I came across this video back in January and I just wanted to share it with all of you guys and those of you that have the time and desire to watch it.(43 minutes long) I will also be including a permanent link to this post in my link section, so that everyone will be able to easily find it in the future or refer others to it.
In this video, Robert Millet is speaking to the Mission Prep Club(pathetic I know) at BYU, on March 11, 2004, about how to handle the tough anti-Mormon questions missionaries may face, while on their missions or afterward. I guess they are getting pretty desperate, aren't they?
Here is some background info on the guy:
Brother Robert Millet was Born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on 30 December 1947 and served in the Eastern States Mission from 1967-69. He married Shauna Sizemore in 1971; they have six children. Brother Millet received B.S., M.S. degrees in Psychology from BYU and his Ph.D. from Florida State University in Religious Studies.
He worked with LDS Social Services, LDS Seminaries and Institutes, and joined BYU Religious Education faculty in 1983. While at BYU, he has served as Ancient Scripture Department Chair and as Dean of Religious Education. He now holds a joint appointment with Church Public Affairs (Manager of Outreach and Interfaith Relations).
This guy is a first class chump and is just teaching these "future missionaries" how to lie and be an apologist like him, by not answering the tough questions that people ask, rather answering the questions that they want people to ask, which they didn't ask(insane, I know).
In other words, "the church is the only true church on earth" and anyone that thinks differently, or asks good, tough questions, based completely on truth, reality and facts; are evil liars and anti-Mormons and they should just be ignored. If they ask you about the racism, tell them about the First Vision, right?
There are an entire slew of great comments by this guy, such as:
"We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions."
Yeah, I would add; especially if they are tough questions, that make the Mormon church look like the fraud and cult that it truly is. Robert Millet shares an example from the Book of Mormon, confirming that those who ask these questions, are "from the Devil."
I guess this would confirm Brigham Young saying that us ex-Mormons are all anti-Christs and then Boyd K. Packer saying that we should be avoided, because we are "full of darkness" and "disease germs." Good to see that they think so highly of us, isn't it?
Another great quote is:
"As Latter-Day Saints, you already know more about God and Christ and the Plan of Salvation, than anyone who will attack you, take my word for it....and you and I should take some degree of confidence in that."
What arrogance and people accuse me of being too sure of what I know? When I went to that Stake Conference with M. Russell Ballard last year, he basically said the same thing; that "Latter-Day Saints know more about Jesus and the next life, than anybody else on the planet." He said that the world needs Mormons to educate them about "the truth" of things, because Mormons are the only ones that have it.
Again, this is flat out arrogance, condescending as hell and how does this bring others to Mormonism or show their supposed love and acceptance of others, that don't believe as they do or those of other religions? Oh that's right, it all started with the "I'm greater than Jesus Christ" Joseph Smith and the teaching that all churches are an abomination with false preachers and corrupt doctrines.
Then you have the BOM teaching that there are only 2 churches, God's and the "whore of all the earth" or the "mother of harlots", etc. Yes, this shows how much the Mormon Hierarchy love and accept others that don't believe as they do, doesn't it?
Do they actually think that people won't be smart enough to put all this together and expose them? Are they really that naive or are they just dumb? Maybe that's why an estimated 125,000 people resigned last year, eh?
Robert Millet basically states that because people are opposing Mormonism, it proves that the church is true; so the opposition proves the veracity of the Mormon church. So, I guess based on that ridiculous logic, Communism is true, Terrorism is true and so on.
No wonder missionaries act so arrogantly and cocky and I should know, because I was one. I believed that we had the only truth on earth and that everybody else was wrong and that is what I taught every time I shared the First Vision story.
He talks about how nobody will remain neutral and will either be for or against the Kingdom of God. In other words, people will either be for or against Mormonism and those who reject it, are evil and screwed in this life and the next.
He quotes Brigham Young as saying:
"Every time we announce the building of a temple, all the bells of hell begin to ring and oh how I love to hear those bells." (The future missionaries laugh!!)
