Gangbang at MADB

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_BishopRic
_Emeritus
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 8:59 pm

Post by _BishopRic »

charity wrote:
Pokatator wrote:
BishopRic wrote:Just a thought...if Mormons claim to be "Christian," do they accept the Warren Jeffs' sects as "Mormons?"


No, that double standard has been pointed out many times. They want a one-way street.

In my opinion, Warren Jeffs is a true Joseph Smith Mormon.


Anyone who worships Christ can say they are Christian. No one "owns" the word. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "owns" the word Mormon. So no one else can use it without permission.

And Warren Jeffs, who has admitted in court, he deliberately deceived people by claiming to be a prophet, is not anything like Joseph Smith, a true prophet.


Red herrings. Step back a minute and try to be fair. Yes, "LDS members" want to be called "Christian" because they believe in the Jesus of the Bible. Fundie "Mormons" feel they are Mormons because they believe in the same Book of Mormon, and Mormon of that book. If you don't allow that, isn't it exactly the same as traditional Christians saying your "Jesus" is different?

Isn't that fair? Try to answer it without the spin....
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
_Alter Idem
_Emeritus
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:24 pm

Post by _Alter Idem »

This was an interesting thread--the discussions board at MADB has been slow lately, so it livened the place up a bit. For those of you who can't read MADB, here's the actual OP;

I had put up a thread about the word "telestial," but can no longer find it. Perhaps it has been removed as unsuitable. (Edit, apparently it's some place here, but I can't find it.) In any case, I believe that genuine dialogue should not be curbed to suit some politically correct aim. We are adults here, and it is important that information flows back and forth without hinderance, provided we don't engage in name calling, stomach punches, etc.

My first issue is God. Yes, Mormons have a different view of God than do Christians. Let me begin by explaining what I believe to be the biblical view of God, and the view historically taught within the Apostolic Church.

First, there is only One Eternal God, from everlasting to everlasting. According to Isa. 43:10, before Him there was NO god formed, and there shall be no god formed after Him. He is the Only God, without beginning or end. He is NOT and exalted human. He is Spirit, for the Bible clearly teaches that God is Spirit and that those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. Christians are, then, monotheistic, or believing in only ONE eternal God. Here is a short article on the Christian view of God, His Nature and Power:



God and His Providence
by Rev. William G. Most

One God

In the first article of the Apostle's Creed we express our belief in the existence of God. He is a pure spirit, that is, He has no matter at all, and no parts.

We call Him Father, since He is the supreme source of everything, the one "from whom all Fatherhood in heaven and on earth takes its name" (Ephesians 3. 16).

We call Him the Creator, since He has made all things , not out of some previously existing material, but simply out of nothing. He has infinite power. By just willing it, He can do all things. So in Genesis 1 He merely spoke and said, "Let there be light." And light came into existence. Really, He did not speak in our sense of the word; He merely willed it, and it came into being.

To describe Him we use the word attributes. These are the perfections that He has, which we attribute to Him by comparison with creatures. Some of His attributes belong to Him by His very nature; others belong to Him in relation to the world He made.

The chief attributes that are His by His very nature are His unchangeability and eternity. He is unchangeable. Since He has the fullness of being, He could not change into anything higher or better, or acquire anything: "I, the Lord, do not change," He said through the prophet Malachi (3:6). We call Him eternal, not in the sense that there always was time, and in it He always was. No, since He is unchangeable there is no past or future for Him: all is one unchanging present. So when we say that He made the world--a past expression--to His divine mind it registers as present! "Before the mountains were born, before you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are, O God" (Psalm 90:2).

There are attributes that follow upon God's relation to this world. He is omnipotent or almighty because "nothing is impossible to God" (Luke 1:37). The book of Sirach 23:20 says: "Before they were made, all things were known to Him." So He is all-knowing, or omniscient. We say He is present everywhere. In Jeremiah 23:24 He said: "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" Yet He is not present in the sense of taking up space, as we do: we say a Spirit is present wherever it causes an effect. He caused all things to come into being, and keeps them in being. Since He rewards good and punishes evil we call Him all-just. St. Paul wrote (Romans 2:6): "He will repay each one according to his works." He guides and directs the paths of all creatures, and hence the First Epistle of Peter 5:7 can say: "Cast all your care upon Him, for He takes care of you". He is all-good since He is the author of everything that is good, and wills eternal good to us. Psalm 136:1, "Give thanks to the Lord for He is good."

