Serious enquiry for maklelan.

[_maklelan]

Parables are understood to be parabolic by those who actually think, and by the way, are identified as such.

I didn't ask how they're understood.

The song of Solomon deals with Israel.

I didn't ask what it dealt with.

However, if you are going to present yourself as a Mormon scholar (and you are always doing so), I find it "kind of creepy" that your posts are more in line with the higher critics of ultra-liberal Christianity than Mormonism.

That's your sectarianism showing.

[_Servant]

Parables are understood to be parabolic by those who actually think, and by the way, are identified as such.

I didn't ask how they're understood.

The song of Solomon deals with Israel.

I didn't ask what it dealt with.

However, if you are going to present yourself as a Mormon scholar (and you are always doing so), I find it "kind of creepy" that your posts are more in line with the higher critics of ultra-liberal Christianity than Mormonism.

That's your sectarianism showing.

Tell me, mak - if you believe the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century creation and its contents to be pious fiction, how do you remain in a cult which teaches that the Book of Mormon is actual history? Isn't that hypocrisy?

[_maklelan]

Tell me, mak - if you believe the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century creation and its contents to be pious fiction, how do you remain in a cult which teaches that the Book of Mormon is actual history? Isn't that hypocrisy?[/b]

Again with the ignorant bigotry.

[_Servant]

Tell me, mak - if you believe the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century creation and its contents to be pious fiction, how do you remain in a cult which teaches that the Book of Mormon is actual history? Isn't that hypocrisy?[/b]

Again with the ignorant bigotry.

It's "ignorant bigotry" to ask you why you stay in the LDS which teaches that the Book of Mormon is a historical account? Get another ad hom, pal. You're bag of semantic tricks is running out.

[_Servant]

Tell me, mak - if you believe, as you've suggested, that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century creation and its contents is pious fiction, how do you remain in a cult which teaches that the Book of Mormon is actual history? Isn't that hypocrisy?

[_maklelan]

It's "ignorant bigotry" to ask you why you stay in the LDS which teaches that the Book of Mormon is a historical account? Get another ad hom, pal. You're bag of semantic tricks is running out.

It's ignorant bigotry to continue to call it a cult after I've repeatedly shown you how terribly inaccurate and bigoted your use of that word is.

[_Servant]

It's "ignorant bigotry" to ask you why you stay in the LDS which teaches that the Book of Mormon is a historical account? Get another ad hom, pal. You're bag of semantic tricks is running out.

It's ignorant bigotry to continue to call it a cult after I've repeatedly shown you how terribly inaccurate and bigoted your use of that word is.

Why are you still a Mormon if you suggest that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century creation by Joseph Smith? It purports to be actual history and the LDS affirm that as an article of belief? If I all of a sudden repudiated the Nicene Creed and joined the ranks of Arianism, I would think it would be hypocrisy to continue to attend an Anglican Church. But, in any case, it's your choice. There are lots of cultural Mormons (just go to the Terrestrial forum for instance). I think many Mormons, on some level, don't buy into Mormon doctrine, have no belief that God was once a man who by degrees became a god, and there are even some who outrighly reject Christ as the Savior, and His resurrection.

Of course, there are other Mormon scholars who have been honest and left:

http://www.exmormonscholarstestify.org/testimonies.html

PS: the word "cult" as used by Christians means a group of people surrounding a single authority source which claims to be Christian but which holds to doctrines that are exclusive and separate from Christianity. Mormonism fits that description. You'll learn this in theology class, I'm sure.

[_maklelan]

Why are you still a Mormon if you suggest that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century creation by Joseph Smith?

I already told you exactly why. Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again after you've been given direct answers?

It purports to be actual history

So does Numbers where it says Baalam spoke with a talking donkey, but you don't really believe that happened, do you?

and the LDS affirm that as an article of belief?

No, that is not an article of faith. "Word of God" does not mean "unilaterally historical."

If I all of a sudden repudiated the Nicene Creed and joined the ranks of Arianism, I would think it would be hypocrisy to continue to attend an Anglican Church. But, in any case, it's your choice. There are lots of cultural Mormons (just go to the Terrestrial forum for instance). I think many Mormons, on some level, don't buy into Mormon doctrine, have no belief that God was once a man who by degrees became a god, and there are even some who outrighly reject Christ as the Savior, and His resurrection.

Of course, there are other Mormon scholars who have been honest and left:

http://www.exmormonscholarstestify.org/testimonies.html[/b]

Yeah, there are very few actual scholars in that group

PS: the word "cult" as used by Christians means a group of people surrounding a single authority source which claims to be Christian

So if a group doesn't claim to be Christian, they, by very definition, cannot be a cult, no matter what their nature?

but which holds to doctrines that are exclusive and separate from Christianity.

So Christ started a Jewish cult. When did it stop being a cult?

Mormonism fits that description. You'll learn this in theology class, I'm sure.

No, that's a terribly ignorant and bigoted misrepresentation of how the word is used, and it's derived from a need for sectarian Christians to distance themselves from the shattered remnants of their failed anti-cult programs of the 80s and 90s. Surely that definition is what is taught in terrible seminaries and unaccredited Bible colleges where they have courses on how to prove the Jehovah's Witnesses are going to hell, but that has as little relevance as the degrees you get at those places. I suggest you look into the sociological studies of New Religious Movements and what they have to say about both the counter-cult and the anti-cult movements.

[_Servant]

Why are you still a Mormon if you suggest that the Book of Mormon is a nineteenth century creation by Joseph Smith?

I already told you exactly why. Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over again after you've been given direct answers?

It purports to be actual history

So does Numbers where it says Baalam spoke with a talking donkey, but you don't really believe that happened, do you?

and the LDS affirm that as an article of belief?

No, that is not an article of faith. "Word of God" does not mean "unilaterally historical."

If I all of a sudden repudiated the Nicene Creed and joined the ranks of Arianism, I would think it would be hypocrisy to continue to attend an Anglican Church. But, in any case, it's your choice. There are lots of cultural Mormons (just go to the Terrestrial forum for instance). I think many Mormons, on some level, don't buy into Mormon doctrine, have no belief that God was once a man who by degrees became a god, and there are even some who outrighly reject Christ as the Savior, and His resurrection.

Of course, there are other Mormon scholars who have been honest and left:

http://www.exmormonscholarstestify.org/testimonies.html[/b]

Yeah, there are very few actual scholars in that group

PS: the word "cult" as used by Christians means a group of people surrounding a single authority source which claims to be Christian

So if a group doesn't claim to be Christian, they, by very definition, cannot be a cult, no matter what their nature?

but which holds to doctrines that are exclusive and separate from Christianity.

So Christ started a Jewish cult. When did it stop being a cult?

Mormonism fits that description. You'll learn this in theology class, I'm sure.

No, that's a terribly ignorant and bigoted misrepresentation of how the word is used, and it's derived from a need for sectarian Christians to distance themselves from the shattered remnants of their failed anti-cult programs of the 80s and 90s. Surely that definition is what is taught in terrible seminaries and unaccredited Bible colleges where they have courses on how to prove the Jehovah's Witnesses are going to hell, but that has as little relevance as the degrees you get at those places. I suggest you look into the sociological studies of New Religious Movements and what they have to say about both the counter-cult and the anti-cult movements.

Grow up guy! "Ignorant" and "bigoted" are not the only words in the dictionary. Well, it's your life and if you want to live it functioning as a spoke in a wheel which you've intellecutally rejected, your problem!

There are pseudo-Christians who are called cultists, and non-Christian cults as well. Non-Christian cults include those groups which have spun off of other religions: Nichiren Buddhism, Hare Krishnas, etc. Maybe you should study cult apologetics.

[_maklelan]

Grow up guy! "Ignorant" and "bigoted" are not the only words in the dictionary.

You know very well that I'm quite articulate and can have a lot to say. It's just that you're just repeating your ignorant dogmatism over and over again.

Well, it's your life and if you want to live it functioning as a spoke in a wheel which you've intellecutally rejected, your problem!

There are pseudo-Christians who are called cultists, and non-Christian cults as well. Non-Christian cults include those groups which have spun off of other religions: Nichiren Buddhism, Hare Krishnas, etc. Maybe you should study cult apologetics.

I have, Catherine. More than you. As I already pointed out, you need to study the sociology of it. Real scholars call them New Religious Movements, though, not "cults." That word is for sectarians, and it has nothing to do with scholarship.