posted
In response the the first page in general, I've been reading the JFK speech and comparing it to the Romney speech from my perspective as an atheist. From my POV, both are essentially new to me (today) anyways.
What I find is that while the JFK speech never mentions atheists except (possibly) in one passage, it also never really "pokes" me. The reference in the JFK speech is:
quote: Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end where all men and all churches are treated as equal where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind ....
This contrasts with the Romney speech where there are as has been said, several jarring intentional and unintentional statements from an atheist perspective, detailed quite well on the first page.
I also find that the JFK speech is much more concrete. He lists some specific controversial issues that might be affected by his religious convictions, like
quote:I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ...
quote: Whatever issue may come before me as president on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject ...
and then goes on to say what would happen if his religious convictions and his duties conflict
quote: But if the time should ever come and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
Thats actually a pretty daring statement with real consequences.
In the Romney speech, there is an equivalent passage
quote: When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States .
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers - I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
See, there is similarity but in the case of a conflict, while JFK says he would resign due to his beliefs (although not foresseing any) and puts his money where is mouth is by listing specific issues, Romney is much more ambiguous.
Finally, the most important comparison, JFK says.
quote: While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election ... These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues ...
versus
quote: There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator.
In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is, given just these two speeches I would vote for JFK rather than Romney. Thats pretty impressive given that there have been 60 years past. Why don't you have leaders (or at least speechwriters) like that anymore
Edit to add: Sorry for all the quoting
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, this thead has really grown since yesterday. But I want to comment on something you said early on, Slim: "We also believe He is God. The part that 'Mormons believe something different' is only that we believe He is a different person than His Father."
Ah, no. Most Christians believe Jesus is a different Person from His Father. The mystery of how the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can be three Persons and yet be One, is something we cannot explain, and Jews take us to task for it regularly.
Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob? Let's just agree not to go there, and simply acknowledge that Mormons teach something different about the nature of Christ than do most Evangelicals.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do understand that this is an issue for you. It is not the issue I was addressing which is private religious expression. What we do with our own time, property, and funds.
I know you did. You also couched the dispute in terms of not receiving special accommodations. My point is that it's not only requests for "special" accommodations that are at issue, but also the denial of general accommodations.
quote:I'll take that as a 'no', then. As I suspected.
Please. Our magazine was denied a freely available government benefit because of its content - and 12 other magazines were given the same funding without their content being reviewed. The works of art were removed based on their content. Our concert was deemed ineligible for a public rate because of the content of the speech.
Every issue I gave has been adjudicated at some point as a free speech issue. For some reason I don't think I should take your opinion - which you haven't even bothered to support in any way - over that of 9 supreme court justices, dozens of circuit court judges, and hundreds of legal scholars.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think nativity scenes and the like should be permitted as long as there is an unbiased process to go through when getting the rights to set up such a display. For example, I have no problem with churches paying to use public property for a religious display as long as any other organization could do the same. On the other hand, I would have a problem if my town allowed a church to use public property for free because "it's that time of year" if other organizations could not do the same.
On a different note, I understand BlackBlade's concern about the creation of an atheist state. I haven't seen any evidence to show that the U.S is moving in that direction, but I do find actions such as Germany's move to ban Scientology rather disturbing.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob?
I would. I've never heard of that.
Kolob is a funny sounding word, but it just means "heart" or "center" (in Arabic, anyways).
Our teaching is that Jesus is Jehovah, who is the creator of this world. So all the references to him being the Lord are exactly that. Jesus is the only begotten. We aren't in disagreement on the identity of Jesus. Our definition of God the Father, if anything, is what may seem odd, though obviously not to us.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, it seems to me that like Roman Catholics, Mormons in general are not well acquainted with their own church's actual teachings. Maybe it's best to leave well enough alone.
Anyway, best of luck to Mitt Romney in his candidacy for president. I thought his father would have been a good president, too.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's also the case that many of the "teachings" of the church are traditional or informal in nature and not actually part of canon. The words of the prophet are not automatically considered doctrine.
There are similar issues with the catholic church. Papal infallibility, as I understand it, only applies when it is explicitly invoked.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, you're lucky I came back. I don't normally come to Hatrack this often.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Wow, this thead has really grown since yesterday. But I want to comment on something you said early on, Slim: "We also believe He is God. The part that 'Mormons believe something different' is only that we believe He is a different person than His Father."