This is truly pathetic and a fine example of the kind of BS the Mormon Hierarchy is trying to spew to the world and the deceptive means and individuals that it uses to do it.
Robert Millet and everything he says in this video, is fully condoned by the Mormon Hierarchy and he has served as the Ancient Scripture Department Chair and as Dean of Religious Education at BYU. Robert Millet is exactly the kind of man(sucker), that the Mormon Hierarchy are looking for, to spread their BS all over the world.
I'm really glad that this video exists, in order to show everyone that us antis aren't insane or imagining some inexistent conspiracy; which is, that they are teaching the members and missionaries to flat out lie about what the Church actually believes and has taught in their dark past. In some cases, this would include their dark present teachings as well.
This video shows exactly what their plans of deceit are and how they want to suck innocent people into their web of lies and closet of skeletons.
This man needs help and is a completely arrogant, delusional, Mormon apologist in my opinion!! He should go hang out with the likes of Van Hale, Daniel Peterson, Jeff Lindsay and the others as they would be best friends I'm sure, if they aren't already. You guys did notice that he now works with the Mormon Hierarchy's "public affairs department?" What a shocker!! LOL!!
Anyone want to argue with me that he isn't doing and saying exactly what they want him to, with their implicit approval?
This video, along with the 50,000+ brainwashed Mormon missionaries, being taught to lie and deceive the world, is the perfect example of why us ex-Mormons need to keep doing what we're doing and spreading the truth and reality of the Mormon cult to the world.
I look forward to everyone's comments,
Samuel the Utahnite
41 comments:
Mr. Millet was a good friend of my mission Pres, Joseph Fielding McConkie. They wrote several books together. If you baptized 5 people in 3 months, you got a personalized book from him. I could never get through one book as they were so boring, so arrogant. I had to look deep into the man that had written this and feel deep sorrow for a man who grew up without a father, who wanted nothing more than to be like him and rise up the ranks of the church, but who as yet hadn't. He lived wanting so much to give love, but just when he did, it was as if his deceased father would pull him back and tell him to cut that part of him off. I had a couple of real conversations with him and it pained me to see the pain behind the eyes of this man. His mouth was spewing the same things Mr. Millet was saying, his father was saying, the church was saying, but his heart was weeping. I hope the day comes that he gets in touch with that.
I'm so sad that after all of these years the same vomit is still being spewed from these men. How boring it must be to listen to themselves.
Thanks Samuel.
Lori
www.steppinupmusic.com
Hey all...
I know everyone hates me and thinks I make blanket condemnation statements....but thats besides the point of why I am here.
ATTN...
Samuel and everyone else who has a passion for exposing the Mormon church:
Jerald Tanner of the "Utah Light House Ministry" passed away last night.
To those that believe in prayer, please pray that Sandra is comforted in this time and that God may be close by her side right now.
The Tanners Christian ministry to persue truth and call the mormon church to truth is awesome!! They have done the Lord God a great service.
God Bless...
John 8:32
-Eric Hoffman
Interesting video but I am a little disappointed. I thought the guy was actually going to answer the tough questions. His basic message was teach and testify. His statement, "never use meat when milk will suffice" should be replaced with "never use meat, period" LOL So basically, I felt that his talk was pointless... he didn't actually teach anyone how to answer any tough questions. Instead, he taught them to answer the question that SHOULD have been asked.
For example:
Q: Hi Samuel, how are you?
A: My wife is great, thanks.
In other words, dance around the question and avoid it just like the leaders do.
How screwed up is this logic? Opposition to something is evidence that it is true! Samuel covered this in the blog, but WTH? That is the most insane and ridiculous logic I have ever heard.
===========================
Thanks for the news, Eric. I don't know about everyone else, but I certainly don't hate you! Obviously, I agree strongly with Samuel on most issues. Just because we disagree most certain issues does not mean I hate you. You should come hang out with us sometime.
On my mission we got fed HOURS of this sort of "logic". It was just boring nonsense.
