Announcement

Collapse

LDS - Mormonism Guidelines

Theists only.

Look! It's a bird, no it's a plane, no it's a bicycle built for two!

This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the LDS - Mormons. This forum is generally for theists only, and is generaly not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theists may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Due to the sensitive nature of the LDS Temple Ceremonies to our LDS posters, we do not allow posting exact text of the temple rituals, articles describing older versions of the ceremony, or links that provide the same information. However discussion of generalities of the ceremony are not off limits. If in doubt, PM the area mod or an Admin


Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Hiding Behind "Sacred"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hiding Behind "Sacred"

    In another thread, 7Up resorts to a ploy used by other Mormons when he is incapable of defending his faith. He attempts to hide behind the concept of "sacred" as a justification for personal attacks and false accusations of lying and "not following Christ".

    It's one of the SILLIEST and WEAKEST "defenses" I've seen, and relies, apparently, on changing the meaning of the word "sacred".

    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    Pointing out that you do not live the teachings of Christ, (obviously mocking the sacred beliefs of others is an example), is not a personal attack.

    You and the others on this thread claim to follow Jesus, but you clearly do not.

    -7up
    By declaring his beliefs "sacred", 7up seems to think that any opposition to Mormonism is an attack on his "sacred beliefs" that justifies him pitching a hissy, calling names, and making false accusations. Here's one of his silliest accusations:

    First, he declares:
    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
    God will judge.
    THEN he proceeds to judge:

    That is why I suspect you are the kind of person who pulls off the hats of Orthodox Jews, then you pull their hair and tell them how stupid they look with all of their "nonsense". You are a despicable human being, and you don't even realize it.
    There were more childish rants in that post and thread, but we'll leave those alone for now.

    How does declaring a false teaching "sacred" make it exempt from examination?

    I just spent some time going through FairMormon.org, and found numerous examples of hiding behind "sacred" as reasons not to discuss topics like, for example, "Heavenly Mother" (even Fair denounces this as a goofy tactic), the temple endowment and related Masonic-like rituals, and some of the nuttier statements of some of the Mormon false prophets.

    The Question.....

    On what biblical basis can a person attack a Christian as "not a follower of Christ", a liar, "swine", etc, for opposing false teachings?
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  • #2
    There isn't. I've been alarmed about Seven's behavior because he is resorting to such low tactics. I was hoping that we would have LDS posters that are actual willing to discuss and debate, rather than someone pulling ad hominem and tu quoque. It's very sad to see such viciousness all because he can't hold his own in the discussions. Sad.
    I am Punkinhead.

    "I have missed you, Oh Grand High Priestess of the Order of the Stirring Pot"

    ~ Cow Poke aka CP aka Creacher aka ke7ejx's apprentice....

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ke7ejx View Post
      There isn't. I've been alarmed about Seven's behavior because he is resorting to such low tactics. I was hoping that we would have LDS posters that are actual willing to discuss and debate, rather than someone pulling ad hominem and tu quoque. It's very sad to see such viciousness all because he can't hold his own in the discussions. Sad.
      I think that's obviously a sign of weakness --- can't defend your position, so attack your opponent personally.
      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        I think that's obviously a sign of weakness --- can't defend your position, so attack your opponent personally.
        I just wish that we had more LDS posters so we didn't just have to read Seven's nonsensical retorts and condemnations.
        I am Punkinhead.

        "I have missed you, Oh Grand High Priestess of the Order of the Stirring Pot"

        ~ Cow Poke aka CP aka Creacher aka ke7ejx's apprentice....

        Comment


        • #5
          While I'm not defending 7up's posts on the "If MAN can become God..." thread at all, my experience with him has been that he does generally try to respond to the arguments made. When he hasn't responded to a point and I've called him out on it, he's responded. I'm not defending everything he's said and done, or saying that his arguments are all great, just saying that I think your characterization of him here is a bit unfair.

          There is a certain amount of "egging on" that goes on here, from Sparko and CP mocking LDS beliefs and attempts to defend them to BTC outright insulting 7up and calling him "stupid" and "nitwit." And 7up has started responding with his own insults. I can understand the arguments both for and against mocking false beliefs and poor arguments, so I have agreed to disagree with the standard MO of many TWeb posters (though I have to say I think they carry things too far). But I think a clear line can and should be drawn between insulting a person's beliefs and arguments and insulting the person themselves. Isn't this where mods should step in?

