting" is quite another topic. But then why are you pretending you haven't already been doing just that?

It is always important to know why someone says something. Don't you do that with all apologists? You say their reason for writing/speaking, etc. is to protect the faith, so you don't believe them to be credible.

[

The criticism which is the topic here is of leaders, specifically, not of ideas.

Oh, and if I decide to insult posters, you will really know it. I have been extremely restrained. Especially in the face of what has been thrown at me.

Another sleight of hand. I wasn't distinguishing between criticizing leaders versus criticizing ideas. I was distinguishing between criticizing leaders and criticizing nonleaders.

The topic was about criticizing leaders. I said I didn't feel that criticism is helpful or useful as a general rule. ?????

[
It will never cease to amuse me that you cannot bring yourself to admit you insult people, charity. That's part of the reason I bring it up - just to see you read your own words in black and white and then still insist you didn't insult anyone. You "exposed the flaws in my reasoning", and now, apparently, you haven't "decided to insult posters". LOL!! Are you fooling yourself, because I doubt you're fooling anyone else, and it would be a shame if your spin didn't even work on you, either.

It never ceases to amaze me how much people either don't read, or else read into, what I post. And how people are unable to not take statements and personalize them. Take, for instance, the "exposed flaws" thing you just mentioned. Exposing flaws in logic is NOT insutling. Telling a person they are too stupid to be able to see the flaws in their argument IS insulting them. I never do the latter.

[

2 or three, um, three or four is getting there. I never stated that it was my opinion that more than one was promiscuous.

Yes, I attributed the number THREE to you, and I was correct.

It used to be. I said that the number is higher now. But like I said, you probably skipped over that as part of what you didn't read in my post. And that is not an insult, beastie. If I said you were a sloppy reader, that would be an insult.

[

Once, you get to repent. Twice you don't. I assume you knew that already?

by the way, I said "sex outside of marriage", which includes unmarried people and is not just restricted to adultery. Is this another sleight of hand?

So you make a distinction between adultery and fornication? There may be an argument for that. I am not sure, but it could be that only those who have made temple covenants to obey the law of chastity would be held to the higher standard, rather dividing it on the married-not married line.

[
Apparently your leaders believe that some criticism is deserved, and it's just harsh, unrestrained criticism that is inappropriate (which I, and I suspect most others here, would agree with). The only time criticism is NOT appropriate - EVER - is when it is directed at leaders.

I sure can't see that from Elder Oakes' statement. Or is this another instance of reading into what a person writes or says?

[_beastie]

It is always important to know why someone says something. Don't you do that with all apologists? You say their reason for writing/speaking, etc. is to protect the faith, so you don't believe them to be credible.

No, I've never said that. I think they aren't credible when they're making assertions that aren't credible.

The topic was about criticizing leaders. I said I didn't feel that criticism is helpful or useful as a general rule. ?????

Are you doing this on purpose? Is it crazy making behavior?

It never ceases to amaze me how much people either don't read, or else read into, what I post. And how people are unable to not take statements and personalize them. Take, for instance, the "exposed flaws" thing you just mentioned. Exposing flaws in logic is NOT insutling. Telling a person they are too stupid to be able to see the flaws in their argument IS insulting them. I never do the latter.

The point is, charity, you WEREN'T EXPOSING FLAWS IN MY ARGUMENT. YOU WERE INSULTING ME.

READ YOUR OWN WORDS I QUOTED. I want you to look in particular at your words that I bolded:

charity:
Sorry, I thought I was having a rational discussion. Rational people don't need to bring flying spaghetti monsters into the discussion. I will try to remember that next time and dumb down my posts. :(


charity:
You must need words of shorter syllables.

charity:
marg: You have believed lies told by individuals in whom there is no truth. They are fighting against God and you have bought into it.You ought to at least think about how wrong you have been as evidenced in the post I am responding to. And then look to see where else you have been led astray by Satan's minions.

If you can sit there and say, and BELIEVE, that telling someone they will have to "dumb down their posts" for them, and they need "words of shorter 'syllables'" are not INSULTS then you are really living in fantasy land.

The latter statement to marg, about being told lies by people "in whom there is no truth" and are "satan's minions" was not directed at me personally, but in the conversation, was clearly meant to describe critics of the church.

[Reflexzero]

A quick note regarding “re-baptism.” Any baptism after the first one is essentially to restore Church membership and does not “renew” the covenants that were made in the “first” baptism. Even during the reformation period under BY, it was a symbolic action to “renew” commitment to the Church/Christ/Covenants, but in no way was it a necessity in order to “renew” the blessings/covenants in and of themselves (i.e. re-baptism wasn’t necessarily in order to make those covenants/blessing active again, only repentance was necessary for that) that are initiated with the initial baptismal ordinance. One only needs to be baptized once in regards to the covenants that pertain to baptism. D&C 22 is a cursory illustration regarding the efficacy of being baptized more than once for the remission of sins/covenanting with G-d.

<--- Trust nothing I say.

[_beastie]

It used to be. I said that the number is higher now. But like I said, you probably skipped over that as part of what you didn't read in my post. And that is not an insult, beastie. If I said you were a sloppy reader, that would be an insult.

I know you said the number is higher now, due to social changes. But is the number higher in your view? But you're quibbling, anyway. Three or four is "getting there" which is simply your way of saying they are one partner short of promiscuous. Is that really so fundamentally different than what I attributed to you? NO.

I sure can't see that from Elder Oakes' statement. Or is this another instance of reading into what a person writes or says?

I'm referring to the other talks I referenced for you from my LDS google search.

[_charity]

you are wrong. I asked that question one time to someone in the stake presidency and he said it isn't likely but why would they want to come back a third time.

If an 18 year old female gets pregnant and is excommunicated, is rebaptized and at 25 say she has divorced the child's father, gets pregnant by him again and again is excommunicated are you telling me she can not come back into the Church.

by the way - where does it talk about rebaptism in the scriptures.

I am not telling you a thing. I quoted the pertinent passage in the Doctrine and Covenants. The judges in Israel, who aren't me, make those decisions.

[_karl61]

A quick note regarding “re-baptism.” Any baptism after the first one is essentially to restore Church membership and does not “renew” the covenants that were made in the “first” baptism. Even during the reformation period under BY, it was a symbolic action to “renew” commitment to the Church/Christ/Covenants, but in no way was it a necessity in order to “renew” the blessings/covenants that are initiated with the initial baptismal ordinance. One only needs to be baptized once in regards to the covenants that pertain to baptism. D&C 22 is a cursory illustration regarding the efficacy of being baptized more than once for the remission of sins/covenanting with G-d.

<--- Trust nothing I say.

When Emma was really sick - Joseph took her out and repeatedly baptized her - go figure.