Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We also have places where non-Christians ask questions.I've been on LDS forums.
For example, the "LDS Fellowship" forum over on Beliefnet.com openly allows non-Mormons who wish to ask questions and hold discussions; we don't point people elsewhere unless they have a history of openly disruptive action (such as insults and false accusations).
I know.
Unfortunately the God LDS describes is not eternal past and once was a man.
When we say "God" it means a Biblical view of God, which is a Christian view of God. (Word "Christian" came from the Bible).
CF used to call them Unorthodox Christians. Christians.1. CF doesn't call them Christian, they call themselves Christian. It is obvious that CF doesn't call them Christian because they are not allowed in the CO section.
Maybe so, but when I was here, and I held senior positions for a long time, I was seeing a number of complaints coming from mature believers who were surprised. And just couple of days before we had an MSC call when person was flagged when she called someone non-Christian who was Unorthodox, LDS I think.2. I was on staff for 8 years, and those complaints were few and far between. So, that reasoning doesn't fly.
No, no, ... an LDS member wanted to jab a Christian member while debating and stated that Christian God has a wife.3. I am not sure what you are saying. That it looked like a Christian was saying that God had a wife because an LDS member had a Christian icon?
I guess the LDS sense of revenge runs deep. And, FYI, Haun's Mill massacre was in response to an uprising the Saints caused shortly before it happened.
So someone was upset that they got a warning for violating the rules and wanted to find a scapegoat? They wanted to call names and you all agreed it is OK to call names? I guess I'm not understanding.Maybe so, but when I was here, and I held senior positions for a long time, I was seeing a number of complaints coming from mature believers who were surprised. And just couple of days before we had an MSC call when person was flagged when she called someone non-Christian who was Unorthodox, LDS I think.
And saying that it is a heart issue is too confusing??? If that is too confusing to people who call themselves Christian, then I'd say that is a teaching moment rather than a reactionary moment.I also had a number of calls in MSC where I needed to explain why we do not allow Mormons to be called non-Christians.
No, no, ... an LDS member wanted to jab a Christian member while debating and stated that Christian God has a wife.
That LDS member touched too high, he said the Christian God had a wife. He said that because we allow Mormons to be called Christians, hence their God is Christian.
LDS member flamed Christian God.
That is when I understood we made a mistake by identifying Mormons as Christians.
This means CF would not be able to object to anything if Mormons says Christian God has a wife.
CF used to call them Unorthodox Christians. Christians.
It is very confusing for new believers when CF call them Christians.
Maybe so, but when I was here, and I held senior positions for a long time, I was seeing a number of complaints coming from mature believers who were surprised. And just couple of days before we had an MSC call when person was flagged when she called someone non-Christian who was Unorthodox, LDS I think.
I also had a number of calls in MSC where I needed to explain why we do not allow Mormons to be called non-Christians.
No, no, ... an LDS member wanted to jab a Christian member while debating and stated that Christian God has a wife.
That LDS member touched too high, he said the Christian God had a wife. He said that because we allow Mormons to be called Christians, hence their God is Christian.
LDS member flamed Christian God.
That is when I understood we made a mistake by identifying Mormons as Christians.
This means CF would not be able to object to anything if Mormons says Christian God has a wife.
It's been a bit of intense debate as to how much of an "uprising" there really was and how much of it was simply the locals reacting based off of an imagined uprising.
What it ultimately came down to was the fact that the church was on track to become the majority in the state, and so could have essentially taken de facto control over the state via the ballot box. Hence the Gallatin Voting Battle.
So there is so much debate that you can't, with integrity, say that the HMM was a result of a problem that originated with the LDS, but you can say that the MMM was a result of a conflict 20 years earlier and 2 thousand miles away. Amazing what a little bias does for you.
"the church was on track to become the majority in the state" comes from which piece of church history? Or is that part of the whitewashed history the church teaches? Because, really, the church was not that big at the time. Nauvoo, that would be a different story, but Hauns Mill? No.
LDS temples have so little internal space that most such events usually only have a handful of members in the first place.
However, anyone and everyone can walk into an LDS chapel and sit in on the proceedings.
Did I already give you the citation for Furniss' "The Mormon Conflict"?
I do recall him going into a fair bit of discussion of the Missouri period as a prelude to the Utah War.
We had a fire at church today (one of the air conditioner units overheated; we got it before it spread), and so I'm in a bit of a haze.
The Salt Lake Temple is 253,015 square feet.
The Salt Lake Temple is 253,015 square feet.
No, I don't think I've heard of that book(?). Is it an historical writing?
Sorry to hear about your fire, glad you got it under control quickly.
Definitely not.Surely you have the post handy for all to see, correct?
That what happened as a way to get at one of the Christian posters.Sure people could object, and explain that the Bible does not teach this. People could even explain to them why God does not have a wife and that it is not accepted. Isn't that what discussion is about?
I have not noticed LDS here insisting that the Christian God has a wife. Maybe the post disappeared too fast to have read it. I think that most if not all of the regular LDS posters in this forum believe this, however I don't know of any who would have worded it this way. I haven't heard them do so in the past anyway.
Dawn, did I say all that? Am I a novice at MSC?So someone was upset that they got a warning for violating the rules and wanted to find a scapegoat? They wanted to call names and you all agreed it is OK to call names? I guess I'm not understanding.
Yes, it is a teaching moment for a new believer when we call LDS and JWs set of beliefs non-Christian.And saying that it is a heart issue is too confusing??? If that is too confusing to people who call themselves Christian, then I'd say that is a teaching moment rather than a reactionary moment.
This was not something that is refuted because the poster knew perfectly well he flamed it that way. He flamed Yahweh God Himself by saying Christian God has a wife.So saying that can be refuted in the thread isn't good enough? I'm not understanding why people are getting all bent out of shape over things that are said in a debate in an unorthodox debate forum.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?