PDA

View Full Version : 7up reminded me of our friend Robert Millet



Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 06:51 AM
7up just told BTC:


Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.

This reminded me of our friend Robert Millet, BYU Professor, who taught us "Never answer the question they ask -- answer the question they SHOULD have asked".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UMJvqBq_Qa8

Sparko
06-02-2014, 07:22 AM
Something NRAJeff and Othercheek took to heart!

I miss OC

:-(

Catholicity
06-02-2014, 08:07 AM
I miss OC too.

Cerebrum123
06-02-2014, 08:14 AM
I didn't have much interaction with him, but I do miss him. :candle:

Bill the Cat
06-02-2014, 09:19 AM
Jeff and OC were much easier to deal with than 7up's lunacy.

rogue06
06-02-2014, 10:23 AM
I miss OC

:-(
Yeah :sad: :candle:

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 11:03 AM
Jeff and OC were much easier to deal with than 7up's lunacy.

7up is your classic "don't pester me with the facts, my mind is made up" Mormon.

ke7ejx
06-02-2014, 12:43 PM
I am beginning to wonder if Seven is channeling the spirit of OC....

Sparko
06-02-2014, 12:46 PM
I am beginning to wonder if Seven is channeling the spirit of OC....

no, more like Jeff.

ke7ejx
06-02-2014, 01:04 PM
no, more like Jeff.

Jeff is tad more vicious than this though.

Bill the Cat
06-02-2014, 05:43 PM
Jeff is tad more vicious than this though.

Give him time. He's getting snarky too.

One Bad Pig
06-02-2014, 05:48 PM
Jeff is tad more vicious than this though.
Jeff only gets vicious when he gets frustrated. I'm not at my best when I get frustrated either.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 06:01 PM
Jeff only gets vicious when he gets frustrated. I'm not at my best when I get frustrated either.

Jeff can be downright enjoyable.

seven7up
06-02-2014, 06:15 PM
Quote Originally Posted by seven7up
7UP: Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.




This reminded me of our friend Robert Millet, BYU Professor, who taught us "Never answer the question they ask -- answer the question they SHOULD have asked".


I was pointing out that Bill was attempting to rail against an argument that I never made in the first place.

And here you are starting a thread that has little to do with THAT.

But since you brought it up....

As the context of Robert Millet's speech provides, this is a stranger on the street who is "antagonistic" towards the Latter Day Saint. His point is that there is no reason to engage with a person a approaches you with that kind of mindset.

Jesus Christ put it this way:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matt 7:6

Proverbs puts it this way: "Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words."

And Paul put it this way, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still controlled by your sinful nature. ." (1 Corinthians 3)

So, was the Apostle Paul "lying for the Lord" when dealing with the Corinthians?




Anti-Mormons will pretend that LDS are trying to keep secret the doctrine of exaltation. Yet , it is right there in the "Gospel Principles" manual that is taught to investigators.

You all just have a lot of huffing a puffing about nothing, and it all smacks of hypocrisy as well.




-7up

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 06:17 PM
I was pointing out that Bill was attempting to rail against an argument that I never made in the first place.

Yes, which reminded me of Robert Millet teaching to "invent" a question and answer that, instead of the question that was asked.

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 06:20 PM
But since you brought it up....

As the context of Robert Millet's speech provides, this is a stranger on the street who is "antagonistic" towards the Latter Day Saint. His point is that there is no reason to engage with a person a approaches you with that kind of mindset.

OK, so why play goofy games with them?


Jesus Christ put it this way:

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matt 7:6

Proverbs puts it this way: "Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words."

And Paul put it this way, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still controlled by your sinful nature. ." (1 Corinthians 3)

So, was the Apostle Paul "lying for the Lord" when dealing with the Corinthians?

Yeah, NONE of that addresses the goofy idea of "never answer the question they ask --- answer the question they SHOULD have asked".


Anti-Mormons will pretend that LDS are trying to keep secret the doctrine of exaltation. Yet , it is right there in the "Gospel Principles" manual that is taught to investigators.

You all just have a lot of huffing a puffing about nothing, and it all smacks of hypocrisy as well.