Ah, no. Most Christians believe Jesus is a different Person from His Father. The mystery of how the Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) can be three Persons and yet be One, is something we cannot explain, and Jews take us to task for it regularly.
Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob? Let's just agree not to go there, and simply acknowledge that Mormons teach something different about the nature of Christ than do most Evangelicals.
Yes, I think that's what I was trying to say in my first post. I acknowledge that we teach something different about the nature of Christ than do most Evangelicals.
But, If we are going to agree to disagree, lets make sure that we actually do disagree first, and second, make sure that what we disagree on, the other actually believes.
I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate individuals, and when the scriptures speak of them being one, I believe it means they are one in purpose, not being.
You say you believe that God cannot really be explained.
That's fine, we can disagree on that.
But we both believe it was the same person who spoke to Moses out of the burning bush as the person that died on the Cross. Let us not disagree on that.
And Jesus a Lord of Kolob? I've never heard that term either, and I don't get that out of these verses. (the only ones that mention Kolob.) So, there's no point to disagree with each other on what neither of us believe in.
But if you do get that out of those verses, we can disagree on that. Posts: 172 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's much more likely that Ron doesn't know the difference between a statement and a piece of doctrine, and that he's confused about what, exactly, is canon and doctrine.
BSG, the first version, was absolutely, completely Mormonism-alluding all the way through.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pooka, it seems to me that like Roman Catholics, Mormons in general are not well acquainted with their own church's actual teachings. Maybe it's best to leave well enough alone.
Most people I know who say that about Catholics in the type of context you made it here are generally far more ill-informed about Catholic teachings than most Catholics.
Honestly, I can't imagine any reason for you to make this statement that stems from an honest desire for open discussion. You spout off about a lot of subjects here. In those areas where I happen to have expertise, you are generally very ill-informed. Based on this record, I'm certainly not inclined to believe your spouting about Mormon doctrine.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob?
I think you'd have a hard time getting any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to explane that since it isn't part of our doctrine.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: That may have been deliberate. Glen Larson is LDS and many LDS themes appear in the show.
I guessed it might have been, but at first (having never heard of the Kolob thing) it gave me an interesting moment of dissonance. As in, "wait...isn't that fictional? What next? Klingons?" kind of moment.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Surely you must concede that because of mandatory Christianity in middle age Europe there were many people who believed in Christianity who would not have given a free choice from the start?
But...that was a bad thing, right?
Of course, that's the point. Going to the opposite extreme is not an improvement.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't the opposite extreme be the outlawing of Christianity, not just refraining from promoting Christianity?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
That, to me, means a choice where the government does not establish or support religion. Where religion is a private enterprise (so to speak). I am a Democrat. I think that government should do a lot of things. Muddling in religion is not one of them.
edit to add: Matt, I would think so, yes.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Wouldn't the opposite extreme be the outlawing of Christianity, not just refraining from promoting Christianity?
Yes it would be.
kmbboots: well we are back where we started. Obviously we have different views on where that balance is.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
To clarify, do you believe that a government agency should be permitted to display a nativity scene on public property while at the same time excluding displays representative of other worldviews?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you think that the balance lies more toward the government estabishing or supporting religion? I think that is what you are saying, but want to be sure before I go on.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems to me that like Roman Catholics, Mormons in general are not well acquainted with their own church's actual teachings. Maybe it's best to leave well enough alone.
Ron, Since the Mormon church has a lay ministry, most active Mormons know alot more about the doctrines of our church than your average Christian. At the very least, we know what is and is not taught by our church leaders and in our church scriptures.
Most of us have taught in church and delivered sermons in our meetings. I for example have a Masters certificate from an LDS institute of religion, have taught the adult scripture study class, the gospel essentials class, the womens group, the youth and the children. I have also attended church meeting virtually everyweek for over 4 decades and have heard or read nearly every talk given by church leaders in General Conference over the past 25 years. I have been to the Temple and am familiar with what is taught in the Temple ordinances. All that is in addition to extensive personal study of my church's teachings which includes reading the Bible and all of the LDS scriptures many times and rather extensive reading of other church leaders and scholars. I can assure you that I am far more familiar with the doctrines of my church than you are.
