|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,427 Year: 3,684/9,624 Month: 555/974 Week: 168/276 Day: 8/34 Hour: 1/1 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Why people want to believe there is a god. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
gene90 Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]As many Christians like to say, the OT is superseded by the NT.[/QUOTE]
[/B] That's irrelevant because the OT still is relevant to the Christian faith because Christianity inherited Jewish beliefs. Therefore it stands to reason that if it is in the OT, and not done away with in the NT, it still stands. Also, I want to point out that "many Christians" do not decide the truth, the fallacy you are using is the Argument from Authority. It should be noted that quoting an Episcopalian minister's personal opinion of a theological issue is also the same fallacy, unless it is only done to provide context for the argument. That particular case is ambiguous. Finally, even if you were to disregard the entire OT for whatever reason it matters not, there are references to Hell in the NT that are just as good as the OT.
[QUOTE][B]Matthew 5:30 KJVAnd if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.[/QUOTE] [/B] [QUOTE][B]Matthew 16:18 KJVAnd I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.[/QUOTE] [/B] [QUOTE][B]Matthew 23:33 KJVYe serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?[/QUOTE] [/B]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
gene90 Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]It carries a lot of negative connotations but it isn't really the fire and brimstone I was taught.[/QUOTE]
[/B] Maybe your childhood oppressors got it wrong? Wouldn't surprise me much. Besides my concept of Hell is very different from theres anyway. How much material have you got in the original Hebrew?
[QUOTE][B]Perhaps the Prince of Darkness means to make a similar distinction.[/QUOTE] [/B] I'd love to have some fun with that at certain televangelists' expense but I'm backing down.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
John Inactive Member |
quote: My childhood oppressors got pretty much everything wrong actually, even by their own standards.
quote: I've been using a program called "DAVAR" It is basically an electronic bible featuring several translations, one of which is Hebrew. Very cool application, and free too.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://rain.prohosting.com/davar/ ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days)  Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Here is a listing of source books and articles of scholars and authors who claim that the early Christians did not think of hell in the way that hell is thought of by many Christians today. Here is a snippet: Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment "Of the many English Bible translations we searched, the King James Bible had the most number of cases where we found the word "hell" in the Old Testament. It translated the Hebrew word "Sheol" as "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times, and "pit" 3 times. Almost without exception, all the other leading Protestant Bibles didn't have the nerve to do what the King's translators did, that is, take the Hebrew word "Sheol" where everyone went, according to the Old Testament teachings, and divide it into "hell," a place for the unrighteous, and "grave" or "pit," presumably the place for the righteous. They translated this word according to their theology, and not according to the Hebrew. Most of the translations did not have the word "hell" in any part of the Old Testament. The ones that did, have mentioned it only a handfull of times, always from the Hebrew word "Sheol" which they translated the vast majority of times "grave, underworld, etc.." Those translations that use the word "hell" are so inconsistent with it, that it is impossible to determine which Scriptures clearly refers to "hell" and which refers to "grave." Where one translation had "hell," another had "grave." In other words, those translations that tried to put "hell" into the Old Testament couldn't agree with each other as to which verses spoke of "hell" and which spoke of the "grave." BTW, Gene, don't you think it is a little rich of you to quote the forum rules at me when you have ignored several points and questions of mine on another topic? http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellScholars.htm
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nos482 Inactive Member |
Originally posted by schrafinator:
Here is a listing of source books and articles of scholars and authors who claim that the early Christians did not think of hell in the way that hell is thought of by many Christians today. Here is a snippet: Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment[/b] I've always stated that modern Christianity is more interested in control and punishment than in love and tolerance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
gene90 Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Hey Schrafinator,
As a non-Protestant with an unusual (by Christian standards) view of Hell that's an interesting page. But perhaps you could clear something up. The author quotes Young's Literal Translation:
[QUOTE][B]and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night-to the ages of the ages.[/QUOTE] [/B] Then the author uses this passage to conclude:
[QUOTE][B]There is no "hell" or "eternal punishment" in entire Bible.[/QUOTE] [/B] So basically we have a pit of fire and brimstone where the "torment" never ends, as opposed to a place with the name "Hell" where we have "eternal punishment"? Still smells like sulfur. Ignored your points? I've always ignored points from the first debate I had with a YEC. Too many small issues that don't interest me. Nobody has called me on it before. John: thanks for the link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I'm sorry that you think that the misogyny in LDS culture is a small, irrelevant point that isn't interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
gene90 Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]The passage makes no mention of the lake of brimstone as a place for sinners. It mentions the Devil, and it mentions the false prophet, but not sinners.[/QUOTE]
[/B] Does it *have* to mention that sinners go there too? It certainly implies it now, don't you think? I believe the pronoun used is "they" and there is a certain amount of ambiguity. By the way, will you concede that the claim of the author, that "there is no 'hell' or eternal punishment in (sic) entire Bible" is false? Because in the quote directly above the obviously false claim is the refutation of that very claim.
