Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_charity]

We all sin. The idea that only ex-members sin is ludicrous and flies in the face of the Atonement and every teaching of the LDS church.

It's entirely possible that in the grand scheme of things, lying to one's wife about one's extramarital peccadillos is a more grievous sin than drinking while sitting on one's couch watching football.

I don't know who you are addressing this to, except that I am quoted in your opst. I NEVER said that only ex-members sin. Where did you get that? EVERYONE sins.

I think it porobably will be that in the grand scheme of things, lying about adultery is a more grievous sin that breaking the Word of Wisdom. Although Jesus tells us that God cannot look upon the least degree of sin with any allowance.

[_the road to hana]

Wouldn't you be willing to die rather than to betray the Savior?

The Jesus Christ of the New Testament would not require followers to pantomime their own deaths as a sign of allegiance.

Many people throughout history have died rather than betray their religious convictions. Certainly the early Christian martyrs faced that difficult choice.

Personally, I'd rather die that submit to a pseudoreligious ritual that is a completely mockery of those same ideals it claims to profess.

[_the road to hana]

Because it wasn't needed anymore in light of changing culture.

Changing culture? What does that mean? It was unsettling? Disturbing? Just took too much time? Involved too much effort?

The changes were made in response to a questionnaire sent out to LDS members in North America who were asked directly about how they felt about certain aspects of the temple.

It's unlikely it would have changed if they'd responded, "It's wonderful, lovely; don't change a thing."

You don't understand that "the endowment" is not the same thing as "the presentation of the endowment." You are guilty of presentism, hana.

Right. That's like "baptism" is not the same thing as "the presentation of baptism." So moving from immersion to pouring to sprinkling is of no consequence unless one is guilty of presentism.

Good grief, Charlie Brown. You're definitely getting this MOPologist thing down. You've even got the vocab. Presentism. Fundamentalism.

You can't have it both ways. If it's wrong to change baptism, it's wrong to change the endowment. If it's acceptable to change the endowment, it's acceptable to change baptism.

LDS temple ritual is just a bunch of ripped off fraternal hooey designed to bind the membership to the corporation. Nothing more. And yes, I'll speak out about it. I'm hoping there are whole generations of young adults who'll be spared that particular trauma, not to mention the ridiculousness.

It truly speaks to the mind of the fanatic. Would you go into the temple for the first time, have them send men to one side of the room and women to the other, and ask everyone to disrobe publicly, and not speak up? Goodness, where is your conscience? Where are your boundaries?

If someone is asking you to pantomime your own death, run, far and fast, and when you've caught your breath, ask yourself why on earth an institution that professed to be of God would do anything of the kind.

I'd be asking the same thing if I were asked to strap explosives on my person for deity.

As long as you think it's A-OK to participate in such foolishness, and that's its tin-foil time to point out the folly of it, you'll be a fanatic incapable of reason.

[_charity]

charity wrote:
Wouldn't you be willing to die rather than to betray the Savior?

The Jesus Christ of the New Testament would not require followers to pantomime their own deaths as a sign of allegiance.

Many people throughout history have died rather than betray their religious convictions. Certainly the early Christian martyrs faced that difficult choice.

Personally, I'd rather die that submit to a pseudoreligious ritual that is a completely mockery of those same ideals it claims to profess.

Sorry hana, you don't have the right to speak for the Savior. Unless you have a specific instance where He said that. Do you?

And you certainly have the right to make your choice between accepting the temple endowment or not. And your assessemnt of mockery is pretty funny. You mock sacred things, and then try to turn the mockery against the sacred. But you have your agency, after all.

Because it wasn't needed anymore in light of changing culture.

Changing culture? What does that mean? It was unsettling? Disturbing? Just took too much time? Involved too much effort? The changes were made in response to a questionnaire sent out to LDS members in North America who were asked directly about how they felt about certain aspects of the temple. It's unlikely it would have changed if they'd responded, "It's wonderful, lovely; don't change a thing."

Exactly what I said. As cultures change perceptions change. We no longer needed the literalness of the presentation of the endowment as it was. That is what I meant.

You don't understand that "the endowment" is not the same thing as "the presentation of the endowment." You are guilty of presentism, hana.

Right. That's like "baptism" is not the same thing as "the presentation of baptism." So moving from immersion to pouring to sprinkling is of no consequence unless one is guilty of presentism.

The ordinacne of baptism is to provide symbolism of cleansing from sin and a death to the old carnal self and rebirth to the new self. If the prophet were to reveal that the Lord had said sprinkling would do that, then it would be changed. I'd have no problem with that. The probably with sprinkling now in those denominations which do that is that they are making the change on their own, and not because the Lord told them.

Good grief, Charlie Brown. You're definitely getting this MOPologist thing down. You've even got the vocab. Presentism. Fundamentalism.