My condolences to the Tanner's. He had more courage in his little finger than most men do in their whole bodies in the morg. Crap, Steve Irwin and now Mr. Tanner. I swear, this has been quite a fricken month!
Eric, I don't hate you either. I used to really, really enjoy listening to your podcasts until you became so incredibly self righteous and judgemental. Your insights into the church however were interesting. I just have no desire to be converted into anything or to have my family that are still TBM to be condemned to eternal death by your words. Other than that, as I said, I used to really enjoy what you had to say. I'm saddened that you and Samuel had such a falling out. For a time, as a team, you two were really powerful. I feel more comfortable over hear simply because I'm not being attacked and my family is not being attacked and I'm not having yet another religion forced down my throat.
Thanks for the info.
Lori
www.steppinupmusic.com
Samuel,
Thanks for sharing this video and your comments. This is exactly why I could never return to the Church. Even if I believed it was true, I wouldn't be able to stomach being on a mission or in a Sunday school or priesthood meeting ever again. But you have to admit that it is rather brilliant of them to give this kind of training to the missionaries. As we all know, the only way to prevent a loss of faith is to refuse to listen to anyone else!
Also, thank you for teaching me a new word: inexistent. At first I thought that was a mistake, but a quick run to Webster's proved otherwise. I love learning new words :) Now I have another word to add to my list of things to call the golden plates, the Mormon gods, the celestial kingdom, etc. haha
--------
Eric,
Thanks for the post. The Tanners are two of the most highly respected people in my eyes. Their dedication is admirable, especially over there in enemy territory, lol.
BTW, I don't hate you either. I think you have a lot to contribute, but from what I have read, you also (ironically) advocate some unbiblical doctrine of your own. For example, you once said something along the lines of, "Anyone who believes in Joseph Smith is unChristian and is going to hell." Can you cite a biblical source for that? It is my experience that people can be Christians as well as members of the LDS Church. Jesus will save a Mormon even if he believes that the Church is true. I'll wager that Jesus will save you too, even though you believe that your church is true. :) Unless the Bible has rewritten itself since last time I checked, John 5:24 and Romans 10:13 are backing me up on this one.
--------
"Crap, Steve Irwin and now Mr. Tanner. I swear, this has been quite a fricken month!" Quite a fricken month indeed!
123 you stated...
"Can you cite a biblical source for that?
Galations 1:8
Romans 10:1-4
Luke 17:2
2 Corinthians 11:4
Matthew 7:13-14
If a Mormon truly believes that God was a man and now is an exhalted being...If a Mormon truly believes that Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Lucifer...If a Mormon truly believes that Jesus Christ is not Lord and just some created being that God made in order to attone for the worlds sin....if Mormons truly believe that they can get right with God by there own righteous acts....If Mormons truly believe that the blood of Christ is not sufficient to cleanse all sins(Not Just Some)...then yes. According to scripture they are following a false God that is no God at all and God has warned those who have followed other gods.
It is not by righteousness but by Christ's righteousness that I have been saved.
The gospel is: you are more sinful and flawed than you ever dared believe yet you can be more accepted and loved than you ever dared hope at the same time because Jesus Christ lived and died in your place. . . .
“True faith saith not: ‘What have I done? . . . What do I deserve?’ But it saith: ‘what hath Christ done? What doth he deserve?’ . . . Therefore he that apprehendeth Christ by faith . . . may be bold to glory that he is righteous. How? Even by that precious jewel, Christ Jesus, which he possesseth by faith.” (Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians)
Irreligious people seek to be their own saviors and lords through irreligion, “worldly” pride. (“No one tells me how to live or what to do, so I determine what is right and wrong for me!”) But moral and religious people seek to be their own saviors and lords through religion, “religious” pride. . . . Both irreligion and religion are forms of self salvation.
To “get the gospel” is to turn from self-justification and rely on Jesus’ record for a relationship with God. The irreligious don’t repent at all, and the religious only repent of sins. But Christians also repent of their righteousness. That is the distinction between the three groups—Christians, moralists (religious), and pragmatists (irreligious).
God Bless...
-Eric
Eric:
Galatians 1:8 is a warning against and condemnation of false teachers.
Romans 10:1-4 teaches that any who seek justification by Christ will receive it.
Luke 17:2...add verse 1 in there too and you have a solid case against Joseph Smith ;)
2 Corinthians 11:4 does not by any stretch of the imagination condemn your typical Mormon.
Matthew 7:13-14 also does not condemn your run-of-the-mill Mormons.
Reading the Bible, I don't understand how you can believe that your typical Mormon is condemned to hell just because they belong to a cult and hold heretical beliefs. Even if you did believe that, I don't see where you are receiving sufficient justification for that belief to feel comfortable telling people that they and their families are condemned to hell for believing incorrect doctrines. Again, as far as my studies have shown me, the New Testament clearly teaches that those who believe in Christ are saved by his grace. There are no elaborate details given as to what that means, so your conclusions are clearly extrapolations from the Bible. (Unless you're an apostle, I believe you're disqualified from doing that.) I suppose you could make an argument that baptism is also required, but that's not as strongly emphasized. And the requirement of not believing heresies or having misconceptions about God is not supported anywhere in the Bible.
Now I feel like a Mormon apologist, yuck! And right after I tried to convince Samuel that I'm not one. Haha
Welcome back, Eric. Here's my thoughts on your last comment...
Christians of all sorts read and believe in the Bible. They all intrepret it differently, but believe in the same God. As long as they fear God, why does it matter if they disagree slightly on a few points of doctrine?
Is God really that cruel and heartless that he will condemn everyone who didn't have a perfect understanding of the Bible and it's true, intended message?
So someone believes God has blonde hair and someone believes he has dark hair. God actually has red hair so does that mean these two people believe in a false God and are damned? I know it's a dumb example, but you know what I'm getting at.
Honestly, the religion you describe scares me. Even if you were totally right and everyone else was wrong, I would not want to be saved and live with such a heartless god. It almost sounds like your curtains need to be a certain color or you're damned.
If god loves all people, as you believe he does, why is he so merciless and quick to damn those unworthy souls who happened to believe God had dark hair and yet were still good people?
If this is not what you have said, please correct me. I agree with you that the Mormon religion is false. But I can never believe that someone will be damned JUST FOR BEING MORMON, or Catholic, or Baptist, or anything else but your religion. There are many God-fearing people in many religions. Many of them are sincere, true believers. I will never worship a god who will damn good, innocent people just because of their "false" or "incorrect" beliefs.
God looks at the heart. You of all people should know this.
Thanks,
Ray
See, the thing is,...is *I* used to be as TBM as my family still is. I didn't realize at the time that I was being brainwashed, or told absolutle lies whatsoever. I thought I had the truth! If you (Eric) had come to my face and told me I was going to hell, it would have only served to make you less in my eyes, and solidify my position as I was being persecuted for my faith, therefore it was true.
No, the only way for a human to change their position on religion is not to condemn, but to treat them with absolute respect that they have a brain and have humanity and it would serve them well (this has to be their choice) to look at the realities of what they believe. Let them come to the table, don't drag them there with a iron chain around their necks after you've starved them for months, flogged them with stinging barbs, cut out their tongue and castrated them. You must give a person the space to learn how to walk without the shackles of the only thing they've ever known possibly their entire lives.
What sort of god do you believe in anyway that would threaten "his" people so? That is the number one reason why I studied myself right out of Christianity.
Thanks,
Lori
www.steppinupmusic.com
123 stated:
"Again, as far as my studies have shown me, the New Testament clearly teaches that those who believe in Christ are saved by his grace. There are no elaborate details given as to what that means, so your conclusions are clearly extrapolations from the Bible."
Well my friend you need t study the Gospel more. Its in there...
1st John....gnostics believed in Jesus, there false doctrine disqualified them.