It is strictly correct to say that God is love, since if we said that He has love, there would be a duality, two. But He is totally unity. He is identified with each of His attributes. So He is mercy, He is justice, and therefore in some way, mercy and justice are identified in Him. His justice is His mercy is Himself, and so on for all His attributes.


Thus, Christians see God as unchangeable, immutable and infinite. There never was a time that God was not God. He is Spirit, He is our Creator, and He is above and transcends creation. He is NOT that creation. According to Romans, chapter 1, it is sinful and idolatrous to exchange the Creator for His creation. God is totally other! He is certainly not the "same species" as man. Man is a creation, God is Creator.

Now that I have established that, for Christians, God is ONE, we can go on to the doctrine of the Trinity. Does the Trinity mean three gods, as some teach? Or, does it mean there is Only One God who eternally exists as three personal centers of being within the One Godhead? Of course, Christians believe the latter. Mormons often reject the Trinity out of hand, not understanding, I believe, what Christians actually believe.

If I might share with you an example from nature regarding triunity. The simple substance of water, H2o, can be placed in a test tube and exposed to certain laboratory conditions. Those conditions can impact water so that within the same test tube we have the substance of water in solid, liquid and vapor forms. Same substance, three manifestations simultaneously existing. So, the "substance" of God can simultaneously be three manifestations or personal centers of beings within the One Godhead.

Men cannot fully understand this, however we should remember that God is God and not a man. He is infinite, we are finite. He can do all things, we cannot. God can surely have an internal relationship within Himself of three centers of beings, for He has taught this explicitly in Scripture. Even the Book of Mormon is Sabellian in its view of the Godhead and not tri-theistic, as is Mormonism today. The Shema of Judaism is the most sacred pronouncement of that faith. Translated, it states:

"Hear O Israel, Jehovah your Elohim is One Jehovah." (Translated in the King James as "the Lord your God is one Lord.") This means that Elohim is Jehovah, and supports the Christian view of the Godhead as Trinity.

Perhaps we can engage in some discussion here on an adult level, and perhaps the powers that be will allow this thread to stand. We have significant differences - one view is Christian, and the other is not. It is time to honestly view our differences, without simply saying "Mormons are Christian." If Mormonism's doctrine is not biblical and Apostolic, it is different from Christian.

This post has been edited by Carmella: Yesterday, 07:01 AM


Now, you can decide for yourself if Carmella sounded like she cared what LDS said.

She was from CARM--Kate said that she posts there as Athanasius.

I thought she came in with a chip on her shoulder and from the first few posts, it's obvious that others felt it.

Lachoneous and MormonMason were two posters who offered up good information and did not get personal...but she deflected their efforts-naturally. Unfortunately, she started to get upset, showing it with little digs and then a few of the board regulars came in and started needling her--ridiculing and not engaging any of her arguments...and then she really started to lose it.

But was everyone rude to her? No. But when a few start the gloating and the silly pictures posted to ridicule and the off-topic jabs, it starts to feel like they are ganging up.

Nemesis apparently got tired of it (I wouldn't be surprised if Nemesis was the mask for one of the regulars on the thread who was ridiculing) and banned her. I wish they weren't so hasty with the bannings.
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

No one "owns" the word. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "owns" the word Mormon. So no one else can use it without permission.


LOL!! Now that's funny. It makes the double standard even worse. Mormons are so determined NOT to "allow" anyone else use the word "Mormon" that they - what - copyrighted it??? LOL!!!!
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
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

quote]The Church sends missionaries out because at its core it believes it is the Only True and Living Christian Church. In the purest sense the LDS Church should claim that there is no valid Christianity except the LDS Church.[/quote]

Don't they?


Essentially. That I think was my point.

Saying mainstream Christianity is an "abomination" (think Joseph Smith's first vision), is pretty much saying they are not of Christ no?


That is not what it says. The verse says their "said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight"

Claiming mainstream Christianity is a church in apostasy is pretty much saying they are not followers of Christ no?


One can read it that way. But no I don't and really, but for the strong 19th century rhetoric that came for reasons other then doctrine I do not thing the LDS Church reads it that way either. On the other hand some do and that argument can be made.

I see both sides of this issue..... I totally understand why mainstream Christians do not believe the LDS are Christian, and I get why Mormons think they are.

They both may believe Jesus is the savior but their ideas about Jesus and God are completely at odds.


