End goal?

[_asbestosman]

This:

It's not supposed to help anyone's salvation.

contradicts this:

A curse is there to call a gross sinner to repentance (and them alone), to remove someone from this life before they can sink further into degradation, or to remove someone who in some way directly seeks to thwart the will of God knowing who they are opposing.

I believe that the latter is mostly correct. However, I don't think God can remove agency. I believe in God keeping us from temptation above that which we are able to bear, but I think it's also tricky to do so without removing agency in the process--at least when it comes to these curses.

[_Jason Bourne]

I am a somewhat active member of the church. Someone gave a talk about Mormon message boards. Then this whole topic came up at BYU. It seems strange people are so angry. Why are people so angry? Is there similar feelings from people who leave catholic methodist or even islam? And is there an end goal? Do people here want the church to shut down?

No, but you have to understand that Mormonism is unlike most other religions out there.

In most religions, you belong to the religion. In Mormonism, you ARE a Mormon. It is at the very core of what you are. When you find out it isn't true, it goes much deeper than most religions. People try very hard to hold on to their faith.

I disagree. Have you met any Jews? How many Catholics do you know, especially Italian Catholics? Active Christians that are Evangelical are in a similar situation. Anyone who is active in a religion, and many who are not-Jews and Catholics-identify heavily with their faith and heritiage as much as Mormons do.

[_wenglund]

This is one of the big fallacies of the anti-Mormon and ex-mormon rationalization. That if only Person X could think clealry and not be "shackled" with "indoctrination" from their childhood, then they could be"enlightened" like we are. I am living proof that intelligent people can come to the LDS faith with no early teaching, can study and learn and actively CHOSE it.

And yet another strawman, charity. I'm really disappointed in you. I think most of us here would agree that intelligent people can study and learn and actively choose to believe in Mormonism. Where we disagree is in the idea that those of us who choose not to believe are somehow deceived, stupid, or evil.

Are you also disappointed in Sethbag and his similar caricatures of those who choose to believe? I am.

I happen to believe that pejoritive stereotyping of opposing views is counterproductive, particularly within inter-faith dialogue, regardless of who is doing it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How dare you stereotype this place as "inter-faith" dialogue. I have always viewed this place as a place for "extra-faith" dialogue and I am insulted by your stereotyping.

Were I to confuse classificatory divisions with "stereotyping", and mistakenly assume that my use of the term "inter-faith" was exclusionary of "extra-faith", then I might see your point. As it is, I don't. But, you are free to be insulted by whatever, and regardless how benign the comment. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_asbestosman]

It's not supposed to help anyone's salvation.

Another reason I believe that to be incorrect is the following scripture:

2 Ne. 26: 24 He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.

[_Sethbag]

I wasn't asking you what I think. I was asking you what you think (which explains my use of the word "you" rather than "I" in the question I asked you).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it really necessary to take up 2/3 of a screen with all the quoted material, when you're just adding a single line in response to the whole shebang at the end of it?

[_Moniker]

I don't even understand how a "loving" God would allow one of his children to "curse" another. The entire proposition really puts God at the disposal of petty spats and makes him an errand boy, no? Also, curses don't seem as if they'd come from a heavenly loving father.

This entire idea that LDS and Christians in general are so loving and morally superior while there is a parallel conversation about cursing others really illustrates quite adequately how there are so many that think that Christianity is a oneupmanship and about spite. It is bizarre.

God, I'm glad I'm a heathen! I bet God is glad too -- or else I might be out cursing people and telling them that they're sluts, or how they're going to burn in hell and are of Satan.

Moniker, it's important to note that unless God wants them cursed it WILL NOT HAPPEN. I've been snubbed, belittled, used, threatened, and attacked (physically) but I would not and have not tried to use God or my Priesthood as some kind of tool of vengeance. I was given this power to bless others and aid them in any way I can. I would not use this power to harm another unless God told me to. He never has. I hope he never does. In the New Testament Christ used his power to destroy once and in mercy he demonstrated it on a tree. He showed the power he has but chose not to wield it. I hope to 'go and do thou likewise'.

I don't understand how "curses" fit into the framework of forgiveness taught under Christ? Turn the other cheek? I don't understand that!

Perhaps, I've only absorbed the beauty of Christianity (charity, love, forgiveness) that appeals to me and am completely unaware of this dark underbelly -- because it sure comes across that way. I was ASTOUNDED when I read of curses on the board yesterday. If God can take time out to curse someone then he could take a bit of time to stop tsunamis or Darfur atrocities. It makes no logical sense!

[_wenglund]

I wasn't asking you what I think. I was asking you what you think (which explains my use of the word "you" rather than "I" in the question I asked you).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Did you, in your initial question about stereotyping, imply that stereotyping is an inappropriate use of anger?

No. I was inquiring about what you thought about stereotyping, and did not implying what I think about it (which explains my framing it as a question rather than as a statement).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What caused you to ask the question?

To gain insight.

Will you be getting around to answering the question any time soon?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I wasn't asking you what I think. I was asking you what you think (which explains my use of the word "you" rather than "I" in the question I asked you).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is it really necessary to take up 2/3 of a screen with all the quoted material, when you're just adding a single line in response to the whole shebang at the end of it?

No. It is not necessary (really or otherwise).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_amantha]

This is one of the big fallacies of the anti-Mormon and ex-mormon rationalization. That if only Person X could think clealry and not be "shackled" with "indoctrination" from their childhood, then they could be"enlightened" like we are. I am living proof that intelligent people can come to the LDS faith with no early teaching, can study and learn and actively CHOSE it.

And yet another strawman, charity. I'm really disappointed in you. I think most of us here would agree that intelligent people can study and learn and actively choose to believe in Mormonism. Where we disagree is in the idea that those of us who choose not to believe are somehow deceived, stupid, or evil.

Are you also disappointed in Sethbag and his similar caricatures of those who choose to believe? I am.

I happen to believe that pejoritive stereotyping of opposing views is counterproductive, particularly within inter-faith dialogue, regardless of who is doing it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

How dare you stereotype this place as "inter-faith" dialogue. I have always viewed this place as a place for "extra-faith" dialogue and I am insulted by your stereotyping.

Were I to confuse classificatory divisions with "stereotyping", and mistakenly assume that my use of the term "inter-faith" was exclusionary of "extra-faith", then I might see your point. As it is, I don't. But, you are free to be insulted by whatever, and regardless how benign the comment. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is a mistake to assume that there is a difference between "inter-faith" and "extra-faith"? There's a revelation on your mind set.

[_asbestosman]

Perhaps, I've only absorbed the beauty of Christianity (charity, love, forgiveness) that appeals to me

I've tried to absorb only the beauty of skepticism, but it's made me more cynical--or maybe I'm that way naturally and I haven't absorbed anything positive or negative.