Honos
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Honos
-
-
In Moksha's defense, Norwegians are occasionally referred to as Laplanders or Lapps. From Wikipedia:
The Sami people (also Sámi, Saami, Lapps, sometimes also Laplanders) are an indigenous peopleof northern Europe inhabiting Sápmi, which today encompasses parts of northern Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Kola Peninsula of Russia. Their ancestral lands span across an area the size of Sweden in the Nordic countries. The Sami people are among the largest indigenous groups in Europe. Their languages are the Sami languages, which are classified as Finno-Ugric.
While I have not seen the whole of his post before editting, what I saw reported was a pun.
I, at least, got the joke.
-
Kona: Your apology is appreciated. You need to understand that many of our members come here for relief from attacks on their beliefs and we have zero tolerance for being labeled a cult or other offensive terms here. We do want this to be a place of learning, but questions must be asked in the most respectful way possible to maintain the atmosphere we desire. What you may find "controlling" in the church, members consider a blessing from our loving Father in Heaven.
Seraphim
Kona,
Your access under the previous name will be reactivated (and I will attempt to merge your terry0197 posts in as well).
Fair warning: one more crack about cults or controlling people- one more sneer about other people's beliefs- and you're gone for good.
I can understand wanting to find answers- I went through the same steps as a convert. I also have little patience for sneering at or ridiculing other people's genuinely held religious beliefs.
Be polite, be humble, be teachable, and you're welcome here.
Mock us and you're out the door.
Honos
-
After what everyone has said I still think my first comment was the one I'm sticking to.
I can't wear a garment just because a religion says I must.
I still think it's a way the Church controls people.
Thank you for playing, Kona.
You have no idea what you're talking about, and your sneering has gotten tiresome.
We wear garments as physical reminders of our covenants with God. They are no different in practice than the priestly vestments worn by the faithful members of other faiths.
Your insinuations about cults, controlling people, and the rest are merely the same tired, trite, bloviations we see from anti-Mormons with annoying regularity.
You have flatly ignored the answers you have been given in favor of pursuing your agenda, and you may now pursue it elsewhere.
These boards are NOT to be used to insult or belittle the LDS faith or faithful.
Honos
-
I don't know that God condones such behavior as the Holocaust, approves it, or causes it to happen. However, we all can agree that He clearly allowed it.
I lean more towards "suffered" than "allowed". "Allowed", IMO, suggests that he might have done something about it but couldn't be bothered. We do know, however, that God will not interfere with human agency. He might have suffered it to happen, but there is no reason to believe he ordained, orchestrated, or condoned it.
-
I'm smiling big. I remember! For the record, I still do the pony tail thing.
For the record, I'm too young to remember any of that firsthand. When Neil Armstrong was walking on the moon, I was making an equally precarious (and graceful) journey across my parent's living room.
Nonetheless, I grew up on the music and especially the values- who says growing up in a small, backwater town is a bad thing?
The first record I wore out was Bill Haley and the Comets- Rock Around the Clock- and IIRC, the flip-side (explain that to anyone under 35!) was Rockin' Robin.
And swing-dancing is on the upswing (yes, bad pun). My sixteen, and eighteen year olds both swing dance with their beau's)- though I keep the shotgun handy.
As I've explained to the boys on more than one occasion- "I AM The Law."
And, just in case, I'm on good working terms with every Marine recruiter west of the Mississippi River.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A non-mormon friend just sent me Shattered Dreams: My Life as a Polygamist's Wife by Irene Spencer.
I haven't been active in the church for a very long time, but I can't believe I've forgotten this much!! I'm curious if some of her beliefs are fundamentalists' interpretations or if they were part of the early teachings.
If you don't mind, I'd like to post some questions here about the book.
1. According to the book "Adam chose Jesus, the firstborn of his innumerable offspring in the preexistence, to be the second member of the trinity (the third being the Holy Spirit)."
<blockquote>Adam chose?!?! Jesus was Adam's offspring?!?</blockquote>
2. "Jesus himself had at least two wives, Mary Magdalene being one of them."
<blockquote>I remember my mother becoming quite incensed at the thought of M.M. being a prostitute. Is this why?</blockquote>
3. "A man who acquires at least two wives in this life is thought worthy of being a god, and one with seven or more (called a quorum) is practically assured of it."
<blockquote>Clearly no longer a belief (?!?!), but was it once?</blockquote>
4. "Unmarried women and monogamous women can look forward to being angels in the next life. Angels are forever single and childless, ministering servants to the gods, and part of the celestial audience attendant at others' earthly weddings."
<blockquote>This doesn't sound so different from what I learned.....</blockquote>
Any information would be sincerely appreciated!
Thank you!
michaela
Michaela,
These are not LDS beliefs and are- in the most generous analysis possible- extreme distortions of LDS beleifs.
I suggest you do some research on Miss Spencer. In all likelihood, she's an escapee from on of the fundamentalist sects (Jeffs and his followers), rather than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Honos
-
Honos..Thanks for being here. I don't go on any other boards so I don't know if the posters are sincere or not.
f4k
Actually, it was the mighty and wrathful Seraphim who first twigged to Neighbor's post.
The "Queen of Hearts" avatar she sports is not a bit of fancy, but rather an accurate rendition of her character by a reknowned psychologist and artist who protested his innocence right up until the axe blade hit.
Do not tempt her, ye foolish mortals.
Having said all this, I'll be hiding behind the hedge rows looking for the mushroom which will allow me to brush aside her playing card minions.
I hope I find it soon..........
Curiouser and curioser,
Honos
-
There's nothing offensive about this post, but since you are the same Neighbor from mormonapologetics.org, this is not a place for you considering your recent posting history there. This forum is for congenial discussion with members and sincere questioners.
Seraphim
As a matter of clarification for those who remain curious, Neighbor is a particularly virulent and hostile critic- one of the ravening wolves we are warned about in Scripture.
It is his habit to pretend nuetrality or indifference, to establish himself as a mild voice and then to attack in the most bitter terms, including harassing those he sees as potentially vulnerable in extended private messages.
After due deliberation, and given his recent behavior on other boards, the mods have decided not to risk attacks upon our membership by someone long proven to hunger for the destruction of their testimonies.
Honos
-
Bottom Line:
LDS are required to obey the law of the land, unless and until such contradict the laws of God. Should temporal law conflict with the divine, LDS are obligated to attempt to change those laws through legal means.
The RFID tag has a range of approximately three feet under optimal conditions. You cannot be tracked by satellite or GPS just because you are wearing or carrying an RFID, and there are no measures in place to make such tags mandatory. In those few locales where it has been proposed, such measures have been roundly and soundly defeated on Constitutional grounds.
This forum is intended for the discussion of Mormon beliefs and theology- not tinfoil hat conspiracies (no matter how tangentially tied in to Mormonism).
For the record, all helicopters look black in flight when viewed from sun up, or more than a mile away.
Given the fact that they can't take over one hurricane-ravaged city in Louisiana, FEMA seems particularly ill-suited to take over the entire country, let alone the world.
Satan's minions at least have the virtue of being competent.
Last warning- No more fringe conspiracy stuff. Threads will be deleted and posters restricted.
Please do not hotlink to fringe political sites- they are generally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Thread closed.
-
Laxatives.....
(Don't ask)
Doan's Back Pills- and don't go there.
-
So, are those snippets untrue? Or, are they taken out of context? Can you provide the context to better explain these quotes?
Follower- those snippets are out of context, or not endorsed by the Church as canon, or flatly denounced by the Church- as you yourself noted.
Your innocent act is wearing thin- it is highly improbable that you could have drug these quotes from the obscure reaches of Mormondom without any idea of their standing and acceptance.
Your attempt to portay these quotes as conveying the official position of the Church is dishonest, and not in keeping with the behavior of a true follower of Christ.
This will be your final warning.
This site is for congenial discussion of Mormon beleifs- it is not for propogandizing nor for proselyting.
If you wish to spread falsehoods, you may do so elsewhere.
One more thing- I noticed that you've been editting your posts to do away with the direct corrections you've received from the mods.
One more strike, and you're gone.
-
First of all, the tone of the challenge I am recieving is not good. I have seen this before, and it is unbecoming of members of Christ's Church. It promotes silence.
John 5:19 – Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, Verily, I say unto you, The Son doeth nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son also.
The Son doeth what he hath seen the Father do; then the Father hath some day laid down his life and taken it again.
History of the Church, J Smith, V5:426
The book of John was originally written in Greek. The key to this verse is the word “seeth”. “What he seeth the Father do”. In Greek, John used the verb “plebo”. The most common use of plebo is “to see with one’s own eyes”. The most accurate definition is “to observe accurately”. The emphasis is on the person doing the perceiving. Essentially, it means “to witness”. If Jesus witnessed an atonement performed by Heavenly Father, what form would Jesus have had at that time. Since Heavenly Father was not yet a celestial man, then Jesus could not yet have been born as a spirit body. Therefore, if Jesus observed the atonement performed by Heavenly Father, he would have been an intelligence.
