flood of anti-Mormon sentiment

[Sherman]

Sherm,

What peep stone are you reading?

Baker,

You did not answer my question, was I right?

Tell Carol hi for me.

 

[baker]

Baker,

You did not answer my question, was I right?

Tell Carol hi for me.

Sherman,

Could you elaborate on what you are talking about? Who is Carol?

 

[SiSSYGAL]

May I ask what is the point of this?

Are you saying Boyd K. Packer is affiliated with the KKK?

TW

Hi TW
I have no clue as to who Boyd K. Packer is or was. I presume he is or was a muck in the LDS church. Someone asked about Scripture L. They couldn't find it because they used I. It's L. Probably stands for LDS.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

I presume he is or was a muck in the LDS church.

 

[SiSSYGAL]

That's muck as in Mucky-muck. Or I suppose it could be spelled: a-mok. Just teasing. Just teasing

 

[twhite982]

Hi TW
I have no clue as to who Boyd K. Packer is or was. I presume he is or was a muck in the LDS church. Someone asked about Scripture L. They couldn't find it because they used I. It's L. Probably stands for LDS.

Either way I think it was wrong to post on this thread something that implies he is associated with the KKK.

This leaves the wrong impression for both sides of the fence whether this idea came from you or you copied from another site.

Nuff said.

Tom

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Either way I think it was wrong to post on this thread something that implies he is associated with the KKK.

This leaves the wrong impression for both sides of the fence whether this idea came from you or you copied from another site.

Nuff said.

Tom

Perhaps some unknowing folks would think it referred to the actual KKK but I think that most of us ( who know of Packer and his talks) know that it is referring to the extremely rigidness of Boyd K. Packer and the particular subjects that he has talked about in the past that have gotten him so much attention as being a "hate-monger", "homo-phobe" and "anal retentive" person. And no, please do not ask me to post the articles on these because they are NOT appropriate for this discussion.

Grace

 

[twhite982]

Perhaps some unknowing folks would think it referred to the actual KKK but I think that most of us ( who know of Packer and his talks) know that it is referring to the extremely rigidness of Boyd K. Packer and the particular subjects that he has talked about in the past that have gotten him so much attention as being a "hate-monger", "homo-phobe" and "anal retentive" person. And no, please do not ask me to post the articles on these because they are NOT appropriate for this discussion.

Grace

Oh I wasn't going to ask Grace.

Tom

 

[SiSSYGAL]

Either way I think it was wrong to post on this thread something that implies he is associated with the KKK.

This leaves the wrong impression for both sides of the fence whether this idea came from you or you copied from another site.

Nuff said.

Tom

Tom:
I truely don't know who Boyd K Packer is. Therefore, I have to say I am sorry for offending you. And, I guess you're right in stating that by stating that, it gives off the impression that he was a member of the KKK. Actually, I presumed he espoused their beliefs when I read what that other person posted. My point was that the poster was attacked by the Mormon gestapo for simply being stupid, rude and crude. He paid dearly for his indiscretion. Now, of course, I must ask: Do you agree that making a post such as that on a private forum such as this, is enough to cost a person their job? I personally feel he had the right to say whatever he said--including things offensive and smart-alecy. All of us here have done the same thing. I really hope I don't have to pay for my comments with the loss of my job. And, even though I don't know you, I pray that nothing you say here costs you your job.

 

[twhite982]

Tom:
I truely don't know who Boyd K Packer is. Therefore, I have to say I am sorry for offending you. And, I guess you're right in stating that by stating that, it gives off the impression that he was a member of the KKK. Actually, I presumed he espoused their beliefs when I read what that other person posted. My point was that the poster was attacked by the Mormon gestapo for simply being stupid, rude and crude. He paid dearly for his indiscretion. Now, of course, I must ask: Do you agree that making a post such as that on a private forum such as this, is enough to cost a person their job? I personally feel he had the right to say whatever he said--including things offensive and smart-alecy. All of us here have done the same thing. I really hope I don't have to pay for my comments with the loss of my job. And, even though I don't know you, I pray that nothing you say here costs you your job.