How does it "smack of hypocrisy" to show your Millet teaching these people how to be deceptive? :huh:

seven7up
06-02-2014, 06:46 PM
Yes, which reminded me of Robert Millet teaching to "invent" a question and answer that, instead of the question that was asked.


So, you are saying that Bill was just using Robert Millet's tactics?

-7up

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 06:49 PM
So, you are saying that Bill was just using Robert Millet's tactics?

-7up

Wow!

No, I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics.

seven7up
06-02-2014, 07:07 PM
OK, so why play goofy games with them?

It ISN'T a goofy game. Robert Millet goes straight to the heart of the issue. You don't even get the point being made.

He is saying that IF you discuss with the antagonistic person concerning how Joseph Smith was called by God to be prophet, then the teachings in the LDS church, including exaltation, are true. That is just another way to answer the question about whether or not man can be like God, but it brings in the entirety of the LDS religion.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Jesus Christ put it this way:
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matt 7:6
Proverbs puts it this way: "Do not speak to fools, for they will scorn your prudent words."
And Paul put it this way, "And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, 3 for you are still controlled by your sinful nature." (1 Corinthians 3)

So, was the Apostle Paul "lying for the Lord" when dealing with the Corinthians?


Yeah, NONE of that addresses the goofy idea of "never answer the question they ask --- answer the question they SHOULD have asked".

Yes it does. It addresses the concept on multiple levels.


How does it "smack of hypocrisy" to show your Millet teaching these people how to be deceptive?

It isn't deceptive. See above. Also, consider how Jesus handles this question:

23 And when he was come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came unto him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority? 24 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I also will ask you one question, which if ye tell me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or from men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why then did ye not believe him? 26 But if we shall say, From men; we fear the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. 27 And they answered Jesus, and said, We know not. He also said unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.


While you are considering this, let's say that you are going to teach a class on the gospels. Would you start with Jesus violently overthrowing the money changers in the temple?

How about a Christian history class. Would you start with indulgences or the crusades?

-7up

seven7up
06-02-2014, 07:10 PM
Wow!

No, I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics.

Then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Go back to the original thread and read it again. If you have a reasonable accusation to make against me, then state your case clearly and in detail.

-7up

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 07:14 PM
Then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Sure I do! You said something, and for whatever reason, it reminded me of our old friend Robert Millet. :shrug:


Go back to the original thread and read it again. If you have a reasonable accusation to make against me, then state your case clearly and in detail.

-7up

"Accusation to make against you"???? :huh: I'm not accusing you of ANYTHING! Nor did I SAY I was. Sheeeeesh... are you think skinned or WHAT?

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 07:18 PM
It ISN'T a goofy game. Robert Millet goes straight to the heart of the issue. You don't even get the point being made.

Yes, I do. He wants to save the wackier stuff for AFTER they get overinvested in Mormonism,

There is NOTHING that I preach than cannot be shared on DAY ONE with an inquirer. NADA. I don't have to say, "well, gee, let's talk about THIS instead.... I don't have to be shifty or secretive. IN FACT -- I can point you to a pretty comprehensive outline of our fundamental beliefs, IN DETAIL! :smile:

Cow Poke
06-02-2014, 07:20 PM
While you are considering this, let's say that you are going to teach a class on the gospels. Would you start with Jesus violently overthrowing the money changers in the temple?

It's not about "where I would start" teaching a class -- it was about ANSWERING A QUESTION asked by an inquirer. So, if an inquirer STARTED by asking about Jesus (interesting way you worded that) cleansing the temple -- I would be happy to show them the scriptures, and even share the fact that I MAY have stood in the very temple where that happened last October.

NOTHING TO HIDE!!!!! NADA

Bill the Cat
06-03-2014, 06:26 AM
Sure I do! You said something, and for whatever reason, it reminded me of our old friend Robert Millet. :shrug:



"Accusation to make against you"???? :huh: I'm not accusing you of ANYTHING! Nor did I SAY I was. Sheeeeesh... are you think skinned or WHAT?

I told you he would get snarky. :smug:

Cow Poke
06-03-2014, 06:35 AM
I told you he would get snarky. :smug:

You must be a true profit*. :smug:





*yeah, i meant it that way!

Sparko
06-03-2014, 07:01 AM
If someone antagonistic to Christianity asks me a question about my faith. I will try my best to answer THAT question. If that doesn't satisfy them, then that is their problem. I don't use it as an opportunity to answer the question they SHOULD have asked. That would be pure arrogance on my part. If they asked, for example, "So you believe Jesus rose from the dead like a zombie?" (antagonistic right?) - I would say "Well, not like a zombie, but yes I believe Jesus rose from the dead after lying in a tomb for 3 days after being crucified."

I would not say "Well, in the spring of the year -4AD there was a young virgin named Mary who..." and try to give them the entire gospel. It would not be what they asked and would just make them more antagonistic. At least if I answer their question directly, I am opening up a dialog and eventually I could give them the background on who Jesus was and how he came to save us.

If they are not actually interested in listening to my answer, and just attacking me, I will just tell them that I won't play their game. But I won't avoid answering to the best of my ability. I am not ashamed of what I believe or the doctrines of my faith.

Apparently mormons are though.

Cow Poke
06-03-2014, 07:03 AM
If someone antagonistic to Christianity asks me a question about my faith. I will try my best to answer THAT question. If that doesn't satisfy them, then that is their problem. I don't use it as an opportunity to answer the question they SHOULD have asked. That would be pure arrogance on my part. If they asked, for example, "So you believe Jesus rose from the dead like a zombie?" (antagonistic right?) - I would say "Well, not like a zombie, but yes I believe Jesus rose from the dead after lying in a tomb for 3 days after being crucified."

I would not say "Well, in the spring of the year -4AD there was a young virgin named Mary who..." and try to give them the entire gospel. It would not be what they asked and would just make them more antagonistic. At least if I answer their question directly, I am opening up a dialog and eventually I could give them the background on who Jesus was and how he came to save us.

If they are not actually interested in listening to my answer, and just attacking me, I will just tell them that I won't play their game. But I won't avoid answering to the best of my ability. I am not ashamed of what I believe or the doctrines of my faith.

Apparently mormons are though.

Yeah! Nothing to hide!

Sparko
06-03-2014, 07:07 AM
Yeah! Nothing to hide!

Yeah that is always a giveaway to a cult. They have "secret knowledge and practices" that only the initiated are allowed to know.

Jesus had nothing to hide and neither do real Christians. It's all there in the bible! Ask us anything! No secrets.

Cow Poke
06-03-2014, 07:07 AM
If someone antagonistic to Christianity asks me a question about my faith. I will try my best to answer THAT question. If that doesn't satisfy them, then that is their problem.

And if somebody asked me, "hey, aren't you Southern Baptists a bunch of racists?", I would begin by TOTALLY admitting that there was rampant racism, and many in our denomination bought into that -- it was wrong, and we denounce it as such. I wouldn't try to pretend that it didn't happen, and I COULD honestly say that it was never a "doctrine" of our Church ... just rampant stupidity and bigotry. :shrug: The TRUTH works SO well.

Cow Poke
06-03-2014, 07:10 AM
Yeah that is always a giveaway to a cult. They have "secret knowledge and practices" that only the initiated are allowed to know.

Jesus had nothing to hide and neither do real Christians. It's all there in the bible! Ask us anything! No secrets.

But, remember OC used to counter with the notion that they had "sacred" beliefs, and ours obviously weren't "sacred" because we had nothing to "hold back"? He really tried his best to equate "sacred" with "secret" or "hidden".

Sparko
06-03-2014, 07:21 AM
But, remember OC used to counter with the notion that they had "sacred" beliefs, and ours obviously weren't "sacred" because we had nothing to "hold back"? He really tried his best to equate "sacred" with "secret" or "hidden".


