Storm over the Mormons - for Non-Mormons

[Magic Man]

I've known a few myself, but they are far from the majority. Most Christians I know see this commandment (thou shalt not kill) as having conditions. Hence, I still see mball's insistence on a dichotomy as baseless.

OK, so what you're saying is you don't follow Jesus's teachings?

 

[DeepShadow]

OK, so what you're saying is you don't follow Jesus's teachings?

I'm saying that Jesus didn't teach in dichotomies. Do you have any evidence that He did?

 

[Magic Man]

Nothings been conceded. I already demonstrated how your "numbers" examples are wrong.

You mean with your "if there are 50 women and one man"? That's a big "if". We're looking for realistic situations here. To prove the "numbers" wrong, you'd have to show that there were actually 65,000 women and only 2,000 men, or even just 65,000 women and only 30,000 men, or some similarly unequal ratio. We're not looking for possible scenarios, we're looking for the actual scenario.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm saying that Jesus didn't teach in dichotomies. Do you have any evidence that He did?

Yes, the fact that he advocated against violence and killing unequivocally. If I'm mistaken on that, I'd ask you to point out where I'm wrong. Otherwise, that's Jesus teaching that killing is always wrong.

 

[DeepShadow]

Yes, the fact that he advocated against violence and killing unequivocally. If I'm mistaken on that, I'd ask you to point out where I'm wrong. Otherwise, that's Jesus teaching that killing is always wrong.

I already said: Jesus claimed to be the God of the Old Testament. In doing so, he took responsibility for the many deaths in the name of God in the Old Testament. That God told His followers to kill on some occasions, and Jesus claimed to be Him. How could Jesus do so if he advocated against killing and violence unequivocally?

Even more, this is about how Mormons view Jesus/God, for a revelation to impose a change on prior revelation. For that point to be valid, I only have to point out that we don't share your dichotomy. And we don't.

 

[Magic Man]

I already said: Jesus claimed to be the God of the Old Testament. In doing so, he took responsibility for the many deaths in the name of God in the Old Testament. That God told His followers to kill on some occasions, and Jesus claimed to be Him. How could Jesus do so if he advocated against killing and violence unequivocally?

Did he really? Can you point me to a verse for that? And regardless, did he ever teach that violence or killing was OK, or is the only way you get to that through assumption?

Even more, this is about how Mormons view Jesus/God, for a revelation to impose a change on prior revelation. For that point to be valid, I only have to point out that we don't share your dichotomy. And we don't.

Actually, the point is that sometimes, even in Christianity (actually especially in Christianity), things are black and white. Something is wrong, period. That's why I bring up Jesus. Christianity is supposedly based on his teachings. If that's true, then things like killing are never justifiable. So, there is a precedent for something to never be justifiable when it's deemed to be wrong. Then the same could be applied to other things like polygamy.

Of course, this is secondary to the argument about whether or not it was ever necessary. I'm still waiting for evidence that it was.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I already said: Jesus claimed to be the God of the Old Testament.

He did? Is this something in the Book of Mormon, because I don't recall it in the New Testament.

In doing so, he took responsibility for the many deaths in the name of God in the Old Testament. That God told His followers to kill on some occasions, and Jesus claimed to be Him. How could Jesus do so if he advocated against killing and violence unequivocally?

A few possibilities come to mind:

- Jesus wasn't the God of the OT.
- the commands to kill in the OT were falsely attributed to God.
- Jesus changed his mind: he used to allow killing, but now He doesn't.
- Jesus recognized that people had changed and therefore warranted new rules (kinda like for divorce: one rule for people when there "hearts are hard", another rule otherwise).
- Jesus doesn't mind giving people conflicting commands.

 

[DeepShadow]

- Jesus changed his mind: he used to allow killing, but now He doesn't.
- Jesus recognized that people had changed and therefore warranted new rules (kinda like for divorce: one rule for people when there "hearts are hard", another rule otherwise).
- Jesus doesn't mind giving people conflicting commands.

These last three are a lot like what I'm trying to explain: God can change the rules.

EDIT: I correct myself--The actual rules don't change. God can change the portion of the rules He makes known unto us.

 

[Magic Man]

A few possibilities come to mind:

- Jesus wasn't the God of the OT.
- the commands to kill in the OT were falsely attributed to God.
- Jesus changed his mind: he used to allow killing, but now He doesn't.
- Jesus recognized that people had changed and therefore warranted new rules (kinda like for divorce: one rule for people when there "hearts are hard", another rule otherwise).
- Jesus doesn't mind giving people conflicting commands.

Actually, just to clarify, those possibilities would support DeepShadow's argument in this case. My point is that Jesus never advocated killing or violence because it was never right or justifiable. DeepShadow had said that there are things that are OK sometimes, but not others.

 

[DeepShadow]

Did he really? Can you point me to a verse for that? And regardless, did he ever teach that violence or killing was OK, or is the only way you get to that through assumption?

John 8

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, aBefore Abraham was, bI am.


59 Then took they up astones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so bpassed by.


He also killed an olive tree, and drove people out of the temple.

Actually, the point is that sometimes, even in Christianity (actually especially in Christianity), things are black and white.

Only in the Christianity you've dreamed up. That's a straw man. Are you saying no one can claim to be Christian unless they interpret these verses like you do?

And my point is that this black/white dichotomy, IF it exists in mainstream Christianity, does not exist in Mormonism.

 

[Magic Man]

John 8

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, aBefore Abraham was, bI am.


59 Then took they up astones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so bpassed by.


He also killed an olive tree, and drove people out of the temple.

So, that's him saying he's the God of the OT?

Only in the Christianity you've dreamed up. That's a straw man. Are you saying no one can claim to be Christian unless they interpret these verses like you do?

And my point is that this black/white dichotomy, IF it exists in mainstream Christianity, does not exist in Mormonism.

The point is that even a great teacher of the religion you follow preached dichotomies like don't kill.

Really, the better point is that, while some things could have good reason for being allowed sometimes, others have no good reason. I still have yet to see a good reason for allowing polygamy. I also have yet to see why it's banned unless it's "necessary". I see why killing is sometimes deemed OK (although not by Jesus).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What I think is interesting is that when you consider the inevitability of national acceptance of same-sex marriage, and what will follow from that, which will be basically that states and entities seeking government money will have to recognize same-sex couples and treat them equally. Then add the Mormon history of getting a revelation that can change anything, literally anything in their doctrine, even something as fundamental as polygamy, it looks like eventually, we will see a Mormon revelation accepting same-sex marriage. Not soon, not in my lifetime, but I do think that's the way it will go. Now that's interesting.

btw, none of the Mormons here think so, but that fits the pattern as well. As long as it's doctrine, it's followed, believed, revered and will never change. Then you get the new revelation and bingo, it never was doctrine, it was just the mistaken, human interpretation of previous leaders.

To me, this whole approach is one of the most fascinating and successful aspects of The Mormon Church.

It's essentially a sophisticated version of the same tactic psychics and dowsers, mis-guided people and con-artists use: forget about all the misses. They never happened. They aren't important. There was "interference" with my dowsing rod. Now it's working, trust me. Psychics critically rely on this tactic (watch Sylvia Browne do it in a shocking way here) and Joseph Smith would have honed these skills while he was using his seer stones to locate buried treasure.

 

[DeepShadow]

The point is that even a great teacher of the religion you follow preached dichotomies like don't kill.

So your outsider's interpretation of Jesus' doctrines are correct, and the 99% of Christendom that allow for self-defense are wrong. Got it.

*Where's that "ignore" button?*

 

[DeepShadow]

It's essentially a sophisticated version of the same tactic psychics and dowsers, mis-guided people and con-artists use: forget about all the misses.

Funny, that's exactly what I tried to point out to our critics: confirmation bias. They are looking at all the times that public pressure changed the church, and failing to notice the times that it didn't work.

I can be fair, though: Spinkles, what do you think we're missing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So your outsider's interpretation of Jesus' doctrines are correct, and the 99% of Christendom that allow for self-defense are wrong. Got it.

Personally, I can't square Jesus' teachings in the Gospel with violence in any circumstance. They have a common thread:

- even getting angry with another is wrong.
- if a person harms you, comply.
- if a person wrongs you, forgive them.
- don't worry about your material needs; God knows what you need and will provide it.
- if you suffer or are persecuted, you will be rewarded in Heaven.

I think this is in contrast to the OT, which teaches that "righteous" war is acceptable and sometimes even necessary, and the Epistles, where Paul declares that all authority is God-appointed, and rebellion against that authority (e.g. by refusing to fight, maybe?) amounts to rebellion against God.

I think that a straightforward reading of the Bible makes it fairly clear that Jesus consistently and adamantly preached against violence in all circumstances. I think that the only way you can say that he didn't is to attribute the OT God's approval of war to Jesus, as you have done.

BTW - I asked about how you made the link between the OT God and Jesus, but I think it got lost in the discussion. How do you do it? Is this something explicitly stated in the Book of Mormon, or does it employ an interpretation of the Bible that I'm not familiar with?

 

[Magic Man]

So your outsider's interpretation of Jesus' doctrines are correct, and the 99% of Christendom that allow for self-defense are wrong. Got it.

I'm curious. How do you interpret Jesus's words to mean that killing in self-defense is OK? Did he at some point completely contradict "Turn the other cheek"?

*Where's that "ignore" button?*

I don't know. I never use it. I like to see what others have to say, even if I disagree with it.

 

[Magic Man]

BTW - I asked about how you made the link between the OT God and Jesus, but I think it got lost in the discussion. How do you do it? Is this something explicitly stated in the Book of Mormon, or does it employ an interpretation of the Bible that I'm not familiar with?

Originally Posted by DeepShadow
John 8

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, aBefore Abraham was, bI am.


59 Then took they up astones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so bpassed by.


He also killed an olive tree, and drove people out of the temple.

That's the quote from the Bible he gave.

 

[Autodidact]

Funny, that's exactly what I tried to point out to our critics: confirmation bias. They are looking at all the times that public pressure changed the church, and failing to notice the times that it didn't work.

I can be fair, though: Spinkles, what do you think we're missing?

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Either way, when the Church changes, it's often as a result of public pressure.

 

[Katzpur]

So, that's him saying he's the God of the OT?

That's only one one many verses, mball. I have started two threads on this topic over the years and neither one drew much interest. But we definitely do believe that the Jesus Christ of the New Testament is the same individual known as Jehovah in the Old Testament. That individual is not the same individual considered by most Christians to be God the Father. There are plenty of verses in both the Old and New Testaments that are evidence of this fact. Unfortunately this point has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. It simply explains how the teachings found in the Old Testament were Jesus Christ's teachings as much as those in the New Testament.

 

[DeepShadow]

Personally, I can't square Jesus' teachings in the Gospel with violence in any circumstance.

What about clearing the temple?