Some are at odds and some over lap and are common.
_Alter Idem
_Emeritus
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:24 pm

Post by _Alter Idem »

Here are a few quotes from Carmella, which contributed to her short stay on MADB:



QUOTE(selek @ Feb 15 2008, 08:26 PM) *

Indeed I do. I have the same issues with you that Christ himself had with the moneychangers.

I'm actually in pretty good company in that regard.


Carmella: Gosh, selek, aren't the moneychangers those guys out of Utah who are demanding that you fork over ten per cent of all your income? I wouldn't take any money from you, guy. Now, don't be chicken. CARM doesn't bite, and neither do I.



Carmella:
I'd be glad to have a civil conversation with civil people, if I could only locate a few here. Perhaps they are all over on CARM where real dialogue is allowed to prevail versus the snotty comments dealt out here.

But, I understand. Snottiness is actually a defense mechanism. True engagement takes courage.


QUOTE(Nemesis @ Feb 15 2008, 11:55 AM) *

Carmella,

Are you done preaching? We do not allow that here. Knock it off and have discussions or get off the board. While you are at it do us all a favor lay off the rhetoric its all been dealt with before. You came here to pick a fight. We don't like that and ask that you change your tone and start trying to discuss things.

Nemesis

Carmella:
Yes, getting back to the theme of this thread (which isn't berating me, as you people have made it), please let me know where the doctrine of the Living God being, in actuality, an exalted human being who earned godhood by following the laws and ordinances of the Mormon gospel in perfect obedience, is taught in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon, or in any orthodox Christian documents. In other words, where is it taught that our God had to learn to be God, per the King Follett discourse?


QUOTE(Kate @ Feb 15 2008, 11:53 AM) *

CARMella,
It seems you have nothing new to say...why don't you pick up your crayons and go home. wink.gif

Carmella:
I loaned my crayons to Peterson; he's writing another book that cannot be refuted.


QUOTE(Tanyan @ Feb 15 2008, 12:00 PM) *

Praise Jesus ! rofl.gif , Thank you Nemesis !. May The Priesthood be with you all ! rolleyes.gif .

Carmella:
Did you mean, "Praise to the Brother of Lucifer?"


QUOTE(Nemesis @ Feb 15 2008, 11:48 AM) *

At what point are you going to accept LDS answers? This is to, is not routine you are doing is not conducive to dialogue. You may be used to the way things run on Carm and treat other persons of different faith with contempt, but that does not excuse you and it is not allowed here. Change you ways soon please. If we continue to receive complaints we have no problems creating Carm martyrs here.

Nemesis

Carmella:
Well, some documentation would be nice. Of course, none is ever provided, except Mormon say sos.

Now, would you like to explain to me why you are not an Irvingite?


QUOTE(Tanyan @ Feb 15 2008, 11:29 AM) *

SWEET ! rofl.gif, LUNCH ! I know some awesome places to eat here in So.Ca. Did he use the word irrefutable ? cray.gif . He is well known in certain scholary circles. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Carmella:
I've actually read some of his stuff. Southern California isn't exactly my cup of tea. Actually, if California should sink into the ocean, perhaps we'd all be better off - but, then, that has nothing to do with my faith, just my politics.

Start adding something and stop prosyelying or this will be your last post. ~ Mods


Carmella:
Is there a collective indifference to word definition found among Mormons? I believe one of the problems with interacting with Mormons is that they were isolated for a long period of time from the world. Their world became truth, regardless of what the rest of the world experienced. The Mormon experience was all they knew. Now the internet exists, and Christians are actively engaging Mormonism and its false doctrines. It already has produced results in the Mormon heirarchy (changes in the Temple rituals, for instance). Mormons believe they are a significant movement, when in reality there are more Anglicans in the country of Nigeria (18,000,000), then there are Mormons worldwide. You need to look at the big picture. You are not a "restored" anything, but an innovation of Joseph Smith, who was a practicing occultist.

Let me repeat this: the Mormon "Jesus" is another Jesus. Paul warned of another Jesus, and you didn't listen guys!


QUOTE(Avatar4321 @ Feb 15 2008, 09:55 AM) *

You can believe whatever you want. But believing a irish setter isn't a dog will never make it so.

Carmella:
Exactly right! And when Mormons claim that their belief system is Christian, while redefining all the core doctrines of Christianity, it still doesn't make a cat a dog! Mormonism is not Christian. I have no problem with Mormons, per se. They can believe that their god is a giant flea on an elephant for all I care. But, to claim that their beliefs are Christian is simply deception. And, this claim is made because it draws its members from nominal Christians who actually believe they are joining a Christian Church. This parasitic activity is, in my opinion, really an abominable deception.


