NationStates Jolt Archive

He's insulting you because you're just spewing a lot of toxic emissions into our clean air.


What are you talking about?

My thoughts exactly. The examples I was looking for, though, would have been Native American works like legends or history, not a dubious religious text. Even then, a linguistic similarity requires more than one figure of speech to show assimilation.

Indeed. If an American tribe was found which kept Kosher, told stories of having sailed to America from a distant land and had an oral tradition which paralleled the Tanach up until the point where they're supposed to have split off from the other Hebrews then that would be extremely interesting. It would certainly show that the BoM was deserving of more research, although obviously it wouldn't prove that it's entirely true.

Well, Smith had read the Bible so it's not particuarly surprising to find a chiastic structure in the Book of Mormon. Mesoamerican chiasms would be interesting, but nowhere near enough to overturn the mountains of evidence which show that Amerinds aren't descended from Semites.


what? are you saying that he wrote it? Anyone who writes anything has their own style as individual as a fingerprint. Some modern tests prove that all the different books in the Book of Mormon couldn't have been written by the same person.

what? are you saying that he wrote it? Anyone who writes anything has their own style as individual as a fingerprint. Some modern tests prove that all the different books in the Book of Mormon couldn't have been written by the same person.

It's my understanding that Smith is supposed to have 'translated' the BoM from a set of golden plates. I don't know if you speak any foreign languages, but personal style is hard (if not impossible) to recognise in a translation of the original work. One of the reasons why Chiastic Structures are interesting is because they can usually survive translation. That said, I'm certainly no expert of Mormonism or the BoM, we don't tend to get many Mormons on this side of the Atlantic.

The average person probably isn't going to be the boss, but yes, I do think the average person can determine that - if they are truly looking to find the best candidate. Will they always make the right choice? Of course not - nobody is perfect. But they will make much better choices if they make it based off of the strengths of the individual than making it based off of whatever stereotypical viewpoints they have about that individual's sex/ethnicity/etc.

Okay then here's one instance where our opinions differ, but to establish common ground I'll build on the part we do agree on, that nobody's perfect. We may differ on WHY that is, but that's not important for the moment.

So we have a system that is meant to cover a worldwide organization that is designed to provide consistent standards that tend to meet the greatest number of people. I'm sure the reasoning is much wiser and deeper than that, but this is my best guess at the moment. As I said earlier, It's all my own opinion wich may or may not be very close to reality.


Yup, assuming there was a chance for me to see their actual work.


Ok, same here. And the reason I asked is to illustrate that one must work to the strengths, not what they can hypothetically do. Now I know that individuals sometimes don't fit the general trends, but again, we're talking about a worldwide organization.


I do try to be very precise in my words, but not for the reasons you suppose. It is because it is very, very easy for imprecise language or an imprecise answer to lead to misconceptions and misunderstandings. I see it happen all the time.

That, and I'm wordy. I always have been. I'm the reason that some teachers put an upper limit on the length of a paper/essay as well as a lower limit.


I get wordy too. I remember when I was in college I was taking an American History class and when going over the syllabus on the first day of class, the professor noted that in essays, "Economy of language and felicity of speech" were always appreciated. Somehow I never got the "economy of language" part down.

But if I may presume to offer some advice: consider that on occasion, in a medium like this, that can come across as a failure to understand your opponent's point, especially if the reply drifts off the immediate topic a little.

Lately I've been noticing the same problem in my own replies and have tried to remedy it.


I think it is something different. I think that it often falls into that category, and that instances in which one sex is held as less valuable or important are the most obvious and thus get the most people upset about them.

However, sexism, to me, is treating a person as a member of their sex, instead of treating them as an individual. It is assuming that they will meet your notion of what men or women usually are. It is pressuring someone to meet those expectations simply because they happen to be a member of a given sex. Human beings should be treated as individuals, not as a statistic in a given grouping. Even if the defined roles of men and women were seen as being exactly equal in standing, it would still be sexism to push them into those roles simply because of someone said they should fit them.

Women tend to have less physical strength than men. Statistically, this is true. But so what? A woman who has the physical strength generally attributed to men should not be told that she cannot have jobs that require physical strength. After all, she can do it just as well as they can.


Ok so what we've had up until now is that we were using two different understandings of the term.

Yes, the Church has traditionally defined roles for men and women, and yes they do tend to be "old fashioned" and so on. A lot of that comes from Scripture. (The parts where we're just like any other Christian denomination.)

But while the Priesthood is men only and the Relief Society is women only, you'll find that the majority of callings (jobs) in the Church can be filled by either men or women equally. You'd be amazed at how many positions an average congregation has in it. Everything from the Bishop to choir directors to sunday school teachers at various age levels. Most of them can be filled by either men or women.

If that hurricane hits would a woman be forced to stay away from the "men's work of clearing fallen trees or rescuing cows from the high tree branches? No. My example was general in nature to give an overview.

But here's the thing, and people have been batting this aside and I'm going to keep bringing it up because it's important: If you really want to know how the Mormon women feel about it, ASK ONE! If you can't find one I can arrange it. Don't take my word for it, go right to the primary source.


I'm not convinced that men are naturally less nurturing but, at least in our society, it seems to be true that they do tend that way. But so what? If a given man is more nurturing than his wife, why shouldn't he choose to be the stay-at-home dad?

Some do. But that's hardly the majority.


And these are just examples. Our society is full of ideas about what men and women should be. People talk about statistical averages as if they are absolutes and anyone who doesn't meet them has a problem. People tell children that boys are interested in certain things and girls are interested in certain things and think that there is something wrong with their child if he likes unicorns or she likes monster trucks. And that is sexism.

And my daughter knows how to fix the brakes on a car at the age of 8. (Well, she helped me do it once. I dunno if I'd let her solo just yet ;) ) If we're talking about the Church, and if you want to really understand how it works, you've got to separate that kind of sexism from the different roles I'm talking about in the organization. Otherwise you're criticizing a non-issue. Mormons don't force their girls to like unicorns and their boys to like trucks. It's not like that.

It's my understanding that Smith is supposed to have 'translated' the BoM from a set of golden plates. I don't know if you speak any foreign languages, but personal style is hard (if not impossible) to recognise in a translation of the original work. One of the reasons why Chiastic Structures are interesting is because they can usually survive translation. That said, I'm certainly no expert of Mormonism or the BoM, we don't tend to get many Mormons on this side of the Atlantic.

It wouldnt be hard if the work was directly translated without changing anything. I see the personal style as how the different people word things and put their stories together. I don't know about you, but when I read the BoM or the Bible I can tell the difference between what the different prophets are writing.

Ok, same here. And the reason I asked is to illustrate that one must work to the strengths, not what they can hypothetically do. Now I know that individuals sometimes don't fit the general trends, but again, we're talking about a worldwide organization.

A worldwide organization need not institute sexism to be strong. In fact, I would argue that doing so makes it weaker.

Ok so what we've had up until now is that we were using two different understandings of the term.

Indeed. So, would you concede that, under my definition, the Mormon Church has institutionalized sexism?

Yes, the Church has traditionally defined roles for men and women, and yes they do tend to be "old fashioned" and so on. A lot of that comes from Scripture. (The parts where we're just like any other Christian denomination.)

Maybe not *any* other denomination.

Methodist churches do not have specified roles for men and women. A member, whether male or female, may be called to any role in the church, whether it is as an ordained minister who acts as the spiritual head of a given congregation or a Sunday school teacher, etc. In fact, the reverend who presided over my recent marriage ceremony was a woman - and she's one of the best spiritual leaders I've ever met. I actually, at one point discussed various denominations with her, and the fact that many still do not allow women to be ordained came up. One of the things she told me was that the UMC has been ordaining women and otherwise treating them the same within the church since the '50's, and that they are embarrassed that it took that long to start doing it.

There are denominations that don't have these expectations of specific "traditional" gender roles.

But here's the thing, and people have been batting this aside and I'm going to keep bringing it up because it's important: If you really want to know how the Mormon women feel about it, ASK ONE! If you can't find one I can arrange it. Don't take my word for it, go right to the primary source.

I would expect a Mormon woman to be just fine with it and to have little more to say on the matter than you do. If she wasn't, she probably wouldn't be Mormon.

Some do. But that's hardly the majority.

So what? Does something have to be in the majority to be important? Personally, I think people who are in the minority are just as important - and that their feelings/wants/needs/strengths/weaknesses should be considered just as much as people in the majority. This is what I mean by treating someone as an individual, instead of a member of their sex/ethnicity/nationality/so on.

And my daughter knows how to fix the brakes on a car at the age of 8. (Well, she helped me do it once. I dunno if I'd let her solo just yet ;) ) If we're talking about the Church, and if you want to really understand how it works, you've got to separate that kind of sexism from the different roles I'm talking about in the organization. Otherwise you're criticizing a non-issue. Mormons don't force their girls to like unicorns and their boys to like trucks. It's not like that.

I see no difference between the issues. Those roles are that kind of sexism. They are simply in a different arena. Instead of professions or family roles or likes/dislikes, we're talking about roles within the church. But the reasoning behind any and all of them is exactly the same. Boys/men tend to like/be good at X. Girls/women tend to like/be good at Y. Therefore only boys should do/like X and only girls should do/like Y. The fact that you don't subscribe to any of them doesn't make the ones you do subscribe to any less sexist. It just means you don't subscribe to all of them.

It wouldnt be hard if the work was directly translated without changing anything.

There is no such thing. Going from one language to another is always going to mean that you lose certain context. And when it is not only a language difference but a culture difference as well, you lose quite a bit.

120 posts. He's a cute little troll, isn't he? Let's hope he survives long enough to turn into a troll that's mildly interesting.

*plays with the fuzzy hair*

It wouldnt be hard if the work was directly translated without changing anything. I see the personal style as how the different people word things and put their stories together. I don't know about you, but when I read the BoM or the Bible I can tell the difference between what the different prophets are writing.

Are you reading the Old Testament in Hebrew or in English? Or are you reading the New Testament in English? Because even the Hebrew versions have been translated so many times that it's really tough to get a sense of the original author.

Are you reading the Old Testament in Hebrew or in English? Or are you reading the New Testament in English? Because even the Hebrew versions have been translated so many times that it's really tough to get a sense of the original author.The OT was originally written in Greek (cf. Sptuaginta). And what original author do you mean?

The OT was originally written in Greek (cf. Sptuaginta). And what original author do you mean?

Sumerian texts predate other texts, and many of them tell either the exact same, or an extremely similar story.

The OT was originally written in Greek (cf. Sptuaginta). And what original author do you mean?

The OT was originally in Hebrew.

The oldest versions of NT text are in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic (which is the language Jesus spoke as his first language.

There are no "original texts".

Perhaps to lighten the mood, or otherwise show you some facts you may have not of known, here are somethings emailed to me from my YSA Leader.


L.D.S Facts from Ford Motor Company


An interesting article written by Ford Motor Company for their
employees. It was written in February. From the 'Ford Interfaith' group as a
message about the Church. The Ford Interfaith group promotes unity by
sharing information from all faiths and features these types of articles
aboutallreligions and faiths from time to time.

QUICK FACTS & INTERESTING TIDBITS About The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints

Fleeing continued mob attacks, 158 years ago today the first Mormon
pioneers desperately started their Westward trek from Illinois in the
dead of winter. Of the 70,000 who began this 1300-mile journey, 6,000
were buried along the way, including many children.

The following are
quick facts and interesting tidbits about this now flourishing church.

OVERVIEW

* Named "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"; informal nicknames are "LDS" or "Mormon."

* Believes it's the Lord's restoration of original Christianity as
foretold to occur before Christ's Second Coming.

*Core focus is that Christ and His teachings bring happiness in
this life and exaltation in the next.

HISTORY

* In 1820 14-yr-old Joseph Smith told of a vision of God and Christ
foretelling a church restoration.

* Organized in New York in 1830, the church moved to near
Cleveland, then near Kansas City, then Illinois.

* Fleeing Illinois, Mormon pioneers founded Salt Lake City in Utah
and over 600 other Western communities.

SALT LAKE CITY

* Temple Square in Salt Lake has over 5 million annual visitors,
more than the Grand Canyon.

* The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is the world's most famous and has
the world's oldest radio program.

* The Salt Lake Temple is the most famous, but there are 128 other
temples built or underway.

* Home of the world's largest genealogy database; visit it online or
through 3,700 free branch libraries.

ACTIVE CONGREGATIONS

* Sunday services entail a three-hour block of three meetings;
about 27,000 congregations exist worldwide.

* Highly vibrant programs exist for youth, children, singles, men,
and women; very strong family focus.

* Everyone has a calling; some surveys show LDS have the highest
U.S. attendance and service rates.

* Families receive personal fellowship visits at home from other
members on a monthly basis.

FINANCES

* Members tithe 10 percent, plus donate generously to the needy the
first Sunday of each month.

* Clergy and all other congregational positions are unpaid
(however, much of the janitorial is paid).

* The church has no debt; all buildings are paid for in cash
(average of two new congregations a day).

* The paid positions in Salt Lake are famously low-salaried; funds
are frugally used and tightly audited.

HEALTH CODE

* With a health code from 1833, LDS avoid alcohol, tobacco, illegal
drugs, coffee, and tea (herbal tea is ok).

* This 1833 code also teaches grains (especially wheat), fresh
fruits and vegetables, and sparing use of meat.

* A UCLA study showed that active LDS live longer than most
Americans, men by 11 years, women by 8.

* Utah is 50th in smoking, alcohol consumption, drunk driving,
heart disease, cancer, and sick days.

EDUCATION

* With four colleges, Utah's BYU with 30,000 students is the
largest single-campus private college.

* BYU Independent Study with 130,000 students is North America (340 web
courses, 530 via mail).

* Seminary, a daily class usually held around 6:00 A.M., serves
376,000 high school students. (POSTERS NOTE: In many UTAH Schools Seminary can be also be attended during school in an off-campus building with no acedemic credit given)

* There are Institutes of Religion at 1,950 colleges worldwide that
serve 367,000 college students.

* The church operates schools in parts of the Pacific Ocean and
Mexico for 10,000 students.

* Utah is 50th (Sad I know) in spending per pupil, but first in adults that
graduated from high school and attended college.

WOMEN

* In 1842 the "Relief Society" was organized; it's the largest
women's organization in the world.

* Wyoming was first to allow women to vote; Utah was second, two
months later, in 1870.

* Women preach from the pulpit and serve as organization
presidents, teachers, committee chairs, etc.

SHARING CHRIST'S GOOD NEWS

* 61,000 missionaries serve in 165 countries; 93 percent are
college-age; 22 percent are female.

* Unpaid and paying their own way, most work 65 hours a week for
two years, often in a new language (Note: Missionaries are also shown to learn a foreing language in the MTC faster than military cadets)

MEMBERSHIP DISTRIBUTION

* LDS are 70 percent of Utah, 30 percent of Idaho; after Catholics,
LDS are the largest sect in 10 states.

* The church has 5.5 million members in the U.S., making it the
fourth >largest individual U.S. denomination.

* Some memberships: New Zealand 95k, Japan 115k, UK 175k,
Philippines 500k, Brazil 900k, Mexico 925k.

* Worldwide 51 percent are female; about 55 percent are not
Caucasian; about 70 percent are converts.

MEMBERSHIP GROWTH

* For the last 15 years, every day an average of 800+ people
worldwide joined the LDS church.

* Half of the growth is in Latin America, but the rate of growth is
highest in Africa and the former Soviet bloc.

* Worldwide membership just passed 12 million, a tenfold increase
in 50 years.

* In 1984 a non-LDS professor estimated 265 million members by
2080; so far growth has been faster.

*As this growth has been steady, he said it will be the "first
'new' major world religion since Islam."

CHARITY/SERVICE

* Members in need obtain welfare from the LDS Church (thus Utah
government welfare spending is very low).

* LDS donate time at 220 welfare storehouses or canneries and about
400 farms (a FL ranch is 312k acres).

* There are 210 employment centers placing over 175,000 people
annually, and 64 family service centers.

* The church operates 46 thrift stores, in part to provide
employment for the disadvantaged.

* The 61,000 missionaries spend half a day each week doing non-proselytizing community service.

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

* Over 200 million pounds of food, clothing, and medicine were
donated in the last 20 years in 147 countries.
* Almost all of this help is to non-LDS; LDS charities also work
with and donate to many non-LDS charities.

* Very rapid disaster relief has been given in 144 major disasters
since 1986. ((Note: Donations LDS Church was among the first relife funds to reach the Tsunmi Victems in SE Asia in 2004 source: Providing various forms of assistance.[1] Providing 31.1M (USD) in cash and materials[2])


* Almost 3,000 welfare "missionaries" work without pay in 55
countries (farm instructors, doctors, teachers...).

* LDS charities fund a wide variety of projects like drilling water
wells or funding small business startup loans.

* New in 2001, members in poor areas can get low-rate college loans; 10,000 loans have been made to date.

GRAB BAG

* Utah is first in: charitable giving, scientists, household
computers, children with two parents, and birth rate.

* Noted LDS included five senators, the Osmonds, Gladys Knight,
Steve Young, and the inventor of TV.

* LDS played a key role in the 2002 Winter Olympics; the chair is
now a presidental candidate

* Hawaii's #1 tourist site is the LDS Polynesian Cultural Center
(Tonga and the Samoas are one-third LDS).

* LDS have sponsored Boy Scout troops since 1913; 23 percent of all
Scout troops are LDS.

* The BYU Women's Cross Country were national champions or in
second place each of the last seven years.

DETROIT AREA

* The Detroit metro area has 30 congregations; the Dearborn chapel
is on Rotunda by Ford's Building #5.

* Detroit has a temple, storehouse, cannery, employment and family service office, and family history libraries.

* LDS include former Governor Romney, three former Lions quarterbacks, and hundreds of Ford employees.


