Founding a New Religious Movement (NRM)

[columbus]

According to those who don't agree with it, there is no such threshold for any religion to cross from 'cult' to 'religion.'

"your beliefs are funny (or weird) and I don't like you' doesn't address longevity, size or wealth.

Well,
LDS went from a polygamous cult to a religion when they could afford to screw up my life.
And you did.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

Well,
LDS went from a polygamous cult to a religion when they could afford to screw up my life.
And you did.
Tom

Did I?

Sorry.

 

[columbus]

Did I?

Sorry.

Yeah you did.

LDS has always been a hate group, opposing my civil rights. You are a Mormon, right?
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

Yeah you did.

LDS has always been a hate group, opposing my civil rights. You are a Mormon, right?
Tom

We have?

And precisely what civil rights do we oppose?

I mean...really. You can, if you are gay, go get married according to the government...even in Utah.

What you can not do is make us recognize your marriage ecclesiastically. If you are not a Mormon, I utterly fail to see how that is a problem for you, or in any way a violation of YOUR civil rights.

In fact, it doesn't violate your civil rights if you ARE LDS. If you don't agree with our beliefs, you are perfectly free to choose different ones. We can't sue you, imprison you, or fine you. Go follow the beliefs you prefer.

However, if you figure out a way to force us to recognize your civil marriage eclesiastically, so that you can get married, say, in a temple or make a local bishop marry you, then I don't see how that is violating YOUR civil rights.

Indeed, that infamous Prop 8 deal wasn't about trying to take any rights away from the gays who partner up. In fact, they had MORE rights as domestic partners, legally, than married heterosexual couples did, and that was no problem for the church. It was the stated and proclaimed intent of the gays who wanted to force us to accept their marriages exclesiatically, and to force us to perform marriages we don't recognize religiously that was the problem. It wasn't the rights. It was the WORD, which the gays intended to force religions (not just us, btw) to acknowledge doctrinally.

So if you feel that your life was ruined by the church, tough. Your choices. You made them. You knew the 'rules' and beliefs when you did. I have no clue why you expected us to alter OUR religious beliefs because YOU wanted to go against them.

Your choice. You made it.

 

[columbus]

precisely what civil rights do we oppose?

My marriage to my partner of decades.
You still oppose that.

I've gotten used to religious people being my enemy. And abusing children with your homophobic nonsense.
I'm used to it. I fully expect you to keep insisting that it's your right as religious people to abuse me, and people like me.

But don't expect me to be tolerant of your abuse.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

My marriage to my partner of decades.
You still oppose that.

I've gotten used to religious people being my enemy. And abusing children with your homophobic nonsense.
I'm used to it. I fully expect you to keep insisting that it's your right as religious people to abuse me, and people like me.

But don't expect me to be tolerant of your abuse.
Tom

Tom, you are married to your partner. Be happy. WE cannot, and have not, advocated that you not have any rights that go with that association. We are not suing you for being married to whoever you are married to. We do not, and have not, advocated that any civil rights you have...or have had...be abrogated. The only thing we insist upon is that YOU not abbrogate OUR right to not recognize your marriage religiously.

Why do you care what we think? As long as we don't try to deny your right to IRS or Social security benefits, the ability to buy stuff, live together, inheritance rights or any of the other things you share with your partner (and that you had before Prop 8 was defeated in Califorinia, by the way...rights we absolutely did NOT argue with) then we haven't done anything to you.

We do not 'abuse' you. Go be happy. You just can't get 'sealed' in one of our temples. But then, you probably can't get married in a Catholic cathedral, either, or in any number of other religious venues. Get over it.

If one happens to be Catholic, and divorced, guess what? The Catholic church won't recognize that marriage or allow it to be solemnized by a priest in a parish or cathedral, either. I don't see a whole bunch of people attacking them over it....and it is the SAME CONCEPT. You know...the state has one view of divorced Catholics remarrying; it's fine with the state, and those couples have all the rights every other civilly married couple has. They only have problems with the religion. So....since when do they get to dictate that any religion has to agree with THEM? Really. Religions have the right to view marriage as they wish, ecclesiastically. They do not, and should not, have the right to dictate to the state how IT views marriage, and that's fine.

