Thank you Metallica for confirming the recent confusion over your loyalties: fans or $$$?
Clearly, it's the latter.
I'm now waiting to see the Lars Urlich action figure, with its face in a permanent scowl, and its two fists raised high clutching wads of cash, and flipping twin birds.
James will be a mongoloid neanderthal with a vacant expression, and drool hanging from its mouth. And a ferrarri.
If there's a Cliff Burton doll, it should come in a casket that spins under a mock grave, to show how he would feel about all this.
Great point! Consequences and Context *do* matter!
So many/.'ers seem baffled by people who can justify exposing minors to graphic violence but not graphic sexuality.
IMHO, you can argue that kids have more experience dealing with violence at an earlier age (school yard bullies, general fighting) than sexuality (starts at puberty), and therefore, have a better understanding of the consequences, which leads them to make better decisions regarding the one and not the other.
As CommieLib describes, it is easier for parents to explain consequences to minors who have experience or context in which to place the subject. Any one over the age of 3yrs understands that when you punch someone, it hurts. But how many 16yr olds understand all that happens when you light your hormonal engines?
I think one could argue that even adults/society in general has yet to really grasp all the complex inter-related ramifications of a progressively promiscuous population.
Viewing graphic violence tends to make most people recoil; they come away with a reinforced perception that violence is bad.
Viewing graphic sexuality tends to make most people aroused; they tend to come away with an increased appetite to view and participate in it.
So, as a parent, my conclusions are:
Seeing Violence: teaches my son that violence is has negative consequences. Son will want to avoid violence, and appreciate peace more.
Seeing Sex: teaches my son that sex makes him feel good. Son will want to seek out opportunities to experiment and participate in sexual activity.
Son does not understand what it takes to be a good father, husband, and provider. Son deserves to enjoy his youth, and not be burdened with parenthood at 16. Son *definitely does not* have the right to father children and abandon child/mother.
Does this help anyone understand why, given the choice between two evils: viewing graphic violence and viewing graphic sexuality on-screen, I would pick the former?
It talks about the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and how He is Jehova, the God of the Old Testament/House of Israel. He is also the Divine Son of our Heavenly Father (Elohim).
> Unless God specifically commands it
> Some things don't match. The God giving Jacob 2 delighted in the chastity of women, and considered the acts of David and Solomon an abomination. Yet the God giving D&C seems to have changed his mind. David and Solomon did nothing wrong at all!
To clarify, The Book of Mormon and The D&C are consistent with respect to David: He lost his exaltation because took a wife (Uriah's) without the Lord's consent. This was an abomination. (See D&C 132:39)
I agree that the scriptures are unclear on Soloman, but I fail to find any explicit reference to Soloman in the D&C (or anywhere else) saying he was completely righteous. Maybe Jacob had access to more information than has survived to our time.
> Not to mention any man is entitled to 10 virgins!
I'd say that's a pretty loose interpretation. Look at D&C 132: 62 -- I don't see where you are getting the sense of entitlement. To me, it just states that if God sanctions a plural marriage, even 10 wives does not constitute a sin, so long as the people involved are obeying the commandments and entered into the marriages following the way God has ordained.
> I also must say that nowhere does either God command Joseph to take women as young as 14 or those already worthily married to other men...
I can't really comment on this, since I am not aware of any case where Joseph Smith married a woman of 14 years, or a woman already worthily married.
However, I will say that it doesn't sound completely unreasonable. If Joseph really was a prophet of God, and he was receiving revalations, it's not a stretch for me to believe God directed him to do this. It's not unusual for revalations given to a prophet to be kept from the public. (See Alma 12:9-10, 3Ne. 26: 16) even less surprising, considering the circumstances Joseph and the Church were in at that time -- heavy persecution from mobs.
> All normal acts of devotion are acceptable under "repentance", but telling me that secret handshakes and code names that will be required to enter into heaven(don't BS and say these don't exist, they do) are also included in repentance is a REAL hard sell.
"Normal acts of devotion" -- I think we're still largely in a semantic debate on this one. I'm afraid I am unwilling to discuss aspects of the Temple ceremonies, but I can say that I'm quite comfortable with the acts of devotion I perform there.
The Bible tells about rites of worship among the Israelites and Jews (animal sacrifice) that raise my eyebrows more than anything I've seen in the LDS church. My personal opinion is that there are things in the Gospel that will seem strange at first, but upon closer examination, become a lot easier to understand and appreciate.
As the Lord told Isaiah: " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa. 55:8-9)
> I was more referring to the belief that people can progress even after the resurrection, just not to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.
Sorry, I'm still unclear on your point here. Are you saying that modern LDS teachings contradict the Book of Mormon in the sense that one can not progress in the spirit world? Or after resurrection?
> oaths against the United States Government in the early temple ceremony
Sorry... quote a source for me on that one. I defy you to present any credible evidence. D&C 134 clearly directs members to respect and obey laws and government. For example, D&C 134:5 -
"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."
Again, Article of Faith #12:
"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
Not to mention documented acts of patriotism displayed by the early members. For example, the Mormon Batalion
> and the bloody oaths in the pre1990 ceremony were NOTHING like the Gadianton Robbers.
Again, I won't discuss Temple ceremonies. I would point you to Isaiah 5:20
> Oh, and get a f---ing dictionary. Temple ceremonies are SECRET, as in kept private or concealed. "Sacred" just means holy or inviolable.
Secret. Sacred. When I read in the Book of Mormon that Secret Combinations like the Gadianton Robbers proved to be the downfall of an entire nation, I can draw a pretty clear distinction between them and the sacred teachings of the Temple that help me to be a better person, and a better citezen. (if not a better speller)
Sure it's fair to call the temple ordinances secret. But to compare the motives for secrecy with the corrupt secret cartels of the early Americas is not accurate. Information is power, as is the denial of information. The secret combinations of the Book of Mormon used their secret oaths and signs to deny information and their identities from the authorities, and to further their evil designs against the government
As far as I can see, the only reason God asks members of His church to refrain from disclosing temple ordinances is to test us, and to teach us faith. I don't see how my honoring a promise of silence advances my temporal prosperity, or undermines the freedom of our nation in any way.
> Jesus Christ is the most sacred thing in mormonism, yet that's what they are trying their damnest to present to the public.
Ok, so you're taking issue with my semantics. I think the word 'secret' carries a fairly negative connotation, so by using the word 'sacred', I'm attempting to convey a similar meaning, with an opposite connotation.
Unless God specifically commands it (ie: to raise up a righteous generation. See http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/2/30#30)
> faith+babptism+repentance is all that's needed(no endowment)
Semantics; how does one define 'repentance'? Following the path as shown by Christ? Obeying all the commandments? There were temples at the time the passage I think you are referring to was recorded. Would they not be included in the process of repentance?
> no works can be preformed after death
If you're referring to temple work, then I don't see how this is a contradiction, since the work done in the temples is done by the living on behalf of the dead (who can't do their own work).
> condemns secret oaths(ie. temple oaths)
The Book of Mormon condemns the (evil) secret combinations (Gadianton Robbers) who used secret signs, and oaths. Just because the temple ceremony is held sacred and is not discussed outside of the temple, does not equate it with the secret oaths of those evil groups in the Book of Mormon.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you Metallica for confirming the recent confusion over your loyalties: fans or $$$?
Clearly, it's the latter.
I'm now waiting to see the Lars Urlich action figure, with its face in a permanent scowl, and its two fists raised high clutching wads of cash, and flipping twin birds.
James will be a mongoloid neanderthal with a vacant expression, and drool hanging from its mouth. And a ferrarri.
If there's a Cliff Burton doll, it should come in a casket that spins under a mock grave, to show how he would feel about all this.
Camp Chaos anyone?
Great point! Consequences and Context *do* matter!
/.'ers seem baffled by people who can justify exposing minors to graphic violence but not graphic sexuality.
So many
IMHO, you can argue that kids have more experience dealing with violence at an earlier age (school yard bullies, general fighting) than sexuality (starts at puberty), and therefore, have a better understanding of the consequences, which leads them to make better decisions regarding the one and not the other.
As CommieLib describes, it is easier for parents to explain consequences to minors who have experience or context in which to place the subject. Any one over the age of 3yrs understands that when you punch someone, it hurts. But how many 16yr olds understand all that happens when you light your hormonal engines?
I think one could argue that even adults/society in general has yet to really grasp all the complex inter-related ramifications of a progressively promiscuous population.
Viewing graphic violence tends to make most people recoil; they come away with a reinforced perception that violence is bad.
Viewing graphic sexuality tends to make most people aroused; they tend to come away with an increased appetite to view and participate in it.
So, as a parent, my conclusions are:
Seeing Violence: teaches my son that violence is has negative consequences. Son will want to avoid violence, and appreciate peace more.
Seeing Sex: teaches my son that sex makes him feel good. Son will want to seek out opportunities to experiment and participate in sexual activity.
Son does not understand what it takes to be a good father, husband, and provider. Son deserves to enjoy his youth, and not be burdened with parenthood at 16. Son *definitely does not* have the right to father children and abandon child/mother.
Does this help anyone understand why, given the choice between two evils: viewing graphic violence and viewing graphic sexuality on-screen, I would pick the former?
> You just proved my point on this. BoM says little about "purpose".
The best answer I can give you with respect to those passages is in an address given by Elder Robert E. Wells
It talks about the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and how He is Jehova, the God of the Old Testament/House of Israel. He is also the Divine Son of our Heavenly Father (Elohim).
> Unless God specifically commands it
> Some things don't match. The God giving Jacob 2 delighted in the chastity of women, and considered the acts of David and Solomon an abomination. Yet the God giving D&C seems to have changed his mind. David and Solomon did nothing wrong at all!