[QUOTE][B]I'm sorry that you think that the misogyny in LDS culture is a small, irrelevant point that isn't interesting.[/QUOTE] [/B] I wonder why non-members who are not affected by LDS practice, are concerned about it at all. Especially since I certainly haven't seen any of the alleged 'domination' or whatever it is you claim is going on and I wouldn't stand for it if there were. I find it somewhat offensive that you are accusing my culture of a hatred of women. More offensive is that, since I am a male, and a part of LDS culture, the (heretofore unmentioned and undoubtedly unintended) implication is that I'm either one of those 'oppressors' or am being conditioned to become one. Remember that any categorical claims regarding LDS cultural practices are also claims that involve me. You also called my perspective 'insider thinking'. Well to me it is no different than the blatant insider thinking sometimes used when we tell a YEC with little science background that he lacks the credentials and/or information to argue with people who have degrees or a background in science. That is also insider thinking, and its friend the argument from authority, is it not? And is it not a practical issue? I think it was Larry Handlin who once asked an opponent (paraphrasing), "If I were seriously ill, would I seek advice from a doctor or a janitor?" I would tend to go after advice from somebody who would likely know. Another point that needs to be made regarding LDS treatment of women is the Spotlight Fallacy. [This message has been edited by gene90, 09-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I wonder why non-members who are not affected by LDS practice, are concerned about it at all.[/QUOTE] That's kind of like asking why women in America should be concerned with women in Africa who are subjected to female genital mutilation, since they are not affected by the practice. I am a human being. Any institution that encourages and promotes putting limits on what a person can do solely on the basis of gender, as LDS does, is an affront to me as a human being. I would not be living up to my values and morality if I remained silent. In addition, don't you think it is cruel and hypocritical, given that LDS markets itself as being all about "family", that they do not allow non LDS family and loved ones to witness the weddings of their LDS children/friends? Don't you think that this is a way of pulling the LDS convert away from their families and friends and telling them that only LDS people are "worthy" and "right"? << Especially since I certainly haven't seen any of the alleged 'domination' or whatever it is you claim is going on and I wouldn't stand for it if there were.>> The misogyny is there in the hearts and minds of the women, as well. That is how it is propagated. The women are told that they shouldn't want to be in the preisthood (you could substitute "boardroom" or "workplace" in the general culture). Good women support their families and run the houshold because it is there place to do so; God (the natural order of things) says so. I am not talking about blatant brutalization. I am talking about a culture which relegates ALL women and ALL men in the LDS church to certain roles. This is oppression.
quote: Well, is it not an undeniable fact that a little LDS boy could potentially think "I could be a Bishop or even the Prophet someday" and that it could actually happen? However, if a little LDS girl thought about being a Bishop or a Prophet, it just isn't gonna happen, or at least is EXTREMELY unlikely, and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure? What about a little LDS girl not wanting to get married and have kids right away, or at all? What kind of pressure to conform is she going to get from an early age? What about gay people? Is it or is it not true that no women ever has any authority over any man in the administrative hierarchy of the LDS church?
quote: I am aware.
quote: It is different, Gene, because I could learn every little doctrinal detail about LDS and memorize the Book of Mormon, and I could interview every current and former Mormon church member alive, but you would still tell me that I don't "really understand" because I am not a believer. You believe what you do because you claim that the holy spirit came over you and told you it was true. I have not had that experience, so you can always trump me whenever you feel like it by saying that the holy spirit spoke to you and told you whatever. You are using the insider thinking fallacy, and that is why.
quote: If I am going to seek a critical and objective view of a religion, I am not going to ask people who are proponents of that religion. This, by definition, would not get me a critical, relatively unbiased analysis.
quote: To be fair to LDS, most religions, and many stripes of Christianity, not just LDS, do not treat women very well. OTOH, there are many sites on the internet containing long, long lists of stories from ex-Mormons who have been abused and intitutionally marginalized by the misogyny of the church. Here is just one; Recovery from Mormonism - the Mormon Church Also, here is some info regarding the LDS church's effort to suppress a scientific paper from being published. As someone who seems to have as much love of science as you do, this might disturb you: Page not found - American Atheists ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
gene90 Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]If so, then why bother arguing if it's all just a sermon in the end.[/QUOTE]
[/B] I don't know, why did you bring it up? By the way, I seem to have overlooked the part where you conceded that an author you quoted was obviously wrong, contradicted by his own quote.
[QUOTE][B]If you mean that there is no eternal punnishment concept of sinners in the bible, rather than eternal punishment of Satan, etc., then I am not sure it has been refuted. [/QUOTE] [/B] The author did not specify sinners, he said that 'there was no eternal punishment in the Bible'.
[QUOTE][B]In addition, don't you think it is cruel and hypocritical, given that LDS markets itself as being all about "family", that they do not allow non LDS family and loved ones to witness the weddings of their LDS children/friends? Don't you think that this is a way of pulling the LDS convert away from their families and friends and telling them that only LDS people are "worthy" and "right"?[/QUOTE] [/B] No, it is protecting the spiritual worthiness of the temple. And it isn't just non-LDS people, it is people that do not live righteously, as defined by the church. Also, the couple can have a ring-exchanging ceremony outside the temple first if they would prefer, it is a common practice. However the temple ordinance is required. Of course as a lot of couples aren't ready for the temple when they wed, quite a few have a civil marriage outside of church workings and get sealed later.
[QUOTE][B]The misogyny is there in the hearts and minds of the women, as well.[/QUOTE] [/B] What you mean is, most LDS women don't want the priesthood, just like I don't want the bishopric. What you mean is, that this issue is being forced at the church from the outside, and is being trumped almost exclusively by those that watch from the sidelines, and those who are, quite simply, enemies of the church.