Proud Mormon

(Source from Wikipedia, with addtional citations)
[1]http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,3881-1-20743,00.html
[2]http://www.mormonwiki.com/mormonism/Humanitarian_Efforts

The OT was originally written in Greek (cf. Sptuaginta). And what original author do you mean?

Fine, is s/he reading the OT in Greek? (or whatever the hell original languages the original books were written in.) And I mean the original person who put quill to paper and wrote the damn thing down!

For the last bloody time, I AM NOT CHRISTIAN!!! I do not ascribe divinity to any book.

The OT was originally in Hebrew.No. There are no single biblical texts whatsoever predating the Persian/Achaemenid era, and there was no compilation of texts into one work prior to the Septuagint. So the OT was in fact originally written Greek. And what the OT says theologically was also first written down then and there, the exclusiveness of Yhvh did not exist prior.

Sumerian texts predate other texts, and many of them tell either the exact same, or an extremely similar story.No, they don't. Read for yourself. (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/)

Methodist churches do not have specified roles for men and women. A member, whether male or female, may be called to any role in the church, whether it is as an ordained minister who acts as the spiritual head of a given congregation or a Sunday school teacher, etc. In fact, the reverend who presided over my recent marriage ceremony was a woman - and she's one of the best spiritual leaders I've ever met. I actually, at one point discussed various denominations with her, and the fact that many still do not allow women to be ordained came up. One of the things she told me was that the UMC has been ordaining women and otherwise treating them the same within the church since the '50's, and that they are embarrassed that it took that long to start doing it.


I grew up a Methodist and it was a long hard struggle. I don't remember exactly when they made the change, it might have been the late 50s but women were few and far between well into the 90s. They were very selective where the first women were sent. Basically they went to very liberal congregations or very small congregations that couldn't pay enough to attract a man. So there was economic discrimination for many years. Even today, women tend to get appointed as a second choice. There are many women ministers now but it was evolution not revolution.

No. There are no single biblical texts whatsoever predating the Persian/Achaemenid era, and there was no compilation of texts into one work prior to the Septuagint. So the OT was in fact originally written Greek. And what the OT says theologically was also first written down then and there, the exclusiveness of Yhvh did not exist prior.

If you want to get technical, the OT was actually canonized after the NT was canonized. So in fact the final selection of text for the OT is actually newer than the final selection of text for the NT.

No. There are no single biblical texts whatsoever predating the Persian/Achaemenid era, and there was no compilation of texts into one work prior to the Septuagint. So the OT was in fact originally written Greek. And what the OT says theologically was also first written down then and there, the exclusiveness of Yhvh did not exist prior.

I think you are confused.

Perhaps the first time all of the texts that constitute our Christian "Old Testament" were collected together as one canonical body - it was in Koine...

But, since the collection of texts we call 'the Old Testament' was still not even canonised during the alleged life of Christ, that is almost irrelevent.

Are you seriously arguing that each text now attributed as PART of the 'Old Testament', had Greek as it's first written language?

No, they don't. Read for yourself. (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/)

Casual investigation shows remarkable parallels between the Sumerian King List account of the flood mythology and it's Biblical counterpart.

So - I guess your assertion (which implies absolute negation), must be wrong.

* With a health code from 1833, LDS avoid alcohol, tobacco, illegal
drugs, coffee, and tea (herbal tea is ok).

* LDS played a key role in the 2002 Winter Olympics; the chair is
now a presidental candidate


Just a couple trivia points. The "word of wisdom" says "hot drinks" therefore hot herbal tea is not ok and cold coffee is.

The SLC Winter Olympics was scandal ridden because they were involved in massive bribing. Not something a church should be proud of.

No, they don't. Read for yourself. (http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/)

I didn't say all, did I? I simply stated "Many". Which is true.

Such as the Tale of Gilgamesh.

Meh.

Mormons make me cry.

I didn't say all, did I? I simply stated "Many". Which is true.

Such as the Tale of Gilgamesh.

Meh.

I suspect UB's next argument will be that the Epic of Gilgamesh is considered a Babylonian text. I'd find it a hard argument to be willing to make, given the evolving nature of texts... and since we don't actually have any way to prove WHEN each tale originates. We know that our best evidence of the Epic is Babylonian..

Casual investigation shows remarkable parallels between the Sumerian King List account of the flood mythology and it's Biblical counterpart.

So - I guess your assertion (which implies absolute negation), must be wrong.

I see the flood as a parable, but assuming it isn't:

Then there would be myths of a great flood in many cultures since they would have all come from that same place. Which indeed there are such myths.

Just a couple trivia points. The "word of wisdom" says "hot drinks" therefore hot herbal tea is not ok and cold coffee is.

The SLC Winter Olympics was scandal ridden because they were involved in massive bribing. Not something a church should be proud of.

The Word of Wisdom may say that however it isn't entirely specfic to mention either. But the Church leaders have said Herbal Tea is okay. Why, we simply don't know. We don't know every minute detail about scripture and God's work. No Christan, Mormon, Muslim, Catholic does.


And you also say that like we are the only city that has ever done bribes. I'm sure every city that's ever held the Olympics has had bribery and scandals of their own. (Just not all of them make the nightly news, and some simply don't get caught) Everything regarding funding to the Olympics was of Private Accounting Firms, the Government and the sole individuals who ran the thing. If you hold the Church accountable to the actions of individuals, then you have issues. So does that mean because the USA has had a few cheaters in the Olympics that means we should be ashamed of participating? The Olympics are something one can always be proud off regardless of mistakes made.

I see the flood as a parable, but assuming it isn't:

Then there would be myths of a great flood in many cultures since they would have all come from that same place. Which indeed there are such myths.

There was a flood near where I live just a few years ago. A couple of people died. My wife and daughter were caught in it, and they had to get boats in to rescue them from the roof of our minivan.

On one side of them was the mountain, on the other side - pretty much nothing but a sheet of grey water with trees sticking out of it, about as far as the eye could see.

Some of the stories I hear about that flood are impressive. People who lost their businesses talking about how 'everything was destroyed in the flood'. Descriptions of the flood as being - as I said - "as far as the eye could see".

Flood myths are almost universal because floods are almost universal. There doesn't need to have been one mystical superflood.

I suspect UB's next argument will be that the Epic of Gilgamesh is considered a Babylonian text. I'd find it a hard argument to be willing to make, given the evolving nature of texts... and since we don't actually have any way to prove WHEN each tale originates. We know that our best evidence of the Epic is Babylonian..

It still predates the Greek texts by quite some hundreds of years.

The Word of Wisdom may say that however it isn't entirely specfic to mention either. But the Church leaders have said Herbal Tea is okay. Why, we simply don't know. We don't know every minute detail about scripture and God's work. No Christan, Mormon, Muslim, Catholic does.


And you also say that like we are the only city that has ever done bribes. I'm sure every city that's ever held the Olympics has had bribery and scandals of their own. (Just not all of them make the nightly news, and some simply don't get caught) Everything regarding funding to the Olympics was of Private Accounting Firms, the Government and the sole individuals who ran the thing. If you hold the Church accountable to the actions of individuals, then you have issues. So does that mean because the USA has had a few cheaters in the Olympics that means we should be ashamed of participating? The Olympics are something one can always be proud off regardless of mistakes made.

That's interesting because coffee and regular tea are herbs. I would think the words "hot drinks" would be pretty clear. I guess the leaders play politics with words also. Anything to keep the troops happy.

I am ashamed when a US athlete cheats. And when organizers take it to a new level and those organizers self identify as leaders in a specific religion, that would not be something the religion should be proud of. The bible says that those in leadership will be judged more harshly than a member. This is because of the view of those on the outside. An outsider seeing a regular member do something will say "He didn't learn very well." An outsider seeing a leader do something will say "They didn't teach very well." There is a big difference. The problem with the Mormon "priesthood" is nearly every man falls into that "They don't teach well" category to the outsider when something like this happens. The world view was SLC Olympic Committee was full of hypocrites. Which still reflects on the church.

I read through as promised, and I'm a bit put out.

NB, you still have not answered my question.

I would really like a list of the specific sex differences between men and women which require the different roles you have described.

Using your hurricane example, why exactly would a male person be unable to help with the "domestic" tasks that the Relief Society engages in? What physical or psychological deficiencies would make him unable to check on his fellow humans and see to their needs the way that the women do?

Why would a female person be innately unable to provide blessings for the sick, or maintain lines of communication? Why would a female person be unable to be an expert in electrical or automotive areas? Why would a female person be unable to assume a leadership position?

If there are no women or too few women (for some reason), would males be capable of fulfilling the female roles? If there are no males or too few males, would the females be capable of fulfilling the male roles?

I am seriously trying to understand where you are coming from, here, and I want to understand the differences you see. Maybe I'm not being clear enough about what I'm asking.

Let me try to put it another way.

You've mentioned that males would help with clearing away rubble and such because males tend to be larger and more physically capable of lifting heavy things. Now, one assumes that if your group included a male who was injured or disabled in some way, you would not expect him to help lift things simply because he was male, right? So being able to lift heavy things is not an ability that is tied directly to maleness. It's tied to physical size, strength, and ability.

If a female has the physical size and strength to lift things, you'd let her lift them to help out, right? Just like if a male lacks the physical size or strength you wouldn't expect him to lift heavy things, right?

So why do you have only males on the "lifting things" team? Are Mormon women discouraged from exercise, and thus are less physically able than the average female population? (I'm seriously not being snarky here...I honestly don't know what restrictions there may be on exercise in the Mormon community. I know some religions discourage various types of physical activity.)

I also was really confused by your examples about "domestic" versus non-domestic tasks. For instance, you listed electrical expertise as a male skill, one that members of the priesthood would address. Wouldn't it be useful for females to know how to repair the electrical workings of their own homes? That seems like a pretty domestic skill to me. If maintaining the home is where women shine, why wouldn't electrical repair be included in this? My mom was the one who'd always tinker with our fuse box and swear about the wiring of the kitchen outlets, so I know women are quite capable of understanding this sort of thing. Why wouldn't women be assigned this task?

I think you are confused.

Perhaps the first time all of the texts that constitute our Christian "Old Testament" were collected together as one canonical body - it was in Koine...

But, since the collection of texts we call 'the Old Testament' was still not even canonised during the alleged life of Christ, that is almost irrelevent.

Are you seriously arguing that each text now attributed as PART of the 'Old Testament', had Greek as it's first written language?Are you saying that the Septuagint, which is the first compilation of texts that later became what Jews call the Tanakh and what Christians call Old Testament now, was not written in Greek?

Casual investigation shows remarkable parallels between the Sumerian King List account of the flood mythology and it's Biblical counterpart.The Sumerian King List of the flood story does not contain the Jew-ish Yhvh or the God Mormons believe in. So the story is in fact very different (that is, in the context of what we are talking about here). Mormons (and other Christian and Jewish groups as well) claim that it was the biblical God that the flood hero was talking to. But there is nothing in the Sumerian texts or any other pre- and non-Jewish ancient texts to indicate thusly.

A worldwide organization need not institute sexism to be strong. In fact, I would argue that doing so makes it weaker.
The numbers would seem to disagree with you.


Indeed. So, would you concede that, under my definition, the Mormon Church has institutionalized sexism?


If you'll concede that by my definition, it has not.


Maybe not *any* other denomination.

Methodist churches do not have specified roles for men and women. A member, whether male or female, may be called to any role in the church, whether it is as an ordained minister who acts as the spiritual head of a given congregation or a Sunday school teacher, etc. In fact, the reverend who presided over my recent marriage ceremony was a woman - and she's one of the best spiritual leaders I've ever met. I actually, at one point discussed various denominations with her, and the fact that many still do not allow women to be ordained came up. One of the things she told me was that the UMC has been ordaining women and otherwise treating them the same within the church since the '50's, and that they are embarrassed that it took that long to start doing it.

There are denominations that don't have these expectations of specific "traditional" gender roles.


The Methodist church has done a lot of things that has put it in conflict with other Christian Denominations.


I would expect a Mormon woman to be just fine with it and to have little more to say on the matter than you do. If she wasn't, she probably wouldn't be Mormon.


Doesn't that tell you anything?


So what? Does something have to be in the majority to be important? Personally, I think people who are in the minority are just as important - and that their feelings/wants/needs/strengths/weaknesses should be considered just as much as people in the majority. This is what I mean by treating someone as an individual, instead of a member of their sex/ethnicity/nationality/so on.


I think you oversimplify.


I see no difference between the issues. Those roles are that kind of sexism. They are simply in a different arena. Instead of professions or family roles or likes/dislikes, we're talking about roles within the church. But the reasoning behind any and all of them is exactly the same. Boys/men tend to like/be good at X. Girls/women tend to like/be good at Y. Therefore only boys should do/like X and only girls should do/like Y. The fact that you don't subscribe to any of them doesn't make the ones you do subscribe to any less sexist. It just means you don't subscribe to all of them.

Well on that you've made up your mind already, but that's pretty much what I expected and have been saying all along. You're trying so hard to ram your point of view down my throat (which I understood a long time ago) that you don't seem to realize that it is possible to understand you and still disagree. I'm waiting for you to at least acknowledge my point, whether you agree with it or not.

The Word of Wisdom may say that however it isn't entirely specfic to mention either. But the Church leaders have said Herbal Tea is okay. Why, we simply don't know. We don't know every minute detail about scripture and God's work. No Christan, Mormon, Muslim, Catholic does.


And you also say that like we are the only city that has ever done bribes. I'm sure every city that's ever held the Olympics has had bribery and scandals of their own. (Just not all of them make the nightly news, and some simply don't get caught) Everything regarding funding to the Olympics was of Private Accounting Firms, the Government and the sole individuals who ran the thing. If you hold the Church accountable to the actions of individuals, then you have issues. So does that mean because the USA has had a few cheaters in the Olympics that means we should be ashamed of participating? The Olympics are something one can always be proud off regardless of mistakes made.


I think official LDS involvement in the event has been drastically overtsated. Wasn't it the officials representing the city government that were involved in the bribes?

I read through as promised, and I'm a bit put out.

NB, you still have not answered my question.

I would really like a list of the specific sex differences between men and women which require the different roles you have described.


I have. I borrowed part of Good Life's post (referring to it in mine) and indicated why. If you disagree with my reasons, that's fine, but I did provide them. I honestly odn't see how you can say I haven't answered. In fact, I've been sparring with Dempublicents1 ever since.


Using your hurricane example, why exactly would a male person be unable to help with the "domestic" tasks that the Relief Society engages in? What physical or psychological deficiencies would make him unable to check on his fellow humans and see to their needs the way that the women do?

Why would a female person be innately unable to provide blessings for the sick, or maintain lines of communication? Why would a female person be unable to be an expert in electrical or automotive areas? Why would a female person be unable to assume a leadership position?


At this point, I should be the one feeling put out (except that I'm not really surprised by this.) Not only did I NEVER say "innately unable" with regard to either, I specifically acknowledged examples (when replying to others) that there could very well be examples of women prodiving leadership roles or professional skills (like electrician as an example)

The entire point of the example was to indicate the trends that result in the system.

keyword: Flexibility

I realize you may be used to hearing a lot of rigid thinking when dealing with Christians. I know very well about how rigid people get, but you've got to out that aside in order to understand my posting. I'm not going to repeat it.


If there are no women or too few women (for some reason), would males be capable of fulfilling the female roles? If there are no males or too few males, would the females be capable of fulfilling the male roles?


Of course. This should be pretty obvious from what I've been writing.


I am seriously trying to understand where you are coming from, here, and I want to understand the differences you see. Maybe I'm not being clear enough about what I'm asking.

Let me try to put it another way.

You've mentioned that males would help with clearing away rubble and such because males tend to be larger and more physically capable of lifting heavy things. Now, one assumes that if your group included a male who was injured or disabled in some way, you would not expect him to help lift things simply because he was male, right? So being able to lift heavy things is not an ability that is tied directly to maleness. It's tied to physical size, strength, and ability.

If a female has the physical size and strength to lift things, you'd let her lift them to help out, right? Just like if a male lacks the physical size or strength you wouldn't expect him to lift heavy things, right?


Of course.


So why do you have only males on the "lifting things" team? Are Mormon women discouraged from exercise, and thus are less physically able than the average female population? (I'm seriously not being snarky here...I honestly don't know what restrictions there may be on exercise in the Mormon community. I know some religions discourage various types of physical activity.)

I also was really confused by your examples about "domestic" versus non-domestic tasks. For instance, you listed electrical expertise as a male skill, one that members of the priesthood would address. Wouldn't it be useful for females to know how to repair the electrical workings of their own homes? That seems like a pretty domestic skill to me. If maintaining the home is where women shine, why wouldn't electrical repair be included in this? My mom was the one who'd always tinker with our fuse box and swear about the wiring of the kitchen outlets, so I know women are quite capable of understanding this sort of thing. Why wouldn't women be assigned this task?


Alright.

(No, nobody's discouraged from exercising.)

Maybe you haven't had the time to read the other posts since my last reply to you. (Not being sarcastic) I would think that if anything would have come across, it would be that there's no bizarre rule that says women can't fix their own cars or guys can't change a diaper. I never, ever at any time said any such thing. I used a very generic example of what you would tend to see if you observed the way the Relief Society and Priesthood tend to work, and you guys are trying to hold my feet to the fire as if I were describing a historical event in detail. Didn't you see my rpely to Kyronea where I pointed out that yes, she'd probably be one of the ones out there with a chainsaw helping to remove a tree of that's where she felt most comfortable.

I mean, seriously guys... I TOLD you before that I wasn't the best source on this, and that you'd be much better off talking to a Mormon woman about it, but it seems like for whatever reason there's this aversion to going to the primary source and getting the scoop from one of them.

