NOM

Smokey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:31 pm But you weren’t, were you?

Yes, I was. I was a devout, recommend-holding, multiple-calling serving, full-tithe paying toe-the-line member. My only "sin" was not being able to hammer the history and doctrine into the fact-shaped holes.

When people make accusations like that I can only assume they are projecting.

w2mz wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:35 pm I’ll bite. What made it one of the greatest conferences of all time, and, name one conference in recent past that wasn’t so great.

Smokey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:41 pm

w2mz wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:35 pm I’ll bite. What made it one of the greatest conferences of all time, and, name one conference in recent past that wasn’t so great.

In other words you can't come up with anything. It was a big, bland nothing burger wasn't it? I really feel sorry for all of the people who feel obligated to put lipstick on that pig.

Edited for content

Smokey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:31 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:18 pm
Please give me a specific list of which sins you are assigning to me that are making me incapable of feeling the spirit.

lol wut?

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:18 pm
ETA: If you want real meme territory it's to discount someone's life to something as inane as "they weren't following the commandments."

But you weren’t, were you?

Oh, knowing Hagoth a little, I should imagine he was keeping the commandments quite well over a lengthy period of decades and making a very dedicated effort to please God according to the church's direction.

But the culture established by Joseph Smith was that if anyone turned away from him or the church they were automatically charged with being sinful.... especially of a sexual nature, knowing the disdain and horror that would create in the eyes of the rest of the members. It is a carefully crafted tool used to deflect from the truth and to prejudice the community against the character of the person who dares speak truth to power.

That culture is alive and well in the church today. It is nearly impossible to have an honest conversation about the realities of the defects in the church and especially it's leadership.

To accuse someone of "not keeping the commandments" as the reason for their having doubts, without personally knowing ANYTHING about that person is in reality the height of ignorance and arrogance combined.

I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't the direction you're going. Please tell us that you have reached a stage of independent reasoning and thinking that allows you to unfetter yourself from the biases that are ubiquitous in the church.

Smokey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 4:10 pm

Palerider wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:21 pm

Smokey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 11:23 am
Hate to be the one to break it to you but the Proclamation has been official Church doctrine since 1995.

Was that put up for a sustaining vote as being canonized or just kind of quietly considered doctrinal? I don't recall.

Yeah, a Proclamation to the WORLD, from the PROPHET and his Apostles, published widely across the globe and in every meeting house, was “quietly considered doctrinal.”

Remember that hero who read the Proclamation on BYU Provo campus recently: https://universe.byu.edu/2020/03/04/hon ... oto-story/

I remember most members doing a big shoulder shrug seeing little of anything new or remarkable in the Proc. on the Fam. Most members kind of ignored it for quite some time until about five years later there seemed to be a push from Salt Lake that no one was taking it seriously enough. I distinctly remember our stake being asked to memorize it at that late date. Most members said, "You can't be serious." under their breath.

You do know that something isn't considered seriously doctrinal until it is canonized, right? Until then it can always be looked back upon as "policy" even though it was "taken" as doctrinal at the time. It's a convenient tool for leadership when they want to disavow some uncomfortable utterances from the past.

And even then it isn't safe really. Think about the Lectures on Faith. Ever wonder why they are no longer included in the D&C even though they were canonized?

w2mz wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 8:31 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:09 pm

w2mz wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:35 pm I’ll bite. What made it one of the greatest conferences of all time, and, name one conference in recent past that wasn’t so great.

Since Smokey didn't know about the proclamation he obviously wasn't listening to conference. Just yanking our chain.

That Smokey, silly old bear.

I don't think it's smokey the bear, we're dealing with smokey the troll here. Definitely trolling.

Smokey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 4:10 pm Yeah, a Proclamation to the WORLD, from the PROPHET and his Apostles, published widely across the globe and in every meeting house, was “quietly considered doctrinal.”

Written by a law professor at BYU with a few revisions by some pals at Kirton McConkie before being passed on to the Brethren. Most likely the discussion was in the wording. Should it be "one man and one woman" or should it read "one man and women?" They probably reasoned that it would have to look just right when Mormons were giving out marriage advice to the world.