The problem you seem to be having here is that you think your opinion...and that of the state...should be held sacrosanct by RELIGION. And that, sir, is unconstitutional.

So you marry your partner of many years. Be happy. You are married. You can't "seal,' religiously, thatmarriage in one of our temples. Tough. There are many reasons one may not be able to do that which have nothing whatsoever to do with being gay.

I suggest you get over it.

After all, if you think that we are RIGHT, doctrineally (except for the gay marriage thing....which, if you really know our doctrines, would be a bit difficult) then you have a problem. You are demanding that we change our very basic doctrines to accommodate you. Rather like a worshiper of Baal insisting that the Israelites put up a statue of him in one of their holy places in order to show their inclusivity. It ain't gonna happen, sir.

I can see where almost every other Christian church could, eventually, recognize and accommodate gay marriage, especially the 'til death do you part' sort. Honestly, I don't see a problem with it, given the standard view of the afterlife and what heaven will be like (according to what I have been told, anyway). MANY already do. More power to them in their own faiths.

But WE can't do that without so basic a doctrinal change as to pretty much destroy our view of God, the eternal nature of the male/female eternal relationship--pretty much everything.

 

[columbus]

WE cannot, and have not, advocated that you not have any rights that go with that association.

I can't believe that you actually claimed that.

You Mormons have opposed my life and marriage for my entire adult life.

I can't believe you actually claimed that.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I can see where almost every other Christian church could, eventually, recognize and accommodate gay marriage, especially the 'til death do you part' sort.

Every time @Katzpur convinces me that Mormons aren't my enemy, somebody like you or @CNorman or @PrestorJohn comes along and reminds me that Katzpur is the weirdo. Her ethics and morals do not match LDS.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

Every time @Katzpur convinces me that Mormons aren't my enemy, somebody like you or @CNorman or @PrestorJohn comes along and reminds me that Katzpur is the weirdo. Her ethics and morals do not match LDS.
Tom

Well, that was rather personally insulting.
What part of my opinion that you should behave as you believe is a problem? My only problem is that I don't wish to behave as YOU believe, and I don't want you dictating my beliefs, and the doctrine of my faith, to me simply because you disapprove of it.

BTW I like Katspur a lot. It's nice that you do, as well.

However, for you to condemn an entire belief system because you don't like what *I* say or how I say it is a bit....hmnnn....wrong, don't you think?

As Katspur's opinions and writings are hers, mine are mine. Neither one of us represents the whole of Mormonism, or the whole of the teachings of the CoJCoLDS. You would have a real fit if I defined everybody who shared any of your opinions regarding God by you.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"God" is all powerful but he cannot make himself understood
by people ??

It’s a matter of communicating to us in a form and language that we can understand. If we were God then it would not be a problem but being human means we need a translator to be able to hear communications from God. And that intermediary are the Prophets and Messengers who appear in human form but in reality are sent from the world of God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How would one go about starting a New Religious Movement (NRM)?

Declare yourself as Allah or God incarnate. And if you are not that courageous declare that you are the new Mesiah fulfilling all previous prophecies and have come to redeem the world. It is good to have shoulder length hair and beard, more photogenic, since you are going to be photographed, and people may keep your photo in their prayer niche, no Messiah shaves first thing in the morning. You should be able to repeat or write what has already been said in the scriptures of various religions ad infinity. With that, you are set.

Would you be prepared to be crucified, tortured, beaten, imprisoned and exiled? All true religions must go through a stage of intense persecution but also they are founded by the will of God Who chooses a Prophet to represent Him not by men.

Not necessarily. Mohammad, Joseph Smith, Osho, did not face much problem. What is some inconvenience to a life of luxury later? Mohammad married 11 times (Wikiedia), Osho had a fleet of 92 Rolls Royce cars.

If one succeeds in religion, politics or business, the benefits can last many generations. Look at Agha Khan, he is the 49th in his line, Dawoodi Bohras of India - 53 in his line, Suddha Advaita in India from 1,500 AD. So probably 30th in the line in various branches. Mohammad was not able to install Ali as his successor, but Bahaullah's line went for four generation before it petered out. Political lines, Nehru-Gandhi in India, 5th generation. Business, the Tatas of India. Perhaps Rockefelloers too. Some one has to take a chance.

 

[Audie]

It’s a matter of communicating to us in a form and language that we can understand. If we were God then it would not be a problem but being human means we need a translator to be able to hear communications from God. And that intermediary are the Prophets and Messengers who appear in human form but in reality are sent from the world of God.

IOW, "God" can do anything but he cannot speak English.

And you believe that.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

You mean, like a crucified Jew is a "Person" in a monotheistic God image? One of three, but they still claim monotheism?

Now, that's weird.

Cult like even.
Tom

Nice try. Read the entirety of (1). No chopping off context.

(1) usually have weird beliefs usually involving full activity of the religion in personal life

That is, the defining attribute is they come up with usually a system that governs daily life.

You can go to any town, and be unable to pick out the Christians. This has a large portion to do with the fact that many of them are not very active. But more importantly, they are not cultlike. They don't have someone come to their house, at 5am to wake them for the worship routine. They don't check to make sure people are giving alms. They don't tend to scold people for their private bedroom activities. They don't schedule inspections.

These are cult behaviors. And these are very weird.

Someone asked me about where I got this definition from. Well, life experience dammit, but more importantly, this is pretty much the difference.

What's a Cult?

Q. What is a cult? And how does someone know if the faith they are following is harmful?

A. The word cult has three definitions. First of all, it can simply be a group that loves something. When people refer to an "Elvis cult" or "The O.C. cult," they mean really devoted fans.

The second definition is that of a religion whose beliefs differ from the majority around them. In the Roman Empire, Christians were sometimes considered a cult because they worshiped Jesus rather than the Roman gods.

The third, and most commonly used definition, refers to a religious group that is:

1) Exclusive. They may say, "We're the only ones with the truth; everyone else is wrong; and if you leave our group your salvation is in danger."

2) Secretive. Certain teachings are not available to outsiders or they're presented only to certain members, sometimes after taking vows of confidentiality.

3) Authoritarian. A human leader expects total loyalty and unquestioned obedience.

In a religion, you can leave. In a cult, you tend to get "gently urged" to stay.

 

[columbus]

Nice try. Read the entirety of (1). No chopping off context.

I quoted (1). And responded to it.

That is, the defining attribute is they come up with usually a system that governs daily life.

Christians do that quite commonly.

Take me for instance. I'm gay and long married. The biggest enemies of my marriage are Christians. They are near always the people who insist that their ideology matters more than I do.

You can go to any town, and be unable to pick out the Christians.

I don't have to.
They tell me that they're Christians.
Over and over.

Until I'm sick of hearing about their hate and everything, and stop listening to them. Then they consider me a hell bound sinner, because I know that y'all are wrong and say so.
Out loud.
Tom

 

[loverofhumanity]

IOW, "God" can do anything but he cannot speak English.

And you believe that.

All our knowledge and sciences I believe comes from God directly or indirectly just as all light originates from the sun.

 

[Audie]

All our knowledge and sciences I believe comes from God directly or indirectly just as all light originates from the sun.

Are you aware that your response has nothing to do
with what I said?

Oh, and, as "all light originates form the sun" is simply not true,
Do you want examples?
I guess I'd kind of agree with you. "All knowledge comes from god
just like all light comes from the sun"

Similarly, all bank robbers are honest just like all
payroll robbers are honest.

 

[Audie]

All our knowledge and sciences I believe comes from God directly or indirectly just as all light originates from the sun.

Now to my question that you evaded.
Lets say it a different way.

IF god is omnipotent (can do anything) then he can
speak plain english to people. IF NOT, then he is not
omnipotent.

Which is it you believe?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Are you aware that your response has nothing to do
with what I said?

Oh, and, as "all light originates form the sun" is simply not true,
Do you want examples?
I guess I'd kind of agree with you. "All knowledge comes from god
just like all light comes from the sun"

Similarly, all bank robbers are honest just like all
payroll robbers are honest.

God, I believe is All Knowing which includes knowledge of all languages.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Now to my question that you evaded.
Lets say it a different way.

IF god is omnipotent (can do anything) then he can
speak plain english to people. IF NOT, then he is not
omnipotent.

Which is it you believe?

God is All Knowing and He decides how He wishes to address us.

 

[Audie]

God, I believe is All Knowing which includes knowledge of all languages.

You sure are evasive.
Now, why cant he speak english, ifn he is so smart?