Apostacy big winner at oscars

[_Jersey Girl]

Here is where the derailment began:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=225287#p225287

[_Jersey Girl]

Not that Mormon's believe everything in the Book of Mormon.

[What parts of the Book of Mormon do mainstream Mormons typically disbelieve?

Daniel, you aren't tracking the discussion. Ray's claim was that marg didn't know "church teachings" regarding homosexuality and made her knowledge of such conditional on her having or not having read the Book of Mormon. The issue isn't what parts Mormons typically believe or disbelieve.

Additionally, he's stated that unless marg has read apologetic books, etc, that she shouldn't be commenting on Mormon related boards.

Marg is uninformed and dogmatic. That's not a very useful combination.

marg doesn't understand the nuances of belief. For example, her interpretation of "love the sinner/hate the sin" doesn't quite hit the mark. She misses that a person can be loved while the behavior is condemned. (marg, if you're reading this, it would be the same as your loving an alcoholic relative or friend while hating the influence alcohol abuse has on their lives and relationships.)

That you think she is "uniformed and dogmatic" has little to do with her conviction that the "church teachings" condemn homosexuality and/ or sex. We both know that is the case as it is with mainstream Christianity.

Have you read the Book of Mormon, by the way?

Would you like a detailed and sincere personal accounting? For you, I would supply one.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Would you like a detailed and sincere personal accounting? For you, I would supply one.

I confess that I would like to know. But I'm not demanding an answer, and, of course, if you feel like giving one you can send it via PM.

For you, I'm willing to cut a little slack.

[_marg]

I hope the above makes more sense to you, marg.

Yes, J.G. I do understand what you are saying with the example of an 'alcoholic loved one', but in a previous post I gave my explanation that behaviors which are not inate, which can be changed through effort is not the same as something one is born with and has no control over, such as homosexuality.


When an aspect of an individual is part of the core of their being, that phrase in my opinion "love the sinner but hate the sin" is hollow. In otherwords one is never really loving another if they don't respect the core of their being. It would be similar to a belief that blacks were inferior in some way. Saying we should love the sinners (the blacks) but hate the sin (their skin color) doesn't apply. That's a fundamental non changing aspect of their being, and one can't love them but reject or be negatively prejudicial that fundamental aspect of them.

by the way, I didn't want to get pulled into this thread just yet, at least not tonight. I wanted a day's break from it.

[_Jersey Girl]

Would you like a detailed and sincere personal accounting? For you, I would supply one.

I confess that I would like to know. But I'm not demanding an answer, and, of course, if you feel like giving one you can send it via PM.

For you, I'm willing to cut a little slack.

It would have been nice if I hadn't erased my blog! I had the beginnings of this on the blog which you were the only person I allowed access to. The short answer is "yes" the details are as follows:

I was given my first Book of Mormon approx. 30 years ago, by a young LDS man who happened to be a Jersey Boy living in another state where I also lived. He was a co-worker and he and I sometimes shared breaks together. Our talks sometimes drifted to religion. To the best of my knowledge, he told me nothing about the Book of Mormon prior to giving me one and I knew almost nothing about Mormonism (except that Mormons didn't believe in hell, that conversation still comes to mind). So, I went at it "stone cold" without being prepared for what I was to read. I did pray before reading it, essentially that if there were something I would benefit from learning from it, that my eyes, heart and mind would be open to it.

Daniel, when I started to read it, my very first impression was that it was a poor imitation of the Bible. Do you remember my saying that on the blog? Still, I tried to concentrate on what I was reading but the text seemed to meander so that I couldn't maintain focus. It felt disorienting to me. I looked at the illustrations (photos of artifacts) for cues and still had no idea what I was reading. So I put it down.

Following that, I would pick it up and try again with the same results. I'd find commentaries online and read specific portions, but I still didn't have a good handle on it. I still don't think that I do have a handle on it in any sort of depth for it seems to jump around to me.

Fast forward to about 4 years ago. I had an LDS person willing to go through it start to finish with me. I posted about this on 2think if you doubt it. In my post, I essentially said that after discussing Mormonism (and early on being so critical of it) for so long, I felt that I needed to try to do justice to reading the Book of Mormon and gaining a better understanding of the scripture. We started over a Spring Break then both dropped the ball on it. marg will vouch for this, there was a huge argument about what I posted.

I then started using chapter summaries on the LDS.org website and reading each chapter as I went along. Stopping and starting, over and over again. I didn't read cover to cover, I hopped around chapters as I found the summaries of interest. It still meanders to me!

I currently have someone working with me (though we haven't got fully on it, that's for sure) on reading it using a different approach to the text.

So yes, Daniel, I have two copies of the Book of Mormon, I've made sincere attempts to read and understand it. I started doing so 30 years ago and still do so to this day.

You will not see me mocking LDS on these boards for their religious beliefs and practices. You will not see me expressing contempt for the LDS church or Mormonism like I did when I first came on the Internet 10 years ago. You will not see me playing games with LDS. What you have here, Daniel, is a woman who began earnestly researching Mormonism about 13 years ago now, on account of offensive comments made by a youth activity leader to an LDS child who was reduced to tears by it, who went up against my then Southern Baptist youth pastor on account of it, who attended "cult classes" at my own church and repeatedly corrected the facilitator and criticized the (sometimes mocking) tone of parts of the presentation, one who has made an honest effort to engage LDS in real life and on boards like this to discover and better understand LDS belief from LDS themselves and who doesn't plan on stopping any time soon.

