Mormons ignoring Jesus as quoted in the gospel of Matthew

[Dr Exiled]

I think the point, MG, is that your church leaders preach against situational ethics:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/sea ... nal+ethics

Do you think they are wrong? Perhaps need a little nuance?

Earlier in the thread, pg. 5, Morley posted quotes that reference ‘situational ethics’ . I actually agree with each of the statements made and the one another poster made soon after. I would invite you to reread the first (mine) post back on pg. 7 and then try to fathom how I can apparently take two positions at once. Well, not at once, but next to each other.

Regards,
MG

It's easy to see why Mormons contradict themselves at times. The leaders must be supported at all costs, an absolute requirement of membership and the defender class, despite reality.

I don't consider myself an absolutionist. However, it's hard to come up with scenarios where treating people like I want to be treated is situational.

[MG 2.0]

...I would invite you to reread the first (mine) post back on pg. 7 and then try to fathom how I can apparently take two positions at once. Well, not at once, but next to each other.

Because cornered rats try to bite.

It appears you may not want to answer my two questions. Doing so could put you in a tight spot.

there's that tell again.

You are going absolutely nowhere.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Because cornered rats try to bite.

Yes they do.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

What say we just bypass your(clearly outlined) strategy and go back to the topic…

You do see what you’re doing here, right?

Or maybe not.

Care to answer my questions?

Regards,
MG

and again, the tell.

Answering questions by asking a question seems to be the norm around here today.

Care to answer mine?

[¥akaSteelhead]

"thou shalt not steal"

If I had to break a window and steal a defibrillator from a store to utilize it on someone on the sidewalk having a heart attack - I would and can easily justify that action. I can't see any situation or context under which my owning another human as property could be justified.


But MG's god condones it, gives instruction around the practice. Nowhere in the scriptures is it condemned.

[MG 2.0]

Earlier in the thread, pg. 5, Morley posted quotes that reference ‘situational ethics’ . I actually agree with each of the statements made and the one another poster made soon after. I would invite you to reread the first (mine) post back on pg. 7 and then try to fathom how I can apparently take two positions at once. Well, not at once, but next to each other.

Regards,
MG

It's easy to see why Mormons contradict themselves at times.

I haven’t contradicted myself. You are falling for Marcus’s tricks.

The force is strong with that one. On one side.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

You do see what you’re doing here, right?

Or maybe not.

Care to answer my questions?

Regards,
MG

and again, the tell.

Answering questions by asking a question seems to be the norm around here today.

Care to answer mine?

Oh well…

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Earlier in the thread, pg. 5, Morley posted quotes that reference ‘situational ethics’ . I actually agree with each of the statements made and the one another poster made soon after. I would invite you to reread the first (mine) post back on pg. 7 and then try to fathom how I can apparently take two positions at once. Well, not at once, but next to each other.

Regards,
MG

It's easy to see why Mormons contradict themselves at times. The leaders must be supported at all costs, an absolute requirement of membership and the defender class, despite reality...

seriously. I've read some of the most jaw-dropping explanations from Mormons attempting to remain loyal.

one really bizarre one was midgley's statement that if black men had been allowed the priesthood earlier than 1978, the Mormon church would have become known as a "black church" (his phrase), and wouldn't have been as accepted as it was (also his racist conclusion). in other words, racist policies grew the LDS church faster than non-racist policies would have. what a position to take.

[Morley]

Answering questions by asking a question seems to be the norm around here today.

Care to answer mine?

It is relevant, right?

Though the question is not particularly relevant, and though you rarely return the favor, having left most of my queries unaddressed--Sure, I'll answer.

So if I walked in on some adult assaulting my grandson (or any child for that matter) and bashed that person's head in with my cast iron frying pan and they die I’m as guilty (and wrong) as any mass shooter, or rapist murderer?

Yes, you'd be guilty--but not as guilty as some mass murderer. That's why we have different gradients for different kinds of killing. These gradients are written into law--even the Old Testament Bronze Age laws given to Israel by God.

However, if I cut off the head of a drunken fellow who had some brass-colored LPs I wanted to take on vacation with me, that might be considered a really bad murder.

Now, to show you can reciprocate, please answer ¥akaSteelhead's question about slavery.

MG would you volunteer to be someone's slave under the guidelines of the Old Testament?

[MG 2.0]

I don't consider myself an absolutionist.

Do you mean abolitionist?

Or on the other hand are you saying that you have the power to forgive sin?

Not quite sure where you’re going with that statement unless you mean you’re not an absolutist.

Regards,
MG