You see, dianaiad, you are making a lot of sense in your posts but you will never influence the hardcore poster here who has made a life out of bashing mormon beliefs on this section of the forum. However, when you post, it is much better to write to the possible lurker because when they read your posts, and see the sense in what you post, they may think of mormonism just in a little better light. And so, when you respond to Rebecca or tundramom or to anyone who may not be positive to the lds church it is good to keep the lurker in mind.
As I have said, you are doing a great job here. But the antimormon posters are now attempting to wear you down, so you will leave the forum. That is my take on it.
Would you define “bashing” to us to show the difference between challenging/refuting and “bashing?”
IMO, “bashing” is just taking cheap shots and not engaging in an actual argument. Civil argument, however, is essential to the pursuit of truth and is what should be done here. We should not be afraid to use strong terms to illustrate strong beliefs or how wrong we think something is (for instance, calling some things blasphemous or sacrilegious); we should be adult enough to handle that sort of thing and remain civil. So we should be able to “attack” beliefs strenuously, so long as we don’t attack people.
I have a question for Mormons. Perhaps there is a better thread for this, but I have not seen one that is active, and I appreciate Dianaiad’s responses so I will post it here where she’s participating.
It seems to me that part of the reasoning behind the Great Apostasy is the idea that if people don’t hold up their end of the bargain, God doesn’t have to hold up His (to preserve the Church, to be with us until the end of the age, to lead us into all Truth, to keep the Church in unity, etc.). To this I have to ask, who is more honorable and faithful, one who keeps their promises despite the person they made promises to not keeping theirs, or one who just disregards the promises?
If a parent and a child have had a fight or strained relationship, will not the loving parent still act in every way a parent despite their child’s rejection? As a more specific analogy, if such a child were sick or even on their death bed, would not the parent still care for them and be at their side?
Perhaps the most direct analogue with God is this: if a spouse is unfaithful to any vow or promise, will the other spouse similarly choose to abandon vows or promises? Is that right or good?
Yes, some promises are conditional–those are contracts. But in the examples that I have given, we have more covenantal, unconditional relationships. Surely God has a covenant relationship with His Church, one where He loves us unconditionally, a Bride to whom Christ has made unconditional promises.
To believe that God is not faithful to His unconditional promises or to His everlasting covenants, seems to be to reject the God of either the OT or the NT for one that is unfaithful and conditional. It is to accept a god who is an employer, not a Father, not a Spouse. Or perhaps more like unto Allah of Islam, a god who is as Master to slave more than anything else, one who says only “Do this and you will have that; do not and I give you nothing, no grace of mine.”
Given what Christ revealed so fully, that God is Father and that he himself is Spouse in one sense, Brother in another, how can belief in a god who does not truly embrace us in a family relationship of unconditional love be belief in Christ and what he teaches?
As you wish.
