Regrets over resigning?

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Those that left the church in response to the recent policy change made an error in judgment, in my opinion. Their view of things is myopic. They're isolationists in the respect that they are taking one view/perspective of Jesus' teachings and making IT the end all/over all cover for their displeasure. There's other stuff going besides trying to bring the 'gentle Jesus' into the picture at this particular time.

Regards,
MG

Wow. From one that has chosen just one of the thousands of different religious creeds to pin all his after-life hopes on, you think those leaving are the mypoic ones? Breathtaking hubris there.

It must be the Mormon season for stick-up-his-ass Jesus rather than benevolent, kind and charitable Jesus. Or, for the get-away-from-me instead of the "come unto me" Jesus.

Agreed. Also, if "Suffer the little children to come unto me" isn't a significant teaching of Christ to hang your hat on, I don't know what is.

[_Kishkumen]

But I don't. If you've read my posts over a period of time and those in this very thread, I think that this is rather obvious. I find your evasiveness interesting. I am truly interested in your answers to my questions. I think they are relevant to the topic at hand.

Those that left the church in response to the recent policy change made an error in judgment, in my opinion. Their view of things is myopic. They're isolationists in the respect that they are taking one view/perspective of Jesus' teachings and making IT the end all/over all cover for their displeasure. There's other stuff going besides trying to bring the 'gentle Jesus' into the picture at this particular time.

by the way, when I get responses such as yours...which happens now and then...where I am accused of being a practitioner of 'self deception' I am left to wonder in amazement how a person as bright as yourself can make a call like that after having read...or have you(?)...my posts over an extended period of time.

I could accuse you of the same thing, but would my accusation have a basis in fact?

Regards,
MG

Um, MG, I hate to tell you, but you have a reputation around here for being deluded. So, it's not as though I were offering a novel perspective on your posting career. Furthermore, no one with a life is going to bother to answer the spewing of questions you asked. Most of us have better things to do. That's the source of my alleged "evasion." I have a life, and little interest in the idly dug rabbit holes you lay out on any given thread.

Finally, if you think privileging an image of Christ as one who cherished children is misguided, you are a sad, sad little man.

[_mentalgymnast]

Wow. From one that has chosen just one of the thousands of different religious creeds to pin all his after-life hopes on, you think those leaving are the mypoic ones? Breathtaking hubris there.

It must be the Mormon season for stick-up-his-ass Jesus rather than benevolent, kind and charitable Jesus. Or, for the get-away-from-me instead of the "come unto me" Jesus.

Hi Sock, you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God do you? If you don't believe in Him...which I don't know at this point for a fact that you don't...then I'm curious as to how you think YOU know the characteristics of Jesus the God?

Because...well, if He is God...there is a huge pile of s*** that could be laid before Him, for not stepping in and making things right. Are you willing to do that?

You seem to be saying that God doesn't have to do hard things (yeah, I'm sure He really gets His jollies that way) that end up resulting in casualties...when we assume that agency is put at the front end of everything He does?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Um, MG, I hate to tell you, but you have a reputation around here for being deluded. So, it's not as though I were offering a novel perspective on your posting career. Furthermore, no one with a life is going to bother to answer the spewing of questions you asked. Most of us have better things to do. That's the source of my alleged "evasion." I have a life, and little interest in the idly dug rabbit holes you lay out on any given thread.

Finally, if you think privileging an image of Christ as one who cherished children is misguided, you are a sad, sad little man.

Well, OK then. Umm...thanks for the conversation.

The Deluded One

[_sock puppet]

Wow. From one that has chosen just one of the thousands of different religious creeds to pin all his after-life hopes on, you think those leaving are the mypoic ones? Breathtaking hubris there.

It must be the Mormon season for stick-up-his-ass Jesus rather than benevolent, kind and charitable Jesus. Or, for the get-away-from-me instead of the "come unto me" Jesus.

Hi Sock, you don't believe in Jesus as the Son of God do you? If you don't believe in Him...which I don't know at this point for a fact that you don't...

Nope, I sure don't believe in a god, much less a son of a being in which I don't believe.

then I'm curious as to how you think YOU know the characteristics of Jesus the God?

Funny thing, I got duped into wasting most of my youth reading about Jesus, living by Mormon precepts of what the LDS claimed Jesus wanted, etc. So, you know, that's how I know of these characteristics. Belief has nothing to do with knowing.

Because...well, if He is God...there is a huge pile of s*** that could be laid before Him, for not stepping in and making things right. Are you willing to do that?

Yep, I sure am. Supposedly he created that huge pile of s***; he ought to own it then.

You seem to be saying that God doesn't have to do hard things (yeah, I'm sure He really gets His jollies that way) that end up resulting in casualties...when we assume that agency is put at the front end of everything He does?

Regards,
MG

If agency was put in front of everything, then he owns responsibility for giving it that priority too. So yeah, his jollies and 'collateral damage'. He and his followers ought to own up for the crap he created.

