Mormon Myths

[LionHeart]

Here's a clue Eistein, being a racist doesn't mean you are prejudiced towards all races. Some Jews are prejudice towards blacks, some Asians dislike hispanics, some caucasian think that black skin is a curse from God.

Well, I hope, for my sake that American Indians are not among your prejudices; considering the LDS beliefs about their origins and all.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Here's a clue Eistein, being a racist doesn't mean you are prejudiced towards all races. Some Jews are prejudice towards blacks, some Asians dislike hispanics, some caucasian think that black skin is a curse from God.

Well, I hope, for my sake that American Indians are not among your prejudices; considering the LDS beliefs about their origins and all.

You, Lionheart, are lying.

There is not one single thing you can find that I have ever posted that is even remotely racist.

[Outshined]

Did you know that when you point your finger at someone, three fingers point back in your direction?

Cool! You might bear that in mind...

[Aristotle]

You just did it again... LOL

[Outshined]

Wow! So did you!

[Aristotle]

Haha...so I did! Well, I have a proposal...beginning a sentence with you is a blaming statement...it is accusatory. So instead of using blaming statements, let's all try using "feel" statements, so we won't offend one another (unless, of course, that's the intent!).

Instead of saying, "YOU did this or that", say: "I felt [such and such] when you said or did [whatever].

So I'll be the first to try it:

"Outshined, I feel hurt, embarassed, falsely accused, misunderstood, demeaned, etc., when you use YOU, or "blaming" statements."

[Outshined]

Haha...so I did! Well, I have a proposal...beginning a sentence with you is a blaming statement...it is accusatory. So instead of using blaming statements, let's all try using "feel" statements, so we won't offend one another (unless, of course, that's the intent!).

Instead of saying, "YOU did this or that", say: "I felt [such and such] when you said or did [whatever].

Interesting idea.

We'll try it!

[Aristotle]

Interesting idea.

We'll try it!

Heehaw! ;-)

[Snow]

Haha...so I did! Well, I have a proposal...beginning a sentence with you is a blaming statement...it is accusatory.

Of course I used a blaming statement. I blamed Lionheart for telling a deliberate lie about me. He did it twice. I meant it to be accusatory.

I thought about calling him an outright LIAR, as opposed to merely saying that he was lying (you know - blaming the behavior, not the person, but settled on the somewhat softer approach.

This is the thing about my posting... yeah, it's kinda in your face but I try to be very honest about it. When someone, say Lionheart, tries to deliberately promote a falsehood about me - he should be caught and exposed. I could be more subtle about it and clever in the phraseology but he committed an overt act and so I made an overt response.

Occasionally I go overboard and am too confrontational with people that aren't really as ill-intentioned as I suppose them to be so I try to stay open to feedback and am willing to reassess my opinion.

Take you Aristotle - It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you are making an effort to be a better intentioned poster. I don't know that to be true and others may agree or not, but so it seems to me and so I have steered a little bit clear of you lately. It's not that I agree with you more than I use to, just that I am trying to be fair.

But when Lionheart lies, I feel no compunction about saying that he lies.

[Aristotle]

Take you Aristotle - It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you are making an effort to be a better intentioned poster. I don't know that to be true and others may agree or not, but so it seems to me and so I have steered a little bit clear of you lately. It's not that I agree with you more than I use to, just that I am trying to be fair.

Then I commend you!

[LionHeart]

You, Lionheart, are lying.

There is not one single thing you can find that I have ever posted that is even remotely racist.

It's not fun being on the recieving end of criminal accusations, is it?

I want to offer my apologies for saying that you are racist. You are right; it is obvious that you are not. I actually admire your strong stance against it.

Let's take a look at this verse from Mark: 7, 25-27

25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:

26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

Now, if Jesus were on Earth today and made this statement, would He get sued for racism? Absolutely.

Do I dare say He was wrong for making this statement? Absolutely not.

Does it make me racist for saying the He wasn't wrong for making this statement? I think not.

I will leave it at that.

[Snow]

Let's take a look at this verse from Mark: 7, 25-27

25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:

26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

Now, if Jesus were on Earth today and made this statement, would He get sued for racism? Absolutely.

Do I dare say He was wrong for making this statement? Absolutely not.

Does it make me racist for saying the He wasn't wrong for making this statement? I think not.

I will leave it at that.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Christ didn't say anything disparaging about the woman let alone say anything disparaging about BECAUSE she was Greek. No one in their right mind would consider the story racist.

Though it is besides the point... Most cases of unclean spirits in the Bible are really about epilepsy which superstious folks attributed to unclean spirits. Futhermore, the author of Mark never met Christ personally and so probably had very little idea about exactly what Christ said.

[Guest Syble]

<div class='quotemain'>

Haha...so I did! Well, I have a proposal...beginning a sentence with you is a blaming statement...it is accusatory.

Of course I used a blaming statement. I blamed Lionheart for telling a deliberate lie about me. He did it twice. I meant it to be accusatory.

I thought about calling him an outright LIAR, as opposed to merely saying that he was lying (you know - blaming the behavior, not the person, but settled on the somewhat softer approach.

This is the thing about my posting... yeah, it's kinda in your face but I try to be very honest about it. When someone, say Lionheart, tries to deliberately promote a falsehood about me - he should be caught and exposed. I could be more subtle about it and clever in the phraseology but he committed an overt act and so I made an overt response.

Occasionally I go overboard and am too confrontational with people that aren't really as ill-intentioned as I suppose them to be so I try to stay open to feedback and am willing to reassess my opinion.

Take you Aristotle - It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that you are making an effort to be a better intentioned poster. I don't know that to be true and others may agree or not, but so it seems to me and so I have steered a little bit clear of you lately. It's not that I agree with you more than I use to, just that I am trying to be fair.

But when Lionheart lies, I feel no compunction about saying that he lies.

I am going to put this post in a file for when Maureen comes and attacks me telling me that I am the one attacking. This post of yours really folds it altogether.

[sgallan]

I am going to put this post in a file for when Maureen comes and attacks me telling me that I am the one attacking.

Ahh.... the two wrongs makes a right defense. Way to take the high road....

[LionHeart]

<div class='quotemain'>

Let's take a look at this verse from Mark: 7, 25-27

25 For a certain woman, whose young daughter had an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell at his feet:

26 The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

27 But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.

Now, if Jesus were on Earth today and made this statement, would He get sued for racism? Absolutely.

Do I dare say He was wrong for making this statement? Absolutely not.

Does it make me racist for saying the He wasn't wrong for making this statement? I think not.

I will leave it at that.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Christ didn't say anything disparaging about the woman let alone say anything disparaging about BECAUSE she was Greek. No one in their right mind would consider the story racist.

Though it is besides the point... Most cases of unclean spirits in the Bible are really about epilepsy which superstious folks attributed to unclean spirits. Futhermore, the author of Mark never met Christ personally and so probably had very little idea about exactly what Christ said.

Actually, this same story can also be found in the book of Matthew. And if one reads the whole story, it becomes quite obvious that the reason Christ made that statement to the woman was because she was not an Israelite. Many people would scream "Racist".

Now, the point I was making is that the bible is full of things that many people would consider racist.

For someone to profess a belief that the bible is true, does not make them a racist. If it does, then, by all means, call me a racist; because I believe the bible is true.

[Snow]

Actually, this same story can also be found in the book of Matthew. And if one reads the whole story, it becomes quite obvious that the reason Christ made that statement to the woman was because she was not an Israelite. Many people would scream "Racist".

Now, the point I was making is that the bible is full of things that many people would consider racist.

For someone to profess a belief that the bible is true, does not make them a racist. If it does, then, by all means, call me a racist; because I believe the bible is true.

Okay, I see your point. I don't think that racism is the intended message and different commentaries offer differing interpretations (referring to Jews and Gentiles) but Christ seems to be comparing her to the dogs.

[Guest Syble]

I am going to put this post in a file for when Maureen comes and attacks me telling me that I am the one attacking.

Ahh.... the two wrongs makes a right defense. Way to take the high road....

Always fighting fire with fire bro.

[sgallan]

Always fighting fire with fire bro.

Indeed. Actual religious shooting wars have been known to get started in this way. Non-religious ones as well. It's kind of why if there 'were' a worldwide religion, Buddhism is probably the best one. Though not perfect, they seem less violent than the more god based ones. And the Dalai Lama rocks.

[Maureen]

I am going to put this post in a file for when Maureen comes and attacks me telling me that I am the one attacking. This post of yours really folds it altogether.

You do that Syble, but I don't know how that will help you. When you are being unfair to another poster and someone calls you on it, I don't see how Snow's words will help you when you are in fact in the wrong.

M.

[LionHeart]

You do that Syble, but I don't know how that will help you. When you are being unfair to another poster and someone calls you on it, I don't see how Snow's words will help you when you are in fact in the wrong.

M.

Look at her avatar while reading this. It really gives you the feeling of being in the hot seat.

[Aristotle]

I like Syble's avatar. :-)

[Frenchy]

Hello everybody, nice to meet you all.

The topic of Mormon myths is very interesting as there are some dangerous myths in the Church.

1) We must be in white shirt and tie to serve in the priesthood, especially to pass the Sacrements. That's a really stupid myth. I asked my Mission President once about that one and he told me there weren't such rules in the leaders purple book. I'm very bothered with these rule as a few peopl in the Church want to impose it to others. A few months ago I visited a ward. I was dress with a blue shirt and a nice pink tie. The second counselor told me I shouldn't dress like that for church. He told me white shirt and blue tie is the standard, the rule. I asked him to show it to me in his leader's manual. He wasn't able to but still maintained it was a divine rule. And as a member of the bishopric he felt it was his duty to impose it to others.

2) Coca-Cola is against the Word of Wisdom. Again, that's a false teaching too many members impose to others. When missionaries teach the WofW they preach against: tabacco, coffee, tea and alcohol.

I don't mind people having those white shirt rules and anti-coca-cola rules for themselves. But what I dislike is when people impose those rules to others. That's pharisianism.

Another VERY DANGEROUS and RACIST myth is: blacks didn't have the priesthood as they are descendants of Caïn and as they were bad in the pre-earth life. That's a racist and horrible false doctrine. Officialy, the Church as no stands on why the blacks didn't have the priesthood. Historically, well, just read the novel "Standing on the promises" (published by Deseret Book)

[LionHeart]

I like Syble's avatar. :-)

No, Maureen's avatar.

[LionHeart]

1) We must be in white shirt and tie to serve in the priesthood, especially to pass the Sacrements. That's a really stupid myth. I asked my Mission President once about that one and he told me there weren't such rules in the leaders purple book. I'm very bothered with these rule as a few peopl in the Church want to impose it to others. A few months ago I visited a ward. I was dress with a blue shirt and a nice pink tie. The second counselor told me I shouldn't dress like that for church. He told me white shirt and blue tie is the standard, the rule. I asked him to show it to me in his leader's manual. He wasn't able to but still maintained it was a divine rule. And as a member of the bishopric he felt it was his duty to impose it to others.

Nice to meet you too.

I believe the white shirt idea comes from Gordon B. Hinckley suggesting that people come to church with at least a white shirt. I never heard anything about a blue tie though. I think it evolved from here. For example: 'If the general membership is expected to wear a white shirt then certainly it is a must for the people passing out the sacrament.' But that is probably why that counselor couldn't find it in his manual. It's funny how this works, isn't it?

[Aristotle]

False member teachings are what cause many to go inactive.

P.S. Nice to meet you too, Frenchy!