Romans 4:4-8
Romans 9:30-10:4
Gospel of John....where some believed in Jesus but weren't saved because they truly didn't know Him.
Or how about Colossians....more gnostics denied the deity of Christ.
-----------------
Lori,
I understand that you are upset by religion in general....but a relationship with Jesus Christ is much more than some man made religion.
Jesus loves you Lori.
Peace to you...
-Eric
Jude 1:2
But Eric, I don't love him. I don't know him. I know heresay that has been buthered over hundreds of years. I don't trust anything blindly, nothing. Not he, nor his spirit nor anything thing about "him" was with me when I went through the most horrible parts of my life. His teachings taught me to be co-dependent, critical, arrogant and unable to love humanity, both the good and the bad. It made me terribly judgemental and unable to really connect with people...like you are doing now.
I see Jesus as a made up fictional character that was made up by a bunch of men for the intent of controlling the masses, getting money and teaching co-dependence. To me Jesus is no more real than Zeus or Ares or Xena. I refuse to talke to invisible ghosts. I'd much prefer to talk to living breathing human beings that are experiencing this life right along with me. On a side note, I am agast at the hideous verbal abuse this fictional character spills on people telling them they are absolute nothing without him. Can you not see how absolutely controlling that is? You are much better than that I think Eric. Give yourself a little credit man. Don't hide the fact that you are scared of the amazing human being that you are and all of us are by hiding behind a system of abuse, death and criticism. You are more than enough on your own.
Because you are trying so hard to defend your Christian belief, you haven't spent any time asking any genuine questions about me or my life. But then, I don't trust you right now to answer you because I know you have alterier motives. That is the problem with religion and MLM schemes. You can never really have friends because you are too busy waiting for them to stop talking so you can tell them they are wrong and your way is right.
I won't ever presume to tell you Eric how to live or what to believe in, but as you have never met Christ, never spoken to him never heard an audible word come out of his mouth, how on earth do you know he loves me????? How do you know he loves you???? You are certainly doing a lot of unpaid labor for him and I hope he is paying you well in some sort of tangible way. Because getting beat up from people who don't want to be told about your brand of religion cannot be fun. Trust me, I've been there.
Be good to you, nurture you, take care of you, and most importanly, love yourself regardless if anyone else loves you.
Eric, I like you, I really do. Underneath all the vabrato and blustering, I see a man who is trying to come to terms with his own life just like we are. You aren't so very much different than the rest of us. It sounds like you lost a family member to the LDS church and that loss has really hurt you as it does all of us. We all do what we have to do to deal with that sort of pain. Some of us leave religion entirely, some of us jump into another set of belief systems just to dull the blistering pain. But still, underneath it all we are all the same.
I can't tell you that anyone else living, dead, mythical, imaginary or otherwise loves you, but I can tell you that I like you and hope with time you will mellow on condemning people and see that that just never ever works...ever.
Samuel....
Again I invite you on my podcast. I dont think you have the courage to say any of this to me over the phone or in person. Thats why these types of blogs and yes, even my own forum bother me sometimes. People just dont talk like this to eachother in person. But the internet....thats a different story. So, again I invite you to chalenge, debate, dialogue...whatever you want.
Until then, I will stay off your blog and wont post here any longer. As for what happened here at my job...go for it!! I encourage you to let all know what happened to me. Its unlawful and rediculous. And if you cant agree with that then I dont know what to tell you.
Samuel...a Proverb that you should read.. Proverbs 18:2
Samuel... deep breaths! And I posted a comment on the podcast blog - because I have news. So email/call/skype whatever. Por favor, mi amigo.
I'm going to assume that I'm the only one reading the verses that Eric is posting, so I'll lay out the groundwork of them for you.
The ENTIRE book of 1st John is a message of the peace and love that a Christian life will bring. To summarize, it says that anyone who claims to be a Christian but does not show love to others--even pushes them away by their words and actions--has nothing to do with God but is working on behalf of the devil (hate). If someone wants to live a life of love and happiness, they need to follow God's commandment to "love one another."
