Lies, mistakes, and being downright wrong

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Scratch

Post by _Gazelam »

That is certainly *not* the way the phrase is used by TBMs on FAIR/MAD. In their view, "ark steadying" can be things such as asking that the Church's finances be made open for viewing.


That would mean that you want the prophet to change a policy to better suit your desires. that's Ark steadying.

No. It is about squelching dissent and whitewashing embarrassing doctrine and history. Why else do you think discussion of "Did Elohim physically have sex w/ Mary" thread was shut down?


I have no such problems with church history or teachings. The problem many have is in hearing deeper doctrines before they are ready for them. For instance, hearing about Titheing before hearing about The Plan of Salvation. that's a very simplified example, but you can see a natural progression of things from that example I am sure. This is why plural marriage was slowly introduced, how do you allow the worthy to practice it without the new converts learning of the doctrine too soon?

As for why the thread was shut down, I don't know since I rarely ever visit over there and havent looked at the thread, but I can see how a doctrine like that could quickly decend into nonsence and nothing would be gained by studying it. I posted a link in another thread to our discussion we had here in december on that same topic. I think after I posted on the subject, two posts later it evolved into aliems impreganting women ala Art Bell and the Kindom of Nye. Very sad. if oyu were a moderator on a serious discussion board, how would you deal with it?

Probably not. I am really not interested in discussing those sorts of things on an Internet forum such as this. I much prefer to discuss controversial issues.


This is supposed to be a discussion board for religious discussions, hence the name in big blue letters at the top of the screen. How do oyu know your personal beliefs arent seen as controversial by some on this board? I am finding Roger Morrisons personal beliefs to be quite outrageous, and cause for interesting discussion. Perhaps you could revist the "Significant Beliefs" thread and expound further on why you believe the way you do and why you gave the answers that you did.

I'm not sure what you mean here.


In the past you stated that there were many things you simply werent sure of in relation to God. This si the same as simply saying "I don't know", and there is nothing wrong in saying that, but many things that people don't know do in fact have answers, then it comes down to accepting or rejecting the answers. I just was asking if you were going to maintain the stance you took there.

Gaz
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Re: Scratch

Post by _Mister Scratch »

Gazelam wrote:
That is certainly *not* the way the phrase is used by TBMs on FAIR/MAD. In their view, "ark steadying" can be things such as asking that the Church's finances be made open for viewing.


That would mean that you want the prophet to change a policy to better suit your desires. that's Ark steadying.


It's not a question of "desires"---it is a question of right and wrong. Also, the "desires" are not "mine". These are things that many, many LDS would like to see addressed/changed.

No. It is about squelching dissent and whitewashing embarrassing doctrine and history. Why else do you think discussion of "Did Elohim physically have sex w/ Mary" thread was shut down?


I have no such problems with church history or teachings. The problem many have is in hearing deeper doctrines before they are ready for them. For instance, hearing about Titheing before hearing about The Plan of Salvation. that's a very simplified example, but you can see a natural progression of things from that example I am sure.


No, I'm afraid I can't. Frankly, I think that the "milk before meat" policy is a crock. It is used because Church leaders know what many converts would not join the Church if they knew about the "meat."

This is why plural marriage was slowly introduced, how do you allow the worthy to practice it without the new converts learning of the doctrine too soon?

As for why the thread was shut down, I don't know since I rarely ever visit over there and havent looked at the thread, but I can see how a doctrine like that could quickly decend into nonsence and nothing would be gained by studying it.


Yes, but who is to determine whether or not something is to be "gained"? The bottom line is that if discussion is squelched, *nothing* will be gained/learned.

I posted a link in another thread to our discussion we had here in december on that same topic. I think after I posted on the subject, two posts later it evolved into aliems impreganting women ala Art Bell and the Kindom of Nye. Very sad. if oyu were a moderator on a serious discussion board, how would you deal with it?


I imagine that I would handle it the way Dr. Shades does.

Probably not. I am really not interested in discussing those sorts of things on an Internet forum such as this. I much prefer to discuss controversial issues.


This is supposed to be a discussion board for religious discussions, hence the name in big blue letters at the top of the screen.


That says, "Mormon Discussions," not "Religious Discussions." The word "Mormon" covers more than just religion. (Likewise, "religion" covers more than just matters of faith.)

How do oyu know your personal beliefs arent seen as controversial by some on this board? I am finding Roger Morrisons personal beliefs to be quite outrageous, and cause for interesting discussion. Perhaps you could revist the "Significant Beliefs" thread and expound further on why you believe the way you do and why you gave the answers that you did.


Sorry, Gaz, but I am not interested.

I'm not sure what you mean here.


In the past you stated that there were many things you simply werent sure of in relation to God. This si the same as simply saying "I don't know",


Actually, I think it's more like saying, "I don't know that we teach that."

and there is nothing wrong in saying that, but many things that people don't know do in fact have answers, then it comes down to accepting or rejecting the answers. I just was asking if you were going to maintain the stance you took there.

Gaz


My argument on the other thread is that it is not correct to claim that matters of faith are "real" in a material sense. So: yes, I am going to maintain that stance.
Post Reply