Is it OK to lie to get a Temple Recommend?

[eudyptes]

No I have not made a fallacious rant at all, it is an observation.

Since you don't know me, you don't know what I believe and what I don't believe, then you are making false assumptions, simple as that. Since I am not prepared to let you into my knowledge or sources of that knowledge you won't ever find out either.
In the same way that all Muslims don't necessarily believe in exactly the same thing, neither do all Mormons. We are not told what to think, feel and to believe, as some of you may think.

I have been here long enough to see bigotry in full force. It is there quite plainly for all to see.

....anyone have a spare irony meter, mine just 'sploded.

[Sparko]

Now we both know that this is not true!
Pity that a lot of you here have nothing better to do than to find fault with the LDS religion

It seems that you just came here to call us liars and find fault with us.

Stick around and actually participate in some discussions before yapping off about what you have no idea about.

This forum is for Christians and LDS to discuss the LDS religion. It is a debate forum. Not a social forum. We have social areas also. But you will get arguments in this area, that is what it is for.

If you don't like it, nobody is forcing you to be here. Head over to the social areas or find another forum. But don't go around accusing people of lying without evidence of such.

from our decorum (which you agreed to when you signed up)

Strongly inflammatory characterizations, such as allegations of outright intentional lying, criminal conduct, or severe moral turpitude must be backed up as to the truth of the matter at the time of the assertion. Such posts may be edited in full until such substantiation is provided. We consider a lie to be a poster knowingly and willfully making a statement they know to be untrue. In order to substantiate a lie, it must be shown that the poster in question is stating something they know to be untrue. Facts that are in dispute should never be referred to as lies. All efforts to substantiate an accusation of lying should take place in the same post as the accusation or a separate thread may be started in the Psychotherapy Room outlining the accusation and providing substantiation.

All subsequent discussion of the accusation must take place in the Psychotherapy Room. Please note that one person's faith position may inform their opinion of the acts or faiths of another - in stating positions of faith, allegations of lying are not appropriate.

[Cow Poke]

Since you don't know me, you don't know what I believe and what I don't believe...

Yet you can claim "as a fact" what we believe and what we read and what our motives are. How very angelic.

[Cow Poke]

Not ... quite. There is a long-standing argument between Cow Poke and nrajeff--CP believes that Jeff (and some others here who have taken on the role of apologetes for the LDS Church) is evasive to the point approaching dishonesty. This was not a comment on the Temples, per se ... it was a comment on the perception of dishonesty.

Exactly.... and I was being facetious, and even said so in the OP. It all goes back to the "answer the question that SHOULD have been asked", and the "In the Spring of 1820" thing.

[Chrawnus]

Now we both know that this is not true!
Pity that a lot of you here have nothing better to do than to find fault with the LDS religion

Are you accusing Sparko of lying? You are aware that accusing people of lying without the evidence to back it up is forbidden on these forums right? So unless you have the necessary evidence to prove that Sparko is lying, you'd better retract this statement.

The difference is that I do not care what the Muslims believe. Unlike yourself whom delights in fault-finding

It's a difference that makes no difference.

Your argument was that it was ridiculous to assert that nearly 15M members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are wrong. You might not care what Muslims, or for that matter, what mainstream Christians think, but you still think we are wrong. If you'd be consistent in your "logic", you would be a member of a mainstream Christian group right now, because "What you believe is that 2.2 billion mainstream Christians are wrong. That is ludicrous."

And you have no idea what so ever if Raphael delights in fault-finding or not. What you're doing is assuming the worst in Raphael, when you hardly know him.

No I have not made a fallacious rant at all, it is an observation.

And why should we trust your observation when you have given no evidence for your claim that "For the most part they (the anti-Mormon sites) are made up of members whom have been excommunicated for wrong-doings and feel that they have a grudge against the Church." Or is this you assuming the worst in people without having the support to back it up, again?

Since you don't know me, you don't know what I believe and what I don't believe, then you are making false assumptions, simple as that. Since I am not prepared to let you into my knowledge or sources of that knowledge you won't ever find out either.

You mean like you were making false assumptions by accusing Raphael of delighting in fault-finding?

You're priceless.

And even if we don't know all your beliefs, we obviously know that you believe the things that are absolutely necessary for a Mormon to believe in order to be a Mormon, unless you're being dishonest about being a member of the LDS Church, that is.

In the same way that all Muslims don't necessarily believe in exactly the same thing, neither do all Mormons. We are not told what to think, feel and to believe, as some of you may think.

That makes no difference what so ever to me. The question of main importance is if what you believe is true or not.