[QUOTE][B]Good women support their families and run the houshold because it is there place to do so; God (the natural order of things) says so.[/QUOTE] [/B] Yeah, I would expect a woman ("good" or not) to help support the family and do her part running the household. If this is a typo and you are implying that I think that women should all be stay-at-home-moms that is not what I think, I think mothers should be equals with men as far as holding down professional careers, etc. However I also hold to the position that men and women do have their own roles to play. Just as the sexes are biologically different they are different spiritually. Left to our own devices we are not equal: We have the priesthood because it is our lot and I believe that it helps make up the difference.
[QUOTE][B]However, if a little LDS girl thought about being a Bishop or a Prophet, it just isn't gonna happen, or at least is EXTREMELY unlikely, and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure?[/QUOTE] [/B] You make it sound like we males all have ambitions to be bishops or prophets, as if we can file a job application with God and have an interview. Doesn't work that way. Bishops and prophets are chosen by prophecy. If I were to ever be a bishop it would not be by my own choice; I could decline the offer but there is absolutely nothing I could ever do to set about *trying to become* a bishop, except of course living a good life. Your view of the church seems to be similar to that of a competitive marketplace and power-jostling. If you can find a ward that acts like that I'll show you a ward that's fallen from grace in a huge way.
[QUOTE][B]I am not talking about blatant brutalization. I am talking about a culture which relegates ALL women and ALL men in the LDS church to certain roles. This is oppression.[/QUOTE] [/B] How is it oppression to have a division of labor? If you see life in that way then you have been oppressed by birth, simply by being relegated to a gender. By virtue of your very biology you are oppressed. It seems to me that if you have sort of dismal view of the world then you need to work things out with God Himself rather than with a church because there are more fundamental issues than in human society, the workplace, or the church. By the way, if you aren't talking about 'blatant brutalization' why did you compare LDS culture to female genital mutilation?
[QUOTE][B] What about a little LDS girl not wanting to get married and have kids right away, or at all?[/QUOTE] [/B] I don't know about little girls that don't want to have kids right away but if I can think of a few LDS women about my age who are more interested in education so that they can have careers and also missions rather than having marrying and having kids. I can also think of clear messages from the church leadership telling the young adults that they need a college education to survive and imploring them to go out and get one.
[QUOTE][B]What kind of pressure to conform is she going to get from an early age? [/QUOTE] [/B] She's going to have pressure to live a good life and be worthy of a temple marriage and possibly serve a mission. That's exactly the same pressure (or perhaps I should say, 'encouragement') the young men receive.
[QUOTE][B]and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure?[/QUOTE] [/B] We don't have 'huge upheavals' in the 'power structure'. Look at LDS history. We sometimes lose people but that's all there is to it.
[QUOTE][B]It is different, Gene, because I could learn every little doctrinal detail about LDS and memorize the Book of Mormon, and I could interview every current and former Mormon church member alive, but you would still tell me that I don't "really understand" because I am not a believer.[/QUOTE] [/B] You can read material on carbon dating all day long but I wouldn't take you as seriously as I would somebody who does the test. Interviewing members would be an excellent thing for you to do, however. I heartily recommend it. Yes I can trump you any time I like by bring up the spirit but I'm working around that.
[QUOTE][B]If I am going to seek a critical and objective view of a religion, I am not going to ask people who are proponents of that religion.[/QUOTE] [/B] So, instead, you are going to get a 'critical and objective view' from people who are openly opposed to the religion? Look, the site you mentioned about my church allegedly interfering with a publication (more likely some misguided official at BYU acting at his own discretion than the church itself) also is pushing this:Page not found - American Atheists Apparently we can't recognize lands that are a vital part of our history. These guys are atheists. They sit around from nine to five thinking about waging holy war against religion in every way, shape, and form. Hardly an unbiased source. Another source you used was a site that specializes in opposing church progress. They are like the atheists only LDS are their particular specialty. You should look for unbiased sources but good luck in finding any. We have what Nos calls a 'persecution complex'. A look at history will show why. One more thing, are you actually after a 'fair and uncritical view' of LDS culture and religion, or are you just debating the point? If it is the former then you are breaking a tenet of sociology.http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2d4.htm [QUOTE][B] What about gay people? [/QUOTE] [/B] What about them?http://www.mormon.org/...y/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.html My point about the Spotlight Fallacy was not that LDS should be compared to other sects but that I know there are going to be chauvinists in the church just as there will be in any other large organization. There are also going to be people out that lose the spirit and cannot properly execute their duties. It is inevitable that there will be some abuse somewhere in the organization, as I have been told, by many different people, that members are not 'perfect' and I don't expect anyone to be. I just don't think the abuse is the norm, I think that the Spotlight Fallacy is at work here.
[QUOTE][B]Is it or is it not true that no women ever has any authority over any man in the administrative hierarchy of the LDS church?[/QUOTE] [/B] Conditionally true. First of all we are required to serve others regardless of rank in the hierarchy. Secondly I'd take orders from the LDSSA President (who happens to be female), the Relief Society brass, the administrator of any department of the church, etc. Then there's that lady who assigned me my role in the conference this weekend and is basically running the show. No, I'm not exactly immune to female leadership. But the argument you used is disingenuis because females have a place in the Relief Society hierarchy and males have a place in the Priesthood. Some males get to be bishops and stake presidents, some females get to be Relief Society presidents and hold similar offices. (Since I'm male I'm more familiar with the priesthood than with RS, but I'll be sure and let you know if I ever find anything that the women are missing out on). [This message has been edited by gene90, 09-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: If you are going to be this strict with what the author says, then you are correct. Therefore, do you also concede that one can also take a strict meaning of who the lake of fire and brimstone is for, and it is for the false prophet and Satan? It makes no mention of sinners, so why not be strict in the interpretation? Or is it arbitrary depending upon how you are inclined to believe before you read the passage? I do think that when one reads the entire essay that the author is clearly talking about no eternal punishment for people, because this is what would affect us.
[QUOTE][B]In addition, don't you think it is cruel and hypocritical, given that LDS markets itself as being all about "family", that they do not allow non LDS family and loved ones to witness the weddings of their LDS children/friends? Don't you think that this is a way of pulling the LDS convert away from their families and friends and telling them that only LDS people are "worthy" and "right"?[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: So, what is the frequency, really, of LDS members being excluded from a wedding if they were invited?
quote: OK, let me get this straight. The LDS church promotes itself as being very concerned with "family". However, they exclude all non-mormon family members from wedding ceremonies of LDS members, not caring in the least how much this hurts non members. There is a BIG difference between witnessing an actual ceremony and a ring-exchange. It's like being present at the birth of a child or watching a reenactment. To deny parents the opportunity to witness their children's marriages is cruel and unfeeling and divisive. You may say that the reason they do this is to protect the sanctity of the temple, but I am talking about the real effects on real people who aren't Mormon. This practice serves to cause conflict and pain in families, except all-Mormon families.
[QUOTE][B]The misogyny is there in the hearts and minds of the women, as well.[/QUOTE] [/B] What you mean is, most LDS women don't want the priesthood, just like I don't want the bishopric.[/QUOTE] Why do you think that is? How did they learn that they didn't want that? We are taught by our cultures what we should want, and what is an appropriate occupation or role for us. Strict gender roles and expectations are not healthy. It is the exact same justification for the "separate but equal" racial segregation attitude, which is, of course, never really equal.
quote: Not true. There have been Mormon feminists who have been excommunicated for speaking out for women's rights. Other Mormon scholars who say things critical of LDS or contradictory to current doctrine are also excommunicated. This is not pressure from the outside. This is pressure from the inside which is not being tolerated and is being dealt with in the most severe fashion. The LDS (Mormon) September Six – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) It seems that the thought police are alive and well inside LDS. Look, if Mormons want their way of life to never change or be influenced by the greater culture, then they will probably have to start living more like the Amish and cut themselves off from modern society. If they want to portray themselves as a mainstream religious organization, with all of their people out in the wider world, getting educated in various universities and coming into contact with all sorts of "ideas", then they should expect that the greater culture is going to have an effect. According to some things that I have read, a lot of the Temple ceremony was completely changed by the leaders in 1990, and what was taken out was pretty much all of the misogynyst, anti-protestant, and somewhat gruesome Masonic symbolism. If the Temple rites were so sacrosanct, God-given and perfect for 150 years, why were they changed to reflect change in modern society?
[QUOTE][B]Good women support their families and run the houshold because it is there place to do so; God (the natural order of things) says so.[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: So would I.
quote: But not equals in other ways? What ways?
quote: Left to our own devices we are not equal?? What are you talking about? I am not talking about men and women being the same. I am talking about men and women being able to express their fullest human potential, unfettered by strict gender roles and the threat of the loss of their souls if they falter from a path that they did not choose for themselves, but was decided for them on the basis of their gender.
[QUOTE][B]However, if a little LDS girl thought about being a Bishop or a Prophet, it just isn't gonna happen, or at least is EXTREMELY unlikely, and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure?[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: This is not what I mean. What I meant to say is that if a little LDS boy sees men, and only men, in "big" descision-making positions and in the most important role (Prophet) in his church, then he will automatically consider that it is possible that he might be there one day. i.e. males are important because they have important jobs, like revealing God's will! If a little girl sees that women only are allowed to progress so far in leadership and descision making and importance (they don't ever get to reveal god's will), this tells her that women can't do these things because they are less able or less important. Institutionally, most of the world tells women, subtly or not so subtly, that the highest, most important offices and positions are not appropriate for women simply because they are women. I do not believe this to actually be true, but much of the world operates as if it is true, including many sects of Christianity, including the LDS church.
quote: Men are the interpreters and deliverers of prophecy, right?
quote: Except that you are a male, so you have this choice offered to you at all. Also, what reprocussions, formal or social, are there to someone who declines the bishopric? Come, on, Gene, you can't really think that human preference doesn't have anything at all to do with becoming "promoted" inside the church higherarchy, do you?
quote: Power struggle is inherent in all human relationships, and with an organization as wealthy and large and strict as the LDS church, and with it's emphasis upon obedience, there is no way power isn't a part of the fabric. It may not be blatant, and it may not even be visible to most, but all LDS people are human, and therefore deal in power by nature. That is why they think it is OK to excommunicate people for being Mormon and feminist and writing about it publically. You don't do that unless you want to show other Mormon feminists what will happen to them if they dare to do the same.
[QUOTE][B]I am not talking about blatant brutalization. I am talking about a culture which relegates ALL women and ALL men in the LDS church to certain roles. This is oppression.[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: Division of labor by itself is perfectly fine. However, when someone else is deciding the division of labor for you, and you have little to no say in the matter, and cannot change who does what very easily or at all without adverse consequences, it is oppressive.
quote: No, I am oppressed when people consider my biology to be indicative of what I can or should do in all or many areas of my life.
quote: No, I don't have a dismal view of the world! I think the world is getting better with regards to the treatment of women, except that certain religious sects, among numerous institutions, are resisting this. Surely you aren't going to say that the Taliban, for instance, instituted a simple "division of labor" between women and men? I am not equating LDS and the Taliban by any means, but many of the issues, though different in severity, are the same.
quote: It was an extreme example provided for clarity. You asked why I should care about something that doesn't affect me directly, and I gave an example of something even more distant from me directly that I still am emotionally and morally affected by.
[QUOTE][B] What about a little LDS girl not wanting to get married and have kids right away, or at all?[/QUOTE] [/B] [QUOTE]I don't know about little girls that don't want to have kids right away but if I can think of a few LDS women about my age who are more interested in education so that they can have careers and also missions rather than having marrying and having kids. I can also think of clear messages from the church leadership telling the young adults that they need a college education to survive and imploring them to go out and get one.
[QUOTE][B]What kind of pressure to conform is she going to get from an early age? [/QUOTE] [/B] quote: So, everybody is pressured to get married? Why? What about pressure to have large families?
[QUOTE][B]and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure?[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: That's my point! The status quo is protected vigorously, so a LDS scholar's idea of, and evidence in scripture for, a Heavenly Mother is grounds for excommunication.
[QUOTE][B]It is different, Gene, because I could learn every little doctrinal detail about LDS and memorize the Book of Mormon, and I could interview every current and former Mormon church member alive, but you would still tell me that I don't "really understand" because I am not a believer.[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: But anybody could learn to do the carbon date test. They don't have to "believe" anything or have a special feeling or have God or the Holy Spirit come into them to get accurate results on the test. You, Gene, do not dismiss people just because they haven't done carbon dating tests themselves, so why dismiss anyone's opinion of LDS just because they are non-members? Could it be that I disagree with you, so you feel OK with dismissing me?
quote: I have stayed in the house of one for a week, and have been her close friend since several years before she converted, does that count? I'll interview an LDS member if you will interview an ex-member who feels that the church was damaging to them.
quote: I don't see how you are working around that, since you have told me several times that, "it's a Mormon thing, you wouldn't understand."
[QUOTE][B]If I am going to seek a critical and objective view of a religion, I am not going to ask people who are proponents of that religion.[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: Certainly more critical, yes. Less objective, but a believer would provide the complete opposite of objective, so it is likely to be a more realistic view.
quote: Um, Gene? How about discussing the CONTENT and FACTS of the links I posted? Gene says, in effect: "Most sources of information on LDS are biased, so you can't really believe any of them, so I won't address the issues and instead attack the source of the information because it is critical of my position." I have heard this line of bull before many, many times, but from YEC. Are you really stooping to this level, Gene?
quote: I don?t really care about sociological tennets. I am debating.
[QUOTE][B] What about gay people? [/QUOTE] [/B] What about them?http://www.mormon.org/...y/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.html It sounds to me that one cannot be LDS and gay unless one wants to live their life without a close loving relationship which is also a sexual one, since gay sex is forbidden. It sounds to me like your church doesn't even really accept that gay people are actually really gay and that being gay is to be likened to a transient "strong urge" that all people have "from time to time". What a joke! Gene, you don't really think that this is a realistic or anywhere close to accurate view of homosexuality, do you?
quote: Well, it certainly seems as though you are not willing to consider that any source critical of LDS practices might actually be accurate. I am not really talking about individual members. I am talking about institutionalized sexism and misogyny which is promoted and protected by the higherarchy.
[QUOTE][B]Is it or is it not true that no women ever has any authority over any man in the administrative hierarchy of the LDS church?[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: Don't women miss out on delivering the word of God to the Church, or interpreting prophecy, or being prophets, or making institution-wide changes? In other words, running the whole show is not an option for women simply because they are women, correct? ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
gene90 Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][B]It makes no mention of sinners, so why not be strict in the interpretation?[/QUOTE]
[/B] Sure. I can live with that one passage not mentioning sinners. However I still interpret the Bible-wide implication being that sinners suffer some kind of punishment. Why does the author of that site depend on a strict interpretation of a passage and then immediately switch to a liberal interpretation of the same whenever it suits him? Is that not selective thinking?
[QUOTE][B]So, what is the frequency, really, of LDS members being excluded from a wedding if they were invited?[/QUOTE] [/B] I'm not aware of such studies and I lack the experience to venture an honest guess. But how is this more important than the non-member families being excluded? Your argument was good enough to begin with. However, my opinion on the matter still stands, and the civil ceremony option is still there.
[QUOTE][B]. The LDS church promotes itself as being very concerned with "family". However, they exclude all non-mormon family members from wedding ceremonies of LDS members[/QUOTE] [/B] Temple wedding ("sealing") ceremonies, not whatever other ceremonies the couple chooses to have. Remember, however, that the couple is electing to have the temple ceremony. They do this of their free will. They can have a civil ceremony if they choose or they can elope to Las Vegas as easily as anyone else. The LDS church teaches that a temple sealing, at some point, is necessary for the marriage to be eternal. It is the legal right of the church, under the US Constitution's Freedom of Religion, to do this. It is the moral right of the couple to practice their religion as their conscience dictates. Where is the problem here?
[QUOTE][B]not caring in the least how much this hurts non members.
[/QUOTE] [/B] Non-members have their own rights to worship as they choose, or not worship as they choose. To be non-LDS is not something they are by birth it is what they are by choice.
[QUOTE][B]You may say that the reason they do this is to protect the sanctity of the temple, but I am talking about the real effects on real people who aren't Mormon.[/QUOTE] [/B] I'm talking about the right of a religion to worship as they please. Now, there is something in your argument I don't quite follow. The assumption is that non-members want to be present in the temple for the sealing. This is because it's the wedding of someone important to them. However, the non-member, by definition, does not accept LDS doctrine or accept that the sealing ordinance is even necessary. Their concern is the legal aspect of the marriage. Therefore, how is the temple session any different to that non-member from a civil service or a public ring-exchanging ceremony? Would a person who believed LDS doctrine was incorrect and did not participate in the temple session but did attend the ring-exchaning consider that public ceremony to be the "true" wedding? Or is this objection to the ceremony simply the meaningless psychological implication of feeling 'excluded', even though the person believes the session is, at best, of no value, or at worse, heretical?
[QUOTE][B]Why do you think that is? How did they learn that they didn't want that?[/QUOTE] [/B] They understand (and believe, and have a testimony of the fact) that men and women have equal roles but that there is a division of spiritual labor. Now, those women in LDS chapels on Sunday mornings are there by their own choice, on their own free will. They are not required to be there by an edict of law, they are there willingly as an expression of their own beliefs. If they did not believe the the current situation was correct then don't you think that would imply to them that the church was wrong, and therefore, they would not be there? And don't you think those women have the right to worship as they please, even if it contradicts your own opinion?
[QUOTE][B]Not true. There have been Mormon feminists who have been excommunicated for speaking out for women's rights. Other Mormon scholars who say things critical of LDS or contradictory to current doctrine are also excommunicated.[/QUOTE] [/B] And how many people, in both cases, were BYU faculty? Look, it works like this. We own BYU. We teach our religion there. One who teaches incorrect doctrine at BYU is like a public school teacher teaching Creationism in science class, it is completely inappropriate because the profs at BYU are representing the church in what they say and do. Also it seems to me that if members are critical of doctrine, thenthey have already left the church, the excommunication hearings being just a formality. (Not even excommunications are permanent however, they can repent and be let back in.) By the way, I see these as just because they all represent incorrect doctrine being taught. Now...if you don't believe the doctrines of the church are true, and you must not if you publish the kinds of things these people did, why are you afraid of excommunication? This is my point, they already left, all that remained was to ensure that they could not be sanctioned by the church itself. By the way the site you used is terribly biased. I thought you said you wanted unbiased information?
[QUOTE][B]It sounds to me that one cannot be LDS and gay unless one wants to live their life without a close loving relationship which is also a sexual one, since gay sex is forbidden.[/QUOTE] [/B] If a gay person joins the church that person will have to live a straight life, and they will if they know that the church is true. End of story.
[QUOTE][B]According to some things that I have read, a lot of the Temple ceremony was completely changed by the leaders in 1990, [/QUOTE] [/B] According to some things I have read, the world is flat and the Moon landings were faked by the government. I wouldn't be surprised at anything you read about the church.
[QUOTE][B]Could it be that I disagree with you, so you feel OK with dismissing me?[/QUOTE] [/B] Schrafinator, in your posts, I see all the signs of a vendetta. I see you recounting how your college roommates, who were obviously good friends of yours, were 'hurt' by the church; establishing a motive. I've seen you taking potshots at JS in this forum before you found out my own religious inclination. Then when I defended my beliefs against your attacks you responded in shock that I actually had the spine to do so. Had I defended the Baptists down the street I doubt it would have caused any such trouble. No, I chose the one church that, for you, represents everything 'bad' in a religion. And anything that sounds bad about my church, you will post, probably with little consideration. Surely you realize that typing the right keywords into Google will bring up some 'information' that supports one side in a debate. Heck, the YECs are doing this all the time. You're just doing what the Creationists do but on a different subject.