          I do wish we had more LDS posters who would actually answer the arguments and hard questions that are brought up here. There are lots of Christian apologists who take on hard questions from atheists and others, have debates, etc. but most LDS don't seem to want to do that. While TWeb was down I looked for an LDS forum but didn't find any that allowed open debate. If I actually wanted to join the LDS church, I would have to have open debate in order to get past the numerous issues with LDS theology and history that I'm aware of. Not to mention that if their church were actually true, it would stand up to open scrutiny.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
            While I'm not defending 7up's posts on the "If MAN can become God..." thread at all, my experience with him has been that he does generally try to respond to the arguments made. When he hasn't responded to a point and I've called him out on it, he's responded. I'm not defending everything he's said and done, or saying that his arguments are all great, just saying that I think your characterization of him here is a bit unfair.

            There is a certain amount of "egging on" that goes on here, from Sparko and CP mocking LDS beliefs and attempts to defend them to BTC outright insulting 7up and calling him "stupid" and "nitwit." And 7up has started responding with his own insults. I can understand the arguments both for and against mocking false beliefs and poor arguments, so I have agreed to disagree with the standard MO of many TWeb posters (though I have to say I think they carry things too far). But I think a clear line can and should be drawn between insulting a person's beliefs and arguments and insulting the person themselves. Isn't this where mods should step in?

            I do wish we had more LDS posters who would actually answer the arguments and hard questions that are brought up here. There are lots of Christian apologists who take on hard questions from atheists and others, have debates, etc. but most LDS don't seem to want to do that. While TWeb was down I looked for an LDS forum but didn't find any that allowed open debate. If I actually wanted to join the LDS church, I would have to have open debate in order to get past the numerous issues with LDS theology and history that I'm aware of. Not to mention that if their church were actually true, it would stand up to open scrutiny.
            You are a good influence, KD, and I take what you say to heart.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              You are a good influence, KD, and I take what you say.
              Next time, nail it down KD... and booby trap it just to be on the safe side.
              sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ke7ejx View Post
                There isn't. I've been alarmed about Seven's behavior because he is resorting to such low tactics. I was hoping that we would have LDS posters that are actual willing to discuss and debate, rather than someone pulling ad hominem and tu quoque. It's very sad to see such viciousness all because he can't hold his own in the discussions. Sad.
                My "low tactics"?

                This was on the thread where Evangelical Christians were denigrating motherhood and equating it to being "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen".

                Anybody who holds motherhood in high regard would be offended by the speech that LDS critics provided on that thread. I was responding to their insulting words.

                -7up
                Last edited by seven7up; 07-09-2014, 10:55 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  In another thread, 7Up resorts to a ploy used by other Mormons when he is incapable of defending his faith. He attempts to hide behind the concept of "sacred" as a justification for personal attacks and false accusations of lying and "not following Christ".

                  It's one of the SILLIEST and WEAKEST "defenses" I've seen, and relies, apparently, on changing the meaning of the word "sacred".
                  Richard Bushman:

                  “Once you get past that [temple] door, you immediately go to a changing room where you shed your outer clothes and put on special white clothing. In the temple you speak in whispers. You don’t speak aloud. And then outside the temple you don’t talk about it at all. Some people think of this as secretive in the sense of hiding things. But for Mormons, it’s all part of the process of creating a sacred space. When you walk in there, life is different. You just feel things are on a different plane.

                  When you come out, it’s not usually an overwhelming vision you have experienced, but you feel elevated. It becomes very important for Mormons to go into that space, just like practicing the Sabbath, keeping it holy, has an exalting effect on human life. So that’s the way I look at the temple ceremonies.

                  Mormons know you can go online, get every last word of the temple ceremony. It’s all there. So it’s not like it’s hidden from the world. Anybody can get it. But among us, we don’t talk about it that way. It means something to us. It means a lot.”



                  The same is true with the concept of a Heavenly Mother. LDS believe that, according to our theology, if there is a Heavenly Father that there would be a Heavenly Mother as well. There isn't much to discuss, because we don't have information about it. However, we hold that concept as sacred.

                  It is amazing to me that anti-Mormons who consider themselves Christians actually go to the lengths of insulting motherhood in general, just so they can try to get their licks in on mocking what Latter Day Saints hold sacred. However, in the end it only works against their cause, as it helps indicate where the hearts of the LDS critics really are ...which far, far from God.

                  -7up

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                    It is amazing to me that anti-Mormons who consider themselves Christians actually go to the lengths of insulting motherhood in general, just so they can try to get their licks in on mocking what Latter Day Saints hold sacred.
                    That's just buttdumb stupid, Seven... HOW have ANY of us insulted "motherhood in general"?

                    However, in the end it only works against their cause, as it helps indicate where the hearts of the LDS critics really are ...which far, far from God.

                    -7up
                    No, what it does is shows what a pathetic jackwagon you are, incapable of defending your faith, you turn to goofy false accusations.
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                      The same is true with the concept of a Heavenly Mother.
                      Actually, the same is NOT true -- the temple stuff is there on the internet NOT because Mormons WANT it to be, but because they are powerless to stop it.

                      (By the way, last time I checked, we're not allowed to discuss the actual content, even though it's available on the net)

                      On the OTHER HAND -- nothing of substance can be found about "Heavenly Mother" because she simply doesn't exist.

                      LDS believe that, according to our theology, if there is a Heavenly Father that there would be a Heavenly Mother as well.
                      This is called an "assumption", and has no basis in fact.

                      There isn't much to discuss, because we don't have information about it.
                      Exactly -- whoever made it up never bothered to "flesh it out".

                      However, we hold that concept as sacred.
                      Yeah, in other words, you're going to call it "sacred" so you can hide behind the fact that it's totally made up.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seven7up View Post
                        My "low tactics"?
                        Yes, your little hissy fits where you make false accusations because you're either:
                        A) MUCH less intelligent than I had assumed
                        2) simply dishonest

                        This was on the thread where Evangelical Christians were denigrating motherhood and equating it to being "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen".
                        Classic case in point -- it was NOT a denigration of "motherhood", but of the goofy concept that there's a "Heavenly Mother" who produces millions (billions? trillions?) of "spirit babies", and the logical conclusions for which that calls.

                        HERE is the exact quote, which you understandably failed to provide:
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        So, if "Mother God" was, indeed, a mortal female on earth, why can not other women become "Mother God" as men can supposedly become "God"?
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        They are too busy being barefoot and pregnant. After all who is going to create new spirit babies?

                        And she has to keep the house clean, make dinner for God and all his angels, take the spirit babies to soccer. She is way too busy to go around working at the office as a God. That's a man's job.
                        It was OBVIOUSLY a reference to the goofy notion of "Heavenly Mother" manufactured by Joseph Smith and, apparently, NEVER preached or taught publicly. Heck, your Church didn't even acknowledge a "Heavenly Mother" until 1909.

                        Anybody who holds motherhood in high regard would be offended by the speech that LDS critics provided on that thread. I was responding to their insulting words.

                        -7up
                        So, which is it --- are you dishonest or just plain ignorant?
                        Last edited by Cow Poke; 07-10-2014, 09:07 AM.
                        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm sorry, KD --- I'll try harder!
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Kind Debater View Post
                            ...to BTC outright insulting 7up and calling him "stupid" and "nitwit. And 7up has started responding with his own insults"
                            That's where you are wrong India. 7 has been a snob since he joined. Even before the crash, in a thread with Nick, 7 treated all of us as beneath him and his ridiculous arguments about dice. Nick stopped responding to 7 because of his arrogance and derisive comments. I really tried, but after so many strawmen, misrepresentations, and repeated snobbery, I've had enough.
                            That's what
                            - She

                            Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                            - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                            I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                            Stephen R. Donaldson

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              (By the way, last time I checked, we're not allowed to discuss the actual content, even though it's available on the net)
                              Which is MY doing, by the way. When I first became a mod, I worked with 2 very nice Mormon fellows (one of which I just had lunch with a week ago), and I sought their opinion on whether or not to allow discussion of the temple rituals and specifics. I persuaded the former owners that it should not be discussed in specifics here, and they agreed.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment

                              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                              Working...
                              X