2 Cor 4:4 Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

One Bad Pig
06-03-2014, 09:31 AM
And if somebody asked me, "hey, aren't you Southern Baptists a bunch of racists?", I would begin by TOTALLY admitting that there was rampant racism, and many in our denomination bought into that -- it was wrong, and we denounce it as such. I wouldn't try to pretend that it didn't happen, and I COULD honestly say that it was never a "doctrine" of our Church ... just rampant stupidity and bigotry. :shrug: The TRUTH works SO well.
I am slightly uncomfortable with this line of argumentation. It seems sorta "holier than thou" somehow.

ke7ejx
06-03-2014, 09:48 AM
Give him time. He's getting snarky too.

Indeed he is.

Kind Debater
06-03-2014, 10:45 AM
While you are considering this, let's say that you are going to teach a class on the gospels. Would you start with Jesus violently overthrowing the money changers in the temple?


The pastors at my church do expositional preaching, i.e. they pick a book of the Bible and preach through it, whether it brings up uncomfortable topics or not and whether there are unbelievers in the congregation or not. In fact, that's half the point of expositional preaching (which I learned about in the class I took at church) -- it forces the pastor to cover all the Bible, not just the parts they like preaching about. They recently finished preaching through the gospel of Mark, including Jesus cleaning the temple and cursing the fig tree.



How about a Christian history class. Would you start with indulgences or the crusades?


The part of my class that covered Christian history covered both topics (albeit briefly -- we read Turning Points by Mark Noll and discussed it), as well as the split between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

Kind Debater
06-03-2014, 11:34 AM
I find I am increasingly uncomfortable with this thread. I'm no stranger to debate forums in general or TWeb in particular -- I was one of the original members of the original TWeb back when it started as a breakaway group from another Christian debate forum. I understand the expectation that Twebbers either get a thick skin or leave. But if anyone has a problem with 7up or anyone else, why don't you tell them straight out or PM them instead of doing this "Hey, didja see how snarky 7up is getting?" stuff?

I suppose it's better than talking behind his back, but just barely. In real life, would you sit around and talk negatively about someone else in the third person while it was obvious they could hear you? That seems really rude to me.


Maybe I shouldn't get involved here, but CP and 7up, I'm wondering if you guys are speaking past each other.





Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making.

This reminded me of our friend Robert Millet, BYU Professor, who taught us "Never answer the question they ask -- answer the question they SHOULD have asked".




I was pointing out that Bill was attempting to rail against an argument that I never made in the first place.




Yes, which reminded me of Robert Millet teaching to "invent" a question and answer that, instead of the question that was asked.




So, you are saying that Bill was just using Robert Millet's tactics?




Wow!

No, I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics.


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think CP's train of thought was "Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making." resembles "Please address the points I am making rather than the arguments you think I should be making" which is reminiscent of "Answer the question you think they should have asked." As in, the general concept of someone answering what they think someone should have said instead of what they actually said is what's in common between 7up's original statement and Millet's speech, and he wasn't saying 7up or Bill were intentionally using that tactic.

And I think 7up read what CP said as "What you said reminds me of a Mormon tactic that I find intellectually dishonest", but couldn't quite parse how CP got that idea from his original statement. So he wondered if CP meant "7up's description of Bill's response made me think of a Mormon tactic..." which resembles "Bill is using a dishonest tactic that Mormons use," hence his question "Are you saying Bill was just using Millet's tactics?" Then when CP said no, that wasn't it, he reinterpreted CP's original statement as "7up is using intellectually dishonest tactics," which is a personal accusation.

Unless I happen to be right about what CP meant, you have to admit that "I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics." does sound like an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

Cow Poke
06-03-2014, 01:25 PM
I find I am increasingly uncomfortable with this thread. I'm no stranger to debate forums in general or TWeb in particular -- I was one of the original members of the original TWeb back when it started as a breakaway group from another Christian debate forum. I understand the expectation that Twebbers either get a thick skin or leave. But if anyone has a problem with 7up or anyone else, why don't you tell them straight out or PM them instead of doing this "Hey, didja see how snarky 7up is getting?" stuff?

I suppose it's better than talking behind his back, but just barely. In real life, would you sit around and talk negatively about someone else in the third person while it was obvious they could hear you? That seems really rude to me.


Maybe I shouldn't get involved here, but CP and 7up, I'm wondering if you guys are speaking past each other.











Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think CP's train of thought was "Please address the points that I am actually making, rather than the arguments that you wish I were making." resembles "Please address the points I am making rather than the arguments you think I should be making" which is reminiscent of "Answer the question you think they should have asked." As in, the general concept of someone answering what they think someone should have said instead of what they actually said is what's in common between 7up's original statement and Millet's speech, and he wasn't saying 7up or Bill were intentionally using that tactic.

And I think 7up read what CP said as "What you said reminds me of a Mormon tactic that I find intellectually dishonest", but couldn't quite parse how CP got that idea from his original statement. So he wondered if CP meant "7up's description of Bill's response made me think of a Mormon tactic..." which resembles "Bill is using a dishonest tactic that Mormons use," hence his question "Are you saying Bill was just using Millet's tactics?" Then when CP said no, that wasn't it, he reinterpreted CP's original statement as "7up is using intellectually dishonest tactics," which is a personal accusation.

Unless I happen to be right about what CP meant, you have to admit that "I'm saying that what YOU said, and the way you said it, reminded me of Millet's "Lying for the Lord" tactics." does sound like an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

Actually, it's much simpler than that.

I had totally forgotten about Robert Millet --- we used to have a thread on this. For WHATEVER reason, 7up's comment reminded me of Robert Millet's "instruction".

I think, from that, 7up went off to the races. :shrug:

Cow Poke
06-03-2014, 01:27 PM
I am slightly uncomfortable with this line of argumentation. It seems sorta "holier than thou" somehow.

I'm not really understanding how it's "holier than thou" to totally admit we were wrong, and we have repented and moved forward. :huh:

Can you shed some light on this for me? My point was that I make NO EXCUSES whatsoever for our obvious error in being racist.

One Bad Pig
06-03-2014, 01:40 PM
I'm not really understanding how it's "holier than thou" to totally admit we were wrong, and we have repented and moved forward. :huh:

Can you shed some light on this for me? My point was that I make NO EXCUSES whatsoever for our obvious error in being racist.
You seem to be lauding your group for admitting your mistakes and patting yourself on the back for openly discussing the teachings of your group in comparison to the perceived Mormon tactics of clamming up about mistakes and cloaking doctrines in secrecy. Admitting mistakes and being forthright in discussing one's beliefs are good things to do, but I don't see how pointing out that you're doing them is constructive.

Cow Poke
06-03-2014, 02:48 PM
You seem to be lauding your group for admitting your mistakes and patting yourself on the back for openly discussing the teachings of your group in comparison to the perceived Mormon tactics of clamming up about mistakes and cloaking doctrines in secrecy. Admitting mistakes and being forthright in discussing one's beliefs are good things to do, but I don't see how pointing out that you're doing them is constructive.

Oh.

Sparko
06-04-2014, 05:53 AM
You seem to be lauding your group for admitting your mistakes and patting yourself on the back for openly discussing the teachings of your group in comparison to the perceived Mormon tactics of clamming up about mistakes and cloaking doctrines in secrecy. Admitting mistakes and being forthright in discussing one's beliefs are good things to do, but I don't see how pointing out that you're doing them is constructive.
Paul seemed quite willing to do just that in 2 Cor 4

One Bad Pig
06-04-2014, 06:27 AM
Paul seemed quite willing to do just that in 2 Cor 4
:hrm: No. Paul was giving a pep talk, not boasting to his opponents.

ke7ejx
06-04-2014, 06:35 AM
You seem to be lauding your group for admitting your mistakes and patting yourself on the back for openly discussing the teachings of your group in comparison to the perceived Mormon tactics of clamming up about mistakes and cloaking doctrines in secrecy. Admitting mistakes and being forthright in discussing one's beliefs are good things to do, but I don't see how pointing out that you're doing them is constructive.

You see, Pig. I'm not sure that's what Cow Poke was going for. I interpreted it as him giving an example of how to own to your denomination's dirty laundry so to speak. That's at least what it looked like to me. :shrug:

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 06:38 AM
You see, Pig. I'm not sure that's what Cow Poke was going for. I interpreted it as him giving an example of how to own to your denomination's dirty laundry so to speak. That's at least what it looked like to me. :shrug:

That is exactly what I intended. I'm trying to see how that comes across as "boasting", but... :shrug: When I say I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see - am I "boasting"?

