Combatting Pornography

[One Bad Pig]

As I am not participating (nor plan to participate in the future) in this thread, I am responding to this for the moderating team. Although Sparko's source does not portray what he said as part of temple ritual, I will not link to it here because it does not have the restrictions we do concerning such discussions. If you want it, send me a PM.

Moderated By: One Bad Pig

It seems that FAIR has no problem discussing the fig leaf apron in rather more detail than Sparko did. His reference to works, AFAICS, alludes to his understanding that Mormons have a works-based salvation. Right or wrong, this has no overt reference to any temple ceremony, but to the Day of Judgment.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[joeyday]

Joey, first of all who made you the net nanny here? I take a bit of offense at you talking down to me like this.

I do see now how what I said could be taken as me presuming to act in place of a moderator or arbitrator between you and Jo, but I assure you that was not my intent. When I said “if you tell me this is the case then I will accept your word on the matter” I didn't mean to say “I will accept your word on the matter and this whole argument will be settled,” or “I will accept your word on the matter and not ban you from the forum” as if I had any authority around here to do either of those things. I simply meant “I will accept your word on the matter and back down from my challenge that what you said was uncalled for.”

Regardless of what I really meant or didn't mean, I acknowledge that my talking in that way was certainly cause for offense and I am sorry.

[Sparko]

I do see now how what I said could be taken as me presuming to act in place of a moderator or arbitrator between you and Jo, but I assure you that was not my intent. When I said “if you tell me this is the case then I will accept your word on the matter” I didn't mean to say “I will accept your word on the matter and this whole argument will be settled,” or “I will accept your word on the matter and not ban you from the forum” as if I had any authority around here to do either of those things. I simply meant “I will accept your word on the matter and back down from my challenge that what you said was uncalled for.”

Regardless of what I really meant or didn't mean, I acknowledge that my talking in that way was certainly cause for offense and I am sorry.

no, actually it was my fault. I get riled up sometimes and I hadn't had lunch yet. You meant nothing by it and I should have seen that.

[RumTumTugger]

I'm sure I'm going to get labelled some kind of Hyper-Calvinist heretic for what I'm about to say, but I disagree with ApologiaPhoenix. I think he's indeed taking some of the credit himself for humbly submitting to God, and in my humble opinion that qualifies as boasting, though just barely. This is neither the time nor place for an Arminianism v. Calvinism debate (I assume there's another forum on TheologyWeb for that, though I honestly haven't looked for it), so I don't want to go into too much detail. Suffice it to say that Mormonism is MUCH farther off the deep end into a works-based salvation than any Arminian has ever gone.

No not hyper-Calvinist but without knowledge of who AP is. If you did know AP as well as I do you would not be saying this. and yes you are right this is not the place for the Arminanism v. Calvinsm although AP isn't Arminian he's molinst. I only wanted to make sure you did not fall into OC's obfuscation when he can't reply to what you've said.

[RumTumTugger]

Friend, don't try to sidestep what you said. Your reference to wearing a fig leaf was *CLEARLY* meant to evoke thoughts of the LDS temple endowment ceremony. I don't see how it can be taken any other way. You could have said everything else you said about appearing before God on judgement day and if you had left out the fig leaf part you wouldn't have offended anyone.

No it was to show that they do indeed think doing good works helps save them.

[jo7241974]

Methinks Sparko doth protest too much. Fortunately, ALL of the moderators on Tweb will be judged by a higher authority who can see into all of their hearts.

By NOT doing something about Sparko's two original posts, see how the imaginations of man have managed to further denegrate something misrepresented by Sparko. Now he has affectively used it to further mock what may or may not take place in our most Sacred and Holy Temples by disguising it within the purpose of this thread's OP.

With all of the claims that Sparko makes in knowing more about our religion than we do, how can anyone possibly believe he has innocently trampled into Sacred territory!!!!!

This is disgusting AND a sad day for the reputation of Tweb.

[RumTumTugger]

Methinks Sparko doth protest too much. Fortunately, ALL of the moderators on Tweb will be judged by a higher authority who can see into all of their hearts.

By NOT doing something about Sparko's two original posts, see how the imaginations of man have managed to further denegrate something misrepresented by Sparko. Now he has affectively used it to further mock what may or may not take place in our most Sacred and Holy Temples by disguising it within the purpose of this thread's OP.

With all of the claims that Sparko makes in knowing more about our religion than we do, how can anyone possibly believe he has innocently trampled into Sacred territory!!!!!

This is disgusting AND a sad day for the reputation of Tweb.

He got it directly from an LDS site Jo are you saying they misrepresented it?

[joeyday]

No not hyper-Calvinist but without knowledge of who AP is. If you did know AP as well as I do you would not be saying this. and yes you are right this is not the place for the Arminanism v. Calvinsm although AP isn't Arminian he's molinst. I only wanted to make sure you did not fall into OC's obfuscation when he can't reply to what you've said.

My apologies to ApologiaPhoenix (pun intended), but he does list in his profile that his soteriology is Arminian. Additionally, his comment sounded awfully Arminian to me. So I think my assumption of disagreement with him was entirely warranted. I am happy to be corrected, though.

[RumTumTugger]

My apologies to ApologiaPhoenix (pun intended), but he does list in his profile that his soteriology is Arminian. Additionally, his comment sounded awfully Arminian to me. So I think my assumption of disagreement with him was entirely warranted. I am happy to be corrected, though.

No prob I also disagree with AP on the sotereology {sp} being refromed of calvinist persuasion myself it is your disagreement on whether he was boasting or not was what I was refering to. As I said if you knew him like I do you'd know how far wrong you were on that. other posters trying to obfuscate to the contrary. anyway let me make a belated welcome to you hope you enjoy your sojourn on Tweb.

[Sparko]

Methinks Sparko doth protest too much. Fortunately, ALL of the moderators on Tweb will be judged by a higher authority who can see into all of their hearts.

By NOT doing something about Sparko's two original posts, see how the imaginations of man have managed to further denegrate something misrepresented by Sparko. Now he has affectively used it to further mock what may or may not take place in our most Sacred and Holy Temples by disguising it within the purpose of this thread's OP.

With all of the claims that Sparko makes in knowing more about our religion than we do, how can anyone possibly believe he has innocently trampled into Sacred territory!!!!!

This is disgusting AND a sad day for the reputation of Tweb.

Jo I wasn't mocking anything. and the apron is discussed freely on the FAIR site (see the link in OBP's post) so how did I say anything that was verbotten? The intent of my post was entirely about what you will do when you appear before the Heavenly Father at judgment time. I couldn't care less if you wear an apron or blue jeans or an amish dress. I will be wearing a white robe washed clean by the blood of Christ. And I will know that all of my works are as filthy rags when it comes to my salvation.

was the information correct in that mormons believe they will stand before Father and hold out their works for him to show they are worthy of exaltation?


If works are not required then explain this from D&C132

32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.
33 But if ye enter not into my law ye cannot receive the promise of my Father, which he made unto Abraham.

Sounds like God is telling you that you have to follow the Law and do works to be saved.

[joeyday]

No prob I also disagree with AP on the sotereology {sp} being refromed of calvinist persuasion myself it is your disagreement on whether he was boasting or not was what I was refering to.

Hm, let me clarify what I meant then. Here are my exact words:

I disagree with ApologiaPhoenix. I think he's indeed taking some of the credit himself for humbly submitting to God, and in my humble opinion that qualifies as boasting, though just barely.

Let me start by saying that I don't think anything ApologiaPhoenix has said in this thread has a ring of boastfulness to it. In fact, everything I've read from him so far has seemed very God-exalting and man-humbling. In fact, I'm willing to take back what I said. Directly accusing him of boasting was crossing a line.

What I meant to say and should have said, essentially, is that if AP does believe a man has a stake in his own salvation, in the sense that he can do something either to initiate or finish the work of his own salvation—and from his own statement it appears to me that he does believe this—then that man would have something to boast about (even if it's a very small something).

As I told OtherCheek (who also does not appear to be a boastful person by nature), the man could voluntary lay down that right to boast if he chooses (and it appears ApologiaPhoenix does lay it down), but there's a difference between a right that is voluntarily laid down and a right that is excluded (i.e., not really a right at all). Paul says boasting is excluded. Even if ApologiaPhoenix chooses not to boast, I don't think boasting is strictly excluded under his theology, whether he's Arminian or Molinist. And therein lies my disagreement with him. Does that make sense?

I should point out, as I already did, I know this is not the place for an Arminian [v. Molinist] v. Calvinist debate. I'm honestly not trying to start such a debate. I'm merely clarifying what I said before to make clear that I meant no offense toward ApologiaPhoenix.

[Cow Poke]

Methinks Sparko doth protest too much. Fortunately, ALL of the moderators on Tweb will be judged by a higher authority who can see into all of their hearts.

Thank you, Jesus!

[RumTumTugger]

Hm, let me clarify what I meant then. Here are my exact words:



Let me start by saying that I don't think anything ApologiaPhoenix has said in this thread has a ring of boastfulness to it. In fact, everything I've read from him so far has seemed very God-exalting and man-humbling. In fact, I'm willing to take back what I said. Directly accusing him of boasting was crossing a line.

What I meant to say and should have said, essentially, is that if AP does believe a man has a stake in his own salvation, in the sense that he can do something either to initiate or finish the work of his own salvation—and from his own statement it appears to me that he does believe this—then that man would have something to boast about (even if it's a very small something).

As I told OtherCheek (who also does not appear to be a boastful person by nature), the man could voluntary lay down that right to boast if he chooses (and it appears ApologiaPhoenix does lay it down), but there's a difference between a right that is voluntarily laid down and a right that is excluded (i.e., not really a right at all). Paul says boasting is excluded. Even if ApologiaPhoenix chooses not to boast, I don't think boasting is strictly excluded under his theology, whether he's Arminian or Molinist. And therein lies my disagreement with him. Does that make sense?

I should point out, as I already did, I know this is not the place for an Arminian [v. Molinist] v. Calvinist debate. I'm honestly not trying to start such a debate. I'm merely clarifying what I said before to make clear that I meant no offense toward ApologiaPhoenix.

it makes sense and thank you for the clarification. I hope to see more of your posts in the future.

btw did I mention I'm known as the Tweb Mom?

[wonbyone]

I have seen your unsupported OP's on the threads you recently started here on the LDS forum. I was being very polite when I made my comment to OC about you.

BTW, either you DO have a lot of misconception about our beliefs, or you are just another run-of-the-mill anti whose opinion will be as important to my life as the hairball my cat just hacked up (note to self....forward hairball to BTC for his personal collection).

Seriously, time will tell. And welcome to the LDS forum!

God bless,

jo

Good one Jo!

[wonbyone]

why? I am simply showing that they believe that they will be relying on their good works to get into heaven (well actually exaltation in the highest heaven) after OC claimed they would not.

Jo reported me because she thinks I gave away some sacred mormon secret or something like that. Which I have not, as far as I know.

Yeah! What did you say that was inappropriate?