All or Nothing? An Apologist View of NOMs

[_bcspace]

Assuming they are no longer trying to believe, NOM's have no place in the Church.

[_Darth J]

That's a really profound way of looking at things. You know, I have maintained for some time now that the Loch Ness Monster killed JFK, and then faked Elvis' death but really abducted him in a flying saucer. Some of the people I talk to take issue with certain aspects of my claims, but I just advise them to put the difficult parts on the shelf and wait patiently for the day when a cogent reason to believe any of this arises.

Whoops! Did I make it seem as if "put it on the shelf" can be used to justify belief in absolutely anything? Silly me!

Another conspiracy theorist. I love conspiracy theories. Remember that one about Schryver being Nibley's son?

I urge you to pursue these theories, and put your doubts on a shelf. One day, I hope you get a final answer!

That's a really good idea. You know, what would be an even better idea would be for you to produce any comment at all that I made about Schryver being Nibley's son. I think that would be a good first step in showing that you're not the same pathetic troll you've always been, whose presence on the board consists of your hysterical us-versus-them caricatures, your verbally fellating Daniel Peterson, your vacuous mental masturbation about whether objective reality exists, and your general efforts to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio.

But thanks anyway for your usual failed attempt at sarcasm when faced with a problem in Mopologetics that you are incapable of addressing.

[_Darth J]

Assuming they are no longer trying to believe, NOM's have no place in the Church.

You don't believe what the Church teaches, either. And anyway, the Church is a pretty big tent. You've already conceded that there is nothing in LDS doctrine that precludes gay sex, nor any official position as to whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or whether the Church is true.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23564

[_Darth J]

How do these two statements fit together? How is Dehlin supposed to signal he isn't a "regular" Mormon if not with a label?

Simon never concerned himself with consistency before. Why would he change now? Especially with a handle like "static"?

See, the thing is that labels are bad and we shouldn't divide people, but we must also recognize that some Mormons are not true Scotsmen.

[_jskains]

Assuming they are no longer trying to believe, NOM's have no place in the Church.

You don't believe what the Church teaches, either. And anyway, the Church is a pretty big tent. You've already conceded that there is nothing in LDS doctrine that precludes gay sex, nor any official position as to whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or whether the Church is true.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=23564

If a man should li with another man as he would a woman, it shall be an abomination. Pretty harsh.

JMS

[_Darth J]

If a man should li with another man as he would a woman, it shall be an abomination. Pretty harsh.

JMS

Leviticus, which is where you're getting that, also says we can't eat shellfish. I'm not aware of anyone being denied a temple recommend because they went to Red Lobster.

[_moksha]

Assuming they are no longer trying to believe, NOM's have no place in the Church.

This statement in itself shows the great diversity of beliefs within the Church.

Some economists believe that accurate economic predictions can be made, while other economists do not believe that totally accurate predictions can be made. Bc as an economist would suggest that all who do not share the vision of accurate prediction would be declared noneconomists and would not inherit the Austrian School's Kingdom.

[_Bond James Bond]

I'm not aware of anyone being denied a temple recommend because they went to Red Lobster.

I fear for those people unlucky enough to have mixed wool and linen. (Does that extend to pairing wool socks with linen pants?)

Deut 22:11

[_static]

How do these two statements fit together? How is Dehlin supposed to signal he isn't a "regular" Mormon if not with a label?

I'm talking about intent to appear as something you're not. For example, starting a website called "Mormon Stories" when you believe very little about Mormonism is deceiving.

That's a really good idea. You know, what would be an even better idea would be for you to produce any comment at all that I made about Schryver being Nibley's son. I think that would be a good first step in showing that you're not the same pathetic troll you've always been, whose presence on the board consists of your hysterical us-versus-them caricatures, your verbally fellating Daniel Peterson, your vacuous mental masturbation about whether objective reality exists, and your general efforts to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio.

But thanks anyway for your usual failed attempt at sarcasm when faced with a problem in Mopologetics that you are incapable of addressing.

First, produce any comment that I made that specifically accused you of participating in that thread. I only asked if you remembered it (or read it).

On Labels: many labels are useful. Without them we wouldn't even have names. I think there are certain types of labels that aren't useful, however, as I've stated above.

[_Yoda]

So, Static, just to be clear, you seem to have a different view than BC. BC is very vocal about being an "all or nothing" guy. He thinks that NOMs don't have a place in the Church.

I don't know...maybe I am not a NOM in the sense that the label is known?

All I do know is that I was genuinely helped by Dehlin. I have also been helped by Dan.

As far as Dehlin not being genuine, I don't really think that is true. I don't think he is being anymore disingenuous than we are on MDB, as far as the goal of this website.

I actually have a very close TBM friend ask me about MDB on Facebook. I told her that she is more than welcome to check it out. However, because the board is simply named "Mormondiscussions", she assumed it was a strictly pro-Mormon board like "Stay LDS.org". I explained to her that MDB is a debate board, and there are folks here who are Church members, and defend the faith, and there are also folks here who are bitter against the Church, and that sometimes the discussion gets a little rough.

Like our site, where we do spell things out on the first page, Dehlin does the same. He explains his personal view, and his goals. I find him pretty up front and honest about his goals, which is why I am confused when people like Bob Crockett paint him as a "wolf in sheep's clothing".

His goal isn't to lead people away from the Church. His goal is to help people feel good about their choices, whatever they might be. I really don't see how that is harmful. As I said, it personally helped me find peace, and, I think, overall, become a better member.