The only rational conclusion I can draw from that is that people have already made up their mind and just want someone to go after.

I think at this point, I'm going to start replying by quoting myself, because I feel I've already addressed all of this yesterday.

Are you saying that the Septuagint, which is the first compilation of texts that later became what Jews call the Tanakh and what Christians call Old Testament now, was not written in Greek?

The New Testament was written in Greek. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and probably Egyptian.

Are you saying that the Septuagint, which is the first compilation of texts that later became what Jews call the Tanakh and what Christians call Old Testament now, was not written in Greek?

Why are you talking about compilations?

If the first collection of Tolkein's books had been a French translation, what language would "Lord of the Rings" have been written in?

I asked you a question about component texts. You've avoided the question.


On the other hand - we have later copies of Septuagint text, but not the original text... nor do we still have the actual documents from which it was translated. By your logic - it wasn't written in Greek, either... because we have no extant copy of that first translation.

I don't know if you are playing for the effect. The septuagint is a translation, so it obviously is NOT in the native tongue. That's why they call them 'translations'. The simple fact that the translation was made by Hellenistic Jews strongly suggests that (since the translation is Greek) the original translated text must have been Hebrew.

The Sumerian King List of the flood story does not contain the Jew-ish Yhvh or the God Mormons believe in. So the story is in fact very different (that is, in the context of what we are talking about here). Mormons (and other Christian and Jewish groups as well) claim that it was the biblical God that the flood hero was talking to. But there is nothing in the Sumerian texts or any other pre- and non-Jewish ancient texts to indicate thusly.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. The simple fact that two texts do not use the same name, does not make the two stories different.

The Sumerian King List flood is pretty obviously the source, information or inspiration for the Babylonian Gilgamesh flood, and both inform the Akkadian version. And yet - the names differ. This is because different groups give 'local' names even to the same things - especially in translation.

Especially in the Babylonian text, it is very obvious that whole sections of the Biblical account are literally translated word-for-word from the Mesopotamian sources. The earliest Hebrew translation simply puts it's own signature on the tale in the manner in which it 'describes' god.


I wonder which argument you really think you are making?

a) That gods are 'real' - in which case it matters what you call them, or

b) that gods are fictional devices - in which case, like ANY other fictional device, their inspiration and use can be tracked as common influence through generations or centuries of use.

I would really like a list of the specific sex differences between men and women which require the different roles you have described.


Women are (on average) wired different than men. Read any psychology, biology, communications, or any other book that deals with the sexes.

Certainly you can find the exceptions on both ends, but the vast majority fall into the sexual norm.

I've stated many times that tradition is far harder to change than any logical argument. Look at the churches that have women ministers. They are very selective as to where they send them. I noted earlier how long it has taken the Methodist to find women acceptable. The Mormons have an especially hard sell here because they don't have one "priest" per congregation. Nearly all of the men are a part of the priesthood. So it's not like the Methodist where they can cherry pick where to send a woman minister. If they open it up nearly every congregation will have to convert at the same time. This would bring a tidal wave of resentment from traditionalist members. They actually have an example to look at. A splinter group of the Mormon movement, the RLDS (now Community of Christ) did open up their priesthood to women. It cost them a huge percent of their membership as all of the traditionalists split off to form even smaller splinter groups.

Unless it's changed, there was originally no prohibition against women in the priesthood. it was entirely tradition. But it's a tradition they are comfortable with and one that holds the group together. Opening it up is almost guaranteed to cause major splits. So if you were a leader, what would you do?

Why are you talking about compilations?

If the first collection of Tolkein's books had been a French translation, what language would "Lord of the Rings" have been written in?

I asked you a question about component texts. You've avoided the question.


On the other hand - we have later copies of Septuagint text, but not the original text... nor do we still have the actual documents from which it was translated. By your logic - it wasn't written in Greek, either... because we have no extant copy of that first translation.

I don't know if you are playing for the effect. The septuagint is a translation, so it obviously is NOT in the native tongue. That's why they call them 'translations'. The simple fact that the translation was made by Hellenistic Jews strongly suggests that (since the translation is Greek) the original translated text must have been Hebrew.
Why is the Septuagint a translation? A translation of what? There are no remains of any Hebrew texts with the biblical content that predate the copies there are of the Septuagint. And there are also no hints of the concept and worship of Yhvh as the Septuagint/Bible states it prior to the Persian era. Even if one were to assume that the Septuagint is a translation (and compilation) of earlier Hebrew writings, there is no trace of Judaism (the exclusive worship of one god) before the partial return of Israelites from the "Babylonian Captivity". In my view that invalidates Judaism and all its offshoot religions, including Mormonism. If there were earlier Hebrew texts, it is far from certain what those texts actually contained. It is indeed very likely that they expressed an entirely different theology than that practiced by later Jews and that in the compilation and streamlining of texts inot one work Judasim was in fact created more or less. Worship Enki/Yah in pre-Judaism times is not identical as the worship of Yhvh by the Jews. And the stories involving Enki/Yah, e.g. the Flood story, are not Yhvh or Jewish stories. Sumerians were not Jew-ish. Just because Jews copied earlier traditions it does not make these traditions theirs.

Women are (on average) wired different than men. Read any psychology, biology, communications, or any other book that deals with the sexes.

Certainly you can find the exceptions on both ends, but the vast majority fall into the sexual norm.

I give up.

If people can't be bothered to answer my question, then WHY KEEP QUOTING ME?!

I am not interested in hearing yet another person tell me that men and women are just different and that's that. Give me specifics, and cite your sources, or kindly don't bother replying.

Also, please don't assume I haven't read the relevant literature on the subject. It is not arrogance on my part to state that I most likely have read more actual experimental and clinical data on this subject than 99% of the people on this forum. Odds are, I've read more about it than you. Believe me, I have encountered no shortage on editorials asserting that men and women are "wired" different, and if I wanted another I would have asked for it.


I've stated many times that tradition is far harder to change than any logical argument. Look at the churches that have women ministers. They are very selective as to where they send them. I noted earlier how long it has taken the Methodist to find women acceptable. The Mormons have an especially hard sell here because they don't have one "priest" per congregation. Nearly all of the men are a part of the priesthood. So it's not like the Methodist where they can cherry pick where to send a woman minister. If they open it up nearly every congregation will have to convert at the same time. This would bring a tidal wave of resentment from traditionalist members. They actually have an example to look at. A splinter group of the Mormon movement, the RLDS (now Community of Christ) did open up their priesthood to women. It cost them a huge percent of their membership as all of the traditionalists split off to form even smaller splinter groups.

And all of this only serves to undermine your original assertion.

Our current system encourages/forces individuals to adhere to rigid gender roles. The fact that individuals express gendered traits which reflect those assigned roles does not, in fact, support the idea that these traits are innate.

Indeed, the fact that such a high proportion of individual do NOT fully adhere to those roles, despite overwhelming pressure to do so, suggests that men and women are even more innately similar than they already appear (and current evidence shows them to be far more similar than they are different).


Unless it's changed, there was originally no prohibition against women in the priesthood. it was entirely tradition. But it's a tradition they are comfortable with and one that holds the group together. Opening it up is almost guaranteed to cause major splits. So if you were a leader, what would you do?
You're making very good arguments for why an organization benefits from perpetuating sexism and discrimination. I'm not arguing against that. I know there are tons of reason why various people and groups profit from oppressing the snot out of other people and groups.

At any rate, I'm done in this thread. This is clearly not the place to get a straight answer to a straight question.

I am not interested in hearing yet another person tell me that men and women are just different and that's that. Give me specifics, and cite your sources, or kindly don't bother replying.



Well, you see my dear Bottle, men and women are different because men have penises and women have vaginas. That third leg automatically makes men more capable of doing well... manly things like... uh... lifting. You see, it doesn't require much thought because the blood that would normally go to the brain is redirected into the macho cells that allow for the brawn to shine, while enabling the third leg that dangles between his two longer appendages that enable him to walk upright.

This brings us to the woman. You see, there is no third leg for the blood to flow to, and an inherent lack of macho cells that trigger the brawn function so she is inherently helpless and dainty. Now, you see, most days she has a surplus of blood, which means her brain functions on an empathic level, so she is able to socialise beyond monosyllabic grunts, which are the primary means of communication for the man. But for about three or four days a month, she lacks that blood flow to the brain, as she invariably springs a leak and this leak could cause an awful mess so she is kept away from manly activities less this leak cause chaos.



Also, please don't assume I haven't read the relevant literature on the subject. It is not arrogance on my part to state that I most likely have read more actual experimental and clinical data on this subject than 99% of the people on this forum. Odds are, I've read more about it than you. Believe me, I have encountered no shortage on editorials asserting that men and women are "wired" different, and if I wanted another I would have asked for it.

I think that in some ways we are wired differently; in some ways we are wired the same, though I wouldn't say it is along the lines of the gender but simply as a species we aren't all wired the same, though some of us may be.

Well, you see my dear Bottle, men and women are different because men have penises and women have vaginas. That third leg automatically makes men more capable of doing well... manly things like... uh... lifting. You see, it doesn't require much thought because the blood that would normally go to the brain is redirected into the macho cells that allow for the brawn to shine, while enabling the third leg that dangles between his two longer appendages that enable him to walk upright.

This brings us to the woman. You see, there is no third leg for the blood to flow to, and an inherent lack of macho cells that trigger the brawn function so she is inherently helpless and dainty. Now, you see, most days she has a surplus of blood, which means her brain functions on an empathic level, so she is able to socialise beyond monosyllabic grunts, which are the primary means of communication for the man. But for about three or four days a month, she lacks that blood flow to the brain, as she invariably springs a leak and this leak could cause an awful mess so she is kept away from manly activities less this leak cause chaos.


yes.



I think that in some ways we are wired differently; in some ways we are wired the same, though I wouldn't say it is along the lines of the gender but simply as a species we aren't all wired the same, though some of us may be.
I don't think we are wired differently I think we are socialized differently.

I give up.

If people can't be bothered to answer my question, then WHY KEEP QUOTING ME?!

I am not interested in hearing yet another person tell me that men and women are just different and that's that. Give me specifics, and cite your sources, or kindly don't bother replying.



Eh, he does, kind of, in a way, have a point.

Men and women are "wired" differently, but only slightly, and quite frankly in no real significant way as to make females unable to do any work that males can do(Unless said work specifically requires a penis, for some unknown, perverse, very kinky reason).

I'll dig up some of the difference later, I have to get to class.

But I do agree that to say that men and women can only occupy specific roles, due to some natural reason, is idiotic, as there really is no natural reason why they shouldn't.

Cultural reasons, that gets a bit stickier.

I don't think we are wired differently I think we are socialized differently.

Socio-economic factors are probably the biggest contributors. Though I think in some way people are wired differently to make some people act different than others even if raised in similar conditions.

Why is the Septuagint a translation? A translation of what? There are no remains of any Hebrew texts with the biblical content that predate the copies there are of the Septuagint.


There are no remains of the original Septuagint texts, only the progressive edits over the next few generations.

By your logic, there was never an original document in Greek.


And there are also no hints of the concept and worship of Yhvh as the Septuagint/Bible states it prior to the Persian era.


Sure there are. You just aren't reading it right. And again - you seem to be getting really tied up in the specifics of a name.


Even if one were to assume that the Septuagint is a translation (and compilation) of earlier Hebrew writings, there is no trace of Judaism (the exclusive worship of one god) before the partial return of Israelites from the "Babylonian Captivity".


Again - you just aren't reading it right. In the Hebrew, there are clues that 'Judaism' was an evolving religion, and was not always monotheistic. I'm not sure that 'the exclusive worship of one god' is really sufficient to be considered a definition of Judaism.


In my view that invalidates Judaism and all its offshoot religions, including Mormonism.


Why? Even if the texts were made up on the spot by a drug-addled hobo... it would not make the god describe IN those texts any more or less real.


Worship Enki/Yah in pre-Judaism times is not identical as the worship of Yhvh by the Jews. And the stories involving Enki/Yah, e.g. the Flood story, are not Yhvh or Jewish stories.


Worship of 'god' in a Roman Catholic church is different to worship of 'god' in a Southern Baptist church. Same god, though. It seems the names and rituals don't define the god.


Sumerians were not Jew-ish.


Do you have an overactive hyphen key? I notice you keep (obviously accidentally) putting hyphens in really dumb places.

Without understanding the implication of your little peculiarity, it's hard to address it.


Just because Jews copied earlier traditions it does not make these traditions theirs.

I don't know. Is English your language?


I notice you completely failed to address almost anything I wrote... If you're going to waste my time with confused I-can't-believe-it's-not-atheism and random anti-semitism, let me know so I can do something more useful and enjoyable... like scoop my eyes out with spoons.

Socio-economic factors are probably the biggest contributors. Though I think in some way people are wired differently to make some people act different than others even if raised in similar conditions.

okay, that makes sense. I think I am wired differently than most other people in my family, that's why I rose above the adversity and they are still sitting in it.

okay, that makes sense. I think I am wired differently than most other people in my family, that's why I rose above the adversity and they are still sitting in it.

:) And that's a good thing.

Well, I can't speak for anybody else but I think the sexism tangent is about used up, and shame on me for wasting so much time on it. That's not what the thread is about.

I tried to answer as it pertains to the LDS approach but the problem is, and always will be, that people who have already made up their minds will never be willing to see it through someone else's eyes. Once you label something with a word like "sexist, homophobic, racist, etc" then all rational discussion ends, because one thing we all agree on is that sexism, racism and homophobia are bad things. The problem is that different people define those terms a little differently. That much ought to be pretty obvious to anybody who's debated those issues before.

That's why I've been known to gripe against the use of labels. They don't foster open communication. They're used as an excuse for judgemental attitudes and closed-mindedness. They offend rather than illuminate, and in all too many cases they're not even accurate.

So the last thing I'll say on the subject is this, if you think the LDS church is sexist, ask an LDS woman about it. I have nothing more to add. Go to the source. If you think it's racist, ask a "minority" member of the Church about it. It should be pretty easy since less than half of the Mormons worldwide are caucasian. If you think it's homophobic, well I don't know what to tell you since there aren't any openly gay members, but don't let that be an excuse to toss out a label. If you want to talk about it, let's talk about it like adults who actually CARE about understanding each other.

If you hate religion, you're gonna hate LDS too. Troll elsewhere. Otherwise, I'm up for participating in the thread further if anyone else is.

The numbers would seem to disagree with you.

What numbers? Do you have some sort of statistical comparison?

If you'll concede that by my definition, it has not.

From what I can tell, that would be true. I don't know how other people view the various roles, so some may see one as being inferior to the other, but it would seem that you don't - and thus you don't see it as sexist.

Doesn't that tell you anything?

It tells me that some people are ok with it. Of course, although the scale is much different in most cases, people are often perfectly ok with sexism, racism, etc. There were slaves who thought that they were supposed to be slaves. There were women who thought that women should not be able to vote. There are many men and women today who are fine with the gender roles that are enforced on them - and they will often attempt to enforce those roles on others.

I think you oversimplify.

How is that?

Well on that you've made up your mind already, but that's pretty much what I expected and have been saying all along. You're trying so hard to ram your point of view down my throat (which I understood a long time ago) that you don't seem to realize that it is possible to understand you and still disagree. I'm waiting for you to at least acknowledge my point, whether you agree with it or not.

I'm not trying to ram anything down your throat. But you can't really deny that the reasoning you're giving me is exactly what I put forth there.

"Men tend to be good at X and women tend to be good at Y. Thus, only men should fulfill a role that involves X and only women should fulfill a role that involves Y."

This is *exactly* what you are saying.

You've already conceded that, by my definition (and, to be fair, the dictionary definition), this is sexism. You define the word differently and thus don't see it as such, and that is your opinion.

Well, I can't speak for anybody else but I think the sexism tangent is about used up, and shame on me for wasting so much time on it. That's not what the thread is about.

I tried to answer as it pertains to the LDS approach but the problem is, and always will be, that people who have already made up their minds will never be willing to see it through someone else's eyes.

Mary Jane calling the tea maker colorless?

I mean, seriously guys... I TOLD you before that I wasn't the best source on this, and that you'd be much better off talking to a Mormon woman about it, but it seems like for whatever reason there's this aversion to going to the primary source and getting the scoop from one of them.

I don't understand this insistence that we can only understand the gender roles within the Mormon church by talking to a Mormon woman. You are within the Mormon church. This means that you are affected by the gender roles within it and will know just as much about them as a woman of similar standing in the church. Gender roles do, after all, apply to both men and women.

You seem to have this idea that anytime someone says the word "sexism", they mean, "You are oppressing the wimminz!"

Give me specifics, and cite your sources, or kindly don't bother replying.


Ok, here's the first page of ask.com on the psychological differences between men and women.

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/ArticlesPapers/Documents/DifferencesMenWomen.htm

Men and women approach problems with similar goals but with different considerations.

While men and women can reach similar conclusions and make similar decisions, the process they use can be quit different and in some cases can lead to entirely different outcomes. In general, men and women consider and process information differently.

Women have an enhanced ability to recall memories that have strong emotional components.

It has been observed that is many cases, women have an enhanced physical alarm response to danger or threat.

