Thank you, Jason. I think I understand better what you mean by "spiritual protection". What about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, recalling scripture to mind, fellowship with other believers, worship, daily scripture reading and prayer? It seems to me (a non-garment wearer/believer) that the garments are akin to the wearing of crucifixes, do you agree?
I don't think that is an unreasonable comparison in some ways.
There's no fool like an educated, "intellectual" fool Beastie. As you clearly do not now know, and have not ever known, what a testimony really is, you have no basis upon which to make any statements whatever regarding it, or mine.
You are also still assuming that what is known at present within the discipline of Mesoamerican Archeology is adequate to make substantive pronouncements upon the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It isn't. Indeed, until we really have a baseline of comparison for the corpus of knowledge already available, through the excavation and study of much more of the available evidence, and until we are more certain that the data we have has been interpreted correctly (and that is always a live question in such areas of study, especially when we cannot read their records and texts), the Book of Mormon remains an open question, in an intellectual sense.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Mister Scratch wrote: Coggins's posts operate according to certain generic formulas:
1) Take a breather after getting utterly trounced. 2) Return to the board and begin issuing one-liner, dismissive posts. 3) Make claims on some subject about which you've done zero reading 4) Get completely humiliated when aforementioned lack of reading is exposed 5) Complain about the lack of "intellectual seriousness" 6) Get ridiculed for idiocy and failure to provide any semblance of "intellectual seriousness" in the first place 7) Blow up and call people names 8) Disappear for a bit and return with silly, insulting song parodies 9) Try to get engaged in a real discussion, in which sources from frontpagemag.com are cited 10) Get trounced, and retreat to lick wounds and take a breather 11) Repeat the above steps, in no particular order.
Thank you, Jason. I think I understand better what you mean by "spiritual protection". What about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, recalling scripture to mind, fellowship with other believers, worship, daily scripture reading and prayer? It seems to me (a non-garment wearer/believer) that the garments are akin to the wearing of crucifixes, do you agree?
I don't think that is an unreasonable comparison in some ways.
Oh broTHER....
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
There's no fool like an educated, "intellectual" fool Beastie. As you clearly do not now know, and have not ever known, what a testimony really is, you have no basis upon which to make any statements whatever regarding it, or mine.
You are also still assuming that what is known at present within the discipline of Mesoamerican Archeology is adequate to make substantive pronouncements upon the historicity of the Book of Mormon. It isn't. Indeed, until we really have a baseline of comparison for the corpus of knowledge already available, through the excavation and study of much more of the available evidence, and until we are more certain that the data we have has been interpreted correctly (and that is always a live question in such areas of study, especially when we cannot read their records and texts), the Book of Mormon remains an open question, in an intellectual sense.
I'm going to ignore your "I've got a testimony!" response, because it's worthless, other than as a version of "uncle". But I will respond to this:
You are also still assuming that what is known at present within the discipline of Mesoamerican Archeology is adequate to make substantive pronouncements upon the historicity of the Book of Mormon.
You haven't even studied Mesoamerican archaeology, so how in the world would you know whether or not it is adequate???
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.
beastie wrote:In scottie's defense, I think it is possible that a believer could get caught up in passion and decide to throw caution and covenants out the window, and then, when confronted with the act of actually taking the garments off in order to have sex, have second thoughts, be filled with guilt and remorse, and stop. I do agree that was likely always one of the purposes of the garments.
I understand that, but what does that say about Mormonism if the reason why someone stopped short of adultery was some stitched-together fabric instead of an internal process? If him sticking to his beliefs requires a fabric barrier rather than the belief itself... Then really... What does that say about the effectiveness of Mormon dogma? I'm really resisting the urge to suggest he wear prayer shawl and an ephod so he's constantly reminded of his duties as a Son of the House of Israel to walk in righteousness at all times.
I couldn't agree more, which is why I am vehimently anti-religion.
Doing what is right because of fear of punishment from God is the wrong way to teach morals.
But, being in the religion, the Holy Garments (or anything to do with the temple, really) carried a much more severe punishment. These things were MUCH more holy than typical sunday school crap. So, being brainwashed as I was, when confronted with the garments, it took on a whole new level of blasphomy. Defiling the garments was tantamount to spitting in God's face. You just didn't do it. It was a crime so severe, and the penalty so harsh (at least in my mind) that it stopped me from having sex.
You can judge me as you see fit. It happened. I'm not necessarily proud of it.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
I'm going to ignore your "I've got a testimony!" response, because it's worthless, other than as a version of "uncle". But I will respond to this:
Cling to this fantasy if it gives you comfort. I can see it for the tentacle flailing that it actually is. And I have studied Mesoamerican archeology in a broad sense. Enough, at least to know, as is the case in many other such disciplines, that cock sure claims of certainty about the complexities and variables of long dead ancient cultures are, in many cases, much more hypothetical, theoretical, and outright speculative then partisans of particular interpretations let on.
And that's where we stand.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
I have read nearly everything Beastie has written about Mesoamerica and let me clarify something.
I have never known Beastie to claim she is an expert in Mesoamerica, a historian, or an anthropologist/archaeologist. I have also NEVER heard Beastie assert anything about Mesoamerica that has not been documented by the EXPERTS in the field.
She is obviously VERY well read, and I doubt there are more than a handful of LDS folk who can even remotely come close to her knowledge on the topic, nevertheless, as far as I know, she does not claim to be a historian/expert.
In other words, if you are arguing a point regarding something Beastie has mentioned, you are arguing the information from, and knowledge of the experts.
Just clarifying....
~dancer~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj