Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The topic

Expand Messages
  • darth_gollum
    I was in a bad mood at the time of composing that message. You can tell partly because of my poor grammar. I am somewhat of a perfectionist about that sort
    Message 1 of 5 , Jun 25, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      I was in a bad mood at the time of composing that message. You can
      tell partly because of my poor grammar. I am somewhat of a
      perfectionist about that sort of thing :)

      Anyhow, I am feeling better, and less bitter. I am part of many
      Yahoo! groups. Many of them are devoted to the slander of my faith.
      As one who is familiar with anti-Mormon attacks from without and
      within the Restoration movement, I am not bothered, and I almost
      always maintain my silence, or give rational rebuttals. However, my
      understanding was that this forum was for more formal discussion, and
      if we had disagreement, it would be in a more professional tone. I
      was not anticipating criticism of such nature, and have generally seen
      greater respect among the other differing faiths. "The LDS Church is
      a cult because everyone knows that," was simply not the kind of thing
      I would expect. Perhaps I should be more vocal on this board, simply
      to be the defender of the faith I hold dear.

      But I don't plan on speaking critically of another faith, unless I do
      it with the most respect. Sorry for "griping," and for helping me to
      cool my head a bit.

      --- In LDSgroups@yahoogroups.com, Robert McKay <goffscalifornia@...>
      wrote:
      >
      >
      > On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:19:41 -0000 "darth_gollum"
      > <darth_gollum@...> writes:
      >
      > > Why on earth would someone join a group that discusses the many
      > > facets
      > > of the Restoration movement, inculding churches far less
      > > "mainstream"
      > > than mine, and pick the largest group as a target of criticism?
      >
      > There are many potential reasons. The question is defensive, not
      > rational. But to the point...
      >
      > > And to accuse my church as THE church of phalluses, innuendo, and
      > > abuse is absurd.
      >
      > That's true - but bootless. Such has not occurred here. No one has
      said
      > that the LDS church possesses this nature and other organizations do
      not.
      > If I say "That cat is lazy" no one would conclude that I hold that only
      > that cat is lazy; they would - rightly - conclude that the cat of
      which I
      > spoke was lazy. To say "The LDS church is X" is not in any way a
      > statement that "Only the LDS church is X."
      >
      > And since this list is about *all* the many contradictory facets of the
      > latter day saint movement to forbid discussions of the LDS church simply
      > because it's the largest of those facets would be irrational in the
      > extreme. I'm neither the moderator, nor the son of one, but I think
      it's
      > safe to say that only in a list which is decidely pro-LDS (either openly
      > or, as is most often the case, in spite of protestations to the
      contrary)
      > would such a prohibition occur.
      >
      > The upshot is: The LDS church is as much a "target" here as any other
      > facet of the latter day saint movement. If more people are aware of the
      > church, and consequently more people have something to say on the
      > subject, that is hardly the fault of the speaker - nor, for that matter,
      > is the highly offensive nature of what the church has said, and does
      say,
      > about every other church on earth, and which is (as any rational person
      > surely can understand) a provocation that some people can't pass by in
      > silence.
      >
      > Rather than griping, why not speak of some other organization? They are
      > all, after all, on topic here. Perhaps you could discuss why there are
      > so many "only true churches"...
      >
      > Robert McKay
      > goffscalifornia@...
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Well, excuuuuuuuuuuse me!
      >
    • Patlabb@aol.com
      This seems to be the problem whenever any discussion of the LDS Church comes up. Any discussion is considered an attack , yet the LDS Church in official
      Message 2 of 5 , Jun 26, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        This seems to be the problem whenever any discussion of the LDS Church comes up. Any discussion is considered an "attack", yet the LDS Church in official doctrine calls all other churches as the Church of the Devil. They are, of course, entitled to their opinion. As many of you know until the early 1990's the LDS Temple ceremony had a minister portrayed that was in the pay of the devil. So if they come under criticism it should not be any surprise.
         
         
        So lets discuss doctrine and where LDS doctrine differs from traditional Christianity instead.
         
        TRADTIONAL CHRISTIANITY: THE TRINITY
        LDS CHRSTIANINTY: GOD THE MOTHER, GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON ETC...
         
        TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY: ETERNAL UNCHANGABLE NATURE OF GOD
        LDS CHRISTIANITY: GOD WAS ONCE A MAN WHO BECAME GOD...HUMANS CAN PROGRESS TO GODHOOD.
         
        TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY: SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE.
        LDS CHRISTIANITY: TEMPLE WORKS ARE NECCESARY FOR THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SALVATION
         
        TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY: VIRGIN BIRTH BY MIRACOULOUS MEANS
        LDS CHRISTIANITY: GOD THE FATHER HAD PHYSICAL SEX WITH MARY
         
         
        The above are only a few of the more esoteric teachings of the LDS Church.
         
         
      • glynndvs
        Pat, I fail to understand the why of your last post. As a quick intro - I happen to be LDS but I appreciate very much some of the other Restoration churches
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Pat,

          I fail to understand the "why" of your last post.

          As a quick intro - I happen to be LDS but I appreciate very much some
          of the other Restoration churches out there. I am critical about some
          of them and am also critical at times about my own affiliation.

          Now, to come back to my initial question. Why this post? It feels a
          bit like your are encouraging the ill feelings.

          Why that LDS versus "Traditional Christianity" list ? Why in the
          world should we bother with Traditional Christianity ? Isn't the
          whole point of the Restoration to r e s t o r e ? Who cares then
          about "Traditional Christianity" ? I fail to understand your point
          Pat. As a matter of fact, it is quite encouraging to be reminded by
          you that the LDS is no "Traditional Christianity".

          Below I will allude some times to the CofC because I know you you are
          member of that church. A church I appreciate very much and whose
          history is fascinating. (I am a big fan of section 160 and 161 in the
          CofC D&C.)

          > TRADTIONAL CHRISTIANITY: THE TRINITY
          > LDS CHRSTIANINTY: GOD THE MOTHER, GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON
          ETC...

          You probably know that some other Christian groups came to the same
          conclusion, based on the Bible only. Again, I am not promoting any
          set of beliefs here (it is not the aim of this website to do so - as
          a reminder) but I just feel the right to respond and show the flaws
          of your post.

          As for Traditional interpretation, Israel A. Smith advocated a Two-
          Person Godhead, not a THREE-Person Godhead, with the Holy Spirit as
          non personnal. And he had every right to believe so. Again, is
          it "Traditional Christianity"?

          > TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY: ETERNAL UNCHANGABLE NATURE OF GOD
          > LDS CHRISTIANITY: GOD WAS ONCE A MAN WHO BECAME GOD...HUMANS CAN
          PROGRESS TO
          > GODHOOD.

          I know of many groups believing so, non-Mormons. All the many
          churches that sprang forth from the Worldwide Church of God
          (Armstrong) for example. Bible only churches.

          > TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY: SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE.
          > LDS CHRISTIANITY: TEMPLE WORKS ARE NECCESARY FOR THE HIGHEST LEVEL
          OF
          > SALVATION

          I don't know of ANY Restoration group that believes so - Community of
          Christ included.

          > TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY: VIRGIN BIRTH BY MIRACOULOUS MEANS
          > LDS CHRISTIANITY: GOD THE FATHER HAD PHYSICAL SEX WITH MARY

          As a former LDS, you should know (or do know) that the LDS does NOT
          teach such a doctrine. I was missionary for 2 years in the Carribean
          and South America for 2 years and never taught that. I have neem a
          mener of the LDS for many years and NEVER heard that in any sermons.
          Of course, I know it has been discussed by certain church members in
          the past but then again in should be unfair to conclude that the CofC
          believes in a plurality of Gods because they have officially endorsed
          the doctrine in the past (along with the Pearl of Great price).
          Beliefs change, evolve, are refined by the inspiration we receive
          from our Heavenly Father.

          As for what follows:

          >As many of you know until the early 1990's
          > the LDS Temple ceremony had a minister portrayed that was in the
          pay of the
          > devil. So if they come under criticism it should not be any
          surprise.

          You know that the Temple is NOT discussed outside the Temple by LDS
          people. You know also the importance to stick to this as a former
          LDS. Of course you are not bound by this. It's just a question of
          ethics and respect.

          Don't get me wrong Pat. Again, I am NOT advocating any set of beliefs
          here, not even LDS ones. Should I want to that, there are other
          websites. I just think it is not fair to criticize / proselyte here.
          LDSgroups is about sharing knowledge, in my understanding.

          I am by far NOT into LDS apologetics. But I must confess that there
          is usually an aura of respectability aroung Restoration churches in
          discussions but when it comes to the LDS, then that aura is becoming
          but a faint vapour. Why is that?

          My whole point is - If we are looking for Traditional Christianity,
          then shouldnt we consider joining the Baptist church ie. instead of
          adhering to the Restoration ?

          I apologize for my lenghty reaction but I feel it legitimate. No ill
          feelings whatsoever. And by the way, I used to like your articles in
          the World Messenger !

          Bonne journee mon ami Quebecois (d'origine je suppose).

          Kind regards,

          Glynn




          --- In LDSgroups@yahoogroups.com, Patlabb@... wrote:
          >
          > This seems to be the problem whenever any discussion of the LDS
          Church comes
          > up. Any discussion is considered an "attack", yet the LDS Church
          in official
          > doctrine calls all other churches as the Church of the Devil. They
          are, of
          > course, entitled to their opinion. As many of you know until the
          early 1990's
          > the LDS Temple ceremony had a minister portrayed that was in the
          pay of the
          > devil. So if they come under criticism it should not be any
          surprise.
          >
          >
          > So lets discuss doctrine and where LDS doctrine differs from
          traditional
          > Christianity instead.
          >
          > TRADTIONAL CHRISTIANITY: THE TRINITY
          > LDS CHRSTIANINTY: GOD THE MOTHER, GOD THE FATHER, GOD THE SON
          ETC...
          >
          > TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY: ETERNAL UNCHANGABLE NATURE OF GOD
          > LDS CHRISTIANITY: GOD WAS ONCE A MAN WHO BECAME GOD...HUMANS CAN
          PROGRESS TO
          > GODHOOD.
          >
          > TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY: SALVATION BY GRACE ALONE.
          > LDS CHRISTIANITY: TEMPLE WORKS ARE NECCESARY FOR THE HIGHEST LEVEL
          OF
          > SALVATION
          >
          > TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY: VIRGIN BIRTH BY MIRACOULOUS MEANS
          > LDS CHRISTIANITY: GOD THE FATHER HAD PHYSICAL SEX WITH MARY
          >
          >
          > The above are only a few of the more esoteric teachings of the LDS
          Church.
          >
          >
          >
          > _Patrick C. L'abbe RN MSN _ (http://www.hometown.aol.com/patlabb)
          >
          >
          > Je me souviens!
          >
        • David King Landrith
          Well, Robert, I m pretty irritated at your response to darth gollum, even if he s not--more irritated by it than I am by the patlabb s original comment. Since
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 5, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Well, Robert, I'm pretty irritated at your response to darth gollum,
            even if he's not--more irritated by it than I am by the patlabb's
            original comment. Since darth gollum's response is evidently
            inappropriate, what is the appropriate response? Should I shoot back
            by telling all about the annoying CoC people I know and how they've
            tried to ruin my life and then pretend that's relevant to discussing
            the CoC church in general?

            If the idea of this list is to discuss the merits of belief or
            disbelief in a certain brand of restoration faith, then I
            misunderstood it. If the idea was to provide a forum that included
            speaking pejoratively of other people's brands of restoration faith
            (e.g., calling it a cult or trying to hold the organization
            responsible for the acts of its members as in "_they_ told my ex-wife
            to divorce me since I was an apostate" where the antecedent is "The
            Mormon Church" [emphasis added]), then you can count me out.