Romans 4:4-8 says that doing good works is not going to get you a reward because as human beings we are obligated to be good to one another. It also talks of God's love and mercy. He will not consider anyone guilty who tries to do good and trusts in him (a million interpretations as to what "trust" means, but none of which support Eric's).
Romans 9:30-10:4. Again, same thing as the Romans 4 reference. This one further blows a hole through Eric's argument that people have to believe in a set of narrowly interpreted creeds.
Gospel of John: Also known as the Gospel of Love or the Gospel of Philosophy by scholars. Hmm... do you think it would be called by those names if it were condemning everyone to hell? I would go into specific detail as to why Eric's conjecture is transparently false, but I already showed a reference to John, and anyone interested will go ahead and read it in its full context.
Collossians? Give me a break! From the very opening statements until the end Paul is preaching of the grace, peace, love, and joy that comes from Christ.
In case any of you haven't realized, Eric is simply rattling off a slew of Bible verses that in NO way support his misconstrued beliefs, hoping that none of us will actually bother reading them. Again, I would like Eric to show me where his Biblical source for condeming all Mormons to hell is coming from. I stand by my statement that his "conclusions are clearly [incorrect] extrapolations from the Bible" until he can prove otherwise. I fail to comprehend the logic he is employing. I'm sure he is just appalled by what Joseph Smith did with the Bible, but even Joseph Smith didn't pervert the original teachings THAT bad.
Lastly, Eric: Who made you God? Not even Jesus came to condemn the world, but to save it (John 3:16-17). I wonder where you feel that this authority is coming from. Maybe you should accept Christ's Great Commission, rather than defying his core teachings. Maybe then people would listen to you. In closing, for now, I want to make it abundantly clear that what you are doing is unacceptable, especially if you consider yourself a Christian. You are pushing people away from Christ and preaching a false gospel, which, is really no gospel at all. (Galatians 1:6-7...which you should be familiar with..) You are perpetuating the idea that the Bible is a book of hate and intolerance, rather than a book that speaks of love and happiness and encourages the reader to seek it in his own life.
Oh, and it is only RIGHT for people to be angry with you. How can anyone be indifferent towards hate?
Because Eric doesn't have the backbone to post it directly:
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions."
~Proverbs 18:2
Yeah...considering the false teachings that you claim to be deriving from the Bible, Eric, the same could be said of you, albeit accurately.
I dont think you have the courage to say any of this to me over the phone or in person.
What is this third grade?
What on earth would motivate anyone to go on your show, Eric??? Especially after Samuel made is opinion of your attitude and your show perfectly, CRYSTAL clear.
I mean, did you even read what he wrote? At no time did I get the impression that he held your show in high regard.
And now you're accusing him of being cowardly??? Samuel??? And you say he doesn't have the courage to express himself to you??? Samuel??? Samuel, the Utahnite???
Whatever, I don't need to speak for him. He does a fine job himself.
I for one am glad that I am away from that podcast and off of that message board. I have completely severed my ties with the Living Truth podcast. I deleted all the shows off my hard drive and I had my login canceled.
....debate you! Get over yourself, dude.
"I learned long ago never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
--George Bernard Shaw
Eric, I have to definitely agree with you on that; it is unlawful. In fact it is amazing! The Mormons scream and cry for religious tolerance, and then they turn around and take it away from everyone else. I think you have a great chance at winning in court, so long as you don't have a Mormon judge! Good luck with that. Hope it works out for you.
Now I'll just say one last comment and then I'll let it go. Everyone is tired of talking about it and hearing about it.
Eric, almost everyone here was where you are now not very long ago. We believed with all our hearts that we had the only truth and the whole world needed to hear it. Nothing anyone could ever say would possibly convince us that it was not true. But once we quit living in a fantasy world and took an objective look around, we realized that we were completely wrong. WE WERE IN A CULT AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT! All of us here can see that exact same thing is true for you. It's wonderful when you truly think you have the only truth; it makes you feel important, doesn't it? Well guess what, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't.
