Antimormons

[White Mountain]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 22 2004, 11:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 22 2004, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Why you are RLDS and following a "fallen prophet"?

And your revelation on CF isn't typical of RLDS either, is it?

C'mon, you can do better than this. What was it I said on the other board? Or weren't you paying attention?

It isn't typical of a lot of RLDS, though the BoM supports it to a good degree. [/b][/quote]
Mormonism seems to present an evolving concept of deity. I agree that the BoM is incongruent with the Book of Abraham and the Adam-God nonsense that Joseph, Brigham and others taught. My guess is that Joseph (the maybe, fallen prophet) modified his view of God to accommodate Celestial Marriage to avoid Emmas frying pan!

[Jenda]

So, are you going to stay and we can discuss things like adults and friends here, or are you going to go back to the other board where we will constantly have to battle things out?

[White Mountain]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 23 2004, 07:58 AM
So, are you going to stay and we can discuss things like adults and friends here, or are you going to go back to the other board where we will constantly have to battle things out?

I'm up for some vigorous discussion of issues. I'll also post on the other board (I do think your characterization of that forum is colored by the fact that you don't agree with the Nicean Creed and it took a while to clarify that. But it worked itself out and you got a cute little icon).

I do find RLDS fascinating and I do have more questions. And hey ask me questions about Calvinism or Protestantism if you like.

Question: Why do the RLDS readily embrace the JST and include it in the IV and on the otherhand, the LDS are very cautious? I have never had an LDS person say to me that they believe the JST to be Scripture instead they consider it an unfinished project that is not binding any more than any other non doctrinal/scriptural pronouncement (e.g. Adam-God).

I am further fascinated that when it comes to the Book of Abraham, the perspectives flip-flop! LDS say it's scripture, RLDS view it as a failed human product.

Help me out with that one....

[Jenda]

Originally posted by White Mountain+Mar 23 2004, 07:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (White Mountain @ Mar 23 2004, 07:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 23 2004, 07:58 AM
So, are you going to stay and we can discuss things like adults and friends here, or are you going to go back to the other board where we will constantly have to battle things out?

I'm up for some vigorous discussion of issues. I'll also post on the other board (I do think your characterization of that forum is colored by the fact that you don't agree with the Nicean Creed and it took a while to clarify that. But it worked itself out and you got a cute little icon).
[/b][/quote]
My characterization of the other board is colored by the fact that some people wish to label and marginalize others so that they can consider themselves in a position of power over them. If that was not true, what was the purpose of your rant over there? Why did you feel the need to threaten me over the use of a stupid icon?

[White Mountain]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 23 2004, 08:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 23 2004, 08:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I'm up for some vigorous discussion of issues. I'll also post on the other board (I do think your characterization of that forum is colored by the fact that you don't agree with the Nicean Creed and it took a while to clarify that. But it worked itself out and you got a cute little icon).

My characterization of the other board is colored by the fact that some people wish to label and marginalize others so that they can consider themselves in a position of power over them. If that was not true, what was the purpose of your rant over there? Why did you feel the need to threaten me over the use of a stupid icon? [/b][/quote]
I simply was asking that the established rules of the forum be employed. The owner of the forum made the decision. His ruling concerning you was consistent with his established and written "Rule 7." You made it an issue by stepping over the line and then arguing where the line should be drawn when it was not your authority to decide where lines are drawn on his forum.

Jenda, can we move on? I asked some really good questions, I think.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by White Mountain+Mar 23 2004, 07:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (White Mountain @ Mar 23 2004, 07:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

My characterization of the other board is colored by the fact that some people wish to label and marginalize others so that they can consider themselves in a position of power over them. If that was not true, what was the purpose of your rant over there? Why did you feel the need to threaten me over the use of a stupid icon?

I simply was asking that the established rules of the forum be employed. The owner of the forum made the decision. His ruling concerning you was consistent with his established and written "Rule 7." You made it an issue by stepping over the line and then arguing where the line should be drawn when it was not your authority to decide where lines are drawn on his forum.

Jenda, can we move on? I asked some really good questions, I think. [/b][/quote]
I was already talking to the moderator about it and had told him that I had no intention on arguing with the decision, but until you pushed the matter, a decision had not been reached. And you were not asking. You were threatening.

Yes we can move on. But only if we can move on as equals. I will not be badgered or made to feel inferior to you or anyone else.

[Rodney]

Originally posted by Faerie@Mar 19 2004, 05:03 PM
Most "anti's" are anti because of 1 of 3 reasons:

1: They used to be LDS, somehow got "offended" and they left.
2: They've been brainwashed by their preacher
3: They've got nothing better to do with their time.

Yup, that's it. And sometimes all three, or maybe two of the three and possibly a combination of two or three and maybe even some other reasons that would never occur to one with your particular perspective.

[White Mountain]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 23 2004, 09:17 AM
Yes we can move on.* But only if we can move on as equals.* I will not be badgered or made to feel inferior to you or anyone else.

Cool, does that mean I'm now a moderator so we will be equals here (just kidding)?

Let's discuss. I think my question was stated a post or two above but I'll repeat it...

Question: Why do the RLDS readily embrace the JST and include it in the IV and on the otherhand, the LDS are very cautious? I have never had an LDS person say to me that they believe the JST to be Scripture instead they consider it an unfinished project that is not binding any more than any other non doctrinal/scriptural pronouncement (e.g. Adam-God).

I am further fascinated that when it comes to the Book of Abraham, the perspectives flip-flop! LDS say it's scripture, RLDS view it as a failed human product.

Help me out with that one....

{will be away a good bit today FYI}

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 21 2004, 06:18 PM

Taken directly from lds.org

1 Ne. 14: 10 (I Nephi 3:220-223 RLDS)

And he said unto me: Behold there are save two• churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the bother• is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso• belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore• of all the earth.

That is a matter of interpretation. The whore of all the earth is the church of the devil. How one interprets that is up to them, but not everyone interprets it alike. I have never heard that it represented the Christian church (as a whole (outside of Mormonism)), but I have heard it, and it was taught in our church for a long time, that it was the Catholic Church in specific. However, many have stepped away from that view and say that it is just those that are not for the church of God, and use this scripture as backup.

Luke 9:40-50 IV
49 And John spake and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid not any; for he who is not against us is for us.

I, personally, believe it is the Catholic Church. Not necessarily the people in the church, but the institution itself.