The idea that one gender can think and feel like the other if they truly loved each is rather absurd.

http://phm3123-85.fa00.fsu.edu/Feminism_Lecture_10/tsld013.htm

http://www.blogforwoman.com/content/view/1469/54/
1. Men boast wide interpersonal relationship network when they are young, while women won’t have too many friends after middle age.
2. 25% men have a crush on somebody at the fist date. As to women, 15% of them fall in love when they hang out with guys for the forth time.
3. When it comes to decision making, women are more rapid.
4. From childhood to middle school period, boys are more tend to dominate others. But things will be different during adulthood. That’s why we say when a man lost his BACHELOR's degree, a woman will gain her MASTER's dgree.
5. Men are often worried that their beloved may be killed or commit suicide, women are often worried about any accidents that may occur to their men.
6. Men take work as wars, they like to fight for their goals during a certain period and then rest. But women prefer a constant and regular working speed.
7. According to scientific researches, men and women are equally interested at telling tales.
8. Scientists also tell us, when under attacks, more women will choose to revolt than men.
9. Two-thirds or four-fifth alcoholics are men. Only 1/10 husbands agree to live together with drunk wives, but 9/10 wives say they’ll never dump their drunk husbands.
10. 10、Men who are single are more tend to commit crimes, while marriage women may have more evil ideas than single women.
11. The population of happy married men doubled the population of happy single men. But married women are mostly desperate, no matter whether they have children.
12. About the dreams. Men often dream of male strangers and violence. If they dream of women, then the dream must has some relation with sex.But women often dream of close friends or family members.
13. Women like to conceal their true feeling, while men will show the feelings directly.
14. Women won’t take out the keys unless they’ve already stand in front of the door. Men always prepare the keys beforehand.
15. A German newspaper once organized a trial. They installed a mirror in a shop in Munich, then observe the behavior of men and women passed the mirror. During the 8-hour long trial, 1,620 women passed the mirror, 1/3 of them stopped and looked into the mirror shortly. But all the 600 men passed the mirror stood before it for a long time, and then looked back to check whether there were anyone stared at them.

http://phm3123-85.fa00.fsu.edu/Feminism_Lecture_10/sld014.htm

http://www.tealdragon.net/humor/compares/differ.htm

http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Relationships/DifferencesMenWomen.htm

http://www.coach.ca/WOMEN/e/journal/may2001/pg4.htm

What numbers? Do you have some sort of statistical comparison?


I was referencing another post in this thread, which I presumed you'd read.


From what I can tell, that would be true. I don't know how other people view the various roles, so some may see one as being inferior to the other, but it would seem that you don't - and thus you don't see it as sexist.


So is that a yes?


It tells me that some people are ok with it. Of course, although the scale is much different in most cases, people are often perfectly ok with sexism, racism, etc. There were slaves who thought that they were supposed to be slaves. There were women who thought that women should not be able to vote. There are many men and women today who are fine with the gender roles that are enforced on them - and they will often attempt to enforce those roles on others.


I think you're being a bit melodramatic.


How is that?

I'm not trying to ram anything down your throat. But you can't really deny that the reasoning you're giving me is exactly what I put forth there.

"Men tend to be good at X and women tend to be good at Y. Thus, only men should fulfill a role that involves X and only women should fulfill a role that involves Y."

This is *exactly* what you are saying.


No. It is NOT *exactly* what I'm saying. I think that's what you *want* me to be saying, but it isn't.

Dem, I'm not going to go any further with this tangent, per my other post. I simply cannot be any clearer than I have been, and this shows that either I can't make it clear enough for you, or no matter how clearly I state my position it's going to pass through some kind of filter to get to you. In either case, no purpose would be served by repeating myself again and again. I can't think of any different ways to say it.


You've already conceded that, by my definition (and, to be fair, the dictionary definition), this is sexism. You define the word differently and thus don't see it as such, and that is your opinion.

I have if you have, and your "concession" was a bit watery, so don't take it for granted.

I don't understand this insistence that we can only understand the gender roles within the Mormon church by talking to a Mormon woman. You are within the Mormon church. This means that you are affected by the gender roles within it and will know just as much about them as a woman of similar standing in the church. Gender roles do, after all, apply to both men and women.

You seem to have this idea that anytime someone says the word "sexism", they mean, "You are oppressing the wimminz!"

I wonder why.

Mary Jane calling the tea maker colorless?

And that means..?

I wonder why.


Way to address his point, jerk.:rolleyes:

Way to address his point, jerk.:rolleyes:

There is absolutely no need for name calling.

I wonder why.

There is absolutely no need for name calling.


There is every need when the poser in question is advocating institutionized sexisim.

There is every need when the poser in question is advocating institutionized sexisim.

Or when the person doing the name calling hasn't yet reached 6th grade.

Either way. Meh.

There is every need when the poser in question is advocating institutionized sexisim.
The kind of sexism that applies to both genders. While I too disagree with what NB is advocating, I will let him say it and I will tell him why I think he's wrong without resorting to childish name calling. Name calling accomplishes nothing in civilised debate as you will soon find out if you spend a little more time here on NSG.

If you don't wish to be civil then perhaps NSG is not the kind of place that's suited for you.

The kind of sexism that applies to both genders. While I too disagree with what NB is advocating, I will let him say it and I will tell him why I think he's wrong without resorting to childish name calling. Name calling accomplishes nothing in civilised debate as you will soon find out if you spend a little more time here on NSG.

If you don't wish to be civil then perhaps NSG is not the kind of place that's suited for you.

Posts like this one are the reason I haven't lost faith in NSG.

There is every need when the poser in question is advocating institutionized sexisim.

calling names makes one of you look bad, and it's not NB.

Or when the person doing the name calling hasn't yet reached 6th grade.

Either way. Meh.




Oh no! Someone who thinks it is OK to teat people differently based on their gender doesnt like me! Oh, woe is me.

calling names makes one of you look bad, and it's not NB.



It looks like we have another Mormon fan!

It looks like we have another Mormon fan!

Why do you call anyone who disagrees with you a "Mormon fan?"

Why do you call anyone who disagrees with you a "Mormon fan?"

He must follow the Bush mantra of "you're either with us or against us". :p Ah, the bliss of seeing the world in black and white. Too bad they took away his colour paints.

Oh no! Someone who thinks it is OK to teat people differently based on their gender doesnt like me! Oh, woe is me.

You know, I think I'll turn that around and use it.

Yes, I absolutely, positively, definitely, uncategorically admit that I *do* treat people differently based upon their sex.

Yeah, I said it.

Know why? Because, antiquated though it may be, I believe in chivalry.

I believe it is a much greater dishonor to strike a woman than a man.
I believe that it is right to hold the door for women, always.
I believe in toning down foul language in the presence of a lady.
I believe that on a sinking ship women and children ought to be saved first.

If that makes me a sexist then so be it. I'll wear that label with pride.

Why do you call anyone who disagrees with you a "Mormon fan?"

misdirection.

misdirection.

i just sent you a telegram

i just sent you a telegram

I just replied.

i just sent you a telegram

I just replied.

: pout: I want a telegram too.. :cry:

You know, I think I'll turn that around and use it.

Yes, I absolutely, positively, definitely, uncategorically admit that I *do* treat people differently based upon their sex.

Yeah, I said it.

Know why? Because, antiquated though it may be, I believe in chivalry.

I believe it is a much greater dishonor to strike a woman than a man.
I believe that it is right to hold the door for women, always.
I believe in toning down foul language in the presence of a lady.
I believe that on a sinking ship women and children ought to be saved first.

If that makes me a sexist then so be it. I'll wear that label with pride.


No, that doesnt make you a sexist, that makes you someone from the late 19th Century. What makes you a sexist are the reasons posted above, you put people into different catagories based on their sex.

No, that doesnt make you a sexist, that makes you someone from the late 19th Century. What makes you a sexist are the reasons posted above, you put people into different catagories based on their sex.

Well I'll be sure to put great stock and store by your analysis.

: pout: I want a telegram too.. :cry:

fine

i sent you one.

it included a kleenex.

fine

i sent you one.

it included a kleenex.

W00T!

10% Tithe. Same as in Catholicism. Nobody forces you to pay it but it is one of the requirements to be able to go to the Temple.

Incorrect, Catholicism has no compulsory tithe - there is planned giving, which at the beginning of the year you choose to say, "I am going to give $20 per week' - then the church can plan for a year in advance what the cash flow is like - but no one will ever stop you attending church if you don't donate money. Most of the time, guilt sorts out any tight asses in the end.

Incorrect, Catholicism has no compulsory tithe - there is planned giving, which at the beginning of the year you choose to say, "I am going to give $20 per week' - then the church can plan for a year in advance what the cash flow is like - but no one will ever stop you attending church if you don't donate money. Most of the time, guilt sorts out any tight asses in the end.

Then either it's changed or I was given bad information.

But to be clear: Nobody stops you from attending church in LDS, either.

I'm a Catholic. I've got homosexual friends who at their church (Catholic too), regularly do the offertory and other stuff. But, I guess the Catholic Church's official teaching may be a little different.

My experience being an ex-Catholic is this; what the pope says and what the people do can be worlds apart. Lets be honest, the average Catholic family didn't spontaneously shrink from 6+ kids to 3 by virtue of the 'natural birth control' actually working. As for the number of gays, the church is filled to the rafters with them. For the pope to make up a bullshit excuse that its all the fault of modernity and secularism makes him look like a first class moron. For someone as education as him, you'd think he would be able to come up with a robust reply besides a whinefest.

Then either it's changed or I was given bad information.

But to be clear: Nobody stops you from attending church in LDS, either.

I'd say bad information more than anything else - people equating planned giving to tithe.

An interesting thing now, the Book of Mormon will be able to be bought without needing to go through a member - so it'll pretty much fall in line with most other religious groups - which is a good thing.

Side node, Joseph Smith was a Free Mason - alot of the Masonic symbols have found their way into the LDS.

I'd say bad information more than anything else - people equating planned giving to tithe.

I'm trying to remember where I heard that. I used to be Catholic but that wasn't an area I knew much about.


An interesting thing now, the Book of Mormon will be able to be bought without needing to go through a member - so it'll pretty much fall in line with most other religious groups - which is a good thing.


Yeah? Where did you hear that? Sounds cool.


Side node, Joseph Smith was a Free Mason - alot of the Masonic symbols have found their way into the LDS.

Yep. In fact, I think all of the early Church guys were. I recently bought a book at an LDS bookstore that explores the relationship and origins of all that, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

I was referencing another post in this thread, which I presumed you'd read.

I've read every post since I've gotten involved in the thread, and a few pages back before that. I've seen nothing putting forth numbers to demonstrate that having defined roles based on someone's sex makes an organization stronger. You vaguely hinted that it might be necessary for standardization, but that's about it.

So is that a yes?

It is a qualified yes. Your definition relies on how someone perceives the given roles. Thus, if you do not perceive the role given to either men and women as inferior, then, to you, it would not be sexist. However, if someone did see either role as inferior then, by your definition, it *would* be sexist.

No. It is NOT *exactly* what I'm saying. I think that's what you *want* me to be saying, but it isn't.

Let me get this straight, because I'm rather confused by your insistence that you're saying something different.

You are not saying that the different gender roles within the church are there because of the strengths and weaknesses that men and women tend to have?

I wonder why.

So do I. I don't understand this insistence that sexism can only be oppressing women. Women are not the only sex, and outright oppression is not the only form of sexism. Sexism involves the roles, etc. given out to men just as much as it does those given to women.

That's a misstatment. They can be members, however, engaging in homosexual activity will result in excommunication. We don't excommunicate though they way Catholics do- you're not condemned to hell, we hope you repent and come back to the fold.

Well, ex-communication is difficult as it is set out by the church by very few priests actually do it. As my old parish priest said, "What you do is between you and god". Priests have the right to withhold the eucharist if they wish, based on whether or not they believe you're broken the 'rules' - had an abortion, divorce etc. etc.

Like I said, its up to the priest to actually turn theory into practice, few are willing to actually do so - especially for those priests who were trained after Vatican II.

As for the 'homosexual practices', the greater concern of churches should be encouraging long term stable, loving relationships than shunning gays who either turn to the 'scene' (with all its vices) or simply find a region which is more welcoming (which I did).

I'm trying to remember where I heard that. I used to be Catholic but that wasn't an area I knew much about.

For me, I never liked the idea of tithe because it brings in a framework of compulson rather than choice.

Yeah? Where did you hear that? Sounds cool.

I'm doing a 'Bachelors of Arts majoring in religious studies' - lecturer who is in the know of these things informed that its one of the recent moves to open up the LDS to more people. I think they're realising that pissing people off with door to door sales people puts people off. My belief has always been, give the people the text and allow them to make the decision based on what they get out of it.

Yep. In fact, I think all of the early Church guys were. I recently bought a book at an LDS bookstore that explores the relationship and origins of all that, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

Should be an interesting read.

I've read every post since I've gotten involved in the thread, and a few pages back before that. I've seen nothing putting forth numbers to demonstrate that having defined roles based on someone's sex makes an organization stronger. You vaguely hinted that it might be necessary for standardization, but that's about it.

I refer you to the rather long post filled with some impressive numbers related to accomplishments and progress of the Church.


It is a qualified yes. Your definition relies on how someone perceives the given roles. Thus, if you do not perceive the role given to either men and women as inferior, then, to you, it would not be sexist. However, if someone did see either role as inferior then, by your definition, it *would* be sexist.


Still hedging answers like you think I'm trying to trap you. That isn't how I operate.


Let me get this straight, because I'm rather confused by your insistence that you're saying something different.

You are not saying that the different gender roles within the church are there because of the strengths and weaknesses that men and women tend to have?


That's a different assertion from what you said earlier:


"Men tend to be good at X and women tend to be good at Y. Thus, only men should fulfill a role that involves X and only women should fulfill a role that involves Y."

This is *exactly* what you are saying.


If both of those sound equivalent to you, then you're not really trying. This is not a trap. This is so that you can see what it looks like from my end.

That, or you were trying to trap me. You wouldn't do that to me, would you?

But it doesn't matter. I'm done with the sexism tangent. This is my last word on the matter. Seriously. If you want to talk about something else, let's.

Well I'll be sure to put great stock and store by your analysis.

Better than someone who posts shit like this:



W00T!

For me, I never liked the idea of tithe because it brings in a framework of compulson rather than choice.


Understandable.

But I gotta tell ya, when you give to the Lord what is His, you receive all kinds of blessings in return. I've never regretted giving to the Church, even when I didn't think I could afford it. Somehow things always work out even better than if I had witheld the money.


I'm doing a 'Bachelors of Arts majoring in religious studies' - lecturer who is in the know of these things informed that its one of the recent moves to open up the LDS to more people. I think they're realising that pissing people off with door to door sales people puts people off. My belief has always been, give the people the text and allow them to make the decision based on what they get out of it.


It's possible to get a free copy from the Church, or if you know somebody who can get you one. I wonder what the sales figures would be like.


Should be an interesting read.

I'm looking forward to getting it out of the storage tote after my wife and I move.

Well, ex-communication is difficult as it is set out by the church by very few priests actually do it. As my old parish priest said, "What you do is between you and god". Priests have the right to withhold the eucharist if they wish, based on whether or not they believe you're broken the 'rules' - had an abortion, divorce etc. etc.


I'd have thought that something like an abortion would automatically trigger an excommunication.


As for the 'homosexual practices', the greater concern of churches should be encouraging long term stable, loving relationships than shunning gays who either turn to the 'scene' (with all its vices) or simply find a region which is more welcoming (which I did).

My brother is gay and, as far as I know, identifies himself as Catholic although I don't think he's been active for a long, long time. Maybe since Confirmation. If you don't mind me asking, what church did you switch to?

I refer you to the rather long post filled with some impressive numbers related to accomplishments and progress of the Church.

And this demonstrates that they would have done less without the gender roles...how, exactly?

Still hedging answers like you think I'm trying to trap you. That isn't how I operate.

I'm not hedging anything. I'm answering.

That's a different assertion from what you said earlier:

No, it isn't.

"Only men can be priests and only women can be in the Relief Society because men tend to have strengths that make them good priests and women tend to have strengths that make the good at doing what the Reform Society does."

Simplified, that is:

"Only men can perform X role and only women can perform Y role because men tend to be good at doing X and women tend to be doing Y."

This is the exact same logical statement as:

"Men tend to be good at X and women tend to be good at Y, so only men can perform role X and only women can perform role Y."

It is simply reversed in order. Instead of "A causes B", it is "B is caused by A".

If both of those sound equivalent to you, then you're not really trying.

If they don't sound equivalent to you, it's because you're looking for something that simply isn't there. As I've shown above, they are exactly the same statement.

This is not a trap. This is so that you can see what it looks like from my end.

From what I can tell, it looks exactly the same as from my end.

That, or you were trying to trap me. You wouldn't do that to me, would you?

Nope.

But it doesn't matter. I'm done with the sexism tangent. This is my last word on the matter. Seriously. If you want to talk about something else, let's.

If you're done with it, why do you keep replying?

I refer you to the rather long post filled with some impressive numbers related to accomplishments and progress of the Church.

What does that have to do with anything?



Still hedging answers like you think I'm trying to trap you. That isn't how I operate.

No, you just post stuff that has nothing to do with the above post or make up what you like to think the poster has said.



That's a different assertion from what you said earlier:

He's asking you a question you fucking dunmbass. Does being a Mormon inhibit your ability to understand basic freaking english?



If both of those sound equivalent to you, then you're not really trying. This is not a trap. This is so that you can see what it looks like from my end.

We still have no fucking clue what it looks like from your side because you keep twisting what you have allready said.



But it doesn't matter. I'm done with the sexism tangent. This is my last word on the matter. Seriously. If you want to talk about something else, let's.


Why? Run out of excuses for gender apartied?

I'm looking forward to getting it out of the storage tote after my wife and I move.

well i cant wait. im looking it up on the net

If you're done with it, why do you keep replying?

I was trying to extend to you a courtesy.

well i cant wait. im looking it up on the net

Just be careful of the sources is my only piece of unsolicted advice.

I was trying to extend to you a courtesy.


You only reply to that part of her post?

Why? Run out of excuses for gender apartied?

You're hardly being helpful.

Oh, and she, not he.

You're hardly being helpful.


We should not be in fighting, thats what NB wants!

You're hardly being helpful.

Oh, and she, not he.