The "The Lords of Kolob" thing sounds reminiscent of some teachings which have been attributed to Brigham Young or sometimes Joseph Smith but which have never been considered Church doctrine. I have never heard them mentioned in any church setting in over 4 decades of church attendance. I don't know how things work in your church, but in our church the fact that some church member, even a prominent church leader, once said something doesn't make it doctrine.
You should be aware that anti-Mormon sources routinely pick out the most outrageous statements they can find attributed to early Mormon church leaders, take the statements out of context and then claim that they are what the church really teaches. They aren't. That kind of rhetoric is beneath you.
[ December 07, 2007, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
To clarify, do you believe that a government agency should be permitted to display a nativity scene on public property while at the same time excluding displays representative of other worldviews?
I don't know about BB, but I certainly would find that unacceptable. I do think that religious groups are entitled to the same use of public spaces and free expression of their views as are all people. I would oppose any government agency creating a religious display of any kind, but I would also oppose any prohibition of religious displays in public areas where displays sponsored by other religious groups are allowed.
So for example, If a High School allowed students or student groups to put up seasonal decorations in the halls, religious students should not be prevented from displaying religious symbols. At the same time, the High School should not decorate with religious symbols
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So for example, If a High School allowed students or student groups to put up seasonal decorations in the halls, religious students should not be prevented from displaying religious symbols.
So if they display snowflakes, they should also be allowed to display swastikas?
-------
quote: The "The Lords of Kolob" thing sounds reminiscent of some teachings which have been attributed to Brigham Young or sometimes Joseph Smith but which have never been considered Church doctrine. I have never heard them mentioned in any church setting in over 4 decades of church attendance. I don't know how things work in your church, but in our church the fact that some church member, even a prominent church leader, once said something doesn't make it doctrine.
Rabbit, it is fair to note, I think, that disavowing Smith's statements about Kolob calls into serious doubt the validity of his Egyptian "translation."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So if they display snowflakes, they should also be allowed to display swastikas?
Yes. But that problem is precisely why so many schools prohibit the students from putting up decorations of any kind. Snowflakes would be particularly problematic since some student might make a snowflake that looked like a swastika or (g-d forbid) a snowflake that miraculous looked like the face of the virgin Mary.
And I stand by my earlier statement. Prohibiting the expression of religion by individuals or NGOs in public spaces, violates the first amendment. If Public Spaces are made available for individual expression, then think its wrong to prohibit any type of expression other than actionable threats. -------
quote:Rabbit, it is fair to note, I think, that disavowing Smith's statements about Kolob calls into serious doubt the validity of his Egyptian "translation."
1. I didn't disavow the statements about Kolob which are included in the Mormon scripture. I disavowed Ron's paraphrasing of something which might have been attributed to J.S. but has not been taught in the Mormon church during the past century.
2. There is a difference between the argument that rejecting a given statement attributed to J.S. casts doubt on the validity of his other teachings and the claim that such a statement is LDS doctrine. I was addressing the latter not the former.
3. While I am comfortable correcting what I believe is a falacious statement of the teachings of my church on this site, I am also confident that debating the validity of Joseph Smith's prophetic leadership is disrespectful to the express wishes of OSC and in violation of the rules for the site.
4. I'm sick and tired of anti-Mormon sources trying to define my faith for me and the insulting claims by someone like Ron that he knows more about my religion than I do. There are salient differences between the LDS view of Jesus Christ and the views held by mainstream Christianity but those differences are not fairly represented by the many protestant ministers who take a few odd quotes from early church leaders to build a straw man they can easily burn.
If you, Ron, or anyone else wants to know what Mormons believe about Jesus Christ, hereis a good and authoritative summary.
The twisted claims many people make about the Mormon faith are the equivalent of claiming Catholics are cannibals because of their belief in transubstantiation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, you said in remarks addressed to me: "You spout off about a lot of subjects here. In those areas where I happen to have expertise, you are generally very ill-informed."
I think you probably are confusing me with someone else. But such a sweeping criicism invites a challenge: Cite one thing I have ever said about anything that you can demonstrate you knew better about. Give me the quote, and justify your opinion.
