win the lottery twice
Oh I see, so since you were unable to hack it, or got offended by someone, or had just one doctrine you couldn't deal with, you, like 100% of those who fall away, believe it's the church that's wrong. Dude, you're a dime a dozen, and I"m sorry you couldn't man up to some very simple principles that bring this thing called "joy."Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
No, the Mormon version of the afterlife makes no more sense than any other fairytale. Do some more research, then get back to me on that. Oh, and by the way, I was baptized into the Normon...er Mormon...church and quickly left. Sorry Ironcheff, but mormonism is the very definition of what religion should not be. The self righteous, sanctimonious asshats that lead your religion can only lead you to ruin if you believe what they teach.
Sorry brother, but there, done that, before you.
Sanctimonious asshats? Really? This weekend is General Conference. I challenge ANYONE to listen in (byu.tv or lds.org) from 10-12 and 2-4 mountain time and tell me if the men speaking (or women) sound ANYTHING even remotely resembling leaders/speakers of other religions, tell me if they sound proud, self righteous, arrogant, ignorant, or in anyway that doesn't resemble the example of behavior Jesus would have had if he were sitting next to them.
I just watched this morning, it was a unique GC morning because a new president was sustained (Solemn Assembly) and when you see Thomas Monson get up and talk, tell me if you think he aspired to be president of the church. Tell me if you think he enjoys the power he now has. One of the remarkable things I saw this morning was how utterly humbled he was to now have the mantle upon him. HE wasn't himself, normally more jovial, more light hearted...now, feeling the weight of the immense calling...he is more reserved. I've not seen or met any religious leader like that, ever, and I've met alot.
I'm sorry, were you there, in the dank shanty house in the Mirim bairro of Jundiai, Sao Paulo, Brasil with us when I and my companion laid our hands on Benedita's head and gave her a priesthood blessing, paused for a good 10 seconds, then gave her explicit instructions which upon completion would cause her sickness to go away? And were you there a couple weeks later when she came to us, sobbing, having returned from the clinic with her HIV antibody results now showing negative? Exactly, you weren't, so that's why you can say it never happened. Friggen noob.twiistaaa wrote:
yes i loved it when god cured that guy from aids.. wait that never happened.
but i love how magic johnsons doctors use their 5 senses to stop him from getting aids.
For me to firmly believe in God, he would have to stick his hand out of the clouds and grab my friend Diana out of the shower in her home in Ljubljana, and set her down on my bed, magically. Seriously though - yeah, I'd need some real evidence that COULDN'T just be chance or co-incidence.
Or dosed-up on anti-psychotics.globefish23 wrote:
On YouTube.KILLSWITCH wrote:
Funny how back in the day all of these divine miracles and visits from above used to occur every now and then. Where are they now?
If God would wipe out mosquitoes and the the fire ants that ruin my yard.......I would give up an hour a week for faith like the rest of Christians..
OMG Mormons found the cure to Aids. Give 'em the Nobel Prize.IRONCHEF wrote:
I'm sorry, were you there, in the dank shanty house in the Mirim bairro of Jundiai, Sao Paulo, Brasil with us when I and my companion laid our hands on Benedita's head and gave her a priesthood blessing, paused for a good 10 seconds, then gave her explicit instructions which upon completion would cause her sickness to go away? And were you there a couple weeks later when she came to us, sobbing, having returned from the clinic with her HIV antibody results now showing negative? Exactly, you weren't, so that's why you can say it never happened. Friggen noob.twiistaaa wrote:
yes i loved it when god cured that guy from aids.. wait that never happened.
but i love how magic johnsons doctors use their 5 senses to stop him from getting aids.
Science tells us that stuff like that could indeed happen - at the quantum level anything is possible - however 'magical teleportation of people' is highly unlikely.FallenMorgan wrote:
For me to firmly believe in God, he would have to stick his hand out of the clouds and grab my friend Diana out of the shower in her home in Ljubljana, and set her down on my bed, magically. Seriously though - yeah, I'd need some real evidence that COULDN'T just be chance or co-incidence.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-05 17:22:31)
Faith n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
He would have to appear before me as I write this, holding the jacket I ordered a few days ago, and answer a few questions because He's got a lot of explaining to do... Also perform some miracles that I have in mind. That simple.serge wrote:
What would it take for you Atheists/Agnostics: ...to recognize God exists?
ƒ³
Don't take this the wrong way, but I would argue that ritualism is a vestige of our animal instincts. Comfort through repeated actions and traditions is often a weak substitute for rational analysis and intellectualism. Dynamism (virtually the opposite of ritualism) would seem to be far more progressive. It is the dynamism of science that I enjoy, because everything is up for debate. Everything that is proposed in science faces a myriad of challenges until enough time has passed that something is accepted as truth. Even what is seen as truth eventually changes to reflect new evidence. I abhor the stagnant nature of traditions and rituals.IRONCHEF wrote:
Ritualism and polygamy: If you're asking about what you would describe in the temple ordinances as rituals, I'll simply state that they are what they are...a vicarious, graduating path of man's (and woman's) journey through the entire plan of salvation as we call it. It is filled with rich symbolism, spoken and gestured ordinances, the making of covenants, and for the experience of communing directly with God. The first time you go through the temple you do so for yourself. THereafter, you go on behalf of (vicariously) those who have already passed and haven't had their ordinances done for them. That's it. I won't apologize if that seems "ritualistic." It's actually quite boring unless you're going through humbly, with a clear heart and mind, and clean spirit willing to be taught from on high. The revelatory experiences in the Temple are second to none. It prepares you for whatever the world can throw at you. It's the very core of what makes Mormon's so happy.