Don't feed the troll, Dem. :)

Just be careful of the sources is my only piece of unsolicted advice.

its mildly interesting.

joseph smiths dad and brother were masons, he became a mason in nauvoo. brigham young was a mason. quite a few of the mormons who made it to salt lake were mormons.

the only surprise to me is that anyone so deeply involved in creating a new religion and new society should be bothered to join a whole nother group like the masons. it seems to be a distraction at best.

Don't feed the troll, Dem. :)

But I'm hoping to get called a Mormon lover or something.

Wait for it....

But I'm hoping to get called a Mormon lover or something.

Wait for it....

I like you. You're alright :)

its mildly interesting.

joseph smiths dad and brother were masons, he became a mason in nauvoo. brigham young was a mason. quite a few of the mormons who made it to salt lake were mormons.

the only surprise to me is that anyone so deeply involved in creating a new religion and new society should be bothered to join a whole nother group like the masons. it seems to be a distraction at best.

I agree, but the Masons really aren't a religious organization per se, and since, in those days, most men were Masons it seems only natural that these guys would be. As I recall, all of the founding fathers were masons, too.

Smunkeeville, don't you find it interesting that while Mormons and Evalgelical Christians have slightly different meanings for many terms, that perhaps it would be useful to keep those definitions in mind when looking at Mormon literature? The first page you linked to doesn't seem to have done so, and is therefore putting a spin on the context. Not a really big deal, but if someone truly wants to understand, this might lead them to false conclusions.

I also liked how the second site had one colum labeled "LDS" and the other colum labeled "Bible" as though the two were mutually exclusive.

Are Mormons Christians? Yes we are. Absolutely. Do we see it from the same perspective you do? Nope, but then that doesn't have to result in an argument. Mormons are perfectly happy to acknowledge the Christianity of Catholics, Baptists, etc because the point is to follow Jesus Christ.

The interesting thing I find is when people go on about the definition of Christianity, and yet, before 325AD, there were numerous Christian groups with many different texts and views on Jesus's divinity. Heck, it ranged from groups who just followed the Letters from Paul to the Gnostics which put everything on its head.

"like light bulbs, some burn more brightly than others, but they're all powered by the same source"

Too bad people are too fixated on the details rather than worrying about the bigger picture - creating a connection with the divine through ritual and practice.

I agree, but the Masons really aren't a religious organization per se, and since, in those days, most men were Masons it seems only natural that these guys would be. As I recall, all of the founding fathers were masons, too.

yeah i have the impression that it might have been a political move on smith's part. showing that he and the rest of his group were just regular guys. getting some of the non mormon locals to give him some amout of support because of mutual masonry. that kind of thing.

its really just mildly interesting to me. i suppose mormon/mason haters and conspiracy theorists enjoy it more.

But I gotta tell ya, when you give to the Lord what is His, you receive all kinds of blessings in return. I've never regretted giving to the Church, even when I didn't think I could afford it. Somehow things always work out even better than if I had witheld the money.

The church do some wonderful things; its just sad that the media concerntrates so much on the negative rather than the positive.

It's possible to get a free copy from the Church, or if you know somebody who can get you one. I wonder what the sales figures would be like.

I'd assume it would be able the same as others; for me I have the Tanakh (Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim), Bhagavad Gita, King James Bible, and the Qur'an - for those who are interested in religion, I'm sure the sales will be good, considering it'll be an easily accessible book to analyse.

I'm looking forward to getting it out of the storage tote after my wife and I move.

A good book I've read is called 'Progressive Muslims'; Rabbi Jonathon Sacks has also put out some quite interesting books which address the concerns of today.

I'd have thought that something like an abortion would automatically trigger an excommunication.

One would have to be vocal for others to know :) Like I said, 1.2billion followers, it would be naive to assume no one has an abortion; I mean, the bible belt states of the US have the highest rates of teen pregnancies and abortions - the stance of their churches have not stopped either.

My brother is gay and, as far as I know, identifies himself as Catholic although I don't think he's been active for a long, long time. Maybe since Confirmation. If you don't mind me asking, what church did you switch to?

I became a Sufi - the mystic branch of Islam, which is accepting of people from all walks of life. It fits well into my belief of a relationship with god based on love rather than fearing or blind obedience.

on the topic of selling the book of mormon....

ive seen it in more than one hotel room sitting beside the gideon bible.

my sister was considering stealing it so she could read it at her leisure. i think she got bored before our stay was over though.

For those that are considering reading the "Book of Mormon", I would suggest you find a rewritten version that tells the basic story in ordinary English.

It is written in the style of the OT and can be like running in mud if you don't understand what is going on. If you get the basic story and characters in mind it will be a lot easier.

on the topic of selling the book of mormon....

ive seen it in more than one hotel room sitting beside the gideon bible.

my sister was considering stealing it so she could read it at her leisure. i think she got bored before our stay was over though.

if you go to the LDS website they will mail you one for free.

if you go to the LDS website they will mail you one for free.

ya but then they know where you live.

ya but then they know where you live.

Are you sure they don't already know? =)

ya but then they know where you live.

they came by once, and I told them I was still reading and that I would call if I needed more info, they said okay, gave me the number to call and left. I never saw them again.

the JW's though aren't so willing to let you be.

Page 41?

Wow.

Are you sure they don't already know? =)

of course they do. they know me and all my ancestors for hundreds of years.

but unless i give them a reason to think of me, it could take forever before they bother me at home.

im not quite a recluse but i do not like strangers showing up at my door talking to me.

Page 41?

Wow.

you need to reset your "posts per page" option.

at 40/page its only page 16

Since I don't feel like reading through 41 pages of post to see if this was asked before, but to the Mormons on here, what is the deal with Blood Atonement Killings? Is it really something your church did (or still do) and why?

the JW's though aren't so willing to let you be.

I have it on good authority (i.e. some random people on the interwebz) that there are two foolproof ways of getting JWs to go away:

1. Tell them that you're about to hold a prayer meeting in your house and invite them to join you (I don't think they're supposed to enter any place of worship except a Kingdom Hall, kinda like vampires).

2. Tell them you're an ex-JW (they're not supposed to talk to apostates).

Also, according to Lunatic Goofballs it's legal to answer the door naked as long as you're not visible from public land: I think that's how he keeps them away. :p

I have not read any of this thread but I would like to know about the Mormon underwear that almost covers the entire body. I know it is something they do not like to talk about but could some one shed some light on the Holy underwear.

I have not read any of this thread but I would like to know about the Mormon underwear that almost covers the entire body. I know it is something they do not like to talk about but could some one shed some light on the Holy underwear.

I imagine it must be like long johns...

I have it on good authority (i.e. some random people on the interwebz) that there are two foolproof ways of getting JWs to go away:

1. Tell them that you're about to hold a prayer meeting in your house and invite them to join you (I don't think they're supposed to enter any place of worship except a Kingdom Hall, kinda like vampires).

2. Tell them you're an ex-JW (they're not supposed to talk to apostates).

Also, according to Lunatic Goofballs it's legal to answer the door naked as long as you're not visible from public land: I think that's how he keeps them away. :p
the apostate thing is true I know for sure. I am not sure about the first one and I know you really can't scare them away by telling them you are doing ritual sacrifice or answering the door naked.

I imagine it must be like long johns...

they are called temple garments and they are sacred. They won't explain much to you about them because most people pick on them for wearing them.

you can buy them online

the apostate thing is true I know for sure. I am not sure about the first one and I know you really can't scare them away by telling them you are doing ritual sacrifice or answering the door naked.

seems to me that you can scare anyone away by answering the door naked. (generic you)

seems to me that you can scare anyone away by answering the door naked. (generic you)

specific me, not so scary apparently. :( or :) depending on my intent.

specific me, not so scary apparently. :( or :) depending on my intent.



hahahah well i didnt want a newbie to think that i was dissing you. ANYONE answering the door naked is likely to drive off strangers. there are just some things you dont want to see while you are trying to sell vacuum cleaners.

I have not read any of this thread but I would like to know about the Mormon underwear that almost covers the entire body. I know it is something they do not like to talk about but could some one shed some light on the Holy underwear.

Here is a wikipedia which goes into details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment

Since I don't feel like reading through 41 pages of post to see if this was asked before, but to the Mormons on here, what is the deal with Blood Atonement Killings? Is it really something your church did (or still do) and why?

I've been a mormon my whole life and have absolutly no idea what your talking about? where on earth did you here this?

I have not read any of this thread but I would like to know about the Mormon underwear that almost covers the entire body. I know it is something they do not like to talk about but could some one shed some light on the Holy underwear.

its a white undershirt and some briefs for guys pretty much, not to sure for girls. their symbolic of temple ordinances and are considered sacred. not supposed to leave them on floor or anything. i havnt done the ordinances yet, but my parents have them.

I saw a South Park episode about Mormons.... I won't talk further.

I saw a South Park episode about Mormons.... I won't talk further.Yep. That episode already said everything. Mormonism is crap.

Yep. That episode already said everything. Mormonism is crap.

Classic aint' it!

I Like the bit at the end where Stan stays away from him, then he comes talks a load of crap then goes "Suck my Balls!"

Don't feed the troll, Dem. :)

Yes, I'm a troll because I dont agree with your religeon.:rolleyes:

bump

rebump

I saw this program yesterday about a chap called Mark Hoffman, he forged a lot of stuff and sold it to the CofLDSofJC, now what struck me as very intersting was the churchs response to those forgeries that painted Jo Smith in an ummm unfaltering light.

Now I know they where forgeries, but the church leaders, when faced with such data, choose to pay lots of money in an effort to cover up, rather than look at their church and their religoin and ask the hard questions that it behoves a religious institute to ask.

The act of charletons, and people in the know, or the act of men who wanted to hang on to their power?

Whatever spin you decide to put on it, it is very telling behavor. Now some may see this as an attack on the Morom, faith and church, but I would direct those people to ask themselves what their church leaders would do in similar situations.

For the record, for those who don't know, I am reliogus I have no problem with reliogin, I do have great problems with dogma and leaders of faith that are not transparant.

I saw this program yesterday about a chap called Mark Hoffman, he forged a lot of stuff and sold it to the CofLDSofJC, now what struck me as very intersting was the churchs response to those forgeries that painted Jo Smith in an ummm unfaltering light.

Now I know they where forgeries, but the church leaders, when faced with such data, choose to pay lots of money in an effort to cover up, rather than look at their church and their religoin and ask the hard questions that it behoves a religious institute to ask.

The act of charletons, and people in the know, or the act of men who wanted to hang on to their power?

Whatever spin you decide to put on it, it is very telling behavor. Now some may see this as an attack on the Morom, faith and church, but I would direct those people to ask themselves what their church leaders would do in similar situations.

For the record, for those who don't know, I am reliogus I have no problem with reliogin, I do have great problems with dogma and leaders of faith that are not transparant.

I watched that too.

Yes, I'm a troll because I dont agree with your religeon.:rolleyes:
You can disagree with a religion without being an ass about it.

I'm an atheist and I hate religion. Many of the more devout religious folks have a few harsh words for me because of it.

There's one thing that one has to keep in mind about religious debate here, if you want civil debate and for your beliefs to not be assaulted, you have to toe the courtesy line. It is possible to express your distaste and contempt for a belief set without being a total fuckwad.

Of course, I may not always remember but as long as both sides make an effort we can prevent forum fires.

There is nothing wrong with heated words that provoke thought and analysis. Ones that simply provoke ire get no where.

You can disagree with a religion without being an ass about it.

I'm an atheist and I hate religion. Many of the more devout religious folks have a few harsh words for me because of it.

There's one thing that one has to keep in mind about religious debate here, if you want civil debate and for your beliefs to not be assaulted, you have to toe the courtesy line. It is possible to express your distaste and contempt for a belief set without being a total fuckwad.

Of course, I may not always remember but as long as both sides make an effort we can prevent forum fires.

There is nothing wrong with heated words that provoke thought and analysis. Ones that simply provoke ire get no where.

I totaly agree with you, but sometimes, just sometime, it is fun! And fun must be had.

I totaly agree with you, but sometimes, just sometime, it is fun! And fun must be had.

Of course we must have fun. There is nothing wrong with poking fun as long as everyone knows there is no malicious intent and everyone involve wants in on that fun. :)

Of course we must have fun. There is nothing wrong with poking fun as long as everyone knows there is no malicious intent and everyone involve wants in on that fun. :)

I almost agree with you on that one. Not everybody involved must want in on it, there must always be a victim, somebody or something to make fun of.

Myself I prefer the easy targets, like say umm the Christian church!:eek:

Since I don't feel like reading through 41 pages of post to see if this was asked before, but to the Mormons on here, what is the deal with Blood Atonement Killings? Is it really something your church did (or still do) and why?

I've been a mormon my whole life and have absolutly no idea what your talking about? where on earth did you here this?

There used to be something that had to do with a hypothetical blood atonement but that's long gone, and no, there wasn't any killing.

There used to be something that had to do with a hypothetical blood atonement but that's long gone, and no, there wasn't any killing.

what about baptizing the dead, and the genealogy stuff?

Myself I prefer the easy targets, like say umm the Christian church!:eek:

I feel quite offended by that actually as I am a christian. :(

I feel quite offended by that actually as I am a christian. :(

But you are not the "Church" as in the organization so they are not poking fun at you specifically

Why are we even talking about Mormons when the religion is so obviously a fraud:eek:? It has about as much a chance of being a true religion as there is a giant UFO coming and destroying earth. Enough said.:upyours:

the apostate thing is true I know for sure. I am not sure about the first one and I know you really can't scare them away by telling them you are doing ritual sacrifice or answering the door naked.

You can if you ask them to come talk to you while you're naked, apparently. When hubby was younger, he scared some people away by answering the door wrapped in a towel. When they asked if they could talk to him about God, he said, "Sure! I'm just about to take a shower though, you want to come on in?" and headed for the bathroom. They didn't follow.

what about baptizing the dead, and the genealogy stuff?

Yep, we do that.

Details:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
-John 14:6 (KJV)

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
-Mark 16:16 (KJV)

So that tells us 2 critical things: 1)Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation and 2)Belief AND baptism are essential components of that.

So what about all the millions upon millions who never had the opportunity to learn about Jesus and/or be baptized? It hardly seems fair, doesn't it? They, as equal to us as children of God, ought to have the same opportunities as we, no?

And so it is possible to baptize posthumously. Paul even refered to this:

"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"
-1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV)

When the church in Corinth was preaching that there is no resurrection at the Second Coming. Paul was making the point that, if true, then what's the point of baptizing for the dead, if they'll never rise [at the Second Coming]?

So that's why we do it.

(Yes, I know perfectly well that other Christian denominations interpret these verses differently, believing in baptism as optional and no baptizing for the dead. I know it well. This is one of those things that sets us apart.)

Yep, we do that.

Details:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
-John 14:6 (KJV)

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
-Mark 16:16 (KJV)

So that tells us 2 critical things: 1)Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation and 2)Belief AND baptism are essential components of that.

So what about all the millions upon millions who never had the opportunity to learn about Jesus and/or be baptized? It hardly seems fair, doesn't it? They, as equal to us as children of God, ought to have the same opportunities as we, no?

If both belief and baptism are necessary, what good is providing baptism after death? You can't get the dead to believe, considering that, as you pointed out, they may never have had the opportunity to learn about Jesus. And, if they did have the opportunity, and rejected belief, do you think that baptizing them after death will help?

If both belief and baptism are necessary, what good is providing baptism after death? You can't get the dead to believe, considering that, as you pointed out, they may never have had the opportunity to learn about Jesus. And, if they did have the opportunity, and rejected belief, do you think that baptizing them after death will help?

Because on the other side, they have the opportunity to accept Jesus for themselves. if, in life, they rejected Christ and still do on the other side, then so be it. They gain no benefit from the poshumous baptism.

This is for those departed spirits who WOULD choose to follow Jesus Christ. Since we can't know who would and who wouldn't, we just baptize everybody we can.

NB, this is a serious question, are there militant members of your faith? Like militant Islamics and the like?

So what about all the millions upon millions who never had the opportunity to learn about Jesus and/or be baptized? It hardly seems fair, doesn't it? They, as equal to us as children of God, ought to have the same opportunities as we, no?
What about those of us who just don't wanna be baptised and are just happy as a pig in shit being the godless heathens we are? :p What then, eh, Mr Mormon Dude? You still gonna sprinkle us with your holy water or let us wallow as we have done for so long because it's what we enjoy the most? :)

NB, this is a serious question, are there militant members of your faith? Like militant Islamics and the like?

Not that I'm aware of, although there are splinter groups that people often refer to as "Fundamentalist Mormons" who live in isolated communities out west.

As for militancy, no. I've never heard of any violent incidents with them.

Because on the other side, they have the opportunity to accept Jesus for themselves. if, in life, they rejected Christ and still do on the other side, then so be it. They gain no benefit from the poshumous baptism.

This is for those departed spirits who WOULD choose to follow Jesus Christ. Since we can't know who would and who wouldn't, we just baptize everybody we can.

What makes you think that they have a chance to accept Jesus on the other side?


Either way seems a bit callous to have someone truly accept god but be held back by a technicality that their family have not gotten around to performing some ritual (weather that be extended family or whatever)

Not that I'm aware of, although there are splinter groups that people often refer to as "Fundamentalist Mormons" who live in isolated communities out west.

As for militancy, no. I've never heard of any violent incidents with them.


Fudamentalist Mormons? Are they the ones who say that black people are black because they are being punished for something that they did wrong and they used to be white?

What makes you think that they have a chance to accept Jesus on the other side?

Either way seems a bit callous to have someone truly accept god but be held back by a technicality that their family have not gotten around to performing some ritual (weather that be extended family or whatever)

That's what I'm wondering. If you truly get that opportunity, post-death, to accept Jesus Christ, why wouldn't you also get an opportunity, post-death, to be baptized? There are, presumably, plenty of people in heaven with experience in baptism.

But you are not the "Church" as in the organization so they are not poking fun at you specifically

O.K

Fudamentalist Mormons? Are they the ones who say that black people are black because they are being punished for something that they did wrong and they used to be white?

Dunno. Never met one. Their biggest thing is polygamy, which many of those groups still practice.

That's what I'm wondering. If you truly get that opportunity, post-death, to accept Jesus Christ, why wouldn't you also get an opportunity, post-death, to be baptized? There are, presumably, plenty of people in heaven with experience in baptism.

What makes you think that they have a chance to accept Jesus on the other side?


Either way seems a bit callous to have someone truly accept god but be held back by a technicality that their family have not gotten around to performing some ritual (weather that be extended family or whatever)

For whatever reason (And I don't know what it is) the baptism MUST take place here on this earth. If I find out more details on that I'll let you know.

UT, you have a point but it's not only family members who can do it for their ancestors. Anybody can take care of it for someone, whether they're related or not. In fact, I'd guess the majority of them are done in this way.

Is anyone here Mormon? Apparently I have distant Mormon relatives in Salt Lake City. It does seem one of the funnier religions however, no insult intended!

Is anyone here Mormon? Apparently I have distant Mormon relatives in Salt Lake City. It does seem one of the funnier religions however, no insult intended!

I am

Just for the record: I'm still not trying to be funny or anything, but are you actively Mormon are just grew up in a Mormon family?

For whatever reason (And I don't know what it is) the baptism MUST take place here on this earth. If I find out more details on that I'll let you know.

UT, you have a point but it's not only family members who can do it for their ancestors. Anybody can take care of it for someone, whether they're related or not. In fact, I'd guess the majority of them are done in this way.

I was just figuring on the most likely people to track them down still if someone gets missed cause they have no kids or were a hermit they are fucked.

Just for the record: I'm still not trying to be funny or anything, but are you actively Mormon are just grew up in a Mormon family?

Actively. I converted 9 years ago.

I was just figuring on the most likely people to track them down still if someone gets missed cause they have no kids or were a hermit they are fucked.

I had the same question, because there are a LOT of people whose records simply don't exist. Names like those will be revealed later spiritually.

I had the same question, because there are a LOT of people whose records simply don't exist. Names like those will be revealed later spiritually.

Seems like an un-nessisary middle man there ... rather then just doing it himself he has to influence you so you can perform the ritual so he can accept him

How in efficient and hokey a system to entrust someones ever lasting soul to

Seems like an un-nessisary middle man there ... rather then just doing it himself he has to influence you so you can perform the ritual so he can accept him

How in efficient and hokey a system to entrust someones ever lasting soul to

Just realize that I'm giving you the WAY simplified version. There's a lot more to it than that but it goes way beyond the scope of a discussion like this one.

Just realize that I'm giving you the WAY simplified version. There's a lot more to it than that but it goes way beyond the scope of a discussion like this one.

I understand but in the end the more complex the procedure the more it does not seem like the work of an all powerful god. One that at times should read up on engineering a system and use the KISS principal more often

NB, this is a serious question, are there militant members of your faith? Like militant Islamics and the like?

There are literally hundreds of splinter groups. Many with just one congregation that think they are the one and only original without question church.

It's hard to tell what all is out there.

I understand but in the end the more complex the procedure the more it does not seem like the work of an all powerful god. One that at times should read up on engineering a system and use the KISS principal more often

Well the thing to understand is, what's the objective? If the objective were to get these people baptized and nothing more, then I'd agree that the system woudl seem needlessly complex.

But the thing is, the people who perform the baptisms benefit also. It's an opportunity to renew one's own baptismal covenant, it's an incentive to remain worthy to enter the Temple to do it, and a whole host of miscellaneous other blessings and spiritual benefits that come along with it. That part is equally important and the reason for the additional steps.

Actively. I converted 9 years ago.

Living in Salt Lake City for three years as a child permanently disabused me of any such possibility.

Yep, we do that.

Details:

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
-John 14:6 (KJV)

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
-Mark 16:16 (KJV)

So that tells us 2 critical things: 1)Jesus is the ONLY way to salvation and 2)Belief AND baptism are essential components of that.


No - it doesn't say that at all. It says belief is essential, it doesn't say baptism is.

It does say baptism AND belief will bring salvation, but it immediately says non-belief leads to damnation - it says nothing about non-baptism.

they came by once, and I told them I was still reading and that I would call if I needed more info, they said okay, gave me the number to call and left. I never saw them again.

the JW's though aren't so willing to let you be.

I invited the Witnesses in, and debated theology with them. I had three nice hour-long discussions... and now nothing since December. :(

I spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to answer this. The challenge is, of course, that we're looking at it from two entirely different points of view. I know in my heart that this is not a system aimed at disadvantaging women or at propping up men, but I can see how it would look like one from your point of view. That's why I don't take offense that you'd think it sexist. I'd probably think so too if I were in your shoes.

Aim and acomplishment are often different things. Also we don't just think it's sexist, it actually IS sexist. How is it any different that, for example, not allowing a black man to be a priest?

That, right there, is the reason I'm not taking the bait. "separate but equal" is a phrase with strong negative connotations because it was used to justify segregation.

Like the segregation between male and female roles in your church?

*burp* too late :p



I already said I'd answer before you posted this. Too late. ;)

Good Lifes said a couple important things that relate to my opinion on this. I'm not going to repeat any of that if I can avoid it, so best to read that post first.

Note: What follows is only my OPINION.

In the Church there are two organizations: The Priesthood and the Relief Society. (Don't ask me where the names came from. I don't know.) The guys are in the Priesthood, Women in the RS.

The roles of the two organizations follow traditional roles for men and women. Yes, I know how much a lot of you folks hate the word "traditional" but sometimes it's perfectly apropriate.

Maybe the best wayto describe what they do would be to provide a sort of hypothetical example.

A hurricane hits your town. Came on suddenly, no time to evacuate. Immediately the local organizations of the Church will mobilize. The men of the Priesthood will be out there doing things like cheking on the needs of the households, assisting with any heavy labor that needs doing (like removing fallen trees, assisting in areas of personal expertise like electrical, automotive, construction, etc.) They will provide blessings for the sick and injured, they will maintain lines of communication. They will provide whatever is needed by the households in their congregation.

The Relief Society will be out there doing things like checking on the needs of individuals and households, assisting with caring for the needs of those who are injured, those who need food, water, clothing, shelter. They're more likely the ones who would set up shelters for those whose homes are destroyed or damaged. They will use personal expertise as needed, just like the men will. They will maintain lines of communication and support. They will provide whatever is needed by the households in their congregation.

There's some overlap but the focus is domestic vs. material. The guys' organization goes where men tend to excel like physical work and leadership. This is also where the spiritual stuff is. The womens' organization tends to focus on the areas that women typically excel in like providing support, care and emotional needs.

So the Priesthood is designed to enhance and utilize areas in which men tend to be better equipped, and the Relief Society is designed to enhance and utilize areas in which women are better equipped.

I can't say why most other branches of Christianity have only men in leadership roles. Perhaps the reasoning is similar.

If, after that, you still feel women in LDS are treated unfairly then I invite you to contact one and ask her about it. I've got nothing else.

That really doesn't answer the question in the slightest. Why can't a man good at providing support care and emotional needs join the RS? Why can't a woman do the spiritual and leadership stuff? Hell why can't she do the physical work? Plenty of women today do very physical jobs . . .

This sounds like "That's the way we've always done it" with a dash of "Because we said so".

Aim and acomplishment are often different things. Also we don't just think it's sexist, it actually IS sexist. How is it any different that, for example, not allowing a black man to be a priest?

Like the segregation between male and female roles in your church?

That really doesn't answer the question in the slightest. Why can't a man good at providing support care and emotional needs join the RS? Why can't a woman do the spiritual and leadership stuff? Hell why can't she do the physical work? Plenty of women today do very physical jobs . . .

This sounds like "That's the way we've always done it" with a dash of "Because we said so".

This train has left the station but thanks for your opinion.

This train has left the station but thanks for your opinion.

Unfortunately there seems to be a cow on the tracks. ;)

No - it doesn't say that at all. It says belief is essential, it doesn't say baptism is.

It does say baptism AND belief will bring salvation, but it immediately says non-belief leads to damnation - it says nothing about non-baptism.

According to your understanding.

Break it down using logical operators.

IF A AND B THEN C
IF !A THEN !C

If you've ever studied Computer Science or logic you'll know that the statement A AND B Evaluates to true if and only if both A and B are true. The whole statement evaluates to false if either, or both A and B are false.

Implicit is the statement
IF !B THEN !C by definition.

But like I said, I know a lot of denominations focus on the second half of that sentence and ignore the first. You're telling me about your interpretation of it. Duly noted, but I don't agree.

Unfortunately there seems to be a cow on the tracks. ;)

hehe.

That's why we've equipped our train with the Sabre 5000 Multiphasic cowcatcher with backup 500kW generator.

(90 day limited warranty.)

According to your understanding.

Break it down using logical operators.

IF A AND B THEN C
IF !A THEN !C

If you've ever studied Computer Science or logic you'll know that the statement A AND B Evaluates to true if and only if both A and B are true. The whole statement evaluates to false if either, or both A and B are false.

Implicit is the statement
IF !B THEN !C by definition.

But like I said, I know a lot of denominations focus on the second half of that sentence and ignore the first. You're telling me about your interpretation of it. Duly noted, but I don't agree.

You can disagree if you like.

I don't disagree. That would imply you might be right, and I might be wrong.

You are wrong. It's that simple.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"

IF A AND B THEN C

This much is correct.

IF !A THEN !C

This is also true... however... we could only make deductions about the nature of B if we had something that showed that B was a necessary condition for C.

Example: IF A THEN C also seems to follow logically, and can be corroborated from other instances in the text. No such qualifier is shown for B.

You fail at logic.

This is also true... however... we could only make deductions about the nature of B if we had something that showed that B was a necessary condition for C.


It is a necessary condition, by defition of the AND operator. If !B then the whole statement evaluates to false.

Ever write computer code? Go ahead and write a simple program and test it for yourself.

It's what I do for a living so I assure you, making B false will return a false result for the whole statement.

This train has left the station but thanks for your opinion.

The train has not left the station until you answer in a meaningful way.

It is a necessary condition, by defition of the AND operator. If !B then the whole statement evaluates to false.

Ever write computer code? Go ahead and write a simple program and test it for yourself.

It's what I do for a living so I assure you, making B false will return a false result for the whole statement.

You are talking arse.

IF A AND B THEN C

If 'baptism' is a null value, it's status as B or !B is irrelevent. It is junk data.

Then: IF A THEN C

You are assuming that B is necessary for the logic process, but there is really no reason to assume it.

The only way you could realisitically assert the absolute necessity for baptism, would be if you had an extra qualifier... something that either said IF !B THEN !C, IF A AND !B THEN !C... or IFF B THEN C.

According to your understanding.

Break it down using logical operators.

IF A AND B THEN C
IF !A THEN !C

If you've ever studied Computer Science or logic you'll know that the statement A AND B Evaluates to true if and only if both A and B are true. The whole statement evaluates to false if either, or both A and B are false.

Implicit is the statement
IF !B THEN !C by definition.

But like I said, I know a lot of denominations focus on the second half of that sentence and ignore the first. You're telling me about your interpretation of it. Duly noted, but I don't agree.

"He who eats food and hammers nails into his genitalia shall not starve; but he who eats not shall starve"

Do you dispute the truth of this sentence? If not, you'd better visit a hardware store or you're going to be very hungry...

The train has not left the station until you answer in a meaningful way.

I've spoken my peace on the subject. Read over the thread for more info.

"He who eats food and hammers nails into his genitalia shall not starve; but he who eats not shall starve"

Do you dispute the truth of this sentence? If not, you'd better visit a hardware store or you're going to be very hungry...

:D

also, this.

http://www.layhands.com/IsBaptismForSalvation1.htm

You are talking arse.

IF A AND B THEN C

If 'baptism' is a null value, it's status as B or !B is irrelevent. It is junk data.

Then: IF A THEN C

You are assuming that B is necessary for the logic process, but there is really no reason to assume it.

The only way you could realisitically assert the absolute necessity for baptism, would be if you had an extra qualifier... something that either said IF !B THEN !C, IF A AND !B THEN !C... or IFF B THEN C.

You've just proven you don't understand how it works.

I'll write the cod FOR you, since you obviously didn't write it for yourself.

SQL:

SELECT *
FROM SAVED
WHERE SAVED.Baptized = true
AND SAVED.Believes = true

Any record where SAVED.Baptized = false or is NULL will not be selected by this statement.

Don't know much about databases? Ok let's do it in Java/J#

public boolean isSaved(Soul s)
{
if(s.believes && s.baptized)
return true;
else return false;
}

Guess what that returns if s.baptized = false? You guessed it: false.

One more in VB

function isSaved(Soul s)
If s.believes = True AND s.baptized THEN
isSaved = False
ELSE
isSaved = True
End If

My VB syntax may be a little off but I think by now you get the idea.

You know, if we want to get into a real pissing match over it there are other scriptures that back that up, but since I like computer programming I thought I'd have a little fun with it.

I wonder: Those of you who are arguing this... are you even Christians?

"He who eats food and hammers nails into his genitalia shall not starve; but he who eats not shall starve"

Do you dispute the truth of this sentence? If not, you'd better visit a hardware store or you're going to be very hungry...

SELECT *
FROM WellFed
WHERE EatingFood = true
AND SecuringGenitals = true

If you're creating a universe where being fed requires such an unsavory act, then logically that's what would happen.

I'd starve ;)

:D

also, this.

http://www.layhands.com/IsBaptismForSalvation1.htm

Exactly. Thanks Smunkee. John 3:15 sets absolute criteria, and baptism isn't on the list.

You know, if we want to get into a real pissing match over it there are other scriptures that back that up, but since I like computer programming I thought I'd have a little fun with it.


You're right. There are verses that categorically make you wrong. John 3:15 categorically states an inclusive definition of what is required for salvation - and baptism isn't on the list.


I wonder: Those of you who are arguing this... are you even Christians?

I'm not. Judging by your perversion of the scripture, neither are you.

:D

also, this.

http://www.layhands.com/IsBaptismForSalvation1.htm

I respect a reply from someone who actually believs in the Bible. :)

(Although it has already been established that Evangelical Christianity does not require Baptism for Salvation so we don't disagree on that, but on the assumption that you want to debate the meaning of the Scriptures, I'm up for it.)

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
-Mark 16:16 (KJV) (repeated for the sake of completeness)

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
-John 3:5 (KJV)

Now, before we go any further ask yourself, why is it so critical to try and prove Mormons are wrong about that? Is it just because it's Mormons saying it? What if your own pastor got up and said "yanno, I've been reading and it sure looks to me like Baptism is essential, so from now on we have to make sure to baptize every new member of the congregation." would you listen to him? Would it be a bad thing?

I've debated this matter in the past with other Evangelical Christians and what always amazed me is just how hard they push the idea that Baptism is optional, even though they prettymuch always baptize anyway.

So where is the argument REALLY coming from?

You're right. There are verses that categorically make you wrong. John 3:15 categorically states an inclusive definition of what is required for salvation - and baptism isn't on the list.



I'm not. Judging by your perversion of the scripture, neither are you.

So.. wait... you're not even a Christian and you're telling me how I should interpret the New Testament, and presuming to judge my following of Christianity.

Now that's a hoot.

So.. wait... you'r enot even a Christian and you're telling me how I should interpret the New Testament.

Now that's a hoot.

Why?

If it's true it's true. It doesn't require a magic ring to show the secret message. It's right there in black and white.

But - what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... why shouldn't one non-Christian discuss scripture with another non-Christian?

Why?

If it's true it's true. It doesn't require a magic ring to show the secret message. It's right there in black and white.

But - what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander... why shouldn't one non-Christian discuss scripture with another non-Christian?

It's perfectly fine to discuss it, but you enter the discussion already acknowledging that you don't believe the truth of it, so how can that be a basis for a meaningful debate?

Or are you just trying to be a bully with what you think you know?

It's perfectly fine to discuss it, but you enter the discussion already acknowledging that you don't believe the truth of it, so how can that be a basis for a meaningful debate?

Or are you just trying to be a bully with what you think you know?

Seems to me that the person attempting to bully others is you. After all, you were preaching your baptismal heresy when I arrived.

Again - you fail at logic. If one can only debate things one knows to be true, then what do you think you are doing? A logical argument is logical regardless of whether or not one accepts the philosophies.

Example: If we assume that 3 and 2 are the same number, can we use logic to work out the sume of 3 and 2? Yes - although the answer wil lonly be in terms of the question.. but we can do it because logic does not rely on the statements to ber valid for the principle to apply.

Let's talk about John 3:15.

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

-John 3:15 (KJV)

One must believe in Jesus. And what does Jesus, in whome we believe say?

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
-Mark 16:16 (KJV) (repeated for the sake of completeness)

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
-John 3:5 (KJV)

Those are direct quotes right from Him. So if we believe in Him, then we must BELIEVE Him! How can one say they believe in Jesus when they're so quick to disregard His words, or leave off that inconvenient half of His sentences?

Several people have implied that in Mark 16:16 the meaning is that all that's REALLY necessary is the believing part. I look at that verse and what I see is a warning that you must believe AND be baptized, but if you don't believe, you're lost... Baptism alone isn't enough, it MUST come with belief. Sincere belief. The second half of that verse isn't a pass to not get Baptized, it's a warning that Belief is essential and Baptism alone isn't enough. (I think on that last bit we'd all agree, and yet when it's right there in black and white so many people ascribe a totally different meaning to it.)

Ask yourself this: If Baptism isn't essential, why would Jesus phrase His words that way? Are we saying He's careless? Or that the Scriptures aren't reliable? What's the alternative explanation for the wording here, and are you certain enough about that to risk the salvation of those people who believe you and don't bother to get baptized as a result?

Seems to me that the person attempting to bully others is you. After all, you were preaching your baptismal heresy when I arrived.

Interesting. How am I bullying people? I was asked what I believe. I answered. People attacked me. How, again, am I a bully? How many times have you seen me go into regular Christian threads and preach Mormonism? Ever heard me beat someone over the head with the Book of Mormon?

Your arguments are becoming irrational. If you're that frustrated then give it a rest and enjoy your weekend. I'l lbe here on Tuesday.


Again - you fail at logic. If one can only debate things one knows to be true, then what do you think you are doing? A logical argument is logical regardless of whether or not one accepts the philosophies.

My logic is sound. I have proven that.

It is your motives that I question. Why are you here if you don't believe in it one way or the other? You don't seem to be interested in learning so what is the real reason you're arguing with me over things that, by your own admission, you don't believe in one way or the other?


Example: If we assume that 3 and 2 are the same number, can we use logic to work out the sume of 3 and 2? Yes - although the answer wil lonly be in terms of the question.. but we can do it because logic does not rely on the statements to ber valid for the principle to apply.

But first you would have to accept that 3 and 2 are real numbers. Otherwise the answer is as meaningless to you as the question.

So once again, why are you bothering, really?

Let's talk about John 3:15.

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

-John 3:15 (KJV)

One must believe in Jesus. And what does Jesus, in whome we believe say?

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
-Mark 16:16 (KJV) (repeated for the sake of completeness)

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
-John 3:5 (KJV)

Those are direct quites right from Him. So if we believe in Him, then we must BELIEVE Him! How can one say they believe in Jesus when they're so quick to disregard His words, or leave off that inconvenient half of His sentences?

Several people have implied that in Mark 16:16 the meaning is that all that's REALLY necessary is the believing part. I look at that verse and what I see is a warning that you muct believe AND be baptized, but if you don't believe, you're lost... Baptism alone isn't enough, it MUST come with belief. Sincere belief. The second half of that verse isn't a pass to not get Baptized, it's a warning that Belief is essential and Baptism alone isn't enough. (I think on that last bit we'd all agree, and yet when it's right there in black and white so many people ascribe a totally different meaning to it.)

As yourself this: If Baptism isn't essential, why would Jesus phrase His words that way? Are we saying He's careless? Or that the Scriptures aren't reliable? What's the alternative explanation for the wording here, and are you certain enough about that to risk the salvation of those people who believe you and don't bother to get baptized as a result?

You don't even see it when you say it?

One who believes and is baptised can be saved. Baptism alone isn't enough. John 3:15 explicitly states that belief alone CAN be enough.

Thus - straightforward - baptism isn't absolutely required.

Indeed... baptising a non-believer is entirely non-productive, if you follow what Jesus says.

You don't even see it when you say it?

One who believes and is baptised can be saved. Baptism alone isn't enough. John 3:15 explicitly states that belief alone CAN be enough..

Thus - straightforward - baptism isn't absolutely required.



Those are direct quotes right from Him. So if we believe in Him, then we must BELIEVE Him! How can one say they believe in Jesus when they're so quick to disregard His words, or leave off that inconvenient half of His sentences?


For that to mean what you say it means, then Jesus will have contradicted Himself.


Indeed... baptising a non-believer is entirely non-productive, if you follow what Jesus says.

That much is true.

This is going in circles now. Agree to disagree?

Interesting. How am I bullying people? I was asked what I believe. I answered. People attacked me. How, again, am I a bully? How many times have you seen me go into regular Christian threads and preach Mormonism? Ever heard me beat someone over the head with the Book of Mormon?

Your arguments are becoming irrational. If you're that frustrated then give it a rest and enjoy your weekend. I'l lbe here on Tuesday.


My arguments are becoming irrational because I don't agree with you? Because I point out that your arguments are counter to scripture?

I'd say your arguments started out irrational. I guess that puts me in the lead.


My logic is sound. I have proven that.


You've done no such thing. Quite the contrary, if anything.


It is your motives that I question. Why are you here if you don't believe in it one way or the other? You don't seem to be interested in learning so what is the real reason you're arguing with me over things that, by your own admission, you don't believe in one way or the other?


I'm interested in learning. However, I can discern where mere pretence at scriptural support conflicts with actual scripture.

If you are unwilling to even look at the inconsistency, who is it that is unwilling to learn? Who has the questionable motives?


But first you would have to accept that 3 and 2 are real numbers. Otherwise the answer is as meaningless to you as the question.


Like I said.. you fail. An answer in terms of the question can be a valuable tool. It is the basis of most scientific principles.


So once again, why are you bothering, really?

I'm bothering because I have something a lot of people don't have. I have been a believer and a non-believer. I have read scriptures from a host of different faiths, in a number of different languages. I've read the Bible. I've read the Book of Mormon. I may not have the greatest finesse of education here, but I'm sure I have one of the broadest spectrums on the subject.

On the other hand... you have no intention of doing anything to consider the validity of your information, and thus do nothing but preach.

So... why are YOU bothering, really?

For that to mean what you say it means, then Jesus will have contradicted Himself.


Wouldn't be the only contradiction. It might also be worth bearing in mind that 'water' in the baptism is a metaphor... one that Jesus uses more than once.

My arguments are becoming irrational because I don't agree with you? Because I point out that your arguments are counter to scripture?

Actually no, your arguments are becoming irrational because you are trying to cast me as some kind of bully.


You've done no such thing. Quite the contrary, if anything.


Because you said so.


I'm interested in learning. However, I can discern where mere pretence at scriptural support conflicts with actual scripture.

If you are unwilling to even look at the inconsistency, who is it that is unwilling to learn? Who has the questionable motives?


From where I sit, it's perfectly consistent to interpret the verses to indicate Baptism is essential.


Like I said.. you fail. An answer in terms of the question can be a valuable tool. It is the basis of most scientific principles.


Did you get that out of your little philosophy textbook? Do you even understand any of it?


I'm bothering because I have something a lot of people don't have. I have been a believer and a non-believer. I have read scriptures from a host of different faiths, in a number of different languages. I've read the Bible. I've read the Book of Mormon. I may not have the greatest finesse of education here, but I'm sure I have one of the broadest spectrums on the subject.

On the other hand... you have no intention of doing anything to consider the validity of your information, and thus do nothing but preach.

So... why are YOU bothering, really?

All those words and nary an answer to be found.

Unless "I'm bothering because I've believed and then not believed" is, to your mind, a complete answer.

What do you gain form this? if I say "oh well I guess you're right" what have you won? Bragging rights? Feeling good about fracturing someone's belief? Is that what you're after?

You don't believe in this st uff one way or the ot her so why do you even care? Are you just bored? Is there some part of you that still believes and you're looking to validate?

I think you're just a bully. I see no benefit from this for you and yet you push on and on. And now you're mad because I won't back down.

What am I in this for? I'm in it to answer questions because I enjoy talking about my religion. I like having the oportunity to clear up some of the idiotic misinformation I've seen about it. I'm in it to give me an excuse to re-read my scriptures so I can quote verses. I'm in it to see who out there is willing to talk intelligently and who isn't.

But here's why I know you're just being combative. You come into this thread professing to have a keener insight into scriptures that you've already rejected. You accused me of being a bully (in retaliation for me calling you one) even though I've been no such thing. I've already ACKNOWLEDGED that other Christians see this differently and I've not criticized them for it.

I even offered to agree to disagree with you and you don't appear to be in the least bit interested.

So whose motives are questionable?

:D

also, this.

http://www.layhands.com/IsBaptismForSalvation1.htm

Looks pretty conclusive (and painless :p) to me.

You've just proven you don't understand how it works.

I'll write the cod FOR you, since you obviously didn't write it for yourself.

SQL:

SELECT *
FROM SAVED
WHERE SAVED.Baptized = true
AND SAVED.Believes = true

Any record where SAVED.Baptized = false or is NULL will not be selected by this statement.

Don't know much about databases? Ok let's do it in Java/J#

public boolean isSaved(Soul s)
{
if(s.believes && s.baptized)
return true;
else return false;
}

Guess what that returns if s.baptized = false? You guessed it: false.

One more in VB

function isSaved(Soul s)
If s.believes = True AND s.baptized THEN
isSaved = False
ELSE
isSaved = True
End If

My VB syntax may be a little off but I think by now you get the idea.

You know, if we want to get into a real pissing match over it there are other scriptures that back that up, but since I like computer programming I thought I'd have a little fun with it.

I wonder: Those of you who are arguing this... are you even Christians?

SELECT *
FROM WellFed
WHERE EatingFood = true
AND SecuringGenitals = true

If you're creating a universe where being fed requires such an unsavory act, then logically that's what would happen.

I'd starve ;)

At the risk of stating the obvious: the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not programming code. We're dealing with semantics and exegesis here and the computing interpretation of certain word formats isn't really relevant.

Looks pretty conclusive (and painless :p) to me.

Agreed to disagree.

At the risk of stating the obvious: the New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not programming code. We're dealing with semantics and exegesis here and the computing interpretation of certain word formats isn't really relevant.

The losing end of an argument is usually the one who dances around different premises.

First it was "Oh your interpretation isn't logical"
So I demonstrated using logical operators that it was.

Then it was "Well, logic works a different way"
So I demonstrated the very same logic using an applied and real-life application of its function.

So now it's "Well the NT wasn't written in code"
As if that were relevant.

Let's just agree to disagree because I'm tired of going in circles. You interpret it how you want and I'll do the same, k? People in this thread asked so I answered.

I wonder: Those of you who are arguing this... are you even Christians?

Does it matter? The New Testament is a fascinating document from a historical and a philosophical viewpoint regardless of whether one believes in it or not. There are any number of Professors of Religion who are atheists or agnostics: when it comes to the New Testament Bart Ehrman (literally) wrote the textbook and he's not a believer, neither are Hector Avalos or Robin Lane Fox. Have you never spoken to students of literature who will spend hours debating the possible motivations and feelings of characters which they know to be fictional?

Does it matter? The New Testament is a fascinating document from a historical and a philosophical viewpoint regardless of whether one believes in it or not. There are any number of Professors of Religion who are atheists or agnostics: when it comes to the New Testament Bart Ehrman (literally) wrote the textbook and he's not a believer, neither are Hector Avalos or Robin Lane Fox. Have you never spoken to students of literature who will spend hours debating the possible motivations and feelings of characters which they know to be fictional?

This goes a bit beyond analyzing the motives of Heathcliff at Wutheirng Heights, wouldn't you say?

If you don't believe in salvation (Through Christianity) one way or the other then you've already labeled the Bible as a document you don't believe in the divinity of, so we don't even have a common basis for discussion. How can we proceed in a meaningful way without that basis?

The losing end of an argument is usually the one who dances around different premises.

First it was "Oh your interpretation isn't logical"
So I demonstrated using logical operators that it was.

Then it was "Well, logic works a different way"
So I demonstrated the very same logic using an applied and real-life application of its function.

So now it's "Well the NT wasn't written in code"
As if that were relevant.

Let's just agree to disagree because I'm tired of going in circles. You interpret it how you want and I'll do the same, k? People in this thread asked so I answered.

Simultaneously declaring victory and proposing to agree to disagree is a particularly annoying debating ploy, in that the opponent must either back down and appear to concede defeat, or press on and appear overly pugnacious.

The passage's meaning is perfectly clear in not requiring baptism, and transporting it into an inappropriate context is not going to help your argument. If you insist on using this perverse form of reading then I don't really see the point of continuing this conversation.

Actually no, your arguments are becoming irrational because you are trying to cast me as some kind of bully.


You tried to cast me as a bully first, yes?

So - why is it irrational for me, but not for you?


Because you said so.


No - because 'my logic is teh win' is not acceptable to me as evidence of your logic being valid.


From where I sit, it's perfectly consistent to interpret the verses to indicate Baptism is essential.


Of course it is. You've shown a complete inability to see where the logic is flawed.


Did you get that out of your little philosophy textbook? Do you even understand any of it?


I have no philosophy textbooks. I udnerstand what I wrote, because I wrote it. The whole premise of 'first principles' is making a set of basic assumptions, and deriving from there on up. If logic works, those advanced 'tools' will be fully functional in the contect of the assumptions. If the assumptions can be proven correct, then the tools become externally viable.

This is the Physics we did when I was 14.


All those words and nary an answer to be found.

Unless "I'm bothering because I've believed and then not believed" is, to your mind, a complete answer.


You cut part of my answer and say it isn't a complete answer? No shit sherlock.


What do you gain form this? if I say "oh well I guess you're right" what have you won? Bragging rights?


And, who am I going to brag to? Come on, be serious.

Feeling good about fracturing someone's belief? Is that what you're after?


Actually - quite the inverse. here, and in 'real life' I have discussed theology with a numbe rof people who have later thanked me for making them think about the core assumptions of their faith. I have, if anything, helped them reinforce their belief.

Doesn't fit with the little hitman image you try to paint of me though, does it. Will you just ignore it?


You don't believe in this st uff one way or the ot her so why do you even care? Are you just bored?


I enjoy religion as a subject. Quite the contrary to being bored, I debate theology for fun.


Is there some part of you that still believes and you're looking to validate?


Of course. I'm looking for truth, and I haven't found it. It isn't that I have a specific belief to reinforce or validate... but i'm scanning the whole universe for a possible truth with a big T.

I wonder if you can be so honest?

I think you're just a bully.


Well, if you say it, it must be true, right?


I see no benefit from this for you and yet you push on and on. And now you're mad because I won't back down.


I didn't notice I was mad. It's a good job you have such amazing insight that you can detect moodswings below even my own radar.


What am I in this for? I'm in it to answer questions because I enjoy talking about my religion.


I don't believe you. You enjoy preaching it. You have no interest at all in a real discussion. Instead, you tried to intimidate debators by hiding your arguments behind symbols.


I like having the oportunity to clear up some of the idiotic misinformation I've seen about it.


I'd say that, by preaching baptism after death, you're doing exactly the thing you set out to correct.


I'm in it to give me an excuse to re-read my scriptures so I can quote verses.


Cherrypicking verses is not the same as reading scripture.


I'm in it to see who out there is willing to talk intelligently and who isn't.


Again, I don't believe you. The evidence suggests you are hear to set your little stall out, and to pooh-pooh anyone who won't accept, as being intolerant.


But here's why I know you're just being combative. You come into this thread professing to have a keener insight into scriptures that you've already rejected.


I do have a keener insight than many. I don't see how that makes me combatative.

You accused me of being a bully (in retaliation for me calling you one) even though I've been no such thing.


Ah - so if I say you are a bully.. I'm being combatative... but if you say it, you aren't?


I've already ACKNOWLEDGED that other Christians see this differently and I've not criticized them for it.


You say 'other' christians, as though you are one.


I even offered to agree to disagree with you and you don't appear to be in the least bit interested.


I'm not interested. You are like the person preaching that it snowed when Jesus was born. When the text is examined closely, it turns out no such information is really there.. so you chose to 'agree to disagree'.


So whose motives are questionable?

Mine are open and obvious. Who does that leave?

This goes a bit beyond analyzing the motives of Heathcliff at Wutheirng Heights, wouldn't you say?

If you don't believe in salvation (Through Christianity) one way or the other then you've already labeled the Bible as a document you don't believe in the divinity of, so we don't even have a common basis for discussion. How can we proceed in a meaningful way without that basis?

In the same way that one discusses a novel: by suspending disbelief and analysing it as if it was true. Surely the only possible common basis for a discussion on "what the Bible says about X" is the Bible, no? This being the case then the veracity of the Bible is completely irrelevant unless the authenticity of a passage is being called into question.

This goes a bit beyond analyzing the motives of Heathcliff at Wutheirng Heights, wouldn't you say?

If you don't believe in salvation (Through Christianity) one way or the other then you've already labeled the Bible as a document you don't believe in the divinity of, so we don't even have a common basis for discussion. How can we proceed in a meaningful way without that basis?

Becuase the formula is present and transparent.

One doesn't have to believe in salvation to see how it is described as being attainable.

Does it matter? The New Testament is a fascinating document from a historical and a philosophical viewpoint regardless of whether one believes in it or not. There are any number of Professors of Religion who are atheists or agnostics: when it comes to the New Testament Bart Ehrman (literally) wrote the textbook and he's not a believer, neither are Hector Avalos or Robin Lane Fox. Have you never spoken to students of literature who will spend hours debating the possible motivations and feelings of characters which they know to be fictional?
To use an even more common-place example, think of all the fans of TV shows who will have extensive debates about the continuity within the (fictional) universe of their favorite show. Think of all the debates they have about the true motives of the (fictional) characters. Think of the moral discussions that people often have relating to the choices made by the (fictional) people in that (fictional) universe.

It's obviously possible to suspend disbelief for the purposes of discussion. Heck, it's not just possible...it's easy.

I don't need to believe that the Bible is factually true in order to discuss it as a text. I don't need to believe in Christian images of God or the Christian concepts of salvation/sin/whatever in order to discuss them within their context. I can discuss what various texts tell us about these concepts even if I don't happen to believe that any of those texts were divinely inspired.

It honestly baffles me to see somebody even trying to act as though this would be a problem.

(Oy, I just can't seem to keep my nose out of this thread...)

First it was "Oh your interpretation isn't logical"
So I demonstrated using logical operators that it was.

Then it was "Well, logic works a different way"
So I demonstrated the very same logic using an applied and real-life application of its function.



This is just straightforward dishonest.

Real world examples were provided that showed your argument to be flawed. I've seen no real world examples presented by you that prove it true.