SiSSYGAL,

I don't know any of the details of the incident, but I would assume that there are two sides to any story.

I wouldn't say that whatever happened is justification for offensive behavior. James warns us about a "loose" tongue. We all will be held accountable for every idle thing we say.

Tom

 

[MormonFriend]

SiSSYGAL,

I don't know any of the details of the incident, but I would assume that there are two sides to any story.

I wouldn't say that whatever happened is justification for offensive behavior. James warns us about a "loose" tongue. We all will be held accountable for every idle thing we say.

Tom

"Dear Lord, please bless every word that leaves my mouth, for tomorrow I may have to eat them."

 

[MormonFriend]

Sunshine, all the fun little euphimisms in the world won't change the fact that the WofW is inforced. There is no way for you to get around it. If you don't live the WofW (according to whatever the church considers it to be at the time) and you are honest about it, you will not get a temple recommend, therefore, it is inforced. Pretty plain and simple.

Grace

I have seen people in the Temple that I know do not keep the WoW. Since the interview is 100% on the honor system, that is not enforcement. When a person does confess a violation, yes the recommend is denied, not as a punishment, but as a way of telling the person: "make a choice of what is more important to you.

Now, if a person walked up to the Temple door, and not finding an ash tray, dropped his/her smoke and smashed it out, then yes, a Temple worker may possibly turn him away, but I don't know of that policy.

Under some circumstances, as is discribed Biblically, witnesses can report unworthy behavior of a member to their Bishop. Latter-day policy is that their recommend may be revoked. Is that enforcement?
What are we doing?
Taking away the blessings of the Temple.
What are these blessings?
The joy and happiness that results from living the values that are taught therein.
Were they living those values?
No.
Then who took away their blessings?
They did themselves by not living by the precepts taught.
Then what did we really take away from them?
Nothing.

 

[MormonFriend]

MF: Let me save everyone the hassel and I will copy your quote here.
And you now say in your cover up:"...I had read an article (notice I said 1 article) in the Ensign that focused on JS and mentioned Jesus as a side thought.
Notice the words in green in both quotes!
Again you bear false witness! No wonder you are happy. You can do that and still you are absolutely saved!

On another note, you keep saying I am a liar, where have I lied? Maybe you could open up another tread to point this out since it seems to be way to easy to get off topic on this thread and others. Call it "Grace, the Born again, fundie, bible thumping, liar", then I will be sure not to miss it....LMTO

Grace

"Liar" is your choice of words. If the shoe fits, wear it, but for the record, I did not say it.
Since the part of my quote (that you had knowledge of as you posted this) ... was erased automaticaly as you replied, I'll have to go to the work of posting it again for you.

1st quote:
I recently read an Ensign article about the birth of Jesus (a Christmas article) and the first part of the Article focused on Joseph Smith and his birthday
2nd quote not same as the first.
"...I had read an article (notice I said 1 article) in the Ensign that focused on JS and mentioned Jesus as a side thought.
Notice the words in green in both quotes!

Both of these quotes were referring to the same article. You were inferring that an article about Jesus focused more on Joseph Smith, trying to paint a picture that we give J.S. more attention than Christ in an article that is supposed to be about Christ. The second quote was after we called you on the carpet for mis-construeing, because the article was not about Jesus, but about Joseph Smith.
Since the actual article about Joseph Smith has been posted, it is interesting to point out that Jesus is mentioned quite often, and always in a manner that is obviously more revered.

I was heavily criticized recently by a poster for being rude to you. After explaining to him why my feelings may seem harsh when posting to you, the last thing I said to him still stands. You are loved. I hope that is mutual.