You can't have it both ways. If it's wrong to change baptism, it's wrong to change the endowment. If it's acceptable to change the endowment, it's acceptable to change baptism.

The only wrong change is when the is instituted by men and not commanded by God. You didn't learn that when you were a member? Well, I guess not, since you don't understand it now. Maybe that is one of the reasons you arne't a member. You lack this basic understanding.

LDS temple ritual is just a bunch of ripped off fraternal hooey designed to bind the membership to the corporation. Nothing more. And yes, I'll speak out about it. I'm hoping there are whole generations of young adults who'll be spared that particular trauma, not to mention the ridiculousness.

Whooo. Tin foil hat time. Trauma. That is such a funny.

It truly speaks to the mind of the fanatic. Would you go into the temple for the first time, have them send men to one side of the room and women to the other, and ask everyone to disrobe publicly, and not speak up? Goodness, where is your conscience? Where are your boundaries?

Finally, you have exposed yourself, hana. NOBODY UNDRESSSES PUBLICLY. And where is your conscience and your boundaries that allows you to tell a lie like that?

Beastie, runtu, jason, all of you who have gone to the temple, would you please step in here and stop her insanity?

If someone is asking you to pantomime your own death, run, far and fast, and when you've caught your breath, ask yourself why on earth an institution that professed to be of God would do anything of the kind. I'd be asking the same thing if I were asked to strap explosives on my person for deity.

Your outrage seems pretty strange to me. After all, this is a religion where the only perfect person ever on the earth instructed his disciples to pretend they were eating his flesh and drinking his blood!

As long as you think it's A-OK to participate in such foolishness, and that's its tin-foil time to point out the folly of it, you'll be a fanatic incapable of reason.

At least I am not telling lies about it. I am really surprised that you have. I didn't agree with your point of view, but I thought you were honest about it, at least.

[_the road to hana]

charity wrote:
Wouldn't you be willing to die rather than to betray the Savior?

The Jesus Christ of the New Testament would not require followers to pantomime their own deaths as a sign of allegiance.

Many people throughout history have died rather than betray their religious convictions. Certainly the early Christian martyrs faced that difficult choice.

Personally, I'd rather die that submit to a pseudoreligious ritual that is a completely mockery of those same ideals it claims to profess.

Sorry hana, you don't have the right to speak for the Savior. Unless you have a specific instance where He said that. Do you?

Silly Charity. I could find all sorts of scriptures that would back up my point, and you'd still say that unless it said, "Do not go into the LDS temple in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America, on thus and such date, and do thus and such," it would be debatable.

Matthew 5:34-37

[_the road to hana]

dp

[_the road to hana]

The ordinacne of baptism is to provide symbolism of cleansing from sin and a death to the old carnal self and rebirth to the new self. If the prophet were to reveal that the Lord had said sprinkling would do that, then it would be changed. I'd have no problem with that.

How would that fail to be a sign of apostasy?

The probably with sprinkling now in those denominations which do that is that they are making the change on their own, and not because the Lord told them.

According to whom? Outsiders say the same thing about Mormonism. Many religions claim divine guidance and even authority. What makes yours special? Nothing except the fact that you personally ascribe more credibility to your claim.

Early Christians were claiming divine guidance, too. How do you know their claim is any less credible? Fact is, you don't.

Let me spell this out for you, Charity. As a young 19-year-old woman, you were seduced by a package that included theology and practice that was attractive to you. It has been something you've clung to now for over four decades. You don't like people criticizing it. You'll defend it against all comers. It's that simple. If the prophet suddenly said, "We're baptizing by sprinkling," you'd be all for it. If women were given the priesthood, same. Reason has nothing to do with it. Arguments that you use against other religions are irrelevant.

But let's call a spade a spade. That's exactly what's going on. You demonize anyone who criticizes what you consider precious, and you'll continue to claim the emperor has clothes long after it's been scientifically proven he's naked.

[_the road to hana]

It truly speaks to the mind of the fanatic. Would you go into the temple for the first time, have them send men to one side of the room and women to the other, and ask everyone to disrobe publicly, and not speak up? Goodness, where is your conscience? Where are your boundaries?

Finally, you have exposed yourself, hana. NOBODY UNDRESSSES PUBLICLY. And where is your conscience and your boundaries that allows you to tell a lie like that?

Back up, Bucky. It was a hypothetical.

I'm saying, what exactly could happen in temples that would cause you to sit up and take notice, and draw a line?

Your outrage seems pretty strange to me. After all, this is a religion where the only perfect person ever on the earth instructed his disciples to pretend they were eating his flesh and drinking his blood!

He did? Where? I thought it was Wonder Bread and tap water.

At least I am not telling lies about it. I am really surprised that you have. I didn't agree with your point of view, but I thought you were honest about it, at least.

Let's see. . .I seem to recall that a number of times on this board where you claim that calling the other party "liar" makes the person lose the argument.

