DiscussMormonism.com

Meanwhile, I think it is safe to continue assuming that they were given blessings and/or were set apart.

I think this would be the prudent thing to do as well.

TAK wrote:I don't think its a stretch that DCP would have been set apart for his role with FARMS ..

Of course you don't. May be true.

But Scratch has no evidence.

Yet he demands proof they are not.

So when did Scratch stop beating his wife.....

Jason Bourne wrote:Wow. Pure quintessential Scratchism.

Make a totally unfounded and unsupported claim that it totally out of his warped conspiracy theory mind and when challenged, why demand proof that his wild claim is false.


You are loosing it Scratch.

"Loosing" a new theory? Why, yes! I am!

And my speculation is not without evidence. "Setting apart" is common practice within Mormonism. BYU professors commonly have "sit-downs" with the Brethren. The Brethren often utilize MI materials in their talks. Apologetics has a rather huge impact on doctrine and LDS knowledge. I don't think it is really too far out there to assume that they have received blessings, and/or that they were set apart. If your ward custodian was "set apart," is it really that far of a stretch to assume that people as important as the Chair of FARMS was also set apart?

You are complaining just for the sake of complaining, Jason. Feel free to explain why it's unreasonable to assume that the apologists have received blessings, and/or that they were set apart.

And my speculation is not without evidence. "Setting apart" is common practice within Mormonism. BYU professors commonly have "sit-downs" with the Brethren. The Brethren often utilize MI materials in their talks. Apologetics has a rather huge impact on doctrine and LDS knowledge. I don't think it is really too far out there to assume that they have received blessings, and/or that they were set apart. If your ward custodian was "set apart," is it really that far of a stretch to assume that people as important as the Chair of FARMS was also set apart?

Are BYU professors set apart?

But really who cares if they are. What is your point and what are your new sild speculations attempting to prove.

You are complaining just for the sake of complaining, Jason.

As are you. As do you in most of what you do here.

Feel free to explain why it's unreasonable to assume that the apologists have received blessings, and/or that they were set apart.

Feel free to cough up some real proof.

The Nehor wrote:First their work was overly spiritualized and they were set apart for their work by high spiritual authority and now they're anti-spiritual bigots, cripples with no real spiritual backing.

Will you crackpots make up your mind as to which extreme evil you're going to accuse people of? Are they guilty of priestcraft or apostasy?

what if I excrete, puke, desecrate, fornicate, piss, demean, degenerate, everything you hold for HOLY Jeezuz, Elo0heim...
Would I assure a path to hell?
Where do I sign up?
I want to be first.
PS:
They don't exist, nobody's gonna send me to perdition.
I won the genetic lottery.
I rule here.
Come'n get me.

solomarineris wrote:

The Nehor wrote:First their work was overly spiritualized and they were set apart for their work by high spiritual authority and now they're anti-spiritual bigots, cripples with no real spiritual backing.

Will you crackpots make up your mind as to which extreme evil you're going to accuse people of? Are they guilty of priestcraft or apostasy?

what if I excrete, puke, desecrate, fornicate, piss, demean, degenerate, everything you hold for HOLY Jeezuz, Elo0heim...
Would I assure a path to hell?
Where do I sign up?
I want to be first.
PS:
They don't exist, nobody's gonna send me to perdition.
I won the genetic lottery.
I rule here.
Come'n get me.

I wouldn't worry about it. You're already going to hell. Doing those things MIGHT lengthen your stay....but I can't be sure. Feel free to experiment.

Apologetics has failed, and it doesn't matter who sets who apart. The only thing that could attract non-Mormons to Mormonism now is a "better lifestyle", and a promise of "community". I look on the JWs the same way - they have some weird beliefs, but they are such good (and terribly naïve) people. The world won't suffer any loss for their presence, I don't think. Of course I could be wrong, but I never hear their "voice" in politics, and in regard to Prop 8 we haven't heard "boo" out of them.

Am I wrong?

Ray A wrote:Apologetics has failed, and it doesn't matter who sets who apart. The only thing that could attract non-Mormons to Mormonism now is a "better lifestyle", and a promise of "community". I look on the JWs the same way - they have some weird beliefs, but they are such good (and terribly naïve) people. The world won't suffer any loss for their presence, I don't think. Of course I could be wrong, but I never hear their "voice" in politics, and in regard to Prop 8 we haven't heard "boo" out of them.

Am I wrong?

Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to enter politics in any way either collectively or individually. It's a tenet of their faith.

The Nehor wrote:
Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to enter politics in any way either collectively or individually. It's a tenet of their faith.

I haven't met a JW I didn't like, even if they have weird beliefs. My son's current girlfriend is an ex-JW, and she's a beautiful person, so some of the ideals must have rubbed off on her, even if she doesn't currently accept the obvious myths.

I'm kind of wondering out loud if children should be brought up religiously until, say, 14, then given their own choices? Perhaps they'll keep the good, and dispense with the myths?

I suppose some more critical comments will lay my delusion to rest. I know marg will object, but I'm wondering if the majority need more "taming", while others obviously don't.

Ray A wrote:
I haven't met a JW I didn't like, even if they have weird beliefs. My son's current girlfriend is an ex-JW, and she's a beautiful person, so some of the ideals must have rubbed off on her, even if she doesn't currently accept the obvious myths.

I thought this was a bit odd, then, thinking about it I have to agree.

I'm kind of wondering out loud if children should be brought up religiously until, say, 14, then given their own choices? Perhaps they'll keep the good, and dispense with the myths?

I am of two minds. First of all, as a skeptic and secular humanist, I know that real morality is found outside of religion. My moral compass as a teen was my non-theist Grandmother. In fact being told that she was not going to the Celestial Kingdom, no matter how good she was, was one of the first things that got me questioning the 'morality' and logic of the plan of salvation.

But, observing the experiences of family members has me thinking that growing up in traditional (but low impact on thought-contril, time, and $) religion like Church of England or Catholisism (as it is practised in NZ, anyway) is a form of innoculation against the more legalistic and/or parasitic religions. Several branches of my family are non-theist, the children from these have a high incidence of membership in tCoJCoLDS, JWs, and happy clappy sects. Those bought up in a traditional religion either revert to the low-impact childhood faith if they feel the need, or are non-theist.