Milk before meat

[SuRoj]

Answersplease said: You are rude and if you think that the articles and quotes are wrong or taken out of context, THEN PROVE IT.

And jumping on a thread and ranting about how ignorant people are WITHOUT reading the whole thread just proves your lack of credibility.

And calling people names like “ignorant” without proof just shows how kind and loving your religion really is.

Answersplease,

I looked back at the statement you are referring to and I feel bad because I can see how it would come across as rude to ricko. I seriously was not trying to be rude. As I mentioned in my previous post to you, I am new to this thread and so no one knows me. Therefore, it would be impossible to know my intentions or interpret my tone. I honestly was not trying to be rude. I was being blunt and straightforward, so, I do apologize to you, ricko, and anyone else who thought I was being rude. I will make sure sure every post, even when I’m being blunt, is clearly kind and friendly because that is always my intention.

The irony here is that you are coming across as rude to me. Is this your intention? If so, it could be a reaction to me thinking that I am trying to be rude. Fair enough. Now that I have tried to make it clear that I am really not ‘ranting’ about people’s ignorance, I ask you to keep it friendly with me as well. Those who know me realize that I do not feel that saying someone is ignorant or lacking in credibility is name calling. I am being descriptive about a certain point. I don’t know you or ricko. Therefore, I will assume that both of you are well versed and wise. When I made that comment, it was about one specific area, posting wikipedia references, not name calling. I only meant my blunt words to be in context of referencing wikipedia. I would say the same thing to any of my college students, my children, and even myself for that matter, if they or I only referenced wikipedia as a source. Most people know it is not a valid source because anyone can edit or change it and no one has to fact check it. Therefore, to be clear, I was not writing in a rude attacking way, but in an honest straightforward way. All of us, including myself, are ignorant and less credible at different times in life. I was simply making a bold point. Once again, I apologize that it came across rude. I never meant it that way.

Regarding my other comment about ‘taking quotes out of context’. This is a pet peeve of mine. Not just with LDS quotes, but in any situation. Now remember, my intention is rooted in kindness and blunt honesty-taking quotes out of context is dishonest. On the other hand, it could be ignorance, as well, if someone has not done enough research.

I am one who values context deeply. As a result, I went to Notre Dame and other Catholic Libraries and studied the history of Catholicism to put everything I’ve learned in context. I have done the same with many Protestant religions, and also Judaism and Islam. And, I have additionally spent many years studying the history of the LDS Church from scholars both in and outside of Mormonism. I like context and value the opinion of people of all faiths when they keep things in the context of the quotes that are shared.

I have been following this thread since it first started. I haven’t been able to participate as much until the past few days. So, when I said that I did not have time to go back and read everything it was in context of going back and RE-reading everything because I had already read every post once. That was a typo on my part to neglect saying RE-read. You are right. It would not be credible on my part to participate had I not read. So, let’s put that to rest. I have read. I just didn’t have the time in that particular response to go back and pull out other relevant comments through RE-reading the posts again.

Answersplease, I’m happy to continue having open, honest, and straightforward conversations on this thread with you and anyone else-in kindness and friendliness. So, to be clear; I am never trying to be rude to anyone. I am just trying to have an honest discussion. If you have been trying to be rude to me, I sincerely ask you to refrain. There really is no place for rudeness or character assassinations when we are just starting to get to know each other. I think a reading of all my posts on this thread so far will demonstrate that I have tried to make it clear I mean no harm to anyone. Yes, I am blunt at times, but it is all in the spirit of honest discussion and rooted in friendliness.

 

[Stephen168]

If you look back at my comments regarding Catholic history I was simply mentioning it in context of comparative analysis. It was an honest attempt to state that BOTH Mormons and Catholics have things in their history which are not to be proud of.

When I do a comparative historical analysis, I see the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and the Mormon Church was not. I am proud of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church because they were taught by Christ and the Apostles. The history of the Catholic Church is the history of western civilization; hospitals, universities, calendar, New Testament, hospice, social welfare. Most ‘dark spots’ in Catholic history are people looking at 13th century Catholics through 21st century protestant glasses which have no effect on Catholic Doctrine. I think many non-Catholics invent ‘dark spots’ to make themselves feel better about themselves.