Your interpretation isn't logical... but that isn't because "logic works a different way", it's because you have failed to apply a complete and accurate logical process.

You know, in some ways atheists are actually in a better position to interpret the Bible's views on Salvation than believers are: I have no vested interest in the Bible teaching a particular doctrine. Sure, there are issues where I might bring my own personal prejudices into play such as 'is Luke's Nativity story internally coherent?' but when it comes to abstract doctrines and teachings about the requirements for salvation or the nature of God then I think an educated atheist could analyse the Bible at least as well as a believer and with fewer preconceived ideas.

I'm done with the pissing match.

You tried to cast me as a bully first, yes?

So - why is it irrational for me, but not for you?


I think I've established the basis for that opinion.


No - because 'my logic is teh win' is not acceptable to me as evidence of your logic being valid.


Unfortunately for you, that cuts both ways.

But for the record: between the two of us, I've demonstrated my logic in real-life application. You have not.


Of course it is. You've shown a complete inability to see where the logic is flawed.


Because I fail to agree with you. Funny, you're criticizing me for doing the very same thing.


I have no philosophy textbooks. I udnerstand what I wrote, because I wrote it. The whole premise of 'first principles' is making a set of basic assumptions, and deriving from there on up. If logic works, those advanced 'tools' will be fully functional in the contect of the assumptions. If the assumptions can be proven correct, then the tools become externally viable.

This is the Physics we did when I was 14.


So you're pitting High School Intro Physics against Advanced logical forms at University level, then criticizing me for not conceding to your expansive knowledge on the subject.


You cut part of my answer and say it isn't a complete answer? No shit sherlock.


The rest of your answer merely elaborated on that one sentence. Perhaps you could show where the meaningful answer is, that I allegedly cut out?


And, who am I going to brag to? Come on, be serious.

You tell me. Oh, wait: The answer is below.


Actually - quite the inverse. here, and in 'real life' I have discussed theology with a numbe rof people who have later thanked me for making them think about the core assumptions of their faith. I have, if anything, helped them reinforce their belief.

Doesn't fit with the little hitman image you try to paint of me though, does it. Will you just ignore it?


There's the brag. I knew it was in there somewhere. How heroic of you.


I enjoy religion as a subject. Quite the contrary to being bored, I debate theology for fun.


Have you ever conceded a point?


Of course. I'm looking for truth, and I haven't found it. It isn't that I have a specific belief to reinforce or validate... but i'm scanning the whole universe for a possible truth with a big T.

I wonder if you can be so honest?


Sure I can. Read back in the thread where I posted the reasons I joined the Church.


Well, if you say it, it must be true, right?


You tell me, since you seem to be trying to claim the monopoly on truth.


I didn't notice I was mad. It's a good job you have such amazing insight that you can detect moodswings below even my own radar.


So you cuss and attack in normal day to day usage? My mistake.


I don't believe you. You enjoy preaching it. You have no interest at all in a real discussion. Instead, you tried to intimidate debators by hiding your arguments behind symbols.


Who have I been intimidating? I offer to agree to disagree to settle a pointless argument, I concede that others believe differently, and I do not attack the beliefs of others. Who, exactly, have I been intimidating?


I'd say that, by preaching baptism after death, you're doing exactly the thing you set out to correct.

In your opinion.


Cherrypicking verses is not the same as reading scripture.

Right. So why do you do it?

Again, I don't believe you. The evidence suggests you are hear to set your little stall out, and to pooh-pooh anyone who won't accept, as being intolerant.


I didn't create this thread, and I'm not trying to convert anybody. I'm answering questions.

Whom have I called intolerant in this thread?


I do have a keener insight than many. I don't see how that makes me combatative.

Thinking you have a keener insight (for no apparent reason) isn't combative, it's arrogant.


Ah - so if I say you are a bully.. I'm being combatative... but if you say it, you aren't?

I listed my reasoning, and I"ve asked you to list yours, which you have failed to do.

Again.


You say 'other' christians, as though you are one.


Like I'm interested in meeting your standards for Christian living. I'll measure myself by Jesus', if it's all the same to you.


I'm not interested. You are like the person preaching that it snowed when Jesus was born. When the text is examined closely, it turns out no such information is really there.. so you chose to 'agree to disagree'.


So you deny that the argument is running in circles?

And if not, then what's the point in continuing?


Mine are open and obvious. Who does that leave?

Oh yes they're obvious alright, but not as you've stated.

This is just straightforward dishonest.

Real world examples were provided that showed your argument to be flawed. I've seen no real world examples presented by you that prove it true.

Your interpretation isn't logical... but that isn't because "logic works a different way", it's because you have failed to apply a complete and accurate logical process.

Show me the real world examples that prove me wrong.

(And you seem to have ignored the ones I provided.)

Grave, it is very gratifying to see you laying the verbal smack down, if you'll pardon my crude turn of phrase. I particularly wanted to single out this bit:

I'm not interested. You are like the person preaching that it snowed when Jesus was born. When the text is examined closely, it turns out no such information is really there.. so you chose to 'agree to disagree'.

Around our place we call this Dan's Law (after a former roommate):

An individual's willingness to "agree to disagree" will negatively correlate with the amount of evidence they have to support their assertions.

You know, in some ways atheists are actually in a better position to interpret the Bible's views on Salvation than believers are: I have no vested interest in the Bible teaching a particular doctrine. Sure, there are issues where I might bring my own personal prejudices into play such as 'is Luke's Nativity story internally coherent?' but when it comes to abstract doctrines and teachings about the requirements for salvation or the nature of God then I think an educated atheist could analyse the Bible at least as well as a believer and with fewer preconceived ideas.

I'll concede that their lack of vested interest is an advantage if you'll concede that their lack of belief can be a disadvantage in motivation.

To use an even more common-place example, think of all the fans of TV shows who will have extensive debates about the continuity within the (fictional) universe of their favorite show. Think of all the debates they have about the true motives of the (fictional) characters. Think of the moral discussions that people often have relating to the choices made by the (fictional) people in that (fictional) universe.

It's obviously possible to suspend disbelief for the purposes of discussion. Heck, it's not just possible...it's easy.

I don't need to believe that the Bible is factually true in order to discuss it as a text. I don't need to believe in Christian images of God or the Christian concepts of salvation/sin/whatever in order to discuss them within their context. I can discuss what various texts tell us about these concepts even if I don't happen to believe that any of those texts were divinely inspired.

It honestly baffles me to see somebody even trying to act as though this would be a problem.

(Oy, I just can't seem to keep my nose out of this thread...)

Exactly. Some of the best educated people I know with regard to the Bible are non-believers, but that doesn't stop us arguing about the Roman influence on the Gospels or to what extent the Biblical Jesus was based on reality.

I'll concede that their lack of vested interest is an advantage if you'll concede that their lack of belief can be a disadvantage in motivation.

What do you mean by that? That they'll spend less time studying the Bible because it isn't that important to them? That they'll be less committed to finding the truth? If you mean either of these then I'm guessing you've never met any historians. ;)

I think he means he is ignoring me.

Why would you think I'm ignoring you?

You know, in some ways atheists are actually in a better position to interpret the Bible's views on Salvation than believers are: I have no vested interest in the Bible teaching a particular doctrine. Sure, there are issues where I might bring my own personal prejudices into play such as 'is Luke's Nativity story internally coherent?' but when it comes to abstract doctrines and teachings about the requirements for salvation or the nature of God then I think an educated atheist could analyse the Bible at least as well as a believer and with fewer preconceived ideas.

Not really no, they'd point out every contradiction in the bible, and there's a shitload of 'em.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

There's also a book of Mormon list of stuff, which I wish I'd remembered when this started:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/abs/long.html

What do you mean by that? That they'll spend less time studying the Bible because it isn't that important to them? That they'll be less committed to finding the truth? If you mean either of these then I'm guessing you've never met any historians. ;)

I think he means he is ignoring me.

Grave, it is very gratifying to see you laying the verbal smack down, if you'll pardon my crude turn of phrase. I particularly wanted to single out this bit:

Around our place we call this Dan's Law (after a former roommate):

An individual's willingness to "agree to disagree" will negatively correlate with the amount of evidence they have to support their assertions.

No wonder so many people are willing to go in circules ad infinatum.

Are you suggesting that the only possible reason why someone would be prepared to agree to disagree is because they know theirs is the losing argument?

What about maturity, or a lack of desire to waste time in a deadlock?

What do you mean by that? That they'll spend less time studying the Bible because it isn't that important to them? That they'll be less committed to finding the truth? If you mean either of these then I'm guessing you've never met any historians. ;)

What motivation is greater than one's own eternal salvation?

Why would you think I'm ignoring you?

because I posted a link full of scripture refuting your stance and you ignored it and then went into your little rant about the "non-believers" not being able to effectively debate you.

because I posted a link full of scripture refuting your stance and you ignored it and then went into your little rant about the "non-believers" not being able to effectively debate you.

I did reply, I just didn't quote that post in the process.

But hey, thanks for the condecending-sounding reply. I thought we'd reached a level of mutual respect. :(

What motivation is greater than one's own eternal salvation?

For those of us who don't believe in an afterlife? Pretty much anything.

For those of us who don't believe in an afterlife? Pretty much anything.

My point exactly.

My point exactly.

Wait what?

Wait what?

By not being motivated by eternal salvation as a believer would, their moptives would then be different depending upon the individual. If there's truly one, and only one interpretation then a variety of different interpretations would be a disadvantage.

By not being motivated by eternal salvation as a believer would, their moptives would then be different depending upon the individual. If there's truly one, and only one interpretation then a variety of different interpretations would be a disadvantage.

Huh? Did you go crazy at some point?


I'm trying mightily to dissect that statement so that it doesn't make my eyes roll back, but thus far am having little luck.


By not being motivated by eternal salvation as a believer would, their moptives would then be different depending upon the individual.I'm pretty sure motive differ by individual regardless of faith or lack thereof.

If there's truly one, and only one interpretation then a variety of different interpretations would be a disadvantage. If there's only one interpretation then two interpretations would be disadvantageous? That doesn't make sense.

It honestly baffles me to see somebody even trying to act as though this would be a problem.



I'll tell you why it would be a problem.

A couple of you have compared this debate to a debate on some aspect of fictional literature. Fine.

When I studied literature one of the most important lessons they taught is was that when analyzing literature, there was *no* single right interpretation. Different people can read the same work of fiction and get entirely different meanings from it. This is to be encouraged in literary debate and all is well.

If someone is debating from the point of view that the Bible is a work of fiction, then that's the system they work by.

On the other hand, a believer will generally hold that there is ONE objective truth to be gleaned from the text.

So you have one person who, in theory, can ascribe any number of meanings to teh text, is debating someone who sees only ONE meaning in the text, they're coming at each other from two completely different worldviews in the first place.

..which also leads me to wonder... if some of you guys see the Bible as not the Truth, then why isn't my interpretation as good as yours? If it's all fiction to you, and any analysys of fictional literature allows for multiple interpretations of the same text, then what's wrong with my disagreeing with you?

Check your motives.

Huh? Did you go crazy at some point?


I'm trying mightily to dissect that statement so that it doesn't make my eyes roll back, but thus far am having little luck.


I'm pretty sure motive differ by individual regardless of faith or lack thereof.

If there's only one interpretation then two interpretations would be disadvantageous? That doesn't make sense.

this is what comes of trying to end a discussion amicably.

this is what comes of trying to end a discussion amicably.

I'm sorry if I'm a failure at interpreting circular gibberish. Maybe that's why I'm not religious.


Zen koans, no problem, Neo Bretonnia's posts however leave me flummoxed.

I'm sorry if I'm a failure at interpreting circular gibberish. Maybe that's why I'm not religious.


Zen koans, no problem, Neo Bretonnia's posts however leave me flummoxed.

?

..which also leads me to wonder... if some of you guys see the Bible as not the Truth, then why isn't my interpretation as good as yours? If it's all fiction to you, and any analysys of fictional literature allows for multiple interpretations of the same text, then what's wrong with my disagreeing with you?

Check your motives.

Empirical evidence directly contradictions what you take as fact. You can believe the sky is a lovely shade of puce, but that doesn't change it's color.

Empirical evidence directly contradictions what you take as fact. You can believe the sky is a lovely shade of puce, but that doesn't change it's color.

See here's where I hope you can see it from my point of view:

Firstly, from where I sit, the logic leads me to the conclusion that I've already come to. We can disagree on the process that leads to that conclusion, but then the debate woul dget technical.

At the same time, I've got people saying out of one side of their mouth that they don't believe in the truth of the Scriptures but out of the other side of their mouth they insist that I'm wrong. It's as if there are two sets of standards being applied here.

Are you seriously looking to get into the discussion or are you just here to pile on?

So, is doubletalk something they teach you, or a natural talent?

Just here to pile on. Got it.

See here's where I hope you can see it from my point of view:

Firstly, from where I sit, the logic leads me to the conclusion that I've already come to. We can disagree on the process that leads to that conclusion, but then the debate woul dget technical.

At the same time, I've got people saying out of one side of their mouth that they don't believe in the truth of the Scriptures but out of the other side of their mouth they insist that I'm wrong. It's as if there are two sets of standards being applied here.

Are you seriously looking to get into the discussion or are you just here to pile on?


So, is doubletalk something they teach you, or a natural talent?

Have a good and safe weekend, y'all.

What motivation is greater than one's own eternal salvation?

The motive to excel and do well in this life because we have no clue about what lies beyond the grand end that is death. If we are uncertain, then why worry about the salvation of the soul when there are greater matters at hand.

It matters more if you've done well in life rather than pleasing some abstract being that probably doesn't exist. Why placate the invisible man in the sky when there are greater concerns such as keeping a roof over the head of you and your loved ones and if your loved ones will succeed.

While the Bible in the eyes of Atheists is a work of fiction it can still serve as a moral guide for those who believe it. Though literal interpretation can be a dangerous thing.

Why worry about whether you'll be eternally saved when you should worry about this life?

The motive to excel and do well in this life because we have no clue about what lies beyond the grand end that is death. If we are uncertain, then why worry about the salvation of the soul when there are greater matters at hand.

It matters more if you've done well in life rather than pleasing some abstract being that probably doesn't exist. Why placate the invisible man in the sky when there are greater concerns such as keeping a roof over the head of you and your loved ones and if your loved ones will succeed.

While the Bible in the eyes of Atheists is a work of fiction it can still serve as a moral guide for those who believe it. Though literal interpretation can be a dangerous thing.

Why worry about whether you'll be eternally saved when you should worry about this life?

Ok so I couldn't resist refreshing one more time before leaving but after this I need to go pick up my wife from the Metro station or I'm toast ;)

My answer is: Eternity is a lot longer than a human lifespan. Coupled with the fact that those who are faithful to the Lord will be looked after, then that's the motivation for me to seek the Truth.

My answer is: Eternity is a lot longer than a human lifespan. Coupled with the fact that those who are faithful to the Lord will be looked after, then that's the motivation for me to seek the Truth.
In the interest of civil debate, I insist on delving for more answers. I find this interesting even if I don't believe in it myself.

Ok, fair enough answer. You believe that the afterlife span is greater than our mortal one. But there is no way of knowing if this is true for certain, do you agree? Or even knowing if there is an afterlife in any sense, right?

Let's say, hypothetically of course, the spirits of the departed could return and they explained that the afterlife was not as any of us had predicted (negating any existing theories), would this change your outlook on eternal salvation?

:) Answer whenever you're ready.

I agree, but the Lord does still want us to be happy in this life as well. So I think that while we should strive for holiness it is also good to have nice things. Like a nice car!:D

Am I the only one that thinks that being an Atheist to the deathbed, then clearing yourself of sins right before you die is a good idea? I mean, seriously. If there's a loophole to eternal salvation, I'm going to take it. And why Christianity on the death bed? Because it's the most widely practiced, and if you practice any religion, all the other's shun you, so why not the biggest, most influential?

Atheist, until I have 1 day left. And that day's spent repenting in my own mind, like Presbyterians say I can.

In the interest of civil debate, I insist on delving for more answers. I find this interesting even if I don't believe in it myself.

Ok, fair enough answer. You believe that the afterlife span is greater than our mortal one. But there is no way of knowing if this is true for certain, do you agree? Or even knowing if there is an afterlife in any sense, right?

Let's say, hypothetically of course, the spirits of the departed could return and they explained that the afterlife was not as any of us had predicted (negating any existing theories), would this change your outlook on eternal salvation?

:) Answer whenever you're ready.


I can Imagine this.

"Yeah, well. there's not as much bliss as you would really think. I mean, sure, there isn't any disease or all that, but it's really just like. 'Huh, I'm in heaven. This is it then? ... Well this isn't really that great at all. And you say I spend my whole life here? Great...' "

Am I the only one that thinks that being an Atheist to the deathbed, then clearing yourself of sins right before you die is a good idea? I mean, seriously. If there's a loophole to eternal salvation, I'm going to take it. And why Christianity on the death bed? Because it's the most widely practiced, and if you practice any religion, all the other's shun you, so why not the biggest, most influential?

Atheist, until I have 1 day left. And that day's spent repenting in my own mind, like Presbyterians say I can.

#1. quite often we die without warning. then you are out of luck

#2. you cant suddenly force yourself to believe. in theory, god knows when you are faking it.

#1. quite often we die without warning. then you are out of luck

#2. you cant suddenly force yourself to believe. in theory, god knows when you are faking it.

"But I repented!"


"You had your fingers crossed *nod*"

#1. quite often we die without warning. then you are out of luck

#2. you cant suddenly force yourself to believe. in theory, god knows when you are faking it.

Also, I could just walk through the arches of the Vatican, Or find a religion that requires even less belief than Christianity. This still brings up the problem. If god loves me, why not just let me into heaven anyway? His love is unconditional, correct?