To clarify, The Book of Mormon and The D&C are consistent with respect to David: He lost his exaltation because took a wife (Uriah's) without the Lord's consent. This was an abomination. (See D&C 132:39)
I agree that the scriptures are unclear on Soloman, but I fail to find any explicit reference to Soloman in the D&C (or anywhere else) saying he was completely righteous. Maybe Jacob had access to more information than has survived to our time.
> Not to mention any man is entitled to 10 virgins!
I'd say that's a pretty loose interpretation. Look at D&C 132: 62 -- I don't see where you are getting the sense of entitlement. To me, it just states that if God sanctions a plural marriage, even 10 wives does not constitute a sin, so long as the people involved are obeying the commandments and entered into the marriages following the way God has ordained.
> I also must say that nowhere does either God command Joseph to take women as young as 14 or those already worthily married to other men...
I can't really comment on this, since I am not aware of any case where Joseph Smith married a woman of 14 years, or a woman already worthily married.
However, I will say that it doesn't sound completely unreasonable. If Joseph really was a prophet of God, and he was receiving revalations, it's not a stretch for me to believe God directed him to do this. It's not unusual for revalations given to a prophet to be kept from the public. (See Alma 12:9-10, 3Ne. 26: 16) even less surprising, considering the circumstances Joseph and the Church were in at that time -- heavy persecution from mobs.
> All normal acts of devotion are acceptable under "repentance", but telling me that secret handshakes and code names that will be required to enter into heaven(don't BS and say these don't exist, they do) are also included in repentance is a REAL hard sell.
"Normal acts of devotion" -- I think we're still largely in a semantic debate on this one. I'm afraid I am unwilling to discuss aspects of the Temple ceremonies, but I can say that I'm quite comfortable with the acts of devotion I perform there.
The Bible tells about rites of worship among the Israelites and Jews (animal sacrifice) that raise my eyebrows more than anything I've seen in the LDS church. My personal opinion is that there are things in the Gospel that will seem strange at first, but upon closer examination, become a lot easier to understand and appreciate.
As the Lord told Isaiah: " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa. 55:8-9)
> I was more referring to the belief that people can progress even after the resurrection, just not to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.
Sorry, I'm still unclear on your point here. Are you saying that modern LDS teachings contradict the Book of Mormon in the sense that one can not progress in the spirit world? Or after resurrection?
> oaths against the United States Government in the early temple ceremony
Sorry... quote a source for me on that one. I defy you to present any credible evidence. D&C 134 clearly directs members to respect and obey laws and government. For example, D&C 134:5 -
"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."
Again, Article of Faith #12: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
Not to mention documented acts of patriotism displayed by the early members. For example, the Mormon Batalion
> and the bloody oaths in the pre1990 ceremony were NOTHING like the Gadianton Robbers.
Again, I won't discuss Temple ceremonies. I would point you to Isaiah 5:20
> Oh, and get a f---ing dictionary. Temple ceremonies are SECRET, as in kept private or concealed. "Sacred" just means holy or inviolable.
Secret. Sacred. When I read in the Book of Mormon that Secret Combinations like the Gadianton Robbers proved to be the downfall of an entire nation, I can draw a pretty clear distinction between them and the sacred teachings of the Temple that help me to be a better person, and a better citezen. (if not a better speller)
Sure it's fair to call the temple ordinances secret. But to compare the motives for secrecy with the corrupt secret cartels of the early Americas is not accurate. Information is power, as is the denial of information. The secret combinations of the Book of Mormon used their secret oaths and signs to deny information and their identities from the authorities, and to further their evil designs against the government
As far as I can see, the only reason God asks members of His church to refrain from disclosing temple ordinances is to test us, and to teach us faith. I don't see how my honoring a promise of silence advances my temporal prosperity, or undermines the freedom of our nation in any way.
> Jesus Christ is the most sacred thing in mormonism, yet that's what they are trying their damnest to present to the public.
Ok, so you're taking issue with my semantics. I think the word 'secret' carries a fairly negative connotation, so by using the word 'sacred', I'm attempting to convey a similar meaning, with an opposite connotation.
Do you not believe that God, occasionally, commands us to not share certain things with others?
>It also says God and Jesus are one
Yes, one in purpose, not in body.
> polygamy is an abomination
Unless God specifically commands it (ie: to raise up a righteous generation. See http://scriptures.lds.org/jacob/2/30#30)
> faith+babptism+repentance is all that's needed(no endowment)
Semantics; how does one define 'repentance'? Following the path as shown by Christ? Obeying all the commandments? There were temples at the time the passage I think you are referring to was recorded. Would they not be included in the process of repentance?
> no works can be preformed after death
If you're referring to temple work, then I don't see how this is a contradiction, since the work done in the temples is done by the living on behalf of the dead (who can't do their own work).
> condemns secret oaths(ie. temple oaths)
The Book of Mormon condemns the (evil) secret combinations (Gadianton Robbers) who used secret signs, and oaths. Just because the temple ceremony is held sacred and is not discussed outside of the temple, does not equate it with the secret oaths of those evil groups in the Book of Mormon.
FYI - According to the Book of Mormon, you are not saved by works alone: Check here: http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/25/23#23