 

[adstrinity]

Hi adstrinity,

I do want to say, that I appreciate the fact that you were quick to welcome me to this forum. As a guest to this Forum, it is nice to feel like I am welcome to be here. Also, I haven’t participated in very many Forums in my life, so I’m still learning how to navigate everything.

To answer your first question: Agency, according to LDS Doctrine is the ability and privilege God gives people to choose and to act for themselves.

Your second sets of questions about God are ones I have asked myself. The reality is that not much has been revealed and accepted as official LDS Doctrine about this concept. Most that is written is mere speculation and not founded on canonized scripture. That is the main reason most Mormons don’t talk much about it. Those types of specifics have not be established as official Mormon doctrine. Does that make sense? Let me know because it is important to me that I directly answer all questions.

So…“Agency” is free will?

Ah. Well, do you (Mormons) believe that one day you will know God (this God) and Supreme God?

And, yes, I believe that you’re answering me sufficiently. If something isn’t talked about, there’s not much that can be said on it, is there?

 

[SuRoj]

I guess Consistency, Fairness, and Truth is a one way street.

Hi Stephen168,

In the post that you are quoting I was incomplete in my response. So, it does seem like I am being one-sided. Thank you for bringing that up on this thread. I value all sides deeply. If you came to my home, you would frequently see me listening for hours to my friends as they share about their different religions. I welcome a fair discussion for all and I happily learn a lot from all of my friends.

In the spirit of consistency, fairness, and truth I will add to the quotes of mine that you quoted above.

Anyone who really knows and understands the history and doctrine of any religion-Catholic, Protestant, etc. will also never feel the need to do anything but share the truth in confidence. I’ve noticed that most people who do not feel certain or confident to share the truth, in any religion, are either doubting it or haven’t taken enough time to study it in full. I love it when my friends of all different faiths speak in absolute confidence about their religion.

It is important to note, as I’ve said in previous posts, there are many ‘dark spots’ in LDS history. If all people of all religions examined their history, they would discover things people have said and done that are not good. I worry sometimes about fellow Mormons who do not admit and/or do not realize that the history is not ‘all roses’. In fairness, it is important to be consistent about history. I do love the many beautiful and inspiring things found in the history of Catholicism and mainstream Christianity. I also love the many beautiful and inspiring things found in LDS history.

Furthermore, I find it fascinating that many Mormons are unaware and/or avoid the controversies in LDS history. It’s crazy to me because the history is so relatively young and so the information is recorded and available for all to read.

I hope you now see that consistency, fairness, and truth is a two-way street for me.

 

[SuRoj]

I was just curious which doctrines a member of the LDS church would consider spurious. I think it’s an odd word to use to describe ones own doctrine.

Hi zaffiroborant,

Because I’m the one who originally said the words ‘spurious Mormon doctrines’ I thought I would respond to you hear.

I definitely agree that spurious is an odd word to describe ones own doctrine. It needs further explanation. There are several Mormon doctrines that have been taught in the past, (sometimes briefly among LDS leaders) that are not ever fully explained. As a result, and especially if the doctrine is foreign to current mainstream Christianity, lots of people in and out of the LDS Church speculate. Therefore, the speculation/discussion on the doctrine elaborates into conjecture and leads to something I would call spurious. That’s really what I meant by saying that.

 

[SuRoj]

When I do a comparative historical analysis, I see the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and the Mormon Church was not. I am proud of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church because they were taught by Christ and the Apostles. The history of the Catholic Church is the history of western civilization; hospitals, universities, calendar, New Testament, hospice, social welfare. Most ‘dark spots’ in Catholic history are people looking at 13th century Catholics through 21st century protestant glasses which have no effect on Catholic Doctrine. I think many non-Catholics invent ‘dark spots’ to make themselves feel better about themselves.

Stephen168,

I agree with everything you have stated here, except for one thing. I will come back to that in a moment. First, I just want to say that I have a lot of respect for Catholics, like yourself, who are proud of their history and Doctrine. I am very familiar with the details of Catholic history and there are a ton of amazing things. I’ve said this several times now in this thread, but I will say, once again, that I don’t think it is necessary to scrutinize every detail of the past of any religion. Instead, I really prefer to focus on the doctrines and the ‘fruits’ of a religion. There are a lot of beautiful Catholic ‘fruits’, as you have mentioned.

I respect your belief that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ. It would not be appropriate for me to refute your firm belief. In fact, if a Catholic did not believe that, I would wonder why they are Catholic.