 

[baker]

MF,

Let me see if I can demonstrate what I see as the irony in all this "Temple Ceremony & Worthiness" topic with your post.

I have seen people in the Temple that I know do not keep the WoW.

What is the purpose of the WOW? How does the definition of the WOW address this purpose? Is it control and obedience to the ruling bretheren, or is it for the general health and welfare of the members?

I work out regularly, exercise, box, bike and am in better shape than most people I know who are half my age. I have a wine collection and drink coffee.

Once you have answered what the purpose of the WOW is, tell me how those people who are 40-100 lbs over-weight, are more worthy of temple admittance (based on the WOW criteria only) than I am?

Since the interview is 100% on the honor system, that is not enforcement.

Absolutely not true!!!! You issue tax statements for how much money a member has given. You know this amount. While you may not know for sure how it fits within the 10% criteria (however defined), dividing a number by .10 (or multiplying by 10) isn't difficult to do to estimate and the bishop will know this before the interview. Granted, it may be the only question that is not on the honor system, but not suprising.

When a person does confess a violation, yes the recommend is denied, not as a punishment, but as a way of telling the person: "make a choice of what is more important to you.

This is where it becomes ridiculous, divisive to families, and controlling IMHO. To think you would judge someone "unworthy" to see their own child get married because they had glass of wine or cup of coffee. But it's ok if you're 100 lbs over-weight and can't hardly make it up the Temple stairs!!!!

What are we doing?

Taking away the blessings of the Temple.

But there is not one lds posters who can show where these blessings are explained by Christ or supported by scripture.

What are these blessings?

The joy and happiness that results from living the values that are taught therein.

Where is "therein". Taught where? The word of God teaches us all about joy and happiness. Where did He talk about all the temple stuff.

Christ had much to do with wine, when did He tell us it was now against his command (or coffee and tabaco for that matter)? Please understand I am not advocating any of this lifestyle, I am jsut trying to find our where these requirements are found in scripture.

Were they living those values?

No.

Again, where did Christ identify these values and requirements. Where is this taught.

Then who took away their blessings?

They did themselves by not living by the precepts taught.

Please, tell us how you knew Christ taught whatever precepts that you are referring to here. So far, all I have been able to see is the members of your church are denied family functions because they violated man made policies. I could be wrong but I would look to you to show me where Christ taught such things.

Then what did we really take away from them?

Nothing.

No, I think you (your church) took away from them one of the most joyous moments of their life when you prevent them from being involved with their family or friends on a day of joy and love!

MF, this is what I mean. When you go below the surface of your claims with this Temple and Endowment stuff, it either seems to unravel quickley or cant be supported . And given the dire significance that your church claims these teachings have according to "GOD", why would such questions/issues be unfair to discuss openly?

If I have mistated or you could provide me answers to any qustions above, please let me know.

 

[fatboys]

MF,

Let me see if I can demonstrate what I see as the irony in all this "Temple Ceremony & Worthiness" topic with your post.


What is the purpose of the WOW? How does the definition of the WOW address this purpose? Is it control and obedience to the ruling bretheren, or is it for the general health and welfare of the members?

I work out regularly, exercise, box, bike and am in better shape than most people I know who are half my age. I have a wine collection and drink coffee.

Once you have answered what the purpose of the WOW is, tell me how those people who are 40-100 lbs over-weight, are more worthy of temple admittance (based on the WOW criteria only) than I am?

FB: The Word of Wisdom is to teach us to be healthy. That does not mean that it covers everything that makes us healthy. And by obedience to the Word of Wisdom does not excempt us from diseases. But it gives us a better chance at being healthy. A person who takes his first alcoholic drink, is not thinking that "Boy I can not wait to become a alcoholic". Or when a person drinks a cup of Coffee, they don't say to themselves" Boy I can't wait until I can't function until I have my first cup". How many times do you hear that from people.