Those of us who have made an in-depth study of theology and church history, often run across demonstrations of the lack of knowledge of the general laity of the very theological issues over which wars have been fought in the past. If the Mormon church takes some measures to educate its laity in details of doctrine, then it is doing about the same as the Catholic church does in having its members attend catechism classes. I have encountered many Catholics however who were just next to totally ignorant of what their church really teaches about anything. All those catechism classes seem to have had little effect. That is just my impression.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP/kmbboots: Rabbit managed to summarize my feelings on this particular matter.
quote:I don't know about BB, but I certainly would find that unacceptable. I do think that religious groups are entitled to the same use of public spaces and free expression of their views as are all people. I would oppose any government agency creating a religious display of any kind, but I would also oppose any prohibition of religious displays in public areas where displays sponsored by other religious groups are allowed.
Ron: Your Kolob thing has virtually no implication in real Mormon doctrine. It's just like Rabbits comparison to catholics being cannibals. Or somebody pointing to you and saying that you believe in human sacrifice, and that Peter was a Socialist who believed people who did not comply with God's protocol should die,(Acts 4: 32-37 and Acts 5: 1-11). I'll bet that if you ask a random sampling of Protestants about those two scriptures most have no idea that God sanctioned that sort of socialism.
I don't know what you are playing at with this whole, "Whose believers are better informed." Why does it even matter in the first place? I'm certain if you look you will find many different levels of understanding among members in the Mormon church, from plain crazy to apostolic. I'm sure this applies to Protestantism, Catholicism, etc.
People like you are part of the reason Romney is too vague on his religion, because reporters don't ask about say, Mormon's belief in a lay ministry, or our even our all male priesthood. It's far too often about "Kolob" and "The Garden of Eden in Missouri" or "Temple Garments" or "Temple Ceremonies." Things we are either not able to discuss at length, or have little import, or are sacred. Perhaps you have no convictions or beliefs that fit into the "too sacred" category, but we do.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
You've yet to post anything remotely supporting your claim. You've been corrected repeatedly. You've responded to those corrections by essentially lying about the content of those corrections.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Things we are either not able to discuss at length, or have little import, or are sacred. Perhaps you have no convictions or beliefs that fit into the "too sacred" category, but we do.
I must admit, I'm scratching my head on this one. I can think of things that are too embarrassing to discuss (and indeed, would be for most people), but "too sacred"? Thats a tough one.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... Things we are either not able to discuss at length, or have little import, or are sacred. Perhaps you have no convictions or beliefs that fit into the "too sacred" category, but we do.
I must admit, I'm scratching my head on this one. I can think of things that are too embarrassing to discuss (and indeed, would be for most people), but "too sacred"? Thats a tough one.
It's not embarrassing, to talk about any of those things. Mormon's often do it in the company of other Mormons. Though temple things are usually only talked about within the temple itself. Within the context of the temple and other Mormons you are with people who understand the fundamentals of the religion and certain assumptions are a given and hence you can talk about those things.
Take "The Lords of Kolob" thing. Even if we correct it so that Kolob is properly identified as a celestial reference in the heavens, it presupposes the person you are talking to already agrees with myriad assumptions.
1: There is a heaven. 2: God lives there. 3: God created us. 4: God had a purpose in creating us. 5: God has revealed his purpose. 6: People choose to align themselves to that purpose or else not. 7: The Bible is God's revealed word. 8: God still reveals his word to men. 9: Joseph Smith was a man who revealed God's word to men. 10: The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are also God's revealed word. 11: One of the revealed works of God mentions a planet called Kolob with little description of what it is.
And now we can discuss the specifics of Kolob. Looks like you know about as much as I do about Kolob, seems like we are done talking about it. Maybe we should talk about one of the other 10 more fundamental assumptions as there is plenty to discuss about those that many do not agree on even amongst Mormons.
Were I to do that all over again with temples and garments, they would still fall at about number 11 if not later in the list of assumptions.
Assuming that many things, makes conversation about any topic tiresome and laborious. It does not make much sense.
Do you see why now when people jump to some of the more fringe topics of Mormonism, it's sometimes pointless to even answer? It's like trying to keep a child interested in protein synthesis.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, there is no one who posts to any of these forums who knows more about science, evolution, creation, and related issues than I do. I have been addressing these subjects in technical detail in public for fifty years. You may disagree with my conclusions, but you do not have superior knowledge. You would be well advised to exercise better self-discipline, and not let your conceit about your own opinions do your talking.
As for the Lords of Kolob thing, that came from Mormons on this site in the past. I did not invent it. Some Mormons here in this thread have acknowledged that there is something about it in Mormon teaching; they merely quibbled about how prominent it is (whether it is "cannon" or not). Did you notice this? Do you wish to take them to task as well?