I have been here long enough to see bigotry in full force. It is there quite plainly for all to see.

If being intolerant of falsehoods is bigotry, then I will gladly be called a bigot for the rest of my life.

[nrajeff]

This forum is for Christians--both LDS and non-LDS-- to discuss the LDS religion. ...

Fixed it for you.

[nrajeff]

...It all goes back to the "answer the question that SHOULD have been asked", and the "In the Spring of 1820" thing.

And turning that into a general "Do you all believe this?" issue was a fallacious thing to do, IMO, since it took one person's non-official, non-authoritative statement and implied that all church members have been brainwashed into believing it and putting it into practice.

[Sparko]

Fixed it for you.

No you butchered it.

I would thank you not to put words in my mouth (so to speak)

[Cow Poke]

And turning that into a general "Do you all believe this?" issue was a fallacious thing to do, IMO, since it took one person's non-official, non-authoritative statement and implied that all church members have been brainwashed into believing it and putting it into practice.

Well, let's calmly and politely look at that claim, Jeff... here's the OP in its entirety...

OK, I'm being facetious, kinda, but the whole Mormon thing of "line upon line" and "answer the question they SHOULD have asked" and "they're not PREPARED to know...."

What if somebody wanted to learn about Mormonism from the inside, and they simply used the tactics the Mormons use in "evangelizing"....

They could ONLY present the very most positive aspects of their own life --- like the "Prophet of the Restoration" movie does with Smith's life.
They could answer the questions the (whoever does the exam for the Temple Recommend) SHOULD have asked....
They could endlessly spin PRETENDING that the examiner was asking a different question....

I mean, all the tactics we see employed here by Mormons in "apologetics"... would it be wrong, according to you guys, for somebody to use those same tactics to gain entry to your Temple?

Just wondering.

"line upon line" is hardly "un-official", is it?
"they're not prepared to know" is an argument that OC used extensively, and I was speaking in the context of TWEB, since that's where I posted.
"The Prophet of the Restoration" --- is that NOT an official production of the Mormon Church?

I think the only point you may have would be the "question they SHOULD have asked" scenario - which ADMITTEDLY may not be an "official teaching" of your Church, but WAS taught by an "official" of your Church in an apparently non-official capacity, and a tactic which I have witnessed first-hand here on many occasions.

And, as for your accusation that I am maligning "all Church members", that's a misrepresentation of what I said... did you miss the part where I said....

I mean, all the tactics we see employed here by Mormons in "apologetics"... would it be wrong, according to you guys, for somebody to use those same tactics to gain entry to your Temple?

I'm speaking to and about "Mormons in "apologetics" here on Tweb, Jeff.... and I even ask "you guys" for your opinions. It wasn't "Do you all believe this?" as you suggest, but "according to you guys" (Tweb Apologists).

I honestly think you personally took this way too far.

[Cow Poke]

By the way - what has this got to do with a Temple Recommend?

Other than the fact that the question was started in order to pick holes in the sacredness of our Temples.

It had ZERO to do with the secrecy of your Temples OR your forehead or your earlobes!


(I honestly don't recall... did this thread ever even GET INTO secret Temple stuff?)

[nrajeff]

No you butchered it.

I would thank you not to put words in my mouth (so to speak)

So you've had a change of heart, and now think it's wrong to do those "fify" alterations to a person's post that you have been doing for who knows how long?

Or are you just saying that it's only wrong when someone does it to YOUR posts?

[Cow Poke]

Other than the fact that the question was started in order to pick holes in the sacredness of our Temples.

I just read back through the thread. Other than OC trying to turn it into a "Baptists and Free Masons" thread, and OC and Sparko flirting a bit, and a brief discussion about Baptists and Divorce... I saw NO MENTION or even any ATTEMPT to mention anything even remotely related to Temple secrets.

I shall await your apology for making such a silly claim.

[Cow Poke]

So you've had a change of heart, and now think it's wrong to do those "fify" alterations to a person's post that you have been doing for who knows how long?

Or are you just saying that it's only wrong when someone does it to YOUR posts?

<Sarcasm>

It's wrong when they do it to MY posts, too, Jeff.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[Sparko]

I apologize Sparko. You are entirely correct. We Mormons are not Christian at all.

fify.

[Cow Poke]

I just read back through the thread. Other than OC trying to turn it into a "Baptists and Free Masons" thread,....

And I thought that was really WEIRD since many people believe Smith got his "Temple" stuff from his "Free Mason" stuff. But it was not brought up like that, or even HINTED at like that in this thread, nor was it the intent of the thread's author to go anywhere NEAR that.