wenglund wrote:You continue to unwittingly make my case. The gospel is about coming to Christ and becoming like him. "Truth" is but one of several means to achieving that end, though only in so far as those "truths" are relevant to that end. Not all "truths" will free us from chains of sin and spiritual death and free us to become like Christ. In fact, some "truths" may distract us from that end, and perhaps enslave us in counterproductive obsessions--as the case may be. This is a "truth" that you seem incapable of getting--which is, in part, why you and others like you haven't been called to the important task of constructing the curriculum for the Church. This is a position which needs to be filled by people who know what they are doing and know what the Church is all about.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
In other words Wade, you want someone well versed in the art of doublethink:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Orwell, George (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd, London, part 1, chapter 3, pp 32
mapman wrote:The problem I have with these stories isn't that God is disciplining his children, but that he is apparently punishing innocent people. Why would God have all the children and animals killed?
Why do you look at death as punishment? It is only punishment to the unrepentant. To all others it is a reward.
Though I'm sure I've said my fair share of stupid things at MDDB....I'm glad I haven't made this list (yet).
"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
I thought this post was interesting, and since I believe it will soon be removed I thought I'd copy it here. The thread title is "Censorship! The Unacceptable Face Of Mormon Dialogue And Discussion Board"
Will Schryver wrote:Again, if it is true I have "hurt" people (I very seriously doubt it), I will only repeat that I have never hurt anyone that didn't need hurting.
calmoriah wrote:It was a great solution. I've never posted there for a very good reason.
What I don't understand is why you felt you had to justify any past remarks made there.
I attempted to justify nothing. As far as I'm concerned, nothing I have done there required justification. I get that you don't agree with my assessment. What I don't get is that you have willingly attempted to perpetuate a false image of me as one whose typical online behavior has consisted of "coarse" language and also aligned yourself with an apostate mob in an attempt to effect a public lynching of a fellow Saint.
What I don't understand is how you justify what you have done here. I find it despicable. I would never do such a thing. And I consider the occasional slip of a coarse term here and there to be far less a crime than that of joining with an apostate lynch mob.
I'd rather have one jwhitlock next to me in a foxhole than 1000 of the politically correct, easily manipulated weaklings who are becoming so prevalent in the Church these days.
So loyalty above all else? That's a recipe for disaster.
William Schryver wrote:I think this thread has fully run its course.
I've said what I wanted to say. Others have done likewise.
So I'm locking it.
So the op of a thread can shut it down at anytime?
Tacenda wrote:And for the many that have so many family left out...it can hurt, alot....
And yet that exclusion is entirely of thier own making.
The Temple is open to anyone who will humble themselves and prepare themselves to enter the House of the Lord.
That they refuse to sanctify themselves is THEIR burden, not ours.
This is a laughably bad argument. Yeah, they can see their children married if they get baptized in your church, and pay tithing for a year. You're a delusional ass selek1.
When people go on the attack against other people's faith, particularly when their attacks become the prevailing aspect of their ministries, this suggest to me that they lack the strength of conviction in the positive persuasive power of their own beliefs, and need to cut others down to their size in order to compete. That we LDS tend to confine ourselves to preaching the positive message of the restored gospel and defending the faith, is a testament to the strength of our position.
To sum up, those who attach another's faith or faithfulness lack conviction of their own position.....
Besides, for we believing LDS ...
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
And there we have Wade "3rd segment in the Human Mopopede" Englund attaching the faith and faithfulness of everyone.
CASteinman wrote:Gay marriage in the temple would horrify me. Women being ordained to positions in the priesthood -- not so much. But I don't think it will happen. I don't want it to happen. But, since I think that there are ways that they already function in the priesthood, this is not horrifying to me. It would not actually -- in my mind -- represent as huge a change as it would appear. But gay marriage would require repudiation of multiple important doctrines.