To be honest, I don’t know what Shades would do. Didn’t he permit a thread in Celestial that went through the Bible verse by verse? If so, some of these verses would certainly have been quoted.Shulem wrote: ↑Thu Jul 14, 2022 1:12 pmRes Ipsa wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:09 pmShulem,
I don't recall scripture from the Bible or Book of Mormon ever being classified as "not Celestial material." The mention of hell in this portion of the Book of Mormon is an anachronism. It's also not consistent with Smith's later theology -- a good illustration of how he made up his theology as he went along. But it does fit nicely with some strains of 19th century protestantism.
The book has no power over you. The words have no power over you. And Elizabeth has no power over you. If it's a threat, it's one without teeth. And it says lots more about the person who thinks it is necessary or appropriate to threaten fellow humans than it does about the rest of us.
... that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (2 Kings 18:27
Is that also Celestial material? And if so, how might it be quoted and used in this forum?
You need to rethink this matter, Res. It's your choice. You can send this thread into spam and be fully justified. Elizabeth is playing a game and is not on the up and up. Watch out, she bites, and will use vicious scripture to do it!
What would Shades do?
Elizabeth is doing what Shades described as building a monument. in my opinion, it’s one of the most hideous monuments to religion that I’ve seen. If she is going to explicitly reveal the dark, ugly side of religion, why should I stop her?
Ask yourself who she is actually hurting here? I think the answer is the sincere LDS folks and Christians who don’t try to justify their racism and hatred of their fellow humans through a warped reading of religious texts. The damage she and others like her do to the LDS brand cannot be repaired by even the most talented PR flacks.
As she doesn’t substantively engage with criticism of her posts, she’s ceded the floor to her critics. So, why not discuss the fact that she obsesses over the vengeful, bloodthirsty god(s) of the Old Testament and not on how Jesus told his followers how to treat their fellow humans?
But all that is my opinion. I’m not the sole arbiter of where her threads belong. There are three of us and, while I will argue for what I think is the best way to do our job, I have no problem with being out voted two to one. I make no claim to knowing the best choice in the many decisions we are faced with.