QUOTE(Nemesis @ Feb 15 2008, 08:33 PM) *

Or those priestcrafters taking a weekly paycheck to be your pastor? Tone it down NOW.

Nemesis

Carmella:
While you're telling people to tone it down, I'd appreciate you acknowledging your mistake, as our pastor is a working pastor, and is paid only if there is any money left over after all bills are paid, and never over $250.00 each month. I think you owe me an apology. Our pastor is hardly a "priestcrafter," whatever that is supposed to be. Go ahead and suspend me again, this is really tiresome. And by the way, you have your BYU professor over on another one of my threads using mocking language.........while you're at it, you might want to suggest he stop yukking it up and respond with something more than ad homs.


This last one was probably the last straw; fighting with the Mod and attacking Dr. P are definitely the way to go if you want to get banned.
_Alter Idem
_Emeritus
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:24 pm

Post by _Alter Idem »

I missed one. It was on the introduction forum where Carmella introduced herself. She came in ready to make "friends" alright!

QUOTE(Garden Girl @ Feb 14 2008, 07:04 PM) *

Welcome Carmella...
The first thing you need to understand is that we TBM's (true blue Mormons) ARE AVID Christians. There's many of other demoninations that like to argue that point, particularly the EVs... but they can argue all they want...it does not change the fact that Jesus Christ is the center of our faith... our Savior and Redeemer, without whose grace we are lost...
So when you say you want to compare Mormonism with "Christianity" you are starting off on an incorrect premise to begin with...i.e., that Mormons aren't Christian.
I would suggest that you go to the websites of fairlds.org and FARMS, and LDS.org, and go into the Topical Guides and browse articles/papers that interest you. Please be sure that you are getting accurate information... there are many non-LDS, former LDS etc on this website and other anti-Mormon sites. Stick with the legitimate LDS-sponsored sites for accurate information on our faith.
And, I would think you would actually want to read the Book of Mormon. They are available online, from requesting one from Salt Lake, in bookstores, etc. If you're going to study Mormonism, you at least need to read the Book of Mormon...
I hope you'll enjoy it here... I live in the wilds of the beautiful central Oregon Coast...

The Garden Girl

Carmella:
Hi, Garden Girl. Please be informed that I have, indeed, read the Book of Mormon, and probably more often than most Mormos. I have also read Doctrines and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and many other Mormon books. I am not unfamiliar with Mormonism or its history, or its apologetics sites on the net. I know you claim to be Christians, however evangelical Christians dispute that claim, since Mormonism has a different concept of God, Jesus and the Gospel. If we are to interact intelligently, we must define the terms. For instance, if your Jesus was not always God, was the spirit brother of Lucifer, and atoned for sins in a garden rather than on a cross, we have a real problem. If your God was once a human being, is an exalted man, and you believe that you are the same species as God, then we have a real problem. Do you get my drift? A claim to be Christian must be backed up by having traditional Christian beliefs. If a Buddhist came to you and said, "I am a Mormon, and I believe that Buddha was Jesus Christ, and that I can reach nirvana through meditating on Buddha's life," you'd have a problem with that, right? In the same way, Christians have a major problem with Mormon pretensions to Christianity, when their God, their Jesus and their Gospel are completely different from the Christian faith of today, and of ancient times. I have no problem with Mormons being a different religion; I do have a problem with them calling their belief system "Christian."

This post has been edited by Carmella: Feb 14 2008, 08:29 PM


So, Dart, you think she came to MADB wanting a friendly, learning discussion? I don't think so. She wanted to remain in complete control of the discussions and set all the parameters--otherwise "we have a real problem"..as she says a number of times.

In order for us to have a discussion, Mormons had to accept her view of Mormonism--or there'd be problems!!! She was at MADB to witness, which is why she came out with guns aimed and blazing from the beginning.
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

I sympathize with the LDS desire to be called Christian. However, I also think that some defense of Mormonism against those who would call it a non-Christian cult are operating with a naïve view of language. Dr. Peterson and Juliann, for example, seem to think that the ways that sociologists and scholars use the words are and should be normative for all of society. But words are not monolithic, and tend to be used differently by different communities. When I went to the Philippines, every time I said "oh" people thought I was saying "yes", because that's the Tagalog word for "yes". I've even seen words that mean the opposite today of what they meant a few hundred years ago. For more relevant examples, consider the words fundamentalism, realism, and positivism. Each of these words can mean very different things when they are used by different communities. Fundamentalism can refer either to a specific Christian movement in the early part of the twentieth century or to any religious fanatic. Realism can refer to an epistemological position, to a way of approaching International Relations, to a way of doing art, or-- at a more popular level-- to a sort of jaded perspective on life. Positivism can mean basically any position that an author wants to condemn as epistemologically naïve, whether it be naturalism (a la Alan Goff), verificationism (a la Karl Popper), or historical determinism. The truth is that language is fluid, and the Peterson's (and especially the Julianns) of the world should know better.