These are the facts that you will someday have to come to terms with:
1) There is no such thing as a "one true church".
2) Jesus is a mythological character and the Bible is fiction.
3) You are in a cult. All organized religion is a cult and/or a business.
4) No one likes being told they are wrong, especially in religious matters.
I just have one small request of you, Eric. Before you just disregard all the comments we have left for you because you KNOW you have the truth, take them to heart. Think about them. Ponder them. I ask this of you because I and most everyone here had to do it ourselves. The Jesus I used to believe in would never condemn true hearted, sincere individuals to hell forever. Like the injustice done to you recently at your work, this belief is ridiculous.
Exactly how do you know you have been called to testify? Lots of people have asked you but I haven't seen a reply anywhere. Have you seen Jesus, God, or an angel? Exactly how do you know for certain that your truth is the only truth? The answer, is that you haven't seen God, Jesus, or an angel and you only think you know the truth. I mean, if you are god's lone warrior here in Utah, why have you had such a run of bad luck? Just like we ask Gordon B. Hinckley why he never prophesies, we are asking you why didn't God warn you that someone at work would connect you with your web site?
Like I've said before, if there was only one true church, and God wanted everyone to know it, then everyone would know it! The leaders would do what leaders of a true church would be expected to do: predict the future, move mountains, heal the sick, etc. Does your leader do this?
I could go on and on but the bottom line is that you could be much more effective in your "calling" if you would ease up on the hard-core god who loves to damn everyone, and start preaching a more loving message. Think about it; even IF you are totally right and everyone except you is damned forever, don't you think you could get people to listen to you better if you stop with the blanket condemnations and preach a more loving message? And I don't care what you think it is, it IS a blanket condemnation.
As long as you still believe in your cult, you will have a hard time fitting in around here. However, if you want to learn how to free yourself from the burden of your self appointed calling to save the whole world, there are plenty of people here who can help you out and give you advice.
Ray:
What you said was true, for the most part. But your "facts" are just as much based in fantasy as anything Eric has said, except perhaps point four.
1) There is no such thing as a "one true church": If you're speaking of "church" in the sense of an organizational with a hierarchy like the LDS Church, then you may be right. But when Jesus speaks of *his* church (and really. he's the only authority on this, since he came up with the term), he is speaking of a body of believers. So in that sense, yes, there is absolutely a single true church: those who accept the teachings that Jesus taught and try to carry out those teachings (as opposed to those who claim to be Christians, like Eric, but fail to understand the fundamentals of Christ's message).
2) Jesus is a mythological character and the Bible is fiction: Just because you don't believe in Jesus' teachings doesn't mean that he didn't exist. No historian worth his salt, that I am aware of, will agree with you that Jesus is a mythological character. In fact, his existence is one of the most well-documented facts in all of history. While it's true that there are many mythological beliefs about Jesus (Read: beliefs without any historical basis) like those of the Mormons or of Eric, that doesn't mean that every Christian belief is without its justification. As for the Bible, I think you know that a statement like that is only intended to create controversy. There are clear indications that some of the stories in the Old Testament are not objectively true, but most honest theologians agree that those were always intended to be understood as myth anyway. As for the New Testament, it is the most trustworthy historical source that I am aware of. It contains some of the most well-documented events of ancient history and is corroborated by many reliable secular sources as well. Whether you believe in Judaism or Christianity is one thing, but arguing that they have no basis is another one entirely. I challenge you to find a more well-grounded religion than either of those.
3) You are in a cult. All organized religion is a cult and/or a business: I guess you could call Eric's religion a cult in the sense that it is self-destructive and unfounded, but it seems that you will have a difficult time proving that *all* organized religion is a cult and/or business. Certainly some businessmen get some mileage out of religion, but does that mean that all organized religions are cultic or profit-seeking? Surely not. Christianity (as in the gospel Jesus taught, not the junk that Eric is advocating) is neither cultