Tobin wrote: Of course I'm not taking your observation that it is spiritual abuse seriously and by acknowledging the limitations of Joseph Smith, I'm being reasonable. The parallels between Joseph Smith's version of the endowment and freemasonry are stark and unnecessary (silly in my parlance). I understand it was Joseph Smith's idea of what mattered as a spiritual transition and that he used freemasonry to get there. I don't view it as necessary and the goal here could have been achieved much more easily. The use of blood oaths and other elements detract from what is going on and what it means. Others through the years have made similar mistakes in the changes to it. Do I believe the true essence of endowment is there? Certainly, but there is a lot of non-sense and silliness in-between including the clothing involved.
Valentinus wrote:I thought Lavina Anderson and Janice Allred defined the specific definitions of spiritual/ecclesiastical abuse when they published the Mormon Alliance Case Reports Vol. I.
Now...if I could only find that list of definitions....
Why bother with Sunstone tripe it cuts no quarter with me.
I wasn't aware that the Mormon Alliance was officially affiliated with Sunstone...could provide evidence of such? Or is it simply based on Anderson's and Allred's participation with Sunstone that bothers you? If that is the case...this just got awkward.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Theodore Roosevelt
Nightlion wrote: Why bother with Sunstone tripe it cuts no quarter with me.
I wasn't aware that the Mormon Alliance was officially affiliated with Sunstone...could provide evidence of such? Or is it simply based on Anderson's and Allred's participation with Sunstone that bothers you? If that is the case...this just got awkward.
Should I just broaden it to academics in general, is that awkward enough for ya? People that think their thoughts about God count while they ignore him and refuse to get real with him and pooh pooh it out of hand and still want their thoughts to count just because it certainly ought to, ya know, somehow or another count, because they bothered to think it up and love to do the research and it would be rude not to value their time. RRRRRAAAASSSSBBBBEEEERRRRYYY!
Valentinus wrote: I wasn't aware that the Mormon Alliance was officially affiliated with Sunstone...could provide evidence of such? Or is it simply based on Anderson's and Allred's participation with Sunstone that bothers you? If that is the case...this just got awkward.
Should I just broaden it to academics in general, is that awkward enough for ya? People that think their thoughts about God count while they ignore him and refuse to get real with him and pooh pooh it out of hand and still want their thoughts to count just because it certainly ought to, ya know, somehow or another count, because they bothered to think it up and love to do the research and it would be rude not to value their time. RRRRRAAAASSSSBBBBEEEERRRRYYY!
Well this wasn't a real response to my the CFR I asked for. Rather than give a coherent and constructive response you reply with 2 sentences. One was a question to bait. The other was a childlike temper tantrum in the form of a really long run on sentence that made no sense.
Anyway...this will be a reminder for me NOT to take you seriously from here on out.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -Theodore Roosevelt
Valentinus wrote: Anyway...this will be a reminder for me NOT to take you seriously from here on out.
It is worth noting that Nightlion is a prophet. Indeed he is the ONLY valid prophet in these Latter Days, and the only real Mormon. So his communications have a special flavor.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
moksha wrote:Being made to lie about masturbation because it seems essential for meeting some raise bar missionary requirement seems a form of spiritual abuse.
Hinckley was a scolding nanny acting like he knew righteousness better than anyone else although he proved otherwise by never once teaching righteousness in sixty years of opportunity. I have reasoned suspicions that he was a very bad man.
Valentinus wrote: Anyway...this will be a reminder for me NOT to take you seriously from here on out.
It is worth noting that Nightlion is a prophet. Indeed he is the ONLY valid prophet in these Latter Days, and the only real Mormon. So his communications have a special flavor.
If I had said that of myself my witness could not be true.
Nightlion wrote: Should I just broaden it to academics in general, is that awkward enough for ya? People that think their thoughts about God count while they ignore him and refuse to get real with him and pooh pooh it out of hand and still want their thoughts to count just because it certainly ought to, ya know, somehow or another count, because they bothered to think it up and love to do the research and it would be rude not to value their time. RRRRRAAAASSSSBBBBEEEERRRRYYY!
Well this wasn't a real response to my the CFR I asked for. Rather than give a coherent and constructive response you reply with 2 sentences. One was a question to bait. The other was a childlike temper tantrum in the form of a really long run on sentence that made no sense.
Anyway...this will be a reminder for me NOT to take you seriously from here on out.
If you failed to understand what I said seriousness is the least of your concerns.
Don't worry Valentinus, you'll catch on to Nightlion's style soon enough.
In this case, though, I'm kinda with him. If the temple covenants really are as serious as the church says they are, and if not living up to each and every one of them in their entirety really will put you under Satan's power, then leading people to take those covenants while being unprepared is abusive. And is anyone seriously going to argue that we prepare people for the temple adequately? Our temple preparation classes teach almost nothing about what's actually going to happen in the temple, but most importantly, we don't even tell people what they are going to be covenanting until it's already too late to back out. And the stupid thing is that there's no doctrinal reason for it. The only things we vow not to reveal about the temple are the specific signs and tokens. There's absolutely no reason we can't tell prospective missionaries and brides "here is what you will be expected to promise." The secrecy around everything regarding the temple is entirely cultural.
I don't think that's exactly what Nightlion was getting at, but that's my take on it.