But really, the whole point is that Mormons do not mean exactly the same thing that most Evangelical Christians do when they say "Jesus is the Son of God." A few here in this thread have acknowledged that is true. I did not seek to go into a lengthy theological discussion of it. I certainly could, but I have no real axe to grind. I simply noted the fact, in the context of Mitt Romney's statement being taken by Evangelicals as reassuring of his "Christian orthodoxy." And as I also said, though Mormons do not mean exactly the same thing, it is close enough at least in this political arena, and if it leads to more Evangelicals being comfortable voting for Romney, then fine with me. I am more impressed by his personal "cult" of excellence than I am by his religious background.
Now, if I were a Democrat, and Governor Romney were the Republican nominee, I might want to make an issue of the difference; but it is hard to conceive of a Democrat being so particular about religion that he would even know about the difference. I mean, in all honesty, we do not generally regard Democrats as being particularly religious, do we?
And as for whose laity is the best or worst informed about doctrine, it is probably a wash. Catholics, Mormons, or even laity in my own church, can often exhibit embarassingly profound ignorance about the distinctive teachings of their religion. I am a convert to my religion, as are about half our church membership, so we may have some advantage in knowing the Scriptural reasons why we take the distinctive doctrinal positions that we do. But I still do encounter exasperating ignorance at times.
I imagine that at one point, even the angels of heaven were mostly vague and unclear on the issues between Lucifer (the Devil) and God, and that is why God allowed there to be war in heaven, as stated in Revelation 12:7--so all the angels, down to the last and lowest one, were forced to make their fully informed and intelligent choice, and commit themselves to one side or the other.
[ December 08, 2007, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Dagonee, there is no one who posts to any of these forums who knows more about science, evolution, creation, and related issues than I do. I have been addressing these subjects in technical detail in public for fifty years. You may disagree with my conclusions, but you do not have superior knowledge. You would be well advised to exercise better self-discipline, and not let your conceit about your own opinions do your talking.
And apparently you've been wrong for 50 years. Ron, aren't you a YEC (Young Earth Creationist)? That belief denies modern physics and chemistry (especially absolute dating methods), geology, astronomy, cosmology, molecular biology, genetics, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc. How you can claim to know more about science than everyone here while reverting to laughably antiquated and debunked 18th- and 19th-century science is a mystery to me.
And that was a lame dig at Democrats.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"One of the revealed works of God mentions a planet called Kolob with little description of what it is."
This is INSANE! There is no PLANET called Kolob as it is a STAR! At least get that right - even for you BB.
quote: 2 And I saw the STARS, that they were very great, and that ONE OF THEM was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; 3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is NEAR unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest. 4 And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was AFTER THE MANNER OF THE LORD, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lords time, according to the reckoning of Kolob. (emphasis mine)
Regardless, this isn't a cosmology lesson. This is a theological metaphor even for the context of the scripture. Now, I believe there is a high probability there is a star that this references to, but I can't and no Mormon can be sure. As such, there is no way we could look up in the sky and point it out or travel to it in some mythical space adventure. THAT ISN'T THE POINT! It is a representation of the relationship of G-d, Jesus, and us mortals. Nothing more or less than that. Ironically, if you change the smear to Mormons believe in "The Lord of Kobol" (to follow the actual verses) then you are saying that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ. That is the meaning behind the words.
Interesting enough, "The Book of Abraham" has also been used to speculate the possiblity of Evolution as G-d's method of Creation. That should get Ron's blood going.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you care to go into an explanation for us of how Jesus was one of the Lords of Kolob? Let's just agree not to go there, and simply acknowledge that Mormons teach something different about the nature of Christ than do most Evangelicals.
As for the Lords of Kolob thing, that came from Mormons on this site in the past. I did not invent it. Some Mormons here in this thread have acknowledged that there is something about it in Mormon teaching; they merely quibbled about how prominent it is (whether it is "cannon" or not). Did you notice this? Do you wish to take them to task as well?
No one's saying that you invented the stuff about Kolob. That's an accusation that, so far as I can see, you've made up against yourself and attributed to others. But let's be clear, here: you really are attributing what has been soundly refuted as an uncertain and possibly even 'out-there' set of beliefs in Mormonism, and then behaved as though that belief is nearly homogenous.
quote: You would be well advised to exercise better self-discipline, and not let your conceit about your own opinions do your talking.