This is not intended to be rude, but I am sure you will see as rude. Almost everytime you talk about yourself, you place yourself above LDS people. You are smarter. You now more about our beliefs than anyone else. And now you are in better shape. You speak that we are elitists, and never has anyone here that I have read said they were better than you. Just a friendly note that might be helpful for you to indentify with us little people.

Absolutely not true!!!! You issue tax statements for how much money a member has given. You know this amount. While you may not know for sure how it fits within the 10% criteria (however defined), dividing a number by .10 (or multiplying by 10) isn't difficult to do to estimate and the bishop will know this before the interview. Granted, it may be the only question that is not on the honor system, but not suprising.

FB: When I go to tithing settlement, the bishop in a confidential statement is given to me as to what contribution I have made. It is much more than just tithing. There is the missionary fund, fast offering etc. Many times there is money given to specified missionary that needs help. All this is added up. There is no tax statements. They don't ask how much money you make. They don't see your IRS statements. Although the statement given to you is proof of your donation which is not taxable

This is where it becomes ridiculous, divisive to families, and controlling IMHO. To think you would judge someone "unworthy" to see their own child get married because they had glass of wine or cup of coffee. But it's ok if you're 100 lbs over-weight and can't hardly make it up the Temple stairs!!!!

FB: Do you believe that you are better than these people? It sure sounds like you disaprove of those who are over weight. I don't think you should judge those who are over weight. What can be done and is quite simple to judge is to say that those who are honest and confess they drink wine will not be able to get a recommend. It is a matter of obedience and faith in what it teaches

But there is not one lds posters who can show where these blessings are explained by Christ or supported by scripture.

FB: So you think that Jesus would approve of someone who might possibly become a alcoholic? Or that he would approve of us being addicted to a drug?

Where is "therein". Taught where? The word of God teaches us all about joy and happiness. Where did He talk about all the temple stuff.

FB: And how do you have happiness? Obedience to Gods laws.

Christ had much to do with wine, when did He tell us it was now against his command (or coffee and tabaco for that matter)?

Please understand I am not advocating any of this lifestyle, I am jsut trying to find our where these requirements are found in scripture.

FB: Any time we abuse any of the what God gives us, it goes against what God teaches. Moderation in all things, but abstain from certain substances.

Please, tell us how you knew Christ taught whatever precepts that you are referring to here. So far, all I have been able to see is the members of your church are denied family functions because they violated man made policies. I could be wrong but I would look to you to show me where Christ taught such things.

FB: You are not bound by these policies of the church. Those who agree with them try to live by them and by so doing can receive the blessings by living by these standards.

Luke 12:51
51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:

Luke 12:52
52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

Luke 12:53
53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

No, I think you (your church) took away from them one of the most joyous moments of their life when you prevent them from being involved with their family or friends on a day of joy and love!

FB: It was their wedding and they did what they wanted to do. To be married forever. Just because you don't believe in it, and you were not able to see them get married because of your beliefs, does not negate the feeling they had when the kneel across the alter and are pronounced that they belong to each other for ever. You would rather they get married outside the Temple, so you or others could attend a the marriage, when the whole purpose is above what you believe is reality? Now who is selfish, and who needs to let go.

MF, this is what I mean. When you go below the surface of your claims with this Temple and Endowment stuff, it either seems to unravel quickley or cant be supported . And given the dire significance that your church claims these teachings have according to "GOD", why would such questions/issues be unfair to discuss openly?

FB: Below the surface of our beliefs? You don't believe them. We do. Get over it. There is nothing wrong about it. Not every one was allowed at the Holy of Holies.

 

[Rescued One]

I saw this in FB's post. I'm not sure who said it--maybe Baker;

This is where it becomes ridiculous, divisive to families, and controlling IMHO. To think you would judge someone "unworthy" to see their own child get married because they had glass of wine or cup of coffee. But it's ok if you're 100 lbs over-weight and can't hardly make it up the Temple stairs!!!!

Please don't tell me that WoW is a health law, yet you discriminate against a coffee drinker over a fat person.

Luke 16
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

I can't imagine how it is honoring your father and mother, if you say, "I'm sorry, Mom & Dad, you can't come to my wedding because you are Baptists."

 

[Rescued One]

Below the surface of our beliefs? You don't believe them. We do. Get over it. There is nothing wrong about it. Not every one was allowed at the Holy of Holies.

But now we are!

At the crucifixion of Jesus, the veil to the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn, giving us access to the Holy of Holies, a picture of our direct access to God.(Matthew 27:51, Hebrews 6:19, Hebrews 9:11-15) We have victory in Christ at the Cross.

Don't sew the veil back together. God is the One who tore it.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

"Liar" is your choice of words. If the shoe fits, wear it, but for the record, I did not say it.
Since the part of my quote (that you had knowledge of as you posted this) ... was erased automaticaly as you replied, I'll have to go to the work of posting it again for you.

1st quote:
I recently read an Ensign article about the birth of Jesus (a Christmas article) and the first part of the Article focused on Joseph Smith and his birthday
2nd quote not same as the first.
"...I had read an article (notice I said 1 article) in the Ensign that focused on JS and mentioned Jesus as a side thought.
Notice the words in green in both quotes!

Both of these quotes were referring to the same article. You were inferring that an article about Jesus focused more on Joseph Smith, trying to paint a picture that we give J.S. more attention than Christ in an article that is supposed to be about Christ. The second quote was after we called you on the carpet for mis-construeing, because the article was not about Jesus, but about Joseph Smith.
Since the actual article about Joseph Smith has been posted, it is interesting to point out that Jesus is mentioned quite often, and always in a manner that is obviously more revered.

I was heavily criticized recently by a poster for being rude to you. After explaining to him why my feelings may seem harsh when posting to you, the last thing I said to him still stands. You are loved. I hope that is mutual.

MF, the fact of the matter is you keep saying that I bear false witness (aka, that I am a liar). This just isn't the case. I may be many unfavorable things but one thing I am not is a liar. I stand by what I said about the article in the Christmas issue of the Ensign. And yes, I know I am loved by many people but most importantly by God Almighty. Yes, you are loved by God too and I pray that one day you will embrace that love and accept the FREE gift he has for you.

Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

But now we are!

At the crucifixion of Jesus, the veil to the Holy of Holies in the Temple was torn, giving us access to the Holy of Holies, a picture of our direct access to God.(Matthew 27:51, Hebrews 6:19, Hebrews 9:11-15) We have victory in Christ at the Cross.

Don't sew the veil back together. God is the One who tore it.

Yes GWiT and a big Amen to that one! All believers are now allowed into the Holy of Holies. Praise God for that. It is so wonderful to have the Holy Spirit take up residence in us and live with us day in and day out. It is so incredibly terrific to know that we can go straight to God now without some man as an in-between.

God Bless,
Grace

 

[Wrigley]

FB: The Word of Wisdom is to teach us to be healthy. That does not mean that it covers everything that makes us healthy. And by obedience to the Word of Wisdom does not excempt us from diseases. But it gives us a better chance at being healthy. A person who takes his first alcoholic drink, is not thinking that "Boy I can not wait to become a alcoholic". Or when a person drinks a cup of Coffee, they don't say to themselves" Boy I can't wait until I can't function until I have my first cup". How many times do you hear that from people.

This is not intended to be rude, but I am sure you will see as rude. Almost everytime you talk about yourself, you place yourself above LDS people. You are smarter. You now more about our beliefs than anyone else. And now you are in better shape. You speak that we are elitists, and never has anyone here that I have read said they were better than you. Just a friendly note that might be helpful for you to indentify with us little people.

Your last pararaph here is pure deflection. That is the only reason I can think of to respond to Baker's post that way. Get to the point of the post. What purpose does the WoW serve?