            Moreover, if you want to avoid a bunch of flame wars over the
            validity of the churches that purport to follow Joseph Smith's
            teachings (and those of his various purported successors), then it
            needs to be dealt with right out of the shoot rather than by
            criticizing those who take umbrage with it.


            On Jun 26, 2006, at 12:21 AM, darth_gollum wrote:
            > I was in a bad mood at the time of composing that message. You can
            > tell partly because of my poor grammar. I am somewhat of a
            > perfectionist about that sort of thing :)
            >
            > Anyhow, I am feeling better, and less bitter. I am part of many
            > Yahoo! groups. Many of them are devoted to the slander of my faith.
            > As one who is familiar with anti-Mormon attacks from without and
            > within the Restoration movement, I am not bothered, and I almost
            > always maintain my silence, or give rational rebuttals. However, my
            > understanding was that this forum was for more formal discussion, and
            > if we had disagreement, it would be in a more professional tone. I
            > was not anticipating criticism of such nature, and have generally seen
            > greater respect among the other differing faiths. "The LDS Church is
            > a cult because everyone knows that," was simply not the kind of thing
            > I would expect. Perhaps I should be more vocal on this board, simply
            > to be the defender of the faith I hold dear.
            >
            > But I don't plan on speaking critically of another faith, unless I do
            > it with the most respect. Sorry for "griping," and for helping me to
            > cool my head a bit.
            >
            >> --- In LDSgroups@yahoogroups.com, Robert McKay
            >> <goffscalifornia@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 19:19:41 -0000 "darth_gollum" <darth_gollum@...>
            >> writes:
            >>
            >>> Why on earth would someone join a group that discusses the many
            >>> facets of the Restoration movement, inculding churches far less
            >>> "mainstream" than mine, and pick the largest group as a target of
            >>> criticism?
            >>
            >> There are many potential reasons. The question is defensive, not
            >> rational. But to the point...
            >>
            >>> And to accuse my church as THE church of phalluses, innuendo, and
            >>> abuse is absurd.
            >>
            >> That's true - but bootless. Such has not occurred here. No one has
            >> said that the LDS church possesses this nature and other
            >> organizations do not. If I say "That cat is lazy" no one would
            >> conclude that I hold that only that cat is lazy; they would -
            >> rightly - conclude that the cat of which I spoke was lazy. To say
            >> "The LDS church is X" is not in any way a statement that "Only the
            >> LDS church is X."
            >>
            >> And since this list is about *all* the many contradictory facets of
            >> the latter day saint movement to forbid discussions of the LDS
            >> church simply because it's the largest of those facets would be
            >> irrational in the extreme. I'm neither the moderator, nor the son of
            >> one, but I think it's safe to say that only in a list which is
            >> decidely pro-LDS (either openly or, as is most often the case, in
            >> spite of protestations to the contrary) would such a prohibition
            >> occur.
            >>
            >> The upshot is: The LDS church is as much a "target" here as any
            >> other facet of the latter day saint movement. If more people are
            >> aware of the church, and consequently more people have something to
            >> say on the subject, that is hardly the fault of the speaker - nor,
            >> for that matter, is the highly offensive nature of what the church
            >> has said, and does say, about every other church on earth, and which
            >> is (as any rational person surely can understand) a provocation that
            >> some people can't pass by in silence.
            >>
            >> Rather than griping, why not speak of some other organization? They
            >> are all, after all, on topic here. Perhaps you could discuss why
            >> there are so many "only true churches"...
            >>
            >> Robert McKay
            >>
            >> goffscalifornia@...
            >>

            -------------------------------------------------------
            David King Landrith
            (w) 617.227.4469x213
            (h) 617.696.7133

            One useless man is a disgrace, two
            are called a law firm, and three or more
            become a congress -- John Adams
            -------------------------------------------------------
            public key available upon request
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.