Went through the Temple last week...

[_Ray A]

Ray A:

In the past there have been times I felt conversing with you could be mutually fruitful. The further I read into this thread, however, the more I felt you were acting like an arrogant jerk. Now I am certainly not immune to acting that way, but for crying out loud, your arrogance and dismissals here preclude my desire to attempt participation. And rather than it being an admission of how right you are, for me, it's more that you are being a jerk and I don't see a good reason right now to engage. Just to let you know.

"Conversing with me" for what? To try to entice me back to Mormonism?

Go to hell.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I see. So you are making me pay for the presumed sins of someone else--someone who I know nothing about and over whom I have no rightful control. Got it.

Well....when you decide to have a reasoned discussion with me about things I have said, please let me know. Until then, I will leave you to hiss and spite in Wheats direction without me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

When a Mormon gets some public praise every member takes the praise, usually brought to the attention of all by media-voyeur Smac. You can't have it both ways. You should also accept responsibility for the crazy fundies in your church. DCP is encouraging moderation in Islam. I'm encouraging moderation in Mormonism.

See? If I cared for a good dialog with you I would point out why I believe comparing contemporary radical Islam with contemporary "radical" Mormonism is problematic. For example, I don't see many Mormons fighting a jihaad via suicide bombs etc.

Go to hell? I'm certainly under no pretense that I might somehow convince you that you should "come back" to Mormonism. I have some great conversations with people of other faiths (secular and religious so-called). Usually the good dialogs involve a mutual respect, a desire to be charitable, and a lack of one side saying "you are a deluded idiot."

[_Ray A]

See? If I cared for a good dialog with you I would point out why I believe comparing contemporary radical Islam with contemporary "radical" Mormonism is problematic. For example, I don't see many Mormons fighting a jihaad via suicide bombs etc.

Sure, Mormons don't do Jihad and suicide bombings. They just screw people's minds. That's oh, so much better.

[_silentkid]

I haven't been to the temple since I was in the MTC. While there, I went 8 times. There was no temple in my mission boundaries, so I didn't go during that time. Once I got home, I never went again. I'm 33 now, so it's been a long, long time. I think I never went back because the ceremony is so utterly boring. It's weird enough the first time you go to keep you interested. After that, it's pure boredom. Borington. It's like watching grass grow if grass were boring. And, to top it all off, it makes no sense. Boring nonsense.
*
*
*
*

[_wenglund]

When a Mormon gets some public praise every member takes the praise, usually brought to the attention of all by media-voyeur Smac. You can't have it both ways. You should also accept responsibility for the crazy fundies in your church.

Taking praise or responsibility for other people's actions, particularly those who I know nothing about and over which I have no rightful control, doesn't fit at all my way of thinking. So, again, you aren't engaging me, but rather some projection of your own imagination, and I have no interest in going there.

DCP is encouraging moderation in Islam. I'm encouraging moderation in Mormonism.

There are productive ways to encourage moderation (like what we find with DCP), and there are counterproductive ways (like what we find with you). You can't reasonably expect to encourage moderation in others by behaving extremists and immoderate yourself. It is like trying to promote integration through behaving segregationist. It doesn't work.

But, you don't seem to be listening nor interested in engaging me directly, so this will be my last response to you until I detect a favorable change. You have the last word.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I haven't been to the temple since I was in the MTC. While there, I went 8 times. There was no temple in my mission boundaries, so I didn't go during that time. Once I got home, I never went again. I'm 33 now, so it's been a long, long time. I think I never went back because the ceremony is so utterly boring. It's weird enough the first time you go to keep you interested. After that, it's pure boredom. Borington. It's like watching grass grow if grass were boring. And, to top it all off, it makes no sense. Boring nonsense.

I could be wrong, but with the evident diversity of perceptions had among infrequent and frequent temple attendees, I suspect that the temple experience may well be a reflection of our inner selves. We get back from it according to the effort we put into it. If we, ourselves, are interesting and proactively interested, we will tend to be continually fascinated by the many layers of learning that may be pealed back each time we go. Whereas, if we, ourselves, are borish and tend to sit back expecting to be spoon-feed information or seemingly dare others to entertain us (a malady inflicting not a few young people throughout modern society), then we will likely come away bored.

