Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_Themis]

The ban was instituted so as to appeal to southern votes for statehood.

Do you have evidence of this or is it just an opinion. I think it could be possible, but that would not make the church or it's claims of being God's church look very good.

[_Themis]

This wouldn't be Why Me writing faith promotion fiction would it...?
A reference...?
A link...?
A date, time and place...?

Bump for CFR because Why Me failed to respond to harmony's CFR

Can't do it. Not because I can't but because I have my reasons not to.

LOL This should be put in The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page. This has got to be the worse excuse I have seen. I guess nowe everyone can just dodge a CFR by saying I could do it, but I won't for reasons I won't share. Again LOL

[_Themis]

INot really. Many of the members are poor. Go and see how the russian members live. They are not exactly rolling in dough. Or for that matter the members in Romania or in latin america. There are many poor butt Mormons running around. The church is a world wide church and buildings are built and temples are built and missionaries are supported etc. It takes dough to run a church these days. Just ask the board of directos of the crystal cathedral. I remember them rolling in money and now...dead as a door nail.

Yes really. Most of the core membership live in western US and Canada, and many are doing very well. Over 10% of ones income is a lot of money, that would far exceed what the church spends on in buildings, maintainence, etc. How the hell do you think they got so wealthy? You did say they had lots of money. 10% is getting towrd what a country will take in taxes, and they have way more things they have to psend it on. Why do you keep saying things so obviously incorrect?

[_jon]

That's right; this is a CFR.

I'm asking for an actual reference to an actual statement. Don't just try to duck out by pointing to an entire large body of material and then run away.

For example, here is how a reference should be provided:

buffalo
1) (n) A large hairy mammal.
2) (n) A city in western New York.
3) (n, adj) A type of hot wing sauce.
4) (v) To intimidate, as by a display of confidence or authority.

See The Urban Dictionary.

That's how it's done.

Regards,
Pahoran

Let's see if you remember this methodology when you are CFR'd...

[_Themis]

In which case, given that everything "taught openly over the pulpit" of General Conference has been recorded and is available on line, it should be trivially easy to support your assertion.

That's right; this is a CFR.

I'm asking for an actual reference to an actual statement. Don't just try to duck out by pointing to an entire large body of material and then run away.

For example, here is how a reference should be provided:

buffalo
1) (n) A large hairy mammal.
2) (n) A city in western New York.
3) (n, adj) A type of hot wing sauce.
4) (v) To intimidate, as by a display of confidence or authority.

See The Urban Dictionary.

That's how it's done.

Regards,
Pahoran

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19325

[_Buffalo]

"Less valiant in the pre-mortal existence" was taught openly over the pulpit and was the official doctrinal reason. It was treated as fact.

In which case, given that everything "taught openly over the pulpit" of General Conference has been recorded and is available on line, it should be trivially easy to support your assertion.

That's right; this is a CFR.

I'm asking for an actual reference to an actual statement. Don't just try to duck out by pointing to an entire large body of material and then run away.

For example, here is how a reference should be provided:

buffalo
1) (n) A large hairy mammal.
2) (n) A city in western New York.
3) (n, adj) A type of hot wing sauce.
4) (v) To intimidate, as by a display of confidence or authority.

See The Urban Dictionary.

That's how it's done.

Regards,
Pahoran

This is what's known as moving the goal posts.

Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is an expression meaning changing the target of a process or competition by one side in order to gain advantage.[1]

[_malaise]

And what is the source for that cut-and-paste?

Regards,
Pahoran

I recognize the first section as an infamous passage from Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine.

[_malaise]

Here is apostle Joseph Fielding Smith

According to the doctrine of the church, the negro because of some condition of unfaithfulness in the spirit — or pre-existence, was not valiant and hence was not denied the mortal probation, but was denied the blessing of the priesthood

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseof ... ndix_c.htm

[_schreech]

And what is the source for that cut-and-paste?

Regards,
Pahoran

Your prophets, seers and revelators are the source...

Here is my favorites from Elder M.E. Peterson:

"Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

[_Valorius]

"Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs," as well as of some of their "doctrines" (if there are any).

I started Seminary in 1970. I, too, heard the "less valiant in the pre-existence" explanation: it was put forward as speculation only, an example of the sorts of things that people said without any revelatory basis. It was specifically explained to me that it was not doctrine.

I was in seminary before you, then. So what. It was not put forward as speculation to me, especially not as bold-italic speculation. It was not an "example of the sorts of things that people said without any revelatory basis." It was taught to us as doctrine. Whether there was a chapter and verse does not matter. Chapters and verses matter when "the change" comes. When a doctrine falls out of repute, evidence of its nondoctrinality includes the absence of references to it by chapter and verse. But doctrines are taught that for which there are no chapter and verse. That's Mormonism. Never was it "explained to" me nor anyone with whom I discussed it, that it "was not doctrine." You have had a privileged church education, apparently. One quite different from thousands of others of us.

However, it was a belief, right? Whether or not it was "speculative", it was a "belief". And Mormons are ashamed of it. I contend it was a doctrine, but whatever.

Furthermore, this speculation was flatly contradicted by Brigham Young, whom you anti-Mormons love to quote-mine when it suits you, but whom you completely ignore when he doesn't suit you.

If it had been "flatly" contradicted by BY, that should be no surprise. His jabberings are hardly consistent or rational. But he isn't the issue. I only remark about his confused view of doctrines because of his mention here. I wonder why you call me an "anti-Mormon". That's a damned lie. I suppose it suits you to call people who disagree with your views on Mormonism "anti-Mormons". That's okay. I see a lot of that.

You have misapplied the term "quote-mine". You should look up the definition so you can use it correctly in the future. When you do see an actual quote out of context, it would behoove you to supply the context, rather than whimper about how unfair the mean old "anti-Mormons" are being.

I would expect a psychotic to claim special knowledge of what "suits" people with whom they are not very well acquainted, and what does not suit them. I do not believe you have a reference for knowing what genuinely "suits" me and what does not. You're just throwing words out hoping they stick. A method similar to the building up of Mormon "beliefs" in the 1800s perhaps. The Spirit of Mormon Truth rolls on.

How uninformed are you really?

Four and a half. How about you?

With due respect, if you have nothing substantive to say in reply, Have a nice day.

Regards,
Pahoran

In the words of the Secretary of the Twelve,
Best Regards