When I posted on MADB some time back about why I don't think Mormonism should be called a "cult", I utilized Orson Scott Card's summary of the popular meaning of the word cult. Juliann posted,

There is a speciality area with scholars who do research on New Religious Movements. They are producing a growing body of scholarship and you quote a ..... novelist.


I replied,

I've looked at some of that material, of course, but the sociologists are using the term "cult" in a specialized way that doesn't reflect popular usage. What I like about Card is that I think he captures and distills the import of the word in the popular arena. Perhaps a novelist, whose art is the smithing of words for a general audience, is the best person to take on such a task.


When juliann insisted that "popular usage is name-calling," I replied,

The oldest methodological debate among linguists is whether, in writing grammars and dictionaries, usage should determine meaning or whether specialists should determine meaning and meaning usage. Ultimately I think we arrive at a sort of compromise between the two; the fact that the masses use the word "it's" (with an apostrophe) as a possessive doesn't mean that that's an acceptable way to use it. Grammar and lexicography are mostly descriptive disciplines, but for the sake of orderly communication (since too much variety in usage can actually impede meaningful interaction) there is a point at which the specialists have to draw certain boundary lines and say "this is an acceptable usage; anything outside this is not an acceptable usage." This is a sort of generally accepted compromise between the two extremes. I think that those who declare that the word "cult" is useless and should be dropped from the English language are well over on the prescriptive side of this debate. Those who would apply the word "cult" to Mormonism could perhaps be placed on the far descriptive end of the spectrum. What I am trying to do is work out a helpful middle ground. When we eliminate tendentious uses of the term "cult", and we eliminate as an option the dropping of the word from the language, what's left? Can we draw boundaries loosely enough that the term will retain its generally-accepted meaning, but tightly enough that we can establish a consensus on how it should be used? I believe we can, and that's what I've tried to do in my essay: identify a sort of broadly-accepted meaning while proscribing tendentious usages.


The situation is much the same with the word "Christian". As Craig Blomberg points out in the New Mormon Challenge, the way that Evangelicals use the word Christian is much narrower than the way it's used by the larger society: it's roughly analogus to "saved". So it makes sense for Evangelicals who believe Mormons are unsaved to speak within their own circles of Mormons as non-Christians. The disconnect, as I think some Mormon scholars have quite justly pointed out, occurs when these Evangelical comments are heard or read by non-Evangelicals who assume a wider definition of the word. They are likely, then, to draw implications that the Evangelical does not necessarily intend. I think that as a matter of charity and in the interests of productive communication, Evangelicals should do their absolute best to use precise and commonly-accepted terminology in talking about Mormonism. If they don't think Mormons are "saved", that is the word they should use. It is a more specifically Evangelical word, and is less likely to be misunderstood.
_richardMdBorn
_Emeritus
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:05 am

Post by _richardMdBorn »

charity wrote:
Pokatator wrote:
BishopRic wrote:Just a thought...if Mormons claim to be "Christian," do they accept the Warren Jeffs' sects as "Mormons?"


No, that double standard has been pointed out many times. They want a one-way street.

In my opinion, Warren Jeffs is a true Joseph Smith Mormon.


Anyone who worships Christ can say they are Christian. No one "owns" the word. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "owns" the word Mormon. So no one else can use it without permission.
What's the legal basis for this. I assume that a group would have 1st Amendment protection if it called itself "The True Book of Mormon Church."
_truth dancer
_Emeritus
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 12:40 pm

Post by _truth dancer »

What are the legal ramifications for using a word that some organization owns?

Maybe mainstream Christians will license/copyright/own the word "Christian" so Mormons can't use it?

For some reason this whole language tiff makes me chuckle.

;-)

~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Mister Scratch wrote:The TBMs at MAD, apparently, are so fired up about this Pyrrhic "victory" over carmella, that urroner has posted this: [SNIP!]


Would you say that they're having a "Morgasm?"
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
Post Reply