mentalgymnast wrote: by the way, do you know if Scratch is or ever has been LDS? He keeps evading the question every time I've seen someone ask him.
MG
I'd say not, since he knows so little about the Church except what he reads on two boards. And, I also think he is a woman, but based solely upon his style.
Ray A wrote:Does an angel with a drawn sword say, "you must watch porn or lose your salvation"??
No, but I was comparing apples to apples. If Joseph Smith was lying about an angel with a flaming sword, then he would be an abusive manipulator and we'd have to compare it to people who manipulate women into pornography. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that manipulating an adult into making porn is evil. Sex slavery still exists.
If Joseph Smith really was visited by an angel with a flaming sword, then polygamy wouldn't be inherently abusive since because God would be the one commanding it. Well, unless you think God is abusive. If that's the case then we're all screwed.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:If Joseph Smith really was visited by an angel with a flaming sword, then polygamy wouldn't be inherently abusive since because God would be the one commanding it. Well, unless you think God is abusive. If that's the case then we're all screwed.
Do you think the Israelites annihilating entire indigenous peoples down to the last cat, dog, and rooster was genocide, even if Yahweh commanded it?
I think it's obvious that Joseph Smith manipulated women, and saying it wasn't manipulation because Joseph claimed God told him to do it, is absurd. If the claim were actually true, it would just mean God was a manipulator, but Joseph's "Nuremberg Defense" still doesn't hold water.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
asbestosman wrote:If Joseph Smith really was visited by an angel with a flaming sword, then polygamy wouldn't be inherently abusive since because God would be the one commanding it. Well, unless you think God is abusive. If that's the case then we're all screwed.
Revelation to John Taylor:
September 27, 1886
My son John: You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people.
Thus saith the Lord All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name unless they are revoked by me or by my authority and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant.
For I the Lord am everlasting and my covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with; but they stand forever.
Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject?
Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my law and the keeping of my commandment, and yet have I borne with them these many years and this because of their weakness because of the perilous times. And furthermore it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regard to these matters.
Nevertheless I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not.
And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph all those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law.
And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory they must do the works of Abraham.
I have not revoked this law nor will I for it is everlasting and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so Amen.
(Unpublished Revelations, 1:88. Musser, Four Hidden Revelations, 15.)
GBH on Larry King:
I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
Abman, just one followup to the last line of the post I previously quoted from you. As an aside, do you believe we're all screwed more if people continue believing in a God that they invented, or if God doesn't exist at all and people realize and accept this?
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:Do you think the Israelites annihilating entire indigenous peoples down to the last cat, dog, and rooster was genocide, even if Yahweh commanded it?
Yes, it's genocide. But if God commanded it then it's either the right thing to do or we're all screwed because God is an all-powerful evil dictator.
As an aside, do you believe we're all screwed more if people continue believing in a God that they invented, or if God doesn't exist at all and people realize and accept this?
I dunno. Are we all screwed more if the sun stops shining and people realize it or if people ignore it and go on as usual? I think God exists, and so asking me about hypotheticals about God not existing is a bit silly. However, if God doesn't exist then I suppose it would be best if people realize it--assuming of course that they wouldn't lose all hope or whatever in life.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
asbestosman wrote:However, if God doesn't exist then I suppose it would be best if people realize it--assuming of course that they wouldn't lose all hope or whatever in life.
When I realized that god most likely doesn't exist (based on statistical significance and p values and such), I lost all hope. But soon I discovered porn and I am now happy to say that there is something worth living for.
Ray A wrote:Revelation to John Taylor: <snip> (Unpublished Revelations, 1:88. Musser, Four Hidden Revelations, 15.)
Uh, I'm not FLDS. I don't accept that revelation as doctrinal. I'm not even sure that the angel with the flaming sword is doctrinal either.
GBH on Larry King:
I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law.
That's 118 years ago. It's behind us.
I agree with President Hinckley that polygamy is not (currently) doctrinal or legal. It was over 100 years ago and it's behind us. I'm not sure why we ever had polygamy. It's not pertinent to my salvation right now.
The church's particular practice of polygamy aside (I'm no expert there) I stand behind my original statement that it isn't inherently worse than porn if the same standards are used for the comparison--freely consenting adults.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO