Any Mormon Members?
11-18-2005, 05:55 PM
#121
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Ibiera, LA
Posts: 479
same damn thing...... for the sake of this discussion anyways lol
11-18-2005, 06:25 PM
#122
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 809
I do have to say duston that I disagree with your statement that since he believes in God he is limited to a certain way of thinking. I have my beliefs too (as far as higher powers go), though I have not come right out and said what that my be, it doesn't limit my thinking. I think that alot of people do have limited thinking though, and tend to hold one thing to be true to them w/o taking the time to possibly explore others. I don't believe it is his belief in God that is his limited thinking.....I feel he has a belief and he sticks to that, but there have been things discussed that he has agreed with us on. That atleast shows he has somewhat of an open mind, while holding to what he believes to be true to him.
11-18-2005, 06:40 PM
#123
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 228
Wow...
I just read this whole thread from beginning to end! I should have just read the bible it seems to be just as long!
I just have a question for WeDriveScions. You keep saying how you are supposed not supposed to interpret what you think the bible says, rather you should face the context and judge it by its merits. I do not understand how you say that and also say that the bible may not be translated correctly!
If you have to assume it is not translated correctly then shouldn't you assume that it is not the literal meaning of the verses as well?
If that be the case then wouldn't it be apropriate that most people would not go with the literal meaning an try to "guess" what they felt was the right meaning?
Thats all!
I also read from a few people that they did not like the idea of modern day prophecy! Or in better words the fact that a religion can change its views on something! The fact is that if religion did not change with the times then it would fail. And that goes for all religions. There are different absticals and trials today than there were when the bible was written. Each religion has to mold its laws, ordanaces, or whatever you want to call them around present day. The rule may have changed, but the underlying belief should stay the same!
I will use the blacks getting the priesthood in the mormon religion as an example. It was not a belief that changed, it was a law. Nothing that mormons believed in changed at all. It was that God had said no because of Cain, and then assuming you believe in modern prophesy God decided that it was time to let the law change. You see they believe among many things that God has the right to change anything he decides to based on what he feels is the right way to do things. Not because it was right thousands of years ago, but that it it right today in this time! We are no longer in B.C. and last I checked things are much more different today than when the Roman empire was in charge!
I just read this whole thread from beginning to end! I should have just read the bible it seems to be just as long!
I just have a question for WeDriveScions. You keep saying how you are supposed not supposed to interpret what you think the bible says, rather you should face the context and judge it by its merits. I do not understand how you say that and also say that the bible may not be translated correctly!
If you have to assume it is not translated correctly then shouldn't you assume that it is not the literal meaning of the verses as well?
If that be the case then wouldn't it be apropriate that most people would not go with the literal meaning an try to "guess" what they felt was the right meaning?
Thats all!
I also read from a few people that they did not like the idea of modern day prophecy! Or in better words the fact that a religion can change its views on something! The fact is that if religion did not change with the times then it would fail. And that goes for all religions. There are different absticals and trials today than there were when the bible was written. Each religion has to mold its laws, ordanaces, or whatever you want to call them around present day. The rule may have changed, but the underlying belief should stay the same!
I will use the blacks getting the priesthood in the mormon religion as an example. It was not a belief that changed, it was a law. Nothing that mormons believed in changed at all. It was that God had said no because of Cain, and then assuming you believe in modern prophesy God decided that it was time to let the law change. You see they believe among many things that God has the right to change anything he decides to based on what he feels is the right way to do things. Not because it was right thousands of years ago, but that it it right today in this time! We are no longer in B.C. and last I checked things are much more different today than when the Roman empire was in charge!
11-18-2005, 06:42 PM
#124
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 228
p.s. I do not really have a faith of choice. I was just commenting on things that I thought may be a little off in a sense or atleast I may have mist the whole drift of what was said!
11-18-2005, 06:47 PM
#125
Banned
KAD
Scikotics
SL Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fujiztown
Posts: 1,539
guys, we really need to stop jacking this guys thread, does this say 'religious discussion' in the subject title? NO, this has gone further down hill than the ___ thread.
11-18-2005, 07:01 PM
#126
Senior Member
Scikotics
SL Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 809
I don't believe that it has gone downhill....most threads tend to get off the overall topic but as long as it pertains to it, I don't see what's so wrong about that. One idea or question I should say has sparked an open discussion about religion which is relevant to this thread. This guys thread you said....tell me where it says that when someone starts a thread it is strictly theirs. He opened up a discussion that others have kept going....the guy hasn't even posted in awhile. That's the point of forums, and further more the point of the off-topic cafe....if the mods thought that this wasn't relvant they probably wouldn't have kept it around. Or at the least locked it. But it all is relevant, the beauty of it is, if we don't want to read something we don't have to....and that I do believe we have a choice in.
11-18-2005, 09:54 PM
#127
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Ibiera, LA
Posts: 479
"You see they believe among many things that God has the right to change anything he decides to based on what he feels is the right way to do things. Not because it was right thousands of years ago, but that it it right today in this time! !"
well of course they have to believe that, otherwise, they would have no authority to change it. Though that doesnt make it right in any sense. not trying to be silly, but thats like if i slapped you, then said, i believe god wanted me to slap you. Believing that god wants to change or that god wants anything, is sometimes nothing more than a way to justify ones actions.
"We are no longer in B.C. and last I checked things are much more different today than when the Roman empire was in charge"
Not sure if you're referring to when i used the romans as an ex. or not, but ne ways yes things are alot different now than they were then. Which is another reason I dont see how you can take ALL the teachings, beliefs, and laws from the bible, and try to apply them to the modern world. Yes there are teachings that convey good morals and ways of living. But as a whole, you cant take something written so long ago, and apply it to modern times.
well of course they have to believe that, otherwise, they would have no authority to change it. Though that doesnt make it right in any sense. not trying to be silly, but thats like if i slapped you, then said, i believe god wanted me to slap you. Believing that god wants to change or that god wants anything, is sometimes nothing more than a way to justify ones actions.
"We are no longer in B.C. and last I checked things are much more different today than when the Roman empire was in charge"
Not sure if you're referring to when i used the romans as an ex. or not, but ne ways yes things are alot different now than they were then. Which is another reason I dont see how you can take ALL the teachings, beliefs, and laws from the bible, and try to apply them to the modern world. Yes there are teachings that convey good morals and ways of living. But as a whole, you cant take something written so long ago, and apply it to modern times.
11-18-2005, 10:42 PM
#128
Senior Member
Scion Justice League of America
SL Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 5,594
In response to the question regarding the supposed "Fallability" of the translation of scripture, in regards to the subjects relating to LDS faith and beliefs, that arguement would be mute... as the LDS church adopts the translation of the KJV as their accepted biblical foundation... so interpreting verses based on their context is using the LDS translation as the foundation for that interpretation... You cannot reinterpret the whole chapters around verses that differently within the KJV tranlation to make the chapters consistent with the single verse taken out of it....
Literally or Figuratively, the verses surrounding all the Mormon doctrines discussed , and which I responded to, cannot be interpreted with their context taking into account to support those single verse's supposed LDS doctrines.... it doesn't work, no matter how you read the KJV..... try it.... take the context you see in relation to those single verses and interpret them in a way that is consistent with the interpretation of the LDS church.... within the KJV, that interpretation does not exist.... But, that is the scripture the LDS church attest to be their accepted word....
You cannot chose to take one verse and ignore the ones surounding it, within your own text and translation...
If you had "The Modern Mormon" version, or some version of the bible the re-interpreted the original greek to make those chapters consistent with that single verse, the argument would have a different merit, but that is not the case....
What I have done is to show you that the text that you accept as the word of God, shows clearly that your doctrines fail to take into account the context by with they were surrounded, thus negating that interpretation straight-out...
You can chose not to believe what I have interpreted, but my interpretation was based on the merits of the text itself and it's surroundings, backed up by the Chapter itself, and also by the whole of scripture as well and it's concurrent themes and cross-refferences in other books.... the same scripture you attest to believe as the word of God... And the same translation for that matter as well....
What was you interpretation based on?
If the LDS church were to use another translation, I could concede that they interpret the original greek differently... but within their own accepted translation, you see absolute contextual inaccuracies with the verses that the LDS church takes singally and developes doctrine upon... without taking into account the context within their own accepted text....
It's YOUR word I'm talking about here.... not a different one in which I translated things differently....
-----------------------------------
I would appreciate an LDS member to show me what in the New Testament teachings is not culturally relavent today and must be changed to accomidate today's society... The O/T laws cannot be taken into account, as they were done away with with the death of Christ and the new covenant he brought to the world. That is Basic Biblical theology within the KJV. What in his teachings are incosistent with how we should live today, in which he would need to change....
The uniqueness of NT Christianity is that it's teachings are consistent since the time of Christ.... What rules have changed, outside of men taking things out of context and using them for their own evil purposes.... IE - Slavery/Persecution of Women...
I strongly dissagree with the supposed reality that it was ever "Right" to deny someone the preisthood based solely on the color of their skin.... This is in no way a Biblical teaching of Christ, especially in relation to the NT... it's pigment and geneology, where did Christ ever teach anything but that the true heart of man is where his eyes see.... not wealth, position, anscestry, or any other matter... Even NT teachings regarding the requierments for leadership in the church or holding a position of authority or priesthood discuss nothing in relation to the color of an individual's skin.... do you think that they would just leave that out by accident???
It's not consistent....
It's in relation to one verse in the old testament that discussed that God Marked Cain as a result of his sin....
Where in NT doctrine does it say ANYTHING which remarks the color of a man's skin or his geneology as a prevention of him serving any position or having any different view in the eyes of God... It says everything to focus otherwise, remarking that the only true thing that matters in men is our hearts.... not our physical bodies, ancestry, wealth, position.... NONE of that matters....
----------------------------------------------------------
It's frustratingly clear that you dodge the true discussions on context and argue around them, rather than facing them and developing a realistic and credible position to rationalize why you believe a certain doctrine exists, even within your own text... That is the presented discussion...
Literally or Figuratively, the verses surrounding all the Mormon doctrines discussed , and which I responded to, cannot be interpreted with their context taking into account to support those single verse's supposed LDS doctrines.... it doesn't work, no matter how you read the KJV..... try it.... take the context you see in relation to those single verses and interpret them in a way that is consistent with the interpretation of the LDS church.... within the KJV, that interpretation does not exist.... But, that is the scripture the LDS church attest to be their accepted word....
You cannot chose to take one verse and ignore the ones surounding it, within your own text and translation...
If you had "The Modern Mormon" version, or some version of the bible the re-interpreted the original greek to make those chapters consistent with that single verse, the argument would have a different merit, but that is not the case....
What I have done is to show you that the text that you accept as the word of God, shows clearly that your doctrines fail to take into account the context by with they were surrounded, thus negating that interpretation straight-out...
You can chose not to believe what I have interpreted, but my interpretation was based on the merits of the text itself and it's surroundings, backed up by the Chapter itself, and also by the whole of scripture as well and it's concurrent themes and cross-refferences in other books.... the same scripture you attest to believe as the word of God... And the same translation for that matter as well....
What was you interpretation based on?
If the LDS church were to use another translation, I could concede that they interpret the original greek differently... but within their own accepted translation, you see absolute contextual inaccuracies with the verses that the LDS church takes singally and developes doctrine upon... without taking into account the context within their own accepted text....
It's YOUR word I'm talking about here.... not a different one in which I translated things differently....
-----------------------------------
I would appreciate an LDS member to show me what in the New Testament teachings is not culturally relavent today and must be changed to accomidate today's society... The O/T laws cannot be taken into account, as they were done away with with the death of Christ and the new covenant he brought to the world. That is Basic Biblical theology within the KJV. What in his teachings are incosistent with how we should live today, in which he would need to change....
The uniqueness of NT Christianity is that it's teachings are consistent since the time of Christ.... What rules have changed, outside of men taking things out of context and using them for their own evil purposes.... IE - Slavery/Persecution of Women...
I strongly dissagree with the supposed reality that it was ever "Right" to deny someone the preisthood based solely on the color of their skin.... This is in no way a Biblical teaching of Christ, especially in relation to the NT... it's pigment and geneology, where did Christ ever teach anything but that the true heart of man is where his eyes see.... not wealth, position, anscestry, or any other matter... Even NT teachings regarding the requierments for leadership in the church or holding a position of authority or priesthood discuss nothing in relation to the color of an individual's skin.... do you think that they would just leave that out by accident???
It's not consistent....
It's in relation to one verse in the old testament that discussed that God Marked Cain as a result of his sin....
Where in NT doctrine does it say ANYTHING which remarks the color of a man's skin or his geneology as a prevention of him serving any position or having any different view in the eyes of God... It says everything to focus otherwise, remarking that the only true thing that matters in men is our hearts.... not our physical bodies, ancestry, wealth, position.... NONE of that matters....
----------------------------------------------------------
It's frustratingly clear that you dodge the true discussions on context and argue around them, rather than facing them and developing a realistic and credible position to rationalize why you believe a certain doctrine exists, even within your own text... That is the presented discussion...
11-19-2005, 12:27 AM
#129
Senior Member
SL Member
Team ScioNRG
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Jerusalem
Posts: 506
guys, we really need to stop jacking this guys thread, does this say 'religious discussion' in the subject title
You bring up religion, you are inviting a discussion...I mean how naive do you have to be to expect a simple yes no answer.
It's like posting "are you in favor of abortion?".......
11-19-2005, 12:44 AM
#130
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 2,004
Inviting a discussion would be like "I'm a Mormon, what do you think?" or "If you're Mormon, why'd you choose to become one?". I don't see how "Any Mormon Members?" is asking for anyone's opinions. Asking "Are you in favor of abortion?" is asking for an opinion.
Now if someone said "Who drives a red car?", you'd take it as "Red is the best color, prove me wrong."
He asked if there were any Mormon members and I said yes, here. I didn't go into a 3-page explanation on why and that I think it's right because that isn't what the question was. It was a Yes or No question and I gave a Yes or No answer.
Now if someone said "Who drives a red car?", you'd take it as "Red is the best color, prove me wrong."
He asked if there were any Mormon members and I said yes, here. I didn't go into a 3-page explanation on why and that I think it's right because that isn't what the question was. It was a Yes or No question and I gave a Yes or No answer.
11-19-2005, 03:00 AM
#131
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: OC, California
Posts: 261
This thread is intense.
11-19-2005, 05:45 AM
#132
Senior Member
Scion Justice League of America
SL Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 5,594
Very Intense.... but revealing to those outside of Mormonism, I'm sure....
11-19-2005, 06:33 AM
#133
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Ibiera, LA
Posts: 479
Originally Posted by jmiller20874
You guys crack me up. Mormons are NOT polyamists! We are to be true to one wife and one wife only. We are also to remain a virgin until marriage. The Book of Mormon is not a replacement for the Bible but another Testament of Jesus Christ, that is it. It takes no precedence over The Bible. We believe Christ is at the head of our church, always have always will.
Originally Posted by wibblywobbly
You are right....Mormons had to edit their own bible (Book of Mormon) that THEY created to make it less racist. That is a fact. It is also a fact that hardcore Mormon's wear special underwear and it is also a fact the really hardcore ones are polygamists. (just like hardcore people of any religion are often time lunatics)
And again MORMONS ARE NOT POLYGAMISTS.
Adultery is a big sin in our books. Why are people so defensive of something they know nothing about. I guess there is something wrong with wanting to help people and be nice to one another.
Ask yourself one question, how much do your church preachers and pastors get paid? Everyone in our church gets paid nothing 'cause we don't believe people should get paid to do the Lord's work.
you say the topic of this thread only required a yes or no, and you say you only gave a yes? the post above is from the first page, and no, its not 3 pages long, but its not your only post in this thread either,
so how about you let us enjoy our little discussion
11-19-2005, 12:16 PM
#134
Senior Member
SL Member
Team ScioNRG
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Jerusalem
Posts: 506
you are wrong....I just said it was naive to expect a question of religion to NOT evolve in to a discussion.
11-19-2005, 04:37 PM
#135
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Ibiera, LA
Posts: 479
you are replying to jmiller, correct?
11-19-2005, 04:51 PM
#136
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germantown, MD
Posts: 2,004
My first answer was "I'm Mormon". If the first response to the original poster was "You're white aren't you", then that would have been my only response. The discussion was already initiated. I responded to the original poster by saying yes, then I responded to wibblywobbly for all the unfounded fact(myth) spewing.
11-19-2005, 04:52 PM
#137
Senior Member
Scion Justice League of America
SL Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 5,594
Starting a thread with the topic you stated who be like going into a room full of Scionlifers and yelling, "Any Mormon's Around!" You'd get people initially scuffing at the remark and you'd surely spark a few good discussions regarding the context of Mormonism itself within the group of people in the room.... That is all that has happened here.... what would be wrong with that?
You through a hot button issue onto the table in a forum online.... what in your experience would lead you to believe that it wouldn't go a direction other than you intended... Like I've said before.... many online here cannot even discuss vertical doors, headers, turbos, without hating on others or going off the deep end in regards to their discussions, I don't understand why'd you expect anything more, especially when it comes to something that matters much more to people than their cars.
You through a hot button issue onto the table in a forum online.... what in your experience would lead you to believe that it wouldn't go a direction other than you intended... Like I've said before.... many online here cannot even discuss vertical doors, headers, turbos, without hating on others or going off the deep end in regards to their discussions, I don't understand why'd you expect anything more, especially when it comes to something that matters much more to people than their cars.
11-19-2005, 05:28 PM
#138
Banned
SL Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Banos, California
Posts: 459
This thread was created solely for the purpose of me getting to know my fellow Mormon scion lifers, I didn't ask for your opinions on my faith. If you have questions about Mormonism go ahead post I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with having a defensive type of a thread.
If you really have nothing better to do then put down Mormons or any other religion in particular why not put down your own faith.
And don't give me none of that crap about "Were not singling your religion out" because really deep down inside that was your initial intention for your posting here.
Wibblywobbly you have been consistently on the offensive, don’t you have anything better to do then ridicule peoples religions. As for your first post wibblywobbly, what if I was white, what then? Would you have dissed on me and religion even more. I hope you have a great life and a damned one in hell.
And I’ll ask politely again, moderators please close this thread.
If you really have nothing better to do then put down Mormons or any other religion in particular why not put down your own faith.
And don't give me none of that crap about "Were not singling your religion out" because really deep down inside that was your initial intention for your posting here.
Wibblywobbly you have been consistently on the offensive, don’t you have anything better to do then ridicule peoples religions. As for your first post wibblywobbly, what if I was white, what then? Would you have dissed on me and religion even more. I hope you have a great life and a damned one in hell.
And I’ll ask politely again, moderators please close this thread.
11-19-2005, 07:49 PM
#139
Senior Member
SL Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: New Ibiera, LA
Posts: 479
well, seems you found a few fellow mormons so i guest your thread wasnt a complete waste. No you didnt ask for peoples opinions, but when it comes to religion, as said before, you have to expect it.
Im not sure if i am one of the ones you are referring to with the following statements, but i will proceed as if you were....
"If you really have nothing better to do then put down Mormons or any other religion in particular why not put down your own faith. "
I have not "put down" mormons or any other religion, i simply stated my beliefs, which would actually constitute my faith.
"And don't give me none of that crap about "Were not singling your religion out" because really deep down inside that was your initial intention for your posting here. "
How do you think you can tell someones initial intentions of making a post? You can guess, but you cant know for sure.
"Wibblywobbly you have been consistently on the offensive, don’t you have anything better to do then ridicule peoples religions. As for your first post wibblywobbly, what if I was white, what then? Would you have dissed on me and religion even more. I hope you have a great life and a damned one in hell.
And I’ll ask politely again, moderators please close this thread. "
You hope he has a damned life in hell? That is by far the most offensive thing said in this thread. The thread begins to have a mature intellectual discussion and you want it closed? Is it because you are offended by the discussion we were having? If so, i assure you, as written in many of the posts that it was not intended to be offensive or hateful to anyone or anyones religion.
Im not sure if i am one of the ones you are referring to with the following statements, but i will proceed as if you were....
"If you really have nothing better to do then put down Mormons or any other religion in particular why not put down your own faith. "
I have not "put down" mormons or any other religion, i simply stated my beliefs, which would actually constitute my faith.
"And don't give me none of that crap about "Were not singling your religion out" because really deep down inside that was your initial intention for your posting here. "
How do you think you can tell someones initial intentions of making a post? You can guess, but you cant know for sure.
"Wibblywobbly you have been consistently on the offensive, don’t you have anything better to do then ridicule peoples religions. As for your first post wibblywobbly, what if I was white, what then? Would you have dissed on me and religion even more. I hope you have a great life and a damned one in hell.
And I’ll ask politely again, moderators please close this thread. "
You hope he has a damned life in hell? That is by far the most offensive thing said in this thread. The thread begins to have a mature intellectual discussion and you want it closed? Is it because you are offended by the discussion we were having? If so, i assure you, as written in many of the posts that it was not intended to be offensive or hateful to anyone or anyones religion.
11-19-2005, 11:50 PM
#140
Senior Member
SL Member
Team ScioNRG
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New Jerusalem
Posts: 506
Duston - I was responding to you, but it's all good. No beef. I don't want to come off as a hypocrite (I'm sure there some people have some other opinions of me by now though.....)
As Marv Alberts likes to say...."YES!"
Come on man, I've been negative, but I've kept it civil. And until proven other wise, I didn't tell any lies. I've had a lot of stuff taken out of context and people didn't get my jokes, but I never personally attacked anyone. And besides, it doesn't really do much to change mu opinions now does it?
I do admit that I agree with Jmiller on my point about the underwear.....I have to say it's strange, but it's not like it affects me. It's just like a Sikh wearing a turban or something.
As long as the people like you who assume that I am going to hell only because I'm not Mormon (or any other religion) aren't going to be in hell, than I'm cool with that.
Would you have dissed on me and religion even more. I hope you have a great life and a damned one in hell.
Come on man, I've been negative, but I've kept it civil. And until proven other wise, I didn't tell any lies. I've had a lot of stuff taken out of context and people didn't get my jokes, but I never personally attacked anyone. And besides, it doesn't really do much to change mu opinions now does it?
I do admit that I agree with Jmiller on my point about the underwear.....I have to say it's strange, but it's not like it affects me. It's just like a Sikh wearing a turban or something.
As long as the people like you who assume that I am going to hell only because I'm not Mormon (or any other religion) aren't going to be in hell, than I'm cool with that.