People
who
reject
clear
Doctrine
don't
get
to
define
Doctrine

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:55 pm Edited for content

>Insists he was worthy of the Spirit.
>Mocks God and his Prophet, claims to be a “proud apostate”


Whew lad.

moksha wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 12:58 am Written by a law professor at BYU with a few revisions by some pals at Kirton McConkie before being passed on to the Brethren. Most likely the discussion was in the wording. Should it be "one man and one woman" or should it read "one man and women?" They probably reasoned that it would have to look just right when Mormons were giving out marriage advice to the world.

Even with all the effort they put into finessing the wording, everyone else in the world just looks at them in astonishment when they pronounce the structure of marriage for others. At best, it's considered at joke. Mostly it's considered shameless hypocrisy.

Smokey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:37 am People
who
reject
clear
Doctrine
don't
get
to
define
Doctrine

Next time you see some "clear doctrine" that hasn't been tampered with in the past, you be sure to let us know.

Smokey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:40 am

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:55 pm Edited for content

>Insists he was worthy of the Spirit.
>Mocks God and his Prophet, claims to be a “proud apostate.

Which prophet would that be? The one who tells you to take your vitamins?

Pretty sure God took the wind right out of that boy's sails. Ruined his bicentennial party with a plague and jerked the trumpet out of Moroni's mouth with an earthquake.

How many signs do you need to see that your prophet is phony?

Yes.....whew laddy.....

Smokey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:40 am

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:55 pm Edited for content

>Insists he was worthy of the Spirit.
>Mocks God and his Prophet, claims to be a “proud apostate”


Whew lad.

You can't project what I say today onto what I believed in the past. Very, very shallow thinking there, my friend.

Smokey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:37 am People
who
reject
clear
Doctrine
don't
get
to
define
Doctrine

That describes the beliefs of every single religious tradition. Everybody's wrong but me. Fortunately I just happened to be born in a place and time where it was easy for me to have the right doctrine.

Where's Waldo?

Palerider wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 11:29 am Next time you see some "clear doctrine" that hasn't been tampered with in the past, you be sure to let us know.

How about? "You owe fealty to the current leader of the church". That one seems to be fairly constant.

However, I'm not sure that it really counts. Tampering is built right into it. When the current leader is Hinckley, "Mormon" is a good thing. Now it comes directly from the adversary.

Besides, exactly which church are we talking about?

Smokey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:40 am

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:55 pm Edited for content

>Insists he was worthy of the Spirit.
>Mocks God and his Prophet, claims to be a “proud apostate”


Whew lad.

I don't see where anyone, including Hagoth, claimed to be a "proud apostate".

I'm not understanding how some of these terms are used, but "Edited for content" seems to be code for "hiding the actual content to make up random stuff that allows me to attack someone".

Smokey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:37 am People
who
reject
clear
Doctrine
don't
get
to
define
Doctrine

What is your definition of Doctrine?

Do you know that even past Prophets have taught false doctrine? So even the Prophets of the church can't agree on what true doctrine is.

Smokey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 10:40 am

Hagoth wrote: ↑Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:55 pm Edited for content

Whew lad.

Self edited. I changed "polish a turd" to "put lipstick on a pig." Feel free to use the original if it works better for you

Jeffret wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:16 pm I don't see where anyone, including Hagoth, claimed to be a "proud apostate".

On another thread I said, speaking of Smokey, "I read some of his posts. It made me really sad. I am proud to be labeled an apostate if it separates me from any kind of Mormonism that considers that kind of Alt-Right hatred and bigotry "righteousness."

I continue to feel really sad about that. He seems very sensitive about people using naughty words, but I can't think of any kind of "pornographic" language that holds a candle to his attitudes. I would love to see how The Brethren would react if Smokey sent some of that trash up the ladder to them.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:15 pm

Jeffret wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 12:16 pm I don't see where anyone, including Hagoth, claimed to be a "proud apostate".

On another thread I said, speaking of Smokey, "I read some of his posts. It made me really sad. I am proud to be labeled an apostate if it separates me from any kind of Mormonism that considers that kind of Alt-Right hatred and bigotry "righteousness."

I continue to feel really sad about that. He seems very sensitive about people using naughty words, but I can't think of any kind of "pornographic" language that holds a candle to his attitudes. I would love to see how The Brethren would react if Smokey sent some of that trash up the ladder to them.

That may be, but quotation marks and blocks have a standard meaning. They intended to indicate exact words or what someone said. None of that applies to what's going on here.