[QUOTE][B]Don't women miss out on delivering the word of God to the Church, or interpreting prophecy, or being prophets, or making institution-wide changes?[/QUOTE] [/B] In the same way that men 'miss out' on pregnancy. Now, I'm adding this by edit two days after I originally posted this. I want to point out that it's difficult for me to be emotionally detached from this discussion because it hits me close to home. I've debated evolution v creationism for a long time and nothing there ever bothers me but this is very different. I'm easy to offend on this topic. Given the choice I wouldn't be participating in this issue. Also I'm going to add that I haven't forgotten that we're usually on the same side in a debate and you do a good job, so I still respect your opinions and perspectives, only this time I disagree with you. [This message has been edited by gene90, 09-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]It makes no mention of sinners, so why not be strict in the interpretation?[/QUOTE] [/B] Sure. I can live with that one passage not mentioning sinners. However I still interpret the Bible-wide implication being that sinners suffer some kind of punishment. Why does the author of that site depend on a strict interpretation of a passage and then immediately switch to a liberal interpretation of the same whenever it suits him? Is that not selective thinking?[/QUOTE] Sure, it's selective thinking, just like any other interpretation of the Bible! You are choosing to interpret the passage less strictly so it fits your preferred worldview of sinners being punished in the afterlife, and the author chooses to interpret the passage more strictly because he does not hold the same worldview as you. That's the problem with religious interpretation. Everybody is right and everybody is wrong. That was my whaole point in the first place.
[QUOTE][B]So, what is the frequency, really, of LDS members being excluded from a wedding if they were invited?[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: It is an important point because you contend that the LDS policy isn't really there to exclude non-mormons, but to exclude "all unworthies", including the non-member parents and family of the LDS member, is to put them into the "unworthy" category. You tried to soften this idea by including the notion that even members could be excluded if it was commanded by the upper-ups. I was just wondering if this was just lip service and that invited members who were members were pretty much always let in, while non-members, were never let in.
[QUOTE][B]. The LDS church promotes itself as being very concerned with "family". However, they exclude all non-mormon family members from wedding ceremonies of LDS members[/QUOTE] [/B] Temple wedding ("sealing") ceremonies, not whatever other ceremonies the couple chooses to have.
quote: I don't have a problem with individuals. I have a problem with the policy of the LDS church which is hurtful and divisive to non-members in this regard. The church policy is contributing to division and pain within the "unworthy" family. If the policy was different and family members were allowed to witness and share this important life moment with their loved-one, don't you think that all of the parents would be there? And don't you think that all of the children would be glad to have their parents there?
[QUOTE][B]not caring in the least how much this hurts non members.
[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: Ah, but herein lies the hypocracy of the LDS church marketing itself as being concerned with the "family". I really wouldn't be objecting so hard to this policy if the church didn't pound the drum of "family is the most important thing" all of the time. If they want to be secretive and divisive, and stipulate that the only important and "worthy" family is the LDS family, then fine, but at least be honest about it. The LDS church isn't honest about it. And wait, are you saying that everyone is LDS by birth? How very...strange. ...and arrogant.
quote: I have attended many religious weddings. As I am an Agnostic, I did not share the personal religious beliefs of the people being married. I did, however, feel very honored to have been considered important enough to one or both of the couple to have been invited to share in their special day and to be witness to what was an important spiritual event to them. My feelings about the "validity" of the mysical nature of the ceremony; it's spiritual "truth", so to speak, is irrelevant. It is important that one's loved ones and close family be around them in times like this. Weddings are important. I know it hurt my friend deeply that her father, in particular, wasn't allowed to be at her wedding, as she is very close to him.
[QUOTE][B]Why do you think that is? How did they learn that they didn't want that?[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: Of course they are free to worship as they please. My argument is not with any individual. If one is taught from birth or convinced later in life that doing certain things will get them into heaven or turn them into gods or what have you, they will do it as long as nothing horrible comes of it. People do all sorts of things of their "own free will", or what looks like free will. Women (and men) have stayed in abusive relationships for years when they could have left of their own free will. They believed what their abuser was telling them; that there would be dire consequences if they left. I am not saying that every LDS woman or man is being abused in the way an abusive spouse abuses. But strict gender roles are all about power, Gene, and always have been.
[QUOTE][B]Not true. There have been Mormon feminists who have been excommunicated for speaking out for women's rights. Other Mormon scholars who say things critical of LDS or contradictory to current doctrine are also excommunicated.[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: Wow, I didn't realize that nobody inside the LDS church was allowed to ever question anything or criticize doctrine or risk sanction. That's scary.
quote: I wanted something other than the party line. Why don't you go find me a site that is critical of LDS in any way that you also consider unbiased? In particular, how about a LDS feminist site or a gay LDS site. I'll bet you can't.
[QUOTE][B]It sounds to me that one cannot be LDS and gay unless one wants to live their life without a close loving relationship which is also a sexual one, since gay sex is forbidden.[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: You didn't answer my question, Gene. Do you actually believe what your church says about gay people?? Do you believe that gay people aren't really gay, and they are experiencing "strong urges" like everybody has "from time to time"?? You know enough about Biology to know that the notion of every single human being 100% heterosexual is a silly one. Please don't turn your back on science. What's next? The declaration of the church that everyone is right-handed, and any "so-called" left-handers, if they believe hard enough, will live their lives as right handers?