I haven't lied about anything here. All members who've gone through the temple know exactly what takes place there. Smart readers here know when I'm posting a hypothetical, and don't represent it as a lie. But again, it's a nice MOPologist tactic. Kudos. You learn well, half-pint.

[_charity]

The ordinacne of baptism is to provide symbolism of cleansing from sin and a death to the old carnal self and rebirth to the new self. If the prophet were to reveal that the Lord had said sprinkling would do that, then it would be changed. I'd have no problem with that.

How would that fail to be a sign of apostasy?

What God does is not apostacy. It is what men do on their own that falls away from what God wants that is apostacy.

The problem with sprinkling now in those denominations which do that is that they are making the change on their own, and not because the Lord told them.

According to whom? Outsiders say the same thing about Mormonism. Many religions claim divine guidance and even authority. What makes yours special? Nothing except the fact that you personally ascribe more credibility to your claim.

Of course, you want to believe that. My assurance comes from study of the scriputres, study of the history of the Church (and I am talking not just about this dispensation) and of course, that which you demean most of all, the confirmation of the Spirit. I don't expect you to accept that. But it is a fact, neverthless. Your opinion notwithstanding.

[
Early Christians were claiming divine guidance, too. How do you know their claim is any less credible? Fact is, you don't.

You have to look at everything. Were they changing the establishment and doctrine as their political lives demanded? (Think Constantine's heavy handed "you will agree or die" actions, etc.)

Let me spell this out for you, Charity. As a young 19-year-old woman, you were seduced by a package that included theology and practice that was attractive to you. It has been something you've clung to now for over four decades. You don't like people criticizing it. You'll defend it against all comers. It's that simple. If the prophet suddenly said, "We're baptizing by sprinkling," you'd be all for it. If women were given the priesthood, same. Reason has nothing to do with it. Arguments that you use against other religions are irrelevant.

Let me spell something out for you,hana. You have no idea in the world about my conversion. Your mocking, and in this last exchange, your bald faced lie, show you up for what you are. No one should take what you say with a grain of salt.

But let's call a spade a spade. That's exactly what's going on. You demonize anyone who criticizes what you consider precious, and you'll continue to claim the emperor has clothes long after it's been scientifically proven he's naked.

Let's call a spade a spade all right. I don't demonize anyone who criticizes the Church, if they don't lie about it. And how about being scientifically proven to be a liar, hana? You made a claim against the temple ordinance which was an out and out lie, which can be attested to by the most rabid critic here. And you haven't taken it back and apologized.

Joseph Smith and the Restoration has been "scientifically proven" to be false? You have no proof, and you can't have any, and yet you make that stupid statement. My, my hana. This is not your best day.

[_the road to hana]

What God does is not apostacy. It is what men do on their own that falls away from what God wants that is apostacy.

So how do you know the early Christians didn't get it right, and Joseph Smith got it wrong?

My assurance comes from study of the scriputres, study of the history of the Church (and I am talking not just about this dispensation) and of course, that which you demean most of all, the confirmation of the Spirit. I don't expect you to accept that. But it is a fact, neverthless. Your opinion notwithstanding.

I don't discount any of the above. I assume you don't afford others the same courtesy. It's your way, or the HIGHway. You assume anyone who believes anything different from you must not be guided by the spirit, or have studied the issues, or both.

Early Christians were claiming divine guidance, too. How do you know their claim is any less credible? Fact is, you don't.

You have to look at everything. Were they changing the establishment and doctrine as their political lives demanded? (Think Constantine's heavy handed "you will agree or die" actions, etc.)

You mean like, caving in to political pressure in 1978? You conform, or we'll remove your tax exempt status?

Let me spell something out for you,hana. You have no idea in the world about my conversion. Your mocking, and in this last exchange, your bald faced lie, show you up for what you are. No one should take what you say with a grain of salt.

I made no lie. You misrepresented what I said, and called it a lie. Not once did I suggest it takes place in LDS temples past or present. I presented it as a hypothetical. In spite of clarifying that for you, you've clung to your misinterpretation and continued to proclaim it a lie.

Bwahaha. It's entertaining, but it doesn't intimidate.

Let's call a spade a spade all right. I don't demonize anyone who criticizes the Church, if they don't lie about it. And how about being scientifically proven to be a liar, hana? You made a claim against the temple ordinance which was an out and out lie, which can be attested to by the most rabid critic here. And you haven't taken it back and apologized.

See above.

Joseph Smith and the Restoration has been "scientifically proven" to be false? You have no proof, and you can't have any, and yet you make that stupid statement. My, my hana. This is not your best day.

Any claim to apostasy on the part of Joseph Smith is equally as valid as any claim to apostasy of any other group or individual. Therefore, by your logic, since the restoration cannot be scientifically proven to be false, neither can anything else. So what you predicate your beliefs on that you believe to be false could actually be correct.