Originally posted by One Bad Pig
View Post
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
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
7up reminded me of our friend Robert Millet
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by ke7ejx View PostYou 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.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostWhen you add "unlike you"? Yes, IMO.Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd 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. The TRUTH works SO well.
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI am slightly uncomfortable with this line of argumentation. It seems sorta "holier than thou" somehow.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post"unlike you"?Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostYou'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.
And I REALLY think this little "internal squabble" should be moved to the psych ward.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostMy point was that I make NO EXCUSES whatsoever for our obvious error in being racist.
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostIt 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.
-7upThe first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
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.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThis 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.
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostYou appeared to be bringing it up in contrast to Mormon practices.
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...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
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostIf 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...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.
-7upVeritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by seven7up View PostWhen 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.
As the article states, that's your church's highest authority, leaving no gray areas.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
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.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostAwk! - who dreamt that translation up? The penalty for rape was death. "seize and lay with" doesn't mean rape.
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment