Guest Starsky Posted February 19, 2004 Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Feb 19 2004, 02:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 19 2004, 02:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--elinz@Feb 19 2004, 12:12 PM I read through many of the issues he has with the church.He's part Cherokee and his wife is Samoan, that in itselfwould put some fear in him given the churches history.Plus he finds the idea of male dominance a problem. Muchof his thinking seems to be a reaction to his wifes experiencesand input.From my perspective I see how far the secular world haspushed women out of the motherly role. I think that it isa mistake for us to be doing this. It smacks of ancientrome. I'm not sure what his ethnic background has to do with anything. Chris is Scottish. Are you sure about the Cherokee Indian/ Samoan thing? I must have missed that. I also don't understand your comments about Roman women. They could own property, but were never equal to Roman men. Do you have a problem with societies who give their women rights equal to mens? Curvette...you know he is young in the church...right?OOOOOO Elinz becareful when you are speaking to Mormon women and 'equality'....LOL Dangerous territory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elinz Posted February 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by curvette@Feb 19 2004, 03:28 PMThey could own property, but were never equal to Roman men. Do you have a problem with societies who give their women rights equal to mens?Early Rome was like early America, women had little freedom.But in late Rome, like in late America, women had freedom.And the Roman women often became "party girls" that skippedhaving kids (they had birth control secrets) and went to the orgiesand boozed it up on wine."I, Claudius" was a great tv series."The wives are together in a separate part of the baths getting a rub down. Julia establishes herself as self indulgent and sexually liberal while Antonia is clearly traditional and conservative. Julia implies that Tiberius has deviant sexual tastes, which she could probably stand if only he would pay more attention to her. "http://www.historyinfilm.com/claudius/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted February 19, 2004 Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by elinz+Feb 19 2004, 03:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (elinz @ Feb 19 2004, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 19 2004, 03:28 PMThey could own property, but were never equal to Roman men. Do you have a problem with societies who give their women rights equal to mens?Early Rome was like early America, women had little freedom.But in late Rome, like in late America, women had freedom.And the Roman women often became "party girls" that skippedhaving kids (they had birth control secrets) and went to the orgiesand boozed it up on wine."I, Claudius" was a great tv series."The wives are together in a separate part of the baths getting a rub down. Julia establishes herself as self indulgent and sexually liberal while Antonia is clearly traditional and conservative. Julia implies that Tiberius has deviant sexual tastes, which she could probably stand if only he would pay more attention to her. "http://www.historyinfilm.com/claudius/ I'm sure that the elite women of Rome had much more sexual freedom than their average female counterparts. You'll find this in almost all elite societies. There was no time in the Roman Empire that the average Roman woman was attending orgies. Besides all that, it's so incredibly sexist to tolerate men's sexual fetishes and be totally shocked at women's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted February 19, 2004 Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by Peace@Feb 19 2004, 02:31 PM Curvette...you know he is young in the church...right?OOOOOO Elinz becareful when you are speaking to Mormon women and 'equality'....LOL Dangerous territory! Who is young in the church? Chris Tolworthy or Elinz? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elinz Posted February 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by curvette@Feb 19 2004, 05:43 PMI'm sure that the elite women of Rome had much more sexual freedom than their average female counterparts. You'll find this in almost all elite societies. There was no time in the Roman Empire that the average Roman woman was attending orgies. Besides all that, it's so incredibly sexist to tolerate men's sexual fetishes and be totally shocked at women's.The city of Rome became a big draw for people of all kinds. Thepractice of free bread and wine during festivals prompted everyonewithin the city to partake. Maybe in the contryside things werequite, but in Rome, whew, PARTY TIME!And both sexes got perverted.Emperer Tiberious was known for his fondness for young boys... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elinz Posted February 19, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2004 Originally posted by Peace@Feb 19 2004, 03:31 PMOOOOOO Elinz be careful when you are speaking to Mormon women and 'equality'....LOL Dangerous territory!Is there a proto-feminist movement going on?A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by curvette@Feb 19 2004, 11:15 AM Better yet, visit his newer website:http://home.comcast.net/~zarahemla/ctr/index.htm He’s a putz. I remember stumbling upon whyprophets website and being excited, it looked so shiny and smooth that I figgared that it had to contain some powerful medicine. Digging into it, however, revealed a lot of show and not so much go.Now he’s putting his think’n skills to show that the Church ain’t so good. I haven’t bothered to read his new site, cept the opening page but I can tell that it is as putzy as he is. First, while not believing the Church to be true, he basically “lied” for years through his original website and book to convince others and convince himself about the truthfulness of the Church. Not exactly a man of principle.Now he tells us this:I still attend, because my family wants me to. My family is important to me. But for me, ceasing to believe was the only moral choice.He attends Church during the day but works to dissuade others from attending Church at night. Hypocrite. He talks about moral choice but his sense of morality sucks.I created this mini-web site because so many Mormons assume that the church is the best thing for their families.I get a little skeptical when a man without principles starts preaching what is good for families. The express purpose of his site is as a response to Mormons who “assume” the Church is good for them. Barf. He reeks of condescension. He doesn’t even use the word “believe” instead saying “assume” as if Mormons are too lazy or ignorant to have something to back up their thoughts.You should not leave the church unless you seriously want something better.Does he mean something better life his current hypocritical life? No thanks. Decide to choose the right and try to stay in the church as well. If you can do it you are a smarter person than me. Besides his poor choice of words, this says loads about his messed up thinking. Those who rely on their brainpower to obtain happiness or to “choose the right” are almost always found wanting.But I think you will find it impossible. This web site shows why (it is possible to choose the right and stay in the Church)The church's claim of truth Before continuing, we should maybe look at the famous claim that "the church is true." Actually, it isn't. It is easy to show why the church is not "true." First, the church is not the only church to claim to be "the only true" church. The only proof of this is answers to prayers. Unfortunately, these cannot count as proof, so we are left with an empty claim. Prayers and feelings cannot count as proof…This is why I won’t bother reading the rest of his site. He is not a particularly adept or clear thinker. He says it is easy to prove that the Church is not true and then his first argument towards that end is that others make that claim as well. That’s like saying that Tom Cruise can easily be proven to be Tom Cruise because others have claimed to be Tom Cruise as well. Next, he continues that the only proof that the Church is true is “answers to prayers”. By what stroke of genius logic has he determined that his lack of knowledge of other proofs means that there are no other proofs? I would love to see him prove that there are no other proofs. Get back to me; I’ll wait. Remember this is the guy who thinks that true knowledge about the truth is obtainable by being smart. He’s off to a bad start. Next he says that answers to prayers are not proof. Golly; how on earth would he know, in as much as he hasn’t received the answer to MY prayers. Isn’t that a tad presumptuous? The correct statement is that answers to prayers is not a reliable method of proof external to the person receiving the answers and in as much as persons receiving answers, have received contradictory answers, we cannot rely on others answers to guide the rest of us – which is pretty much the Church’s position (each must pursue their own answers) as well but he doesn’t get that part… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elinz Posted February 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 "– which is pretty much the Church’s position (each must pursue their own answers) as well but he doesn’t get that part… " That has been the prevailing theme with all the people who leave, that the church is all about "blind faith" in the end. It's so weird. Even his first website stressed that "blind faith" was against church teachings. First it is, then it isn't, argh! I feel a FUD attack has occurred... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by elinz@Feb 19 2004, 04:52 PM Emperer Tiberious was known for his fondness for young boys... Does that surprise you? Any society that condones and practices slavery has sex slaves and they don't think anything of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by Snow@Feb 19 2004, 05:07 PM This is why I won’t bother reading the rest of his site. He is not a particularly adept or clear thinker. He says it is easy to prove that the Church is not true and then his first argument towards that end is that others make that claim as well. I wonder how someone could go from being such a zealous apologist to being a zealous apostate so quickly. It must stink to be so very extreme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elinz Posted February 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 There have been cases of Republican insiders that seemed to be really strongly positive and then they turn out gay or something and they switch sides and are just as skilled going the other way. He's a very talented writer, but it makes you question his whole credibility in "defining" the church. The question is still: Can you be a Mormon and not be a "literalist"? (or is "blind faith" what it's all about?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Why do some people insist upon calling Faith "blind" ??? Do the same people also consider Love to be blind ??? Just because emotions can't be seen with the physical senses, doesn't mean they are blind. Only the people who can't determine that those things exist are blind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheProudDuck Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by elinz@Feb 19 2004, 06:50 PM The question is still:Can you be a Mormon and not be a "literalist"?(or is "blind faith" what it's all about?) I don't claim to be authorized to rule on who's Mormon and who isn't (mainly because it annoys me when some other Christian elects himsef pope and says that if you only accept one out of the three traditional creeds, you're not Christian), but my personal thinking is that the bare minimum level of belief necessary for a person to be really Mormon is that he needs to believe that there was some divine revelation to Joseph Smith -- that the whole thing wasn't just his own invention.Now, there are degrees of literalism, going from "everything, including the Book of Abraham, is literally, exactly true, exactly as Joseph Smith described it" down through Hugh Nibley's speculations about the Book of Abraham being a kind of catalyst for revelation not strictly tied to the text, to even more metaphorical approaches. But I think one has to believe that there must be a divine spark somewhere if one isn't to be just a MINO ("Mormon in name only") Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by curvette@Feb 19 2004, 06:30 PM I wonder how someone could go from being such a zealous apologist to being a zealous apostate so quickly. It must stink to be so very extreme. As I recall, I talked to him on his message board right before his "apostasy." He was all excited about the revisions he made to his book The Bible Says 1830, which I take is his exposition showing that the Bible has pointed the way and predicted the restoration via the LDS Church's founding in 1830. He was a bit bummed out that scholars thought he was a joke, but enthusiatic and resolved to keep up his work. Next thing you know he is in total meltdown mode and now he says he was never a believer, that his work was an attempt to convince himself. That's dishonest. Why people feel the need to publically deal with all their issue I don't get. I feel for the guy that he has had such a miserable time trying and failing to 'get it,' but have no respect for the way he went about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elinz Posted February 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by Ray@Feb 19 2004, 08:14 PMWhy do some people insist upon calling Faith "blind" ???Do the same people also consider Love to be blind ???Just because emotions can't be seen with the physical senses, doesn't mean they are blind. Only the people who can't determine that those things exist are blind."Blind Faith" is when you believe something in a literal way that contradicts something that science has proven otherwise.Example: Lamanites as Hebrews -> DNA does not match."Faith" can mean that you understand that the literal truth ofthe Bible and BoM are not 100% true, but the ideas inside areof value because they define deeper abstract truths.So I have "Faith" in the bible, even if I lack "Blind Faith". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elinz Posted February 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by Snow+Feb 19 2004, 08:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 19 2004, 08:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 19 2004, 06:30 PM I wonder how someone could go from being such a zealous apologist to being a zealous apostate so quickly. It must stink to be so very extreme. As I recall, I talked to him on his message board right before his "apostasy." He was all excited about the revisions he made to his book The Bible Says 1830, which I take is his exposition showing that the Bible has pointed the way and predicted the restoration via the LDS Church's founding in 1830. He was a bit bummed out that scholars thought he was a joke, but enthusiatic and resolved to keep up his work. Next thing you know he is in total meltdown mode and now he says he was never a believer, that his work was an attempt to convince himself. That's dishonest. Why people feel the need to publically deal with all their issue I don't get. I feel for the guy that he has had such a miserable time trying and failing to 'get it,' but have no respect for the way he went about it.That's why I feel bad about it.He was being very inventive and seemed to be having a goodtime with it all. I like your term "meltdown", it seems to fitwell what must have happened.Another term might be "burnout".If after all that work he realized that the church was laughingat him it would simply ruin anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by elinz+Feb 19 2004, 04:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (elinz @ Feb 19 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Feb 19 2004, 03:31 PMOOOOOO Elinz be careful when you are speaking to Mormon women and 'equality'....LOL Dangerous territory!Is there a proto-feminist movement going on?A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle? Well, I wouldn't say she would be like a fish without a bicycle. Maybe a fish without scenery. LOLIt is just a thing some women, not all, in the church are experiencing since the 60s. It seems to be growing into two camps...those that love being a homebody with hubby ruling the roost, and those that love to be treated as an equal...because they are.I happen to be the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by Snow+Feb 19 2004, 07:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Feb 19 2004, 07:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--curvette@Feb 19 2004, 06:30 PM I wonder how someone could go from being such a zealous apologist to being a zealous apostate so quickly. It must stink to be so very extreme. As I recall, I talked to him on his message board right before his "apostasy." He was all excited about the revisions he made to his book The Bible Says 1830, which I take is his exposition showing that the Bible has pointed the way and predicted the restoration via the LDS Church's founding in 1830. He was a bit bummed out that scholars thought he was a joke, but enthusiatic and resolved to keep up his work. Next thing you know he is in total meltdown mode and now he says he was never a believer, that his work was an attempt to convince himself. That's dishonest. Why people feel the need to publically deal with all their issue I don't get. I feel for the guy that he has had such a miserable time trying and failing to 'get it,' but have no respect for the way he went about it. I watched this as well, but he told me of how his family was being treated at church and that his father and mother had moved in with them and there was a lot of enormous stress...things he wanted to do, felt inspired to do that the church was working against.For instance...he said he felt the Lord wanted him to do the research and get the book out...at the same time the church leadership comes to him and asks him to be the branche president. He feels like it isn't what he is to do, but the church leaders gives him this big guilt trip telling him the Lord wanted him in this calling....then he starts questioning whether he really knows what inspiration is and if he has ever really had it...But he goes ahead and become the BP and does as good a job as he can, trying also to be a good husband and father, and get this book done that he felt was urgent and inspired. He just totally couldn't do everything and couldn't understand why the Lord would ask him to do both and still give his family time.After several years of this, he starts getting treated, along with his kids and wife, like seconds at a pricey store.It just all came down to...whether or not he was really inspired or not and whether the leaders of his area were inspired and how could both be inspired when the end results worked against each other.I totally understand where Chris was coming from and I do think he will work it all out of his system and come back to the light...if not the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Why do some people insist upon calling Faith "blind" ???Do the same people also consider Love to be blind ??? No one is calling all faith blind. Faith and blind faith are two different things. In some ways I do consider love to be blind and in some ways it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest curvette Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 Originally posted by Snow@Feb 19 2004, 07:26 PM Next thing you know he is in total meltdown mode and now he says he was never a believer, that his work was an attempt to convince himself. That's dishonest. I'm interested to know if he's pulled his work from publication. If he has, I'd be convinced of his integrity. Otherwise he's profiting from work he considers dishonest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Starsky Posted February 20, 2004 Report Share Posted February 20, 2004 I think he is just in a great big whirl pool of emotional and spiritual confussion. He hasn't pulled his book, and I think he is just in the process of blowing off the steam that has been being built over many years...it may take as many years to get over it all. In the mean time, I wouldn't call it dishonest for him to sell the book that he worked so hard on....I think down deep he still believes in it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.