[_Tobin]

It's not that simple. The LDS Church was founded as a restoration of Biblical Christianity, or of the Christianity that existed in the time of Christ and his apostles. It was also supposed to be restored in the dispensation of the fullness of times and the restoration of all things. The Bible was obviously a guide to what "all things" to be restored might be. This included polygamy and even blood sacrifice. So, while the Bible was not the definitive last word in a Church receiving revelation; it was an important starting point for understanding the kinds of practices and doctrines restored Christianity in the era of the fullness of times should have.

Let's just go with that for an instant. Where in the Bible exactly does it specify that you must be baptized at 8 years old? It seems to me many of those in the Bible were baptized when they were much older adults. And if we go by Jesus's example, he was likely a full grown 30 year old man. In fact, if we go by Mormon beliefs, most of the world (99.99%) will be baptized after they die.

Yeah, well, you aren't really paying attention to what I am writing. I have noted that apostasy is a process, and I would add that the LDS Church was neither all true or all false either before or after the new policy was enacted. I have offered my judgment that a line was crossed in the institution of this new policy, and that line, for me, was the blatant contradiction of the clear teachings of Christ. By the Church's own standards, the scriptures are to be the ultimate arbiter of true doctrine. Judged by that standard, we see in this damaging policy a violation of the doctrine of Christ.

I find this rhetoric hard to follow. For example, did Joseph Smith really see and hear God? Did God really tell Joseph Smith to form a Church? Does the LDS Church have God's authority? And so on. I find it difficult to believe that someone could answer those questions in the affirmative and then turn around and deny them after this policy was announced. In fact, I continue to fail to see what is so horrible about what they just did compared to other horrible stuff they have done in the past. I know you are willing to brush aside that other stuff like polygamy and racism. However, I think all by themselves they constitute some rather horrible apostate behavior. I hope you don't have to wait for some policy announced 170 years later to recognize that.

As for this idea that the LDS Church is uninterested in what I interpret the Bible as saying, I have no illusions in that regard. For Pete's sake, man, this is a discussion board. It is ludicrous of you to suggest I have any pretensions of this sort. Get a life.

On that we can agree.

[_Dr. Shades]

Tobin doesn't pay attention or comprehend much of what anyone actually writes, Kish. That's why I have him on ignore. I suggest you do the same.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please think really hard about that admonition. Do you truly think that enouraging participants to ignore each other aligns with the spirit upon which the board was founded?]

[_Kishkumen]

Let's just go with that for an instant. Where in the Bible exactly does it specify that you must be baptized at 8 years old? It seems to me many of those in the Bible were baptized when they were much older adults. And if we go by Jesus's example, he was likely a full grown 30 year old man. In fact, if we go by Mormon beliefs, most of the world (99.99%) will be baptized after they die.

I never said that all LDS doctrine and practice is in the Bible. I said that it was pertinent and had bearing on LDS doctrine. You want it both ways. But, Jesus' teaching has long been interpreted in LDS circles as applying to the baptism of children of accountable age. The point is that LDS doctrine, established by modern revelation, and supported by Christ's own words, sets the age of eligibility for baptism for all children at 8. There are no exceptions.

I find it difficult to believe that someone could answer those questions in the affirmative and then turn around and deny them after this policy was announced. In fact, I continue to fail to see what is so horrible about what they just did compared to other horrible stuff they have done in the past. I know you are willing to brush aside that other stuff like polygamy and racism. However, I think all by themselves they constitute some rather horrible apostate behavior. I hope you don't have to wait for some policy announced 170 years later to recognize that.

Tobin, don't be simultaneously obtuse and insulting. Very few people would accuse me of brushing aside any wrongdoing of the LDS Church. You don't understand my perspective, but that doesn't give you license to rewrite my history as a participant on this board.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tobin doesn't pay attention or comprehend much of what anyone actually writes, Kish. That's why I have him on ignore. I suggest you do the same.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Please think really hard about that admonition. Do you truly think that enouraging participants to ignore each other aligns with the spirit upon which the board was founded?]

You're a wise man, friend. Unfortunately, not many people understand they don't actually have to read someone's post by simply skimming past it.

But, whatevs. That seems to be the way our society is headed.

- Doc

[_mentalgymnast]

I [spent] most of my youth reading about Jesus, living by Mormon precepts of what the LDS claimed Jesus wanted, etc. So, you know, that's how I know of these characteristics. Belief has nothing to do with knowing.

How did you get through 3 Nephi 8 and 9 without seeing that Jesus can be a hard **s at times when the situation requires it.

Tough love. Knowing the end from the beginning.

It's interesting that when the 'gentle Jesus' fits in with what might be considered to be a false narrative then unbelievers will sing praise to Him as though He actually existed. But the rest of the time they go around...in essence...calling Him a mean SOB. You know, the psychotic god of the Old Testament kind of thing.

You need to make up your mind.

Regards,
MG