I do have to respectfully disagree with the end of your first sentence. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ founded The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. In the spirit of a friendly thread discussion, I ask that you return the same respect I have given you on this matter.

 

[SuRoj]

So…“Agency” is free will?

Ah. Well, do you (Mormons) believe that one day you will know God (this God) and Supreme God?

And, yes, I believe that you’re answering me sufficiently. If something isn’t talked about, there’s not much that can be said on it, is there?

Hello again, adstrinity,

Yes, free will and agency are good synonyms.

To answer your second question: John 17:3 is the best answer. This verse explains what Mormons believe in relation to your question.

Because I want to understand your perspective better: What do you believe in relation to knowing God?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Hi zaffiroborant,

Because I’m the one who originally said the words ‘spurious Mormon doctrines’ I thought I would respond to you hear.

I definitely agree that spurious is an odd word to describe ones own doctrine. It needs further explanation. There are several Mormon doctrines that have been taught in the past, (sometimes briefly among LDS leaders) that are not ever fully explained. As a result, and especially if the doctrine is foreign to current mainstream Christianity, lots of people in and out of the LDS Church speculate. Therefore, the speculation/discussion on the doctrine elaborates into conjecture and leads to something I would call spurious. That’s really what I meant by saying that.

So it’s not that the doctrines are spurious (1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false. 2. Of illegitimate birth. 3. Botany Similar in appearance but unlike in structure or function. Used of plant parts. American Heritage Dictionary)it’s that they are often misinterpreted or misrepresented?

I’m really surprised to see “ordinances for the dead” on the list.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The sort of “speculations” that mormons have, and are accepted as normal, should leave anyone to wonder as to where such “speculations” are sourced.

 

[SuRoj]

So it’s not that the doctrines are spurious (1. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or origin; not genuine; false. 2. Of illegitimate birth. 3. Botany Similar in appearance but unlike in structure or function. Used of plant parts. American Heritage Dictionary)it’s that they are often misinterpreted or misrepresented?

I’m really surprised to see “ordinances for the dead” on the list.

Yes, I would never consider official LDS Doctrine as spurious. As you said, there are several things that are often misinterpreted and misrepresented. When this happens people present their false conclusions as ‘Mormon Doctrine’. Thus, calling it spurious in that context is appropriate. Another good term for this would be false doctrine.

I put ‘ordinance work for the dead’ on the list because it is one of those areas where people misrepresent and create ‘false doctrines’. The truth is Mormon Doctrine on work for the dead is simple. Perform the ordinances vicariously for someone who has gone before and then the person who has died will have the option to accept or reject the ordinance. The reason for doing this is, according to Mormon Doctrine, all mankind should be given the opportunity to be baptized even if they died before having the opportunity. Ordinances, such as baptism are believed to be necessary for entrance into the Kingdom of God.

So, now that I’ve established the official doctrine, I will give an example of spurious things shared related to it. A common misrepresentation or false doctrine people attribute is that Mormons are providing salvation for their deceased ancestors. This is simply not true. Mormon Doctrine is clear that man cannot save man. Salvation is ONLY through Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon contains numerous verses establishing that we believe salvation is only in and through Jesus Christ.

Let me know if you want more clarification on this. I’m happy to do so.

 

[SuRoj]

The sort of “speculations” that mormons have, and are accepted as normal, should leave anyone to wonder as to where such “speculations” are sourced.

Hi Rebecca,

Speculations about unrevealed or partially revealed truth is not unique to Mormons. I am a college administrator and enjoy study and discussion with professors on various University campuses-mostly Notre Dame, SMU, and BYU. I’ve discovered over the years that my friends of various faiths speculate about many things within their own and other religions.

None of these people (predominantly active mainstream Christians of various denominations, including Catholic) have any issue with speculation.

 

[zaffiroborant]

The sort of “speculations” that mormons have, and are accepted as normal, should leave anyone to wonder as to where such “speculations” are sourced.

They just leave me grateful I’m not in a moonwalk

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Rebecca,

Speculations about unrevealed or partially revealed truth is not unique to Mormons. I am a college administrator and enjoy study and discussion with professors on various University campuses-mostly Notre Dame, SMU, and BYU. I’ve discovered over the years that my friends of various faiths speculate about many things within their own and other religions.

None of these people (predominantly active mainstream Christians of various denominations, including Catholic) have any issue with speculation.

It is not the speculation itself… Only mormons speculate multiple gods, Adam as God the Father, and the one regarding Mary that is beyond blasphemous and not worth repeating. It is where your speculations go that is telling.

 

[why_me]

When I do a comparative historical analysis, I see the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ and the Mormon Church was not. I am proud of the Dogmas of the Catholic Church because they were taught by Christ and the Apostles. The history of the Catholic Church is the history of western civilization; hospitals, universities, calendar, New Testament, hospice, social welfare. Most ‘dark spots’ in Catholic history are people looking at 13th century Catholics through 21st century protestant glasses which have no effect on Catholic Doctrine. I think many non-Catholics invent ‘dark spots’ to make themselves feel better about themselves.

There is nothing wrong in pride in one’s own religion. And there is certainly nothing wrong in being proud of dogmas. And yes, there are great things in catholic history to be sure. But to excuse the dark sides does a disservice to catholicism. The recent dark side viewed by many catholics and most non-catholics are the sex abuse scandals that has rocked the catholic faith. Catholics must recognize such flaws in its structure to give justice to the victims of abuse.

Sure…be proud…but also recognize the flaws in catholic history. Do you now claim that the sexually abused are inventing dark spots in catholic history? Fifty years from now these scandals will be catholic history.

 

[why_me]

Answersplease said: You are rude and if you think that the articles and quotes are wrong or taken out of context, THEN PROVE IT.

And jumping on a thread and ranting about how ignorant people are WITHOUT reading the whole thread just proves your lack of credibility.

And calling people names like “ignorant” without proof just shows how kind and loving your religion really is.

Answersplease,

I looked back at the statement you are referring to and I feel bad because I can see how it would come across as rude to ricko. I seriously was not trying to be rude. As I mentioned in my previous post to you, I am new to this thread and so no one knows me. Therefore, it would be impossible to know my intentions or interpret my tone. I honestly was not trying to be rude. I was being blunt and straightforward, so, I do apologize to you, ricko, and anyone else who thought I was being rude. I will make sure sure every post, even when I’m being blunt, is clearly kind and friendly because that is always my intention.

The irony here is that you are coming across as rude to me. Is this your intention? .

The way in which answersplease posts is rude. As you can see it took some extra work by you to respond to him. And he knows exactly how he is posting…so that people will have difficulties in responding. If we all did what he does, this forum would be one of the most rudest forums on the internet. I wouldn’t worry about offending him. His posting name is ironic since he believes that he has all the answers already. And yes, his posts are designed to offend the mormons. And so, yes, it is his intention to be rude in my very humble opinion.

I am surprised that the moderators allow him to post and respond the way he does.(by filling in blue letter inside another persons posts) Impossible for the person to respond directly to him.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I am surprised that the moderators allow him to post and respond the way he does.(by filling in blue letter inside another persons posts) Impossible for the person to respond directly to him.

I managed to do it.

 

[Answersplease]

The way in which answersplease posts is rude. As you can see it took some extra work by you to respond to him. And he knows exactly how he is posting…so that people will have difficulties in responding. If we all did what he does, this forum would be one of the most rudest forums on the internet. I wouldn’t worry about offending him. His posting name is ironic since he believes that he has all the answers already. And yes, his posts are designed to offend the mormons. And so, yes, it is his intention to be rude in my very humble opinion.

I am surprised that the moderators allow him to post and respond the way he does.(by filling in blue letter inside another persons posts) Impossible for the person to respond directly to him.

Being verbally abused by a guy who thinks it is OK to lie, doesn’t surprise me.

I really don’t have to answer you but I will:

I already told Dianaiad why I post this way, it makes my posts stand out and I like the way it formats and lines up my posts with other people’s quotes.

My posting name “Answersplease” was made a long time ago, I ALREADY got my answers by looking them up here on this website. And if I need anymore answers, I will go to a source that doesn’t think it is OK to lie.

As for being rude, you and the other Mormon posters show yourselves by how you act here, you think nobody notices?

Quote: from answerplease:

St. Augustine said, “God does not need my lie.”

since the hatred for mormons was very real. Polygamy would have created an intolerable position for the early mormons if the cat was let out of the bag. And so, I can see denying polygamy in public. No problem.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Pending review by Moderator Rachel Malloy