One Bad Pig
06-04-2014, 06:42 AM
You see, Pig. I'm not sure that's what Cow Poke was going for. I interpreted it as him giving an example of how to own to your denomination's dirty laundry so to speak. That's at least what it looked like to me. :shrug:
Well, that's why I was careful to couch things the way I did. It's just the way it came across to me.

One Bad Pig
06-04-2014, 06:43 AM
That is exactly what I intended. I'm trying to see how that comes across as "boasting", but... :shrug: When I say I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see - am I "boasting"?
When you add "unlike you"? Yes, IMO.

Sparko
06-04-2014, 07:15 AM
:hrm: No. Paul was giving a pep talk, not boasting to his opponents.

No, he was writing to the Corinthians, to encourage them yes, but also he boasted that everything they believed was plainly written and not hidden. Like in the intro to the letter:

2 Cor 1:12 Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly wisdom but on God’s grace. 13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14 as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

rogue06
06-04-2014, 07:16 AM
You see, Pig. I'm not sure that's what Cow Poke was going for. I interpreted it as him giving an example of how to own to your denomination's dirty laundry so to speak. That's at least what it looked like to me. :shrug:
Same here.

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 07:23 AM
When you add "unlike you"? Yes, IMO.


And if somebody asked me, "hey, aren't you Southern Baptists a bunch of racists?", I would begin by TOTALLY admitting that there was rampant racism, and many in our denomination bought into that -- it was wrong, and we denounce it as such. I wouldn't try to pretend that it didn't happen, and I COULD honestly say that it was never a "doctrine" of our Church ... just rampant stupidity and bigotry. :shrug: The TRUTH works SO well.

I am slightly uncomfortable with this line of argumentation. It seems sorta "holier than thou" somehow.

"unlike you"? :no:

One Bad Pig
06-04-2014, 08:48 AM
"unlike you"? :no:
You're right, you didn't say that. OTOH, in the context of the thread, I saw it as implied. You appeared to be bringing it up in contrast to Mormon practices.

Cow Poke
06-04-2014, 08:51 AM
You're right, you didn't say that.

Nor did I intend it.


OTOH, in the context of the thread, I saw it as implied.

I think that's because you looked for it, OBP. I don't know what I did to you, but I think you tend to read my posts with a certain "slant". :shrug:


You appeared to be bringing it up in contrast to Mormon practices.

Well, yes, but I think it's a legitimate contrast. I don't know how that makes it "boasting".

And I REALLY think this little "internal squabble" should be moved to the psych ward.

seven7up
08-02-2014, 10:55 AM
My point was that I make NO EXCUSES whatsoever for our obvious error in being racist.

It isn't that simple.

It would be like people accusing the God of the Old Testament of commanding a class structure with the minority who control the religious lives of all the other tribes because only Levites could hold the priesthood. It gives the appearance that Moses just wanted to do his brother a solid by keeping power and control in his own family, by bestowing that right only on the sons of Aaron. This appears to be worse than racism, it is domination by an even more stringent lineage requirement; keeping it only in the family.

-7up

Cow Poke
08-02-2014, 11:38 AM
It isn't that simple.

Yes, it actually is.


It would be like people accusing the God of the Old Testament of commanding a class structure with the minority who control the religious lives of all the other tribes because only Levites could hold the priesthood. It gives the appearance that Moses just wanted to do his brother a solid by keeping power and control in his own family, by bestowing that right only on the sons of Aaron. This appears to be worse than racism, it is domination by an even more stringent lineage requirement; keeping it only in the family.

-7up

This assumes, of course, that your false prophets were actually HEARING from God, rather than just doing the same dumb stuff everybody else was doing and being too dishonest to admit it.

seven7up
08-03-2014, 10:29 PM
7up: It would be like people accusing the God of the Old Testament of commanding a class structure with the minority who control the religious lives of all the other tribes because only Levites could hold the priesthood. It gives the appearance that Moses just wanted to do his brother a solid by keeping power and control in his own family, by bestowing that right only on the sons of Aaron. This appears to be worse than racism, it is domination by an even more stringent lineage requirement; keeping it only in the family.


This assumes, of course, that your false prophets were actually HEARING from God, rather than just doing the same dumb stuff everybody else was doing and being too dishonest to admit it.

When it comes to the priesthood ban in the LDS church, we actually don't have scripture or a written or even described revelation from God where it explains that blacks in the modern church were not supposed to hold those offices. In fact, Joseph Smith DID ordain blacks to the priesthood. Looking back historically, there isn't a good explanation of why that stopped.


You appeared to be bringing it up in contrast to Mormon practices.

If we want to bring in dirty laundry, we can just bring up the "laundry list" of difficult things that people have to try to explain from, for example, the Law of Moses.

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 says:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

On the surface, this can be a very difficult passage to try and explain. "You mean that a raped woman now has to live with the person who violated her? That is awful."

Then we find Christians who, like the topic of this thread, appear to be finding "Robert Millet -esque" , approaches to deal with the subject.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/03/uncomfortable-laws-from-the-old-testament.html

And when it comes to the priesthood services, we must then try to explain why someone who is small of stature "a dwarf" is prohibited from practicing the priesthood even if they were among the sons of Aaron:

Leviticus 21:17-24
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

So, essentially anybody who wasn't ugly could perform priesthood duties. I actually find this much more difficult to explain to skeptics, because it is coming as revelation directly from God.

-7up

One Bad Pig
08-04-2014, 07:34 AM
If we want to bring in dirty laundry, we can just bring up the "laundry list" of difficult things that people have to try to explain from, for example, the Law of Moses.

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 says:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

On the surface, this can be a very difficult passage to try and explain. "You mean that a raped woman now has to live with the person who violated her? That is awful."
However, the difficulty is only on the surface. Cultural context easily solves the conundrum.


Then we find Christians who, like the topic of this thread, appear to be finding "Robert Millet -esque" , approaches to deal with the subject.

http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2012/03/uncomfortable-laws-from-the-old-testament.html
:huh: How is that "Millet-esque"?


And when it comes to the priesthood services, we must then try to explain why someone who is small of stature "a dwarf" is prohibited from practicing the priesthood even if they were among the sons of Aaron:

Leviticus 21:17-24
17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;
21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.
22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.
23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them.

So, essentially anybody who wasn't ugly could perform priesthood duties. I actually find this much more difficult to explain to skeptics, because it is coming as revelation directly from God.

-7up
Er, no. Anyone who wasn't physically deformed could perform priesthood duties - just like only an unblemished sacrifice was acceptable. Why is this a difficult concept?

Cow Poke
08-04-2014, 07:45 AM
When it comes to the priesthood ban in the LDS church, we actually don't have scripture or a written or even described revelation from God where it explains that blacks in the modern church were not supposed to hold those offices. In fact, Joseph Smith DID ordain blacks to the priesthood. Looking back historically, there isn't a good explanation of why that stopped.

Actually, I'm well aware of the fact that Smith was nowhere NEAR as big a bigot as some of your subsequent "prophets". I was pleasantly surprised to find a number of examples of him treating blacks much better than other whites of his time. Perhaps it's time, once again, for you to throw BY under the bus, along with a number of your church leaders.



"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be" (ibid., 10:110; emphasis added)

“But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332

Had I anything to do with the Negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization" (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270; History of the Church, 5: 218; emphasis added).


"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel. "Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel [the Mormon Church] has been similarly directed.

"We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine. "Faithfully yours,

[signed]

George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay

The First Presidency

As the article states, that's your church's highest authority, leaving no gray areas.

tabibito
08-04-2014, 07:49 AM
Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 says:
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Awk! - who dreamt that translation up? The penalty for rape was death. "seize and lay with" doesn't mean rape.

Cow Poke
08-04-2014, 11:01 AM
Awk! - who dreamt that translation up? The penalty for rape was death. "seize and lay with" doesn't mean rape.

It appears to be the NIV
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.