Fence Sitter wrote:My definition of a TBM is someone who believes in all the words of the prophets. So when you say you do not believe in a God who requires belief in a global flood, or a literal Adam and Eve story or that God resides on Kolob and so on, that means you are not a TBM. You actually fall into the category of being a cafeteria Mormon who picks and choose what to believe.
.... stated by Niadna as an attempt to explain how she "divide(s) non-Mormons into categories. It seems only fair then that others can decide what kind of Mormon category into which she fits, does it not? That you or your mother would disagree with how I define the TBM category is pretty much the same objection we have all been using to object to Niadna's own categories
fence sitter, I see your point. If you take the group of people who believe Mormonism to actually be true one can see a variety of ways in which people understand and approach that general idea. It would be difficult to lay out labels for the variations. After one set up the categories it would be hard to keep people from shifting from category to category and overlapping one to the other.
Niadna wrote:We've been through 'meat grinders' before, Shulem.
But consider this: while it takes courage to do the right thing when those who hate you don't want that thing done, it takes more courage to do the right thing when your enemies will take your doing so as a 'win.'
In other words, it doesn't matter why YOU think the ban was lifted.
I'm just glad it was.
Mormons were guilty of persecuting and denigrating blacks. They are also guilty of doing the same to gays. Someday the church will lift the ban on gays and members will be glad they did. The church will evolve and move with the times. It has no choice. That is the way of things.
Thou longed, thou sighed and thou prayed to thy Father in heaven for the time to arrive when thou couldst come to this earth, which had fled and fallen from where it was first organised, near the planet Kolob. ~John Taylor
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door; Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors. One focal point in a random world can change your direction: One step where events converge may alter your perception.
Kolob in the first degree, It signifies the first great grand governing fixed Star which is the fartherest that ever has been discovered by the fathers which was discovered by Methuselar and also by Abraham.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door; Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors. One focal point in a random world can change your direction: One step where events converge may alter your perception.
Niadna wrote:Then I guess there isn't anything that could change my mind, is there?
Sure there is. You do love yourself, don't you? I assume you take care of your own personal and private needs. Go tell your bishop that you masturbate on a regular basis and that there is nothing wrong with it and you will continue to do so. When he asks for your temple recommend (assuming you have one) you refuse and remind the bishop that you'll masturbate as often as you like and that there is nothing he can do about it.
Niadna wrote:Those who keep crying that the church caved into the IRS haven't done their homework.
Perhaps. Perhaps.
One thing is for sure though, the church caved in to worldly pressure. God no more came down and told Kimball to lift the ban anymore than he comes down and tells you something. It's all just thoughts and feeling you muck about in your own brain.
Imagine what the LDS church would be like today had the ban never been lifted? Imagine the lawsuits against the church from black persons and the courts that find the LDS church guilty as charged. Just imagine that. Had the ban not been lifted there wouldn't be much of an LDS church today outside of Utah. The church would have been vandalized and destroyed.
Shulem, she's just quoting FairMormon stuff, not a reliable source. Grindael corrected her errors regarding the Expositor press, as well as her Kolob errors. She hasn't acknowledged her Expositor story errors nor has she answered the outstanding questions re her version, so there is no reason to take her FairMornmon answers on this subject as accurate, either.
This seems to be the hit and run version of mopologetics, where errors are introduced at light speed but objections to them are never thoughtfully considered or even acknowledged.
Lemmie wrote:This seems to be the hit and run version of mopologetics, where errors are introduced at light speed but objections to them are never thoughtfully considered or even acknowledged.
I have to wonder if the poor girl is going to want to discuss what Joseph Smith said about Facsimile No. 3. Smith was such a liar. The man had absolutely no shame whatsoever. And now we have Niadna coming here and actually defending a predator who abused every woman he ever touched.
huckelberry wrote:fence sitter, I see your point. If you take the group of people who believe Mormonism to actually be true one can see a variety of ways in which people understand and approach that general idea. It would be difficult to lay out labels for the variations. After one set up the categories it would be hard to keep people from shifting from category to category and overlapping one to the other.
Well but here is the problem. I do not think there is a consensus on what it actually takes for Mormonism to be "true" even among those that stand up month after month in F&T and say they "know it is true". If it were my dad bearing his testimony, that "truth" would include things which others, like Niadna perhaps, do not find true or even relevant. The spectrum of what they could disagree on is pretty vast. I know Mormons who believe the church is true who also do not believe in a literal Book of Mormon. I know Mormons who publicly advocate for change within the church such as giving women the priesthood, or want the church to apologize for excluding blacks from the priesthood or are firmly against the current policy/revelation on Gays and their children, while still believing the church is true. So I don't know what it even means when people say that the church is true and I am pretty sure they don't either. At best what you will get is some form of claim that the "truth" has been verified to them by some mild form of heart burn as a confirmation method. Well if that is reliable then the poached eggs I had this morning must be true.
The same applies to categorizing critics and anti-Mormons. What we see when someone claims to be able to categorize people like this, is the underlying erroneous assumption on the part of that person that he or she is somehow able to judge what defines true Mormonism.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Classifying types of Mormons and anti-Mormons is a diversion from the very important question of whether the LDS church is based on lies and fraud. But if you never want to examine that question then it is always worthwhile.
Maksutov wrote:Classifying types of Mormons and anti-Mormons is a diversion from the very important question of whether the LDS church is based on lies and fraud. But if you never want to examine that question then it is always worthwhile.
Diversions to prevent examining the real question. Well said.