[QUOTE][B]According to some things that I have read, a lot of the Temple ceremony was completely changed by the leaders in 1990, [/QUOTE] [/B] quote: Well, am I wrong? I have read account after account, most with references to church letters and documents, but some anecdotal, which say the same thing; that the temple ceremony has changed over the years to reflect the greater social climate. Many racist, anti-protestant, and misogynist items have been taken out. I know that you aren't supposed to know about these things ahead of time, and that it isn't supposed to be revealed by anyone, but it is all out there on the internet for anyone to read. It's true that I don't have an ex-Mormon next to me here to tell me what is true, but consistency of story from different sources has to count for something. The people who criticize mormonism are not unified. Here is a list of examples of discrimination against women at BYU: BYU AAUP: Women’s Concerns at BYU – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) An excerpt: "**There is only one university lecture named after a woman, the Alice Louise Reynolds lecture. Money was raised to endow this lecture by Helen Stark, a strong feminist and well-known member of the Mormon community. She herself contributed approximately $15,000 to the endowment fund. Stark died two years ago at the age of 89. In 1995 the committee selected Elouise Bell, a prominent woman full professor to deliver that lecture. The administration not only rejected the woman as the speaker; it informed the committee that Roger R. Keller, a male associate professor from the Department of Religion, would be the speaker. In 1996 the Alice Louise Reynolds lecture was not held. **For several years women candidates for faculty employment at Brigham Young University have been asked this question by the academic vice president: "If a general authority [general leader of the Mormon Church] asked you not to publish your research, what would you do?" It has been suggested to the candidates that they must agree not to publish in such a case. This condition of employment undermines the position of new women faculty members at Brigham Young University. To be hired, they apparently must agree to let male ecclesiastical leaders who are not trained in their disciplines have final authority over the publication of their scholarship. They are offered no review process to determine the fairness or accuracy of the authority's request. Again, women are instructed that they must suppress their own perspectives on their own experience or research if a male authority so directs them. **In its entire seventy-five year history, a woman faculty member has never been chosen to present BYU's distinguished faculty lecture. The BYU AAUP Chapter will provide documentation of all of the above claims upon request. We will obtain statements from or provide the Accreditation Committee with the addresses and telephone numbers of the individuals named in this document." Do you really think that this is OK? Also, did you know that women in the LDS church from 1830 to 1850 used to be able to confer blessings, healing and prophecy, and other acts reserved just for men now? Women in the Mormon Church – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)
[QUOTE][B]Could it be that I disagree with you, so you feel OK with dismissing me?[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: I have been "considering" LDS and other fundamentalist, strict religious sects for a long time. If you had defended the Baptists I would have called into question the recent edict of that sect that "Women must be obedient to their men". You are the one who wondered why I should care about things in the LDS church which "don't affect me directly". They affect me because they affect women, and they affect me because they affect certain people in my life whom I love. It isn't everything bad in a religion. It is a sect of christianity which is particularly limiting and oppressive to women, though, and I will always speak out against that. BTW, what do you have to say about my rejection of your claim that "separate but equal" can and does work?
quote: But Gene, you haven't ONCE countered anything any of these websites have provided other than by saying "It's all biased". I repeat; show me a websit critical of LDS which you do not consider biased. I'll bet you can't, because being critical at all of LDS is, by your definition, biased.
[QUOTE][B]Don't women miss out on delivering the word of God to the Church, or interpreting prophecy, or being prophets, or making institution-wide changes?[/QUOTE] [/B] quote: Men can adopt children, and men contribute to the creation of children. Women have been observed in many other sects of Christianity to deliver the word of God, to have authority over men, to interpret prophecy, etc. "Seperate but equal" has never worked. The power is always unequal.
quote: I understand. You do, of course, always have a choice on whether or not to participate.
quote: I am glad that you haven't forgotten, and thanks for the compliment. [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-25-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Minnemooseus Member  Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: quote: I certainly don't find fault with either side in this Gene/Schraf discussion. Personally (non-admin mode), I would absolutely support Gene if he were to say "Enough has been said. I don't wish to any further discuss LDS theology." Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
This is a really interesting quote and comment:
Elder Thomas S. Monson on science – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) How the youth of today are to deal with doubts (February 2001 Ensign) . . . "By President Monson in the "First Presidency Message":"Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you , agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it'." This BOTHERS me. I've always really liked Pres. Monson, but he's telling people to just turn off their brains. Don't ask questions, and pretend they don't exist. Shut your eyes, plug your ears and just keep saying "I know the church is true" no matter what. And isn't he just partially admitting that if you pursue those thoughts, if you think it through critically, that your faith will fail? If faith was well-founded, how could it be harmed by additional information, study, open discussion, and rational thought? And if testimonies were built SOLELY on the witness of the spirit and NOT at all on personal opinions, couldn't the Holy Ghost STILL give someone a witness of the truth AFTER studying science and asking the hard questions? The church seems to think that studying and questioning is a sin, (at the very least it's dangerous) because it causes you to lose the spirit. And it does seem that those who question and study DO tend to leave the church. But I have a different explanation. I think the spirit is your own feelings. And your feelings change when you have more information. It's hard to feel the spirit when your brain is telling you it's BS. So much for "The Glory of God is Intelligence", and seeking after truth. Monson is imploring people to ignore the best route to intelligence: scientific inquiry. Instead he advocates faith, which is superstitious hope, no matter what other words people use to describe it. Notice when they fear science is leading people away, they call it "so called science." How preposterous to presume the only real science is that which agrees with their myths. Why doesn't he just use his faith instead of science to get to his next overseas testimony-fest? Because faith isn't going to get him there. Science will. His message clearly pleads with people to live in a box, and slap themselves if they start to want a glimpse outside. If they fear investigation and questioning will shake faith, it is an admission that the basis of faith was groundless. He should feel safe. It is difficult to disrupt the lives of people who live in faith-bubbles. How do you uproot something with no roots?" ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
