Daniel Peterson wrote:It's not my disagreement with Shades's categories that renders them dubious. They're undermined by the fact that, according to the profile generated by my answers to his diagnostic questions, I plainly violate his neat little schematization.
You do so via a strong reliance (you are just used to it) of post hoc rationalization.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Gazelam wrote:How do you think her husband feels when he's doing his temple work and she's sitting in the lobby or the cafeteria all bitter and surly?
According to you he feels fine because he'll be given a new faithful life when he receives his exaltation.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley
"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks
Gazelam wrote:The question isn't one of inerrency. The Book of Mormon is viewed as better because it only went through two hands in transcription before it came to us.
Scriptures are just tools in gaining the spirit the scriptures were written in. All scripture was written by men explaining as best they could their experiences with God. The idea is to emulate what they did so that we can have the same experiences.
The Bible and the Book of Mormon and all other scripture are of equal worth. It's like asking what tool in the toolbox is better, the hammer or the screwdriver or the wrench. What I need right now is the tape measure, maybe later I'll grab the hammer to deal with the problem at hand.
Gaz, one of your best posts, Bro... Can't wait to see what you do with the hammer when you get the dimensions figured out ;-) Warm regards, Roger
Gaz, one of your worst posts! Ya better get the reality-sensors out of your tool-box, Bro. To equate "Adam's Fall" in any way with Christ is beyond reasonable thought. The fable of the fall has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of Jesus.
LDSism most certainly does need a revitalized updated curriculm. It is irresponsible for THE TRUE CHURCH to be producing faulty products that can't even be recalled for repairs... There just has to be a GA some where with their mass with some semblance of honesty and insight... Warm regards, Roger
barrelomonkeys wrote:Are most LDS fundamentalists in that they believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve and a garden of Eden?
Believing Latter-day Saints overwhelmingly believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a garden of Eden.
I do.
But that doesn't necessarily make them fundamentalists.
I'm not.
barrelomonkeys wrote:It seems that to believe that you would have to discount much of evolution and science that points to evolution.
It depends on what you make of the Eden story. I believe in science, and I believe in evolution. I suspect that the Eden story was something quite different from the way fundamentalist Protestants (and many Mormons) understand it.
A topic for an interesting discussion. One that I won't have here.
I missed this post earlier.
I am certainly not someone that knows appropriate terms when it comes to most religious beliefs. I thought fundamentalism referred to the literal belief in the Bible. I was thinking that also referred to the time line in the Bible.
Dr. Peterson I'm so sorry you won’t post your beliefs here. You’re someone I think very highly of, as an expert and as a person. I do understand why you choose not to post here.
Gazelam wrote: It is an actual history of actual events that occured with people as real as you or I. It would be similar to you defending American history to a Russian who grew up in the cold war of the soviet union and was presenting to you false american history propoganda that he was taught in school..
Or the false world history taught in cold war United States...or now even. American education in history is nothing to brag about.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
barrelomonkeys wrote:Dr. Peterson I'm so sorry you won’t post your beliefs here. You’re someone I think very highly of, as an expert and as a person. I do understand why you choose not to post here.
Did you really mean to say, "I do NOT understand why you choose not to post here"?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
barrelomonkeys wrote:Dr. Peterson I'm so sorry you won’t post your beliefs here. You’re someone I think very highly of, as an expert and as a person. I do understand why you choose not to post here.
Did you really mean to say, "I do NOT understand why you choose not to post here"?
No. I meant I DO understand why he may choose not to post here. Although I don't really know why he doesn't post here. I can imagine it may have something to do with the numerous personal attacks against him.