This is truly excellent advice for anyone. Take it to heart yourself, if you please. You've already shown how ignorant you are of what the "average" Mormon is like, and of what Mormons believe. I neither know nor care about whatever public credentials you may have in other fields-in this field, your credibility is suspect at best.
Educate yourself, and then take up the airs you claim in the fields of science, creationism, blah blah blah.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, there is no one who posts to any of these forums who knows more about science, evolution, creation, and related issues than I do.
Actually, I think I'd like to let this one have its own post. The hubris in it, for which you rebuke others, is breathtaking. Just a layman's (and mostly disinterested as far as reading all posts on the topic) opinion, but I would say Rabbit gives you a run for your money in science, at the very least. Certainly-and honestly, I'd wager my life against five bucks-in aspects of Mormon religious issues.
Beams and motes, man.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: Not to seem insensitive after you posted that long explanation, but I really left out two words that would have made my post much more clear. I meant to add "for me". As in while I understand other people may have things that they understand as being "too sacred", I do not. I was scratching my head to try to think of convictions or beliefs that *I* would find too sacred. Sorry.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The idea that something is "too sacred" to discuss is really one that I find very difficult to understand.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that something is "too sacred" to discuss is really one that I find very difficult to understand.
Tom, do you think that expression is ever meant literally? As in, too sacred to be discussed with anyone, ever?
Every time I've ever heard it used in an actual conversation between people, it's been meant as, "Too sacred to discuss with you*," for reasons of uncertainty, fear of mockery, etc. etc.
quote:Tom, do you think that expression is ever meant literally?
Not by Mormons. On the other hand, I know other sects (Muslims spring to mind) who literally consider some topics so sacred that they shouldn't be broached by anyone, even believers. Even when meant simply to exclude non-believers, though, I don't understand the motivation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, et. al., my beliefs about life and cosmic origins do not contradict any science, they are better in harmony with all the facts of science than your beliefs. Evolution is totally impossible. At one time or another I have cited item after item in the natural world which Creationism can explain and evolution cannot, and I have even explained carefully the basic principles of science which the theory of evolution plainly contradicts, and you have always just blathered something vague, and pretended that was an answer, and then you go on and pontificate about your unsound opinions. Ever since the court case in Kansas where a judge let himself be swayed by the mainstream majority and ruled that Intelligent Design was not science, you have been pretending you won a great victory, and have been indulging in a triumphalistic attitude. But you are still wrong and eventually evolution is going down to defeat and will be relegated to the scrapheap of history where all false theories belong. I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution. But for now, go ahead and believe what you want. In my view you are the most cultic and fanatical and pitiable sort of brainwashed "true believers" of all, with your bondage to your cherished theory of evolution.
I have no wish to discuss this any further with you in this thread or any other, because we have been over this ground before, and frankly I do not think you are capable of honest, fair-minded debate about this.
Everyone, feel free to resume your discussion of Mitt Romney's speech. Sorry for the digressions.
[ December 08, 2007, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.
A generation, huh? I would take that bet. In fact, I would raise you one more. I bet that by 2050, there will be more people that will learn about and believe in evolution in just the two countries of India and China than there are currently people in the continental United States of America, period. Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, et. al., my beliefs about life and cosmic origins do not contradict any science, they are better in harmony with all the facts of science than your beliefs. Evolution is totally impossible. At one time or another I have cited item after item in the natural world which Creationism can explain and evolution cannot, and I have even explained carefully the basic principles of science which the theory of evolution plainly contradicts, and you have always just blathered something vague, and pretended that was an answer, and then you go on and pontificate about your unsound opinions. Ever since the court case in Kansas where a judge let himself be swayed by the mainstream majority and ruled that Intelligent Design was not science, you have been pretending you won a great victory, and have been indulging in a triumphalistic attitude. But you are still wrong and eventually evolution is going down to defeat and will be relegated to the scrapheap of history where all false theories belong. I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution. But for now, go ahead and believe what you want. In my view you are the most cultic and fanatical and pitiable sort of brainwashed "true believers" of all, with your bondage to your cherished theory of evolution.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I predict that within a generation, no more than a stubborn few will still believe in evolution.
A generation, huh?
His post actually originally said "within ten years." I presume he decided that was too optimistic after the fact.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