Who knows? At least it may be something to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Doctor Steuss]

Ironically, from your own "myopic human perspective" you presume to tell God (with his "long-view" perspective), and his chosen leaders, what and how things should be taught the members of his Church during the temple ceremony--and this while evidently lacking an adequate grasp of the intent and purpose of the restored gospel in which you no longer believe.

Truely amazing!

Nonsense, I'm not talking to God or to the so-called chosen leaders, I'm talking to you and other people on this thread who are willing to share their opinions. I'm saying you only pay lip service to truth, preferring to justify the status-quo rather than concede that an apostate might have a good point.

If I read you correctly then it is "truely" disappointing.

Again, it is not that God or the Church is hiding evolution. It is just that the scientific notion of evolution is not directly relevant to the LDS spiritual epistemic. It is only indirectly relevant in the metaphoric sense that it underscores the notion of eternal progression.

Oh, so you can see how evolution could be a metaphorical teaching tool towards the notion of eternal progression. Maybe that it could be useful to change how the creation is taught in the Temple. Maybe I shouldn't be so quick to express disappointment.

On the other hand, why persist in teaching the primitive idea that animals reproduce simply after their own kind? Does that have some greater value that you could explain to me? Is it directly or indirectly relevant in any way to the LDS spiritual epistemic?

All I'm saying is, given the two choices (hypothetically), which one is better taught in the Temple? Why?

What I am talking about is teaching to the subject and delivering a curriculum that meets the afore-determined instructional objectives. That is why you will likely not hear any mention of evolution during even graduate courses in mathematics. It's not that the math instructors are trying to hide evolution. Rather, the scientific notion of evolution doesn't pertain much if at all to the students learning the fundamental of mathematics.

Except that mathematics courses don't discuss biology one way or another. The Temple film does. You employ a bad analogy. Get it?

[_Ray A]

There are productive ways to encourage moderation (like what we find with DCP), and there are counterproductive ways (like what we find with you). You can't reasonably expect to encourage moderation in others by behaving extremists and immoderate yourself. It is like trying to promote integration through behaving segregationist. It doesn't work.

DCP is defending a book as "historical" which I consider to be non-historical. It might only be my considered opinion, but it's a strongly considered opinion based on using my rational brain. Have you considered the untold harm this can do to a person who believes all this, then later discovers that it isn't historical? I'm not talking about myself. I'm talking about teaching people that there were "literal Nephites" and persuading them to base their whole lives around this belief when the evidence for this is next to nil (unless you look at esoteric internal evidences, which still don't prove it's historical). The Community of Christ, in my opinion, takes a much safer approach, and their scholars have encouraged this approach. They haven't set up a branch of FARMS to defend a non-historical book. Do you see exmos from the CoC blasting them all over the Net? Why is that? Do you hear endless stories of broken lives from ex-CoC members? Why is that?

And speaking of "promot[ing] integration through behaving segregationist", don't you promote "love" through behaving segregationist to gay people? If you retain your "gay church policy" and retain your own restrictions that's your choice. But to influence the wider community to accept your views as coming from the Almighty God himself, is wrong. This certainly isn't the America envisioned by the likes of Thomas Jefferson. While Jefferson encourages private religious beliefs, here's what he said about religious influence:

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

No truer words were ever spoken if this is applied to what happened with Prop 8. And you supported that! But you'll never see it, Wade, and for you "conversation" is all about you, your beliefs, and your "rights", damned be the rights of others.

But, you don't seem to be listening nor interested in engaging me directly, so this will be my last response to you until I detect a favorable change. You have the last word.

Please yourself. I'm probably wasting my time, and your time.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

If anyone is curious why many LDS folks avoid this message board (who are otherwise aware of it), take a look at the method of discourse by Ray A herein. It will give you a very good idea.

[_Ray A]

If anyone is curious why many LDS folks avoid this message board (who are otherwise aware of it), take a look at the method of discourse by Ray A herein. It will give you a very good idea.

What you mean is that when conversation and debate doesn't go your way you're not happy. I outlined a perfectly reasonable reply to Wade, but both you and he will ignore it, and type an ad hom just like you did above. And that is an ad hom, just like calling me an "arrogant jerk". Then you pondered why I replied as curtly as I did. Don't absolve yourself from this.

No, you are definitely not as reasonable as I once thought. Noted.