Joseph Smith said concerning John 5:19:
If Jesus was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that he had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way.
History of the church, J Smith, V6:476
In the Journal of Discourses, Heber C. Kimball said the following While opening a meeting in prayer:
I pray that I may have the spirit of my Father and my God, and the spirit of Jesus, my elder brother, who is like unto his Father; and a pray that I may partake of the spirit of the Holy Ghost, which is in the same family and lineage. (V4:362)
The phrase “in the same lineage” is interesting. Why not just stop the sentence with “in the same family”. Why was “in the same lineage” added? If you assume that Holy Ghost is a spirit brother to Jesus, the term “same lineage” is redundant to “same family”.
There is more if you want it, but it brings in many other issues that will sidetrack the topic.
So I will end this entry with this comment - you state "then why would you say these things here?" What is so special about this website that one cannot discuss this topic. DIscussion is not speculation. If I put in all these quotes at the start, would you have read it, or passed over it as being too lengthy.
When I was a new convert at BYU, I taught a Sunday School lesson on the Plan of Salvation. I made a side comment like "and if Jesus had not atoned for us, we would all become angels to the devil". You should have seen the reaction I got. People got HOT real fast. They demanded a citation of validation of that teaching. Here it is: 2 NE 9:8-9. It states that teaching very clearly. When I told them the cite, the russling of pages all over the room was something I will never forget. I was a new convert, and had read the BOM only once. Most of the people in the room were born in the Church, yet the did not know this. As you read this, did you know that teaching? If not, why not? I submit that you did not know it because members do not study the doctrine enough - they just repeat what they hear - and what we hear are the simple truths that are appropriate for public meetings because investigators are present.
Do you see now why I am speaking out? You are doctrinally bigoted - which promotes silence and lack of learning.
Understanding our wonderful doctrine is not done through dictation - it is done through study.
For example - I was challenged earlier to provide a reference for the term "Ahman".
It was very easy to find - how come you didn't do that first before challenging me for a citation?
Bruce R McKonkie once said that he regretted having written "Mormon Doctrine". When asked wy, he said that members go to his writings first before the scriptures. I think there is more to that than meets the eye. The reason they go to Mormon Doctrine is that there is comfort in being dictated to. It is easier to recieve than to dig. It is easier to challenge than to look it up.
Lars,
This board is for congenial discussion of LDS beliefs, not unfounded speculation based on cherry-picked scriptures, not debate, and certainly not for name calling.
Finally, you accuse us of using the scriptures to promote silence. Scripture can also be used to promote heresy, which is why we choose to err on the side of caution.
You were asked to: 1) provide citation for your assertions, and 2) avoid discussing something speculative which you yourself admitted was not appropriate for discussion in Church.
Your response was argumentative, hostile, and abusive.
Because of your aggressive tone, name calling, and third failure to offer citation (and lambasting us for not tracking it down for you) you will be suspended for three days. Please come back in a more suitable frame of mind. One that does not include accusations of bigotry.
That will not be tolerated here.
Come see us in three days.
Honos
-
Larsumms, your link is broken. Try again.
-
UMW is a heretical apostatized organization that is corrupting the true gospel of the SSCE.
Heretics and heathens be they.
For they try to make others sway.
With their knowledge and beauty
And charm that’s a plenty
Dirty Harry’s trying to make their day.
Tread lightly, Doctor Stuess.
Even the moderators have only so much ability to physically protect you from the wrath you are incurring.
It is possible that even we have been corrupted by the evil that are UMW's.
Also, this board intended for amicable discussion.
We don't want your petty sectarian strife to expose the entire Mormon conspiracy!
Blacks and the Priesthood
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
First and foremost- the Church's official answer to when and how the policy began is "We don't know."
Brigham Young also ordained and set apart African-American priesthood holders.
There may have been revelation, or there may not. No record of such a revelation has been produced, but that doesn't mean there was no revelation. There was a tremendous amount of turmoil between the murder of the Prophet Joseph Smith and properly organizing matters in Utah.
There was a tremendous amount of turmoil during the persecutions over polygamy- with the Church offices and property seized by the government.
There is no record of such a revelation, but lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. The revelation may not have been properly recorded or the record may have been lost in all the persecutions.
The Church's answer is correct: We don't know.
Also, the ban was based on lineage, not race, though the two were often conflated. Neither was the concept a Mormon invention- look at our history.
By comparison, the Mormon Church was and remains downright progressive on matters of race- especially when compared to our Protestant brethren.
Your accusation of racism is misplaced, however popular the sophistry might be.