I would argue the reasoning behind polygamy had more to do with sociological conditions rather than religion, but that religion was used to justify it so that people felt less uneasy about it. If I'm not mistaken, the woman to man ratio during the settling of the West by Mormons was often very high. The men would often hold much more dangerous jobs in their societies, and many would die young. I've also heard that a lot of Mormons essentially lived in exile because of Protestants threatening or killing them, and oftentimes, the women would be left widowed from this violence.IRONCHEF wrote:
Some biblical patriarchs, most notably Abraham, were commanded to have additional wives. Being that the Mormons believe what is promised in Acts, that "all things will be restored," it makes sense that "plural marriage" was restored since it was an ordinance once commanded of God's people. It was met with resistence by Joseph Smith until about a decade later he was threatened with destruction if he did not comply. As the church moved from Nauvoo to Utah Territory, some leaders were tasked with taking wives. These men were able to (they could provide seperate homes, feed, clothe, and lead with righteousness) because they were spiritually prepared. Not everyone was commanded to do so. Usually the "wife" of the man aided in the selection process. Often it was widows who were married to a man in order to provide for them. Polygamy as practiced by the early Mormons was NOT for the purposes pretty much every sicko things of it as today...it's not a sex orgy and the women are NOT servants. TO better imagine it, imagine yourself with 4 copies of your wife, 4 sets of kids, 4 mortgages to pay, 4x the food, clothing, etc.. Exactly...it's no picnic which is why it wasn't something men sought after. Utah was applying for statehood shortly after it was repealed by the Lord as having been "fulfilled." No laws were broken because "bigamy" was not introduced by the US Government until afterwards..and Utah Territory wasn't even a state yet so it didn't matter anyway. Mormons do hold the laws of the land in high regard and commandment to follow.
ANyway, this is all information many apologists will yield if you search (jeff lindsay is a good one).
Overall, it would seem that polygamy began as a practice in America to help keep families together and to reconcile the resulting gender ratio issues.
The following quote by Brigham Young is part of what I meant by racism.IRONCHEF wrote:
TO be clear, this church does not bend and run with the flow of other churches who try to appear more mainstream, more in-tuned with the world. That would denote that it is a church of man, not something divinely instituted. We actually claim to be the restored church, in it's fullness, as a restoration of the ancient church the Savior established himself. We don't pick and chose if men and women get to hold priesthood..which is the thing I"m guessing you're referring to (some feminists were excommunicated, at their wish, after they petitioned and publicly argued against the church to be able to hold the priesthood..like the other churches do). And for what it's worth, women have a much greater role in our church than holding priesthood. Further, what is the big deal about holding priesthood? It's not like you are suddenly powerful and great. The priesthood is on the earth so it can be used to build the kingdom, to glorify god..not the holder who uses it. But that's another discussion.
As far as the blacks holding priesthood before 1978, that was/is an ancient punishment due to the sin Ham committed...where he and his seed were not to inherit the rights of the priesthood. As for the church being prejudiced? I'd have you reserch our early years, when the church was run out of town from NY, to OH, to MO, to IL, and finally to UT. THey were persecuted and hated because the represented a voting block that was opposed to slavery (when everyone else wasn't), they built beautiful towns out of nothing, were virtuous, didn't drink, and threatened the lifestyle of the scumbags in office. Just like in Kosovo, the Mormons were given an extermination order from Missouri by Gov. Boggs...why? They voted against slavery among other things.
THere's zero prejudice against blacks in this church. All children of God are equal, are entitled to the same benefits and blessings of heaven as anyone is and was. Priesthood is not ours to give... And when it was revealed (probably because it was finally safe or because mankind was finally getting a grip on racial equality), black mormons all over the world were immediately ordained, humbly exercised their priesthood to bless their families, their local congregations where they served, etc. THe non-black members didn't suddenly start being nice to them. Nothing changed because they always treated blacks as equals, etc.
Anyway, again, it's not some church were a bunch of guys sit around and decide on policies like pretty much any other church does. I've been involved in enough to know that it's not directed by man. Another big factor, if you want to reason things out with logic, is that nobody is PAID to do what they do. NOne of the leaders are paid from the president down to the local level leaders. THere is nothing worldly to gain from being Mormon, no "power," no riches, no great influence...rather, we're ostracized, expelled, laughed at (underwear), and ridiculed..but when you start talking about mormons you know, it's always "hey, they're great neighbors to have" or "they really take care of their families."
Ok, enough mormon hijacking. Maybe it's time to have a "Ask a Mormon" thread! lol
"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 so.
Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.
You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants;' and they will be, until that curse is removed."
Mormons might have been against slavery, but the above attitude was hardly progressive. I think it's a bit silly to believe that African traits would denote a curse, since there is genetic evidence that all of mankind is ultimately African in origin.