Simon Belmont wrote:I mean the Hinckley who is among the same group of leaders of the Church that you continually quote from when they support your position. It is amusing that, when they do not support your position, you write them off as "oh, he was a liar because he said something that wasn't entirely true on 60 minutes."
I quote from LDS leaders to show what they are teaching. That does not mean that I agree with what is being taught, nor would that inference be made by a a person at or above the intellectual functioning of reading books without sounding out the words.
Simon, perhaps there's another LDS discussion board somewhere where it's mostly junior high kids who are posting. They might be impressed with what you pass off as reasoning.
Might.P.S. "oh, he was a liar because he said something that wasn't entirely true on 60 minutes."
Chapter 31: Honesty," Gospel Principles
When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.But I don't know that we teach that. I don't know that we emphasize that.
I'm sorry, Simon, but at this point I must conclude that your consistent avoidance of the issue shows that you do have a double standard about criticizing someone's cherished beliefs.
Not true... Jeffery R. Holland's talk, for example, was more about defending our beliefs than criticizing traditional Christianity. I was there for that particular talk, and I remember it well. There was not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where we stand and where our critics are incorrect.
Dr. James White's essay, which can be found at the following link:
http://vintage.aomin.org/ldstheology.htmlis more about defending traditional Christian beliefs than criticizing Mormonism. There is not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where traditional Christians stand and where Mormons are incorrect.
I am glad that Simon Belmont has no problem with a person of another faith defending his beliefs by contrasting those beliefs with false ones, and by summarizing the historical evolution of a religion's theology to show why it is heretical.
And yes, unlike internet defenders of the faith, I do read what the Church and its leaders teaches.
Why, Darth J? Why do you read what the leaders of a Church you have forsaken say?
You have said before that you sometimes enjoy going to mass in the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Why do you participate in a church that arose from the Great Apostasy teaching the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?
Since your calling this a bad analogy decidedly ignores that when Elder Richards criticizes traditional Christian creeds, he is necessarily criticizing denominations that believe in those creeds, this is merely further proof of how "the moral voice of the board" believes that morality regarding criticism of someone's cherished beliefs is a one-way street.
Richards's talk was not mean spirited or mocking, either. It is your cynicism that makes it so.
Let's test that. I'm going to take a passage from LeGrand Richard's talk, then turn it around on LDS beliefs. I am sure you will then agree that it would be perfectly fine for a Protestant minister to say it.
Elder Richards:
I would like to mention one other thing that I think is a creed that is “an abomination in the sight of God,” and I shall mention it but briefly. At the time that Joseph Smith had that marvelous vision and saw that glorified Christ, he saw the same Jesus that came out of the tomb. He was the same one who appeared unto his apostles and had them feel the prints in his hands and the wound in his side. He was the same one who ascended into heaven in the presence of five hundred of the brethren at that time. This same Jesus appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith when the whole Christian world was worshiping an essence.
There is not time to go into a lot of detail, but their catechism says that their god has “no body; he has no parts; he has no passions.” That means that he has no eyes; he cannot see. He has no ears; he cannot hear your prayers. He has no voice; he cannot speak a word to the prophets. Some of them even say “he sits on the top of a topless throne.” How absurd! To me it seems that their description of the god that they believe in is about the best description of nothing that can be written.Hypothetical Protestant minister:
"I would like to mention one other thing that I think is a creed that is “an abomination in the sight of God,” and I shall mention it but briefly. At the time that Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God and Jesus--when he finally decided on what his official story about this experience would be--he told people that God has a physical body. That means that God is not above all things. He is not above space and time, he is subject to them because he is limited to the physical universe. Such a god is not omnipotent. While the Christian world was teaching belief in an omnipotent God, Joseph Smith taught his followers to believe in a created, limited god who is not Deity in any real Christian sense.
There is not time to go into a lot of detail, but their Doctrine and Covenants says that their god has a physical body like a man's, but perfected. That means he has a digestive system; does he need to eat? He a lymphatic system; does he get sick? He has a brain; can he fit omniscience into a human brain? Some of them even say lives on a planet orbiting a star called Kolob. How absurd! To me it seems that their description of the god that they believe in is about the best description of a pagan god that can be written."
This is not hate speech. At least, that's the response I would expect from the fair-minded and intellectually honest Simon Belmont.
The unsupported assertion of a lifetime professional cheerleader for the Church (Hinckley) is incorrect.
Except when it supports your position, right?
Let's learn how to address questions of fact, the Simon Belmont Way!And just for fun, we're going to flagrantly disregard Godwin's law showing how you, too, can learn how to argue facts just like Simon!
1. Let's say you're on a message board discussing, I don't know, different systems of government.
2. Simon Belmont gets on and makes numerous sweeping assertions about what National Socialism was all about during the Third Reich.
3. Another poster disputes Simon Belmont's assertions about the policies and philosophy of the Nazi regime. In order to show that Simon Belmont is mistaken, this poster refers to actual statements by Hitler, Himmler, and other leaders in the Third Reich.
4. Simon Belmont accuses that person of quote mining.
5. The poster points out that "quote mining" means taking things out of context to misrepresent what someone said.
6. Simon Belmont again accuses that person of quote mining.
7. Simon Belmont then provides a statement from Nazi leadership explaining the basis for the Final Solution.
8. The poster whom Simon is addressing explains why the assumptions and beliefs about race and ethnicity underlying the Final Solution are incorrect.
9. Simon Belmont retorts, "Oh, so you only like Nazis when they support your position!"
In other words,
1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.
No. In other words:
Your "gotcha" game is predictable.
LDS teachings, although you would like them to remain static, are continually revealed.
Here you go! Show everyone what I've misrepresented!
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15581&start=0