Darth J wrote:Mfbukowski explains that we can avoid problems about the truth value of a given claim by redefining "truth" so as to fit around one's predetermined beliefs.
mfbukowski wrote: It's how I have raised my kids- it IS the "reality" of the situation I think, and they all understand the church that way- so far we are 4 for 4 in temple recommends, both who are married were sealed, and my one daughter just returned from her mission.
I wonder if when MfBukowski stands up in fast and testimony meeting he says that he knows the church is "true" while making those air quote thingies just as the word "true" leaves his mouth.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Flyonthewall wrote:I would say we would not want to attract apostates, but would want to attract the faithful... We can most likely help those that have fallen away by simply continue being their freind, and be Christ-like to them.
Rarely do we give kudos to MADites but I give it for this (bolded) sentiment.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Jeff K. wrote:Non Mormons and anti Mormons are offended by anything and everything..... I personally feel very little compuction to be on their side in such matters since they either sincerely don't understand (which means they are allowing their ignorance to rule them), or they actively seek to hurt the church and its goals as mandated by God (meaning little more than malicious scum). Personally I wouldn't want to be in either of those camps.
So, everyone but Mormons are hyper-sensitive and easily offended, eh? But not Mormons, you say?
[ ] Story checks out [X] OMGWTFLMAO
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Jeff K. wrote:Non Mormons and anti Mormons are offended by anything and everything..... I personally feel very little compuction to be on their side in such matters since they either sincerely don't understand (which means they are allowing their ignorance to rule them), or they actively seek to hurt the church and its goals as mandated by God (meaning little more than malicious scum). Personally I wouldn't want to be in either of those camps.
So, everyone but Mormons are hyper-sensitive and easily offended, eh? But not Mormons, you say?
[ ] Story checks out [X] OMGWTFLMAO
Of course - haven't you been following the news about the NMDL and the AMDL - non Mormons and anti Mormons recognise the need for a defence league to protect their feelings against .... wait, I just lost my train of thought there.
NOMinal member
Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."
wenglund wrote:To me, what may be more important than whether you can choose to believe or not, is choosing who and what you wish to become and where you wish to go with your life, and then orienting and prioritizing your beliefs accordingly.
The mistake I see a lot of members make, is they place determining the "truth" of certain Church-related things high on their priority list, rather than, as the gospel is intended, putting becoming like Christ as main objective.
And, too often, they pursue the "truth" of matters that are not all that significant or relevant to becoming like Christ--like whether the Book of Mormon is historical or not.
Worse yet, they may use secular rather than spiritual methods to supposedly descern the "truth," putting their faith in man rather than in God, contrary to what God has proferred.
No wonder their faith in certain matters wanes. Spiritual faith can't be expected to continue to grow and thrive when a person takes their eye off the intended goal and pursue instead alternative objectives using methods not suited to obtaining the intended goal.
It is kind of like initaily deciding to head to the tops of the mountain, but along the way choosing instead to determine the "truth" of what may lay at the bottom of a nearby lake, and dawning a wetsuit, fins, and a snorkle in pursuit thereof, and then wondering why you aren't getting closer to the top of the mountain.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I think good old Wade gave away more than he intended to here.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Spurven Ten Sing wrote:LeSellers: I object to the phrase "homeopathic quacks", especially if you are implying that homeopathy is quackery. It is not.
I object to the phrase "homeopathic quacks" based on its redundancy.
"What do you call homeopathic medicine that has been proven effective?"
"Medicine"
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
1) Socially repelling people tend not to fare well in organizations they preceive as first and foremost social.
2) People who worship themselves as God, or who trust themselves over God, and look to themselves and man as the source of light and truth, tend not to fare well in churches where the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are God, and are the primary object of faith and the source of light and truth.
3) Dogmatist, with their fundamentalist, norrow-minded, and cemented notions of the "truth", tend not to fare well in religions open to new revelations and growth in faith and truth.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Wade's a goldmine for irony. He's one of the most dogmatic people I've encountered online. Especially hilarious was his comment about "religions open to new revelations." What religion would that be, Wade? Certainly not the LDS church. Revelation died with Brigham Young, and they reversed most of his revelations anyway.
I wonder how Wade's bizarre "lock & key" ideas would go down if he talked about them in his social organization?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
While not strictly a MAD quote, this section from a Paul Rolly column in the Salt Lake Tribune does help explain where President Boyd K. Packer is coming from in his stance on masturbation:
I am reminded of a bill introduced in the House several years ago by former Democratic Rep. Frank Pignanelli.
That bill made it explicitly illegal to have sex with animals.
It was voted down in the House, with one representative stating, “Rep. Pignanelli just doesn’t understand the pressures on the farm in rural Utah.”
Seems masturbation is unfair both to wives and livestock.
