Question for Mormons

[LongJourney]

There are plenty of others. I am just asking her to do an examination of conscience. Such a concept might be alien to her way of thinking, however.

 

[Todd520]

That of course is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

However, as I explained before, that does not mean that others would agree with you, and that others didn’t find it mocking or insulting. Which therefor negates her comment about never making a mocking or derrogatory statement about Catholicism.

TPG, I’m sure you understand the purpose of making analogies. She made an analogy which offended you, but this was necessary to be an effective analogy. She did not make a false claim against the Catholic faith or mock it.

Ergo, keep reading her 5k posts for a functional example

 

[LongJourney]

She made an analogy which offended you, but this was necessary to be an effective analogy.

Offending people is not an effective way of winning them over to your way of thinking, IMHO. Abrasive apologetics boomerang.

For example, I just posted this on another board:

Korihor’s denial of God was sin. However, it arose because of his ability to see the abuse of religion. And his denial of God was transitory. It is very similar to what many LDS experience in the process of leaving the church. Knowing no other religion, they reject all religion, because of its abuses. This fits very well into Nehor’s worse sin in leading a church which fails to teach ethical behavior to please God, and fails to teach our need for repentance whenever we stray from that ideal. Abuse of religion, denying its power to encourage ethical behavior, is a serious and reprehensible sin. A plethora of Gnostic beliefs, or wild theological speculations having nothing to do with encouraging ethical behavior, are characteristic of such a religion. Heaven’s Gate might be held up as an example of that, as well as a few other religions.

Seen from a sociological view, the function of religion is to encourage ethical behavior.

“Dark night of the soul,” not feeling God’s presence, while continuing to act in an ethical way, ranges from sin, to not sin, depending on the way a person conducts him/herself while going through such an experience.

So, yes, my admiration of the character Korihor is symptomatic of my not having been indoctrinated/brainwashed into Mormonism. As well as a few other things.

Further, the demonization of the character Korihor makes it that much more difficult for LDS to criticize the church and/or leave it.

Good subject!

One must get into the other’s way of thinking in order to address necessary issues. Offensive analogies just don’t cut it. Mining the other’s scripture for effective analogies does.

 

[dianaiad]

Okay so lets get back to some facts now. So then Mormons believe that an Angel can also be a Human right?

Actually…we believe that only humans can be angels. “Angel,” to us, is a job description, not a species classification. That is, “Angel” means “messenger.” An Angel is someone who has been given a specific task to do, by God.

Any person, either as a spirit (pre-or post mortal) or a resurrected being, may, we believe, be given a specific message to deliver, or a task to perform.

We mere mortal types are the folks angels appear TO. Does that help?

It all goes back to the idea that we are all God’s children; we do not believe that He created separate classes of beings…they are all us. (This is the basis of 'Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers," by the way.)

 

[dianaiad]

The archangel Michael is also Adam, but helped god assemble the Earth from fragments of previously destroyed planets. So, Mormons believe that an angel can also be a human **and **a god.

I never heard of THAT one.

LJ, where do you get this stuff? True, we do believe that Adam = Michael, but…whats with the 'assemble the earth from fragments of previously destroyed planets?"…Unless, of course, you are talking about the colision between Tellus and Theia, resulting in the formation of the earth and the moon.

But wait…that’s not religious myth; that’s modern cosmology regarding the beginning of the Hadean era in the solar system geological timeline.

So your claim about how the earth was created seems to be fairly accurate, given how science has come to understand the birth and death cycle of stars and solar systems, but I don’t remember learning about the recycled planet theory from religious classes. We have always limited the notion to the idea that creation involved organizing matter already out there rather than creation ex-nihilo, but that seems to be a great deal more vague.

Personally, I would have loved to have been taught in religious classes that the earth was created out of ‘previously destroyed planets,’ given that it seems to be scientific fact. How lovely it would have been to be able to say “yep, LJ, we taught that…something like two hundred years before the scientists figured that out!” …but we can’t. Sorry.

 

[dianaiad]

There was no mocking of Catholics.

She was making a point: comparing something we would be aghast about–a Cardinal securing a lap dance–with something they find equally appalling.

I’ve had a similar modus in discussion with a New Age friend about sex. She is quite liberal in her views and when I’m making a point, I have to refer to some really anomalous sexual practices, for she finds the other things “totally fine”. She responds, "How interesting that you would compare <my sexual practice> with <that totally deviant practice>. Well, yeah, otherwise her thought would be, “So what? What’s wrong with that?” It’s the nature of the beast when you’re arguing a point of this type.

Thanks, PR…indeed, that was the point. I could, perhaps, have made the comparison to something a little more…exact, like having the Cardinal caught kissing his dinner date goodnight (because, just as it would be perfectly permissable for a Cardinal to have a glass of wine at the country club bar after a round of golf, it would be perfectly permissable for a single LDS apostle to date–and to kiss his date goodnight) but by that time I was utterly frustrated and angry–and was only thinking about a hypothetical situation that would cause as much scandal and upset to Catholics as having a modern Mormon apostle in a bar would cause us–in an attempt to show the utter stupidity of one of them casually doing so in a Salt Lake City country club. It. Just. wouldn’t. happen.

The entire point of the hypothetical situation I used was that…no Cardinal WOULD do that. As you made the point above, the comparison wouldn’t work if Cardinals actually DID go around soliciting lap dances, would it? (

 

[LongJourney]

I was utterly frustrated and angry–and was only thinking about a hypothetical situation that would cause as much scandal and upset to Catholics

Thank you for the apology. Kissing his dinner date would have been more effective.

 

[dianaiad]

That of course is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

However, as I explained before, that does not mean that others would agree with you, and that others didn’t find it mocking or insulting. Which therefor negates her comment about never making a mocking or derrogatory statement about Catholicism.

There is a huge difference, sir, between MAKING such a comment, and having others take offense at something that was not meant to be offensive. In fact, that comment was the opposite of offensive, using as an example a hypothetical situation that we all know would not happen

The offensive comment in that case wasn’t mine, which was actually a compliment…after all, I couldn’t have used it as an example of an impossible situation if I thought for a moment that such things would actually happen, would I? The offense was in the accusation, unfounded and embellished that one of our leaders, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, actually DID go in and booze it up in a bar–in full public view, and this accusation was made in an attempt to prove how hypocritical and awful Mormons are.

So in return, I give an example of something that we all know a Cardinal would NOT do, in order to illustrate the level of offense that the poster committed against my own belief system?

How is that causing YOU offense? Think about it.

Actually, people can take offense at anything. I used to have a cat that took offense at butterflies. The claim I made, though, was that I didn’t mock or deride Catholics or Catholicism. If you see insult where there is none, that’s not my fault.

 

[dianaiad]

There are plenty of others. I am just asking her to do an examination of conscience. Such a concept might be alien to her way of thinking, however.

Since that one didn’t work, try again. As you can see, That example was a reaction to a very deep, obvious and egregious (and utterly false) accusation of a real deed by a real LDS apostle. Mine was a hypothetical example of something that we all know wouldn’t happen, in an attempt to show how incredibly offensive the accusation was…and how incredibly unlikely, not to mention STUPID, such an action would be on the part of an LDS apostle. Those men didn’t get where they were by being stupid.

I am not responsible if you choose to take offense. I am only responsible if I actually give it. In this case, at least, my conscience doesn’t bother me even a tiny bit.

 

[LongJourney]

Usually when I get frustrated and irritated with posters, I take a break and do something else until the negative feelings pass by. You ought to try it. It works wonders.

As for Thomas Monson having a glass of wine, that does not bother me at all. Might do him some good. Does that offend you?

 

[Todd520]

Hi LJ
Yes, we agree on the below. I think Diana must also since only one post in 5k (0.02%) has been offered to show her bad behavior.

Offending people is not an effective way of winning them over to your way of thinking, IMHO. Abrasive apologetics boomerang.

I think you are way off base in your post and urge you to study the stages of spiritual growth. It’s common for all faiths, as people mature, to reject the black & white dogma they were taught as children. But these same faiths also have a deeper spiritual well that people often return to, even Catholics with the ‘Come Home’ message.

For example, I just posted this on another board:

Yes, her approach clearly didn’t work with you, but other readers did get the message in the analogy. Remember that she only used it in defense of lies by another poster and was not attacking the CC.

One must get into the other’s way of thinking in order to address necessary issues. Offensive analogies just don’t cut it. Mining the other’s scripture for effective analogies does.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**Having hopelessly vered off topic, **http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/threadclosed.png