Part of the reason (there were other reasons) that I left my own church was on account of the treatment of LDS related topics and the refusal of my church Pastor to be "affiliated" with LDS at community functions.

Does that answer your question?

Jersey Girl

p.s. Thanks for the offer of slack, but I don't need it. I'm willing to answer most any question so long as it's sincerely posed.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thank you, Jersey Girl. That's very helpful.

[_Nightingale]

marg said:

"Saying we should love the sinners (the blacks) but hate the sin (their skin color) doesn't apply."

This example doesn't really compute as skin colour is not a sin. It's not a behaviour or an action or a choice. I get what you're saying, though, about the issue in churches re homosexuality. For those who think it is inborn, it is not a sin and of course you cannot separate "it" from the person as that is who they are. For those who think it is chosen behaviour and sinful, the "love the sinner, hate the sin" dictum works better as to them it is just a matter of changing one's behaviour. If you come up with a different comparison that relates to behaviour or presumed behaviour I think it would work better than using skin colour as an example.

To Jersey Girl: Your account is interesting. I can relate to parts of it.

I knew almost nothing about Mormonism

Me too, when I first met a Mormon at work who later introduced me to the missionaries. I had read Walter Martin's opinions (!) and my EV friends said the usual about Mormons not being Christians. I didn't mind reading the Book of Mormon to see for myself.

...when I started to read it, my very first impression was that it was a poor imitation of the Bible.

My impression was that it was familiar, from the KJV language and scriptures, as well as what I consider some of the main precepts of Christianity (not surprising when the text contains some common scriptural verses and ideas). My main interest was in seeing whether it contradicted the Bible or not. If it had, to my admittedly somewhat untutored eye, I would have walked away right there.

I then started using chapter summaries on the LDS.org website and reading each chapter as I went along. Stopping and starting, over and over again. I didn't read cover to cover, I hopped around chapters as I found the summaries of interest.

If you do want to understand it, reading summaries or commentaries is a good place to start. Knowing some background would obviously help in understanding the text better. I found the accounts and overall story somewhat confusing too, having zero background in Mormonism so being unfamiliar with the names, places and events.

There's nothing wrong with hopping around chapters (unless there's some kind of LDS rule about that with which I am not familiar). I did not want to get baptized until I had read the Book of Mormon, at least. (With an emphasis on getting a commitment for baptism in the first discussion, this is an oft overlooked step, in my experience). I found that it wasn't until I got to Alma that I could better relate and it contains some of the scriptural concepts that I can easily relate to (like being born again). Maybe you could start with Alma and see how it goes.

You will not see me mocking LDS on these boards for their religious beliefs and practices.

It is hard to justify doing so if one has religious belief themselves, I find.

Part of the reason (there were other reasons) that I left my own church was on account of the treatment of LDS related topics and the refusal of my church Pastor to be "affiliated" with LDS at community functions.

I have had similar types of difficulties. I have tried to find a home church where I can accept the majority of what is taught and practiced. Depending on your issues, it isn't all that easy. Not being brought up in any particular faith, I will always be a convert of sorts. That doesn't make it easy to find a place. But at least it's my own choice, made without blinders, except for subconscious elements I guess. (Like how I am predisposed to go with Christianity. It's just choosing a denomination that can be a bit of a meander).

[_truth dancer]

What parts of the Book of Mormon do many of the Mormons on MD typically disbelieve?

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17 Perhaps thou shalt asay: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

What part of the Book of Mormon do Mormon apologists disbelieve?

"Whether by my own voice of the voice of my servant it is the same."

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes, J.G. I do understand what you are saying with the example of an 'alcoholic loved one', but in a previous post I gave my explanation that behaviors which are not inate, which can be changed through effort is not the same as something one is born with and has no control over, such as homosexuality.

Is it not fairly accepted that alcoholism is a disease and even that some are more genetically inclined towards it? If so this pushes it into a similar realm that your argue for homosexuals.

When an aspect of an individual is part of the core of their being, that phrase in my opinion "love the sinner but hate the sin" is hollow. In otherwords one is never really loving another if they don't respect the core of their being. It would be similar to a belief that blacks were inferior in some way. Saying we should love the sinners (the blacks) but hate the sin (their skin color) doesn't apply. That's a fundamental non changing aspect of their being, and one can't love them but reject or be negatively prejudicial that fundamental aspect of them.

If indeed homosexuals are such by nature than I agree. But of course you know that that the verdict on this is not conclusive. Personally I think it likely but also understand that there is data that supports both sides.

The LDS Church's view is that it does not take a position on the nature vs. nurture issue of homosexuality. One of the fundamental doctrines of the LDS Church is we are all born into a world with flaws and weaknesses that we must learn to either overcome, or if we cannot overcome, due to perhaps it being nature (someone born with some sort of physical handicap cannot change it but must live with it) we must live with it while conforming our lives to God's commands. For LDS life is the ultimate test in our eternal journey to see if we will obey God. The book of Abraham states that the world was created so, among other things, God's children could be tested, or proven, as the passage states.

So I think LDS leaders would say even if Homosexuals are such by nature God has still commanded that they obey his command of sexual activity.

[_Jason Bourne]

What parts of the Book of Mormon do many of the Mormons on MD typically disbelieve?

16 And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.
17 Perhaps thou shalt asay: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.

You think Mormons here disbelieve this speech by King Benjamin?

What part of the Book of Mormon do Mormon apologists disbelieve?

"Whether by my own voice of the voice of my servant it is the same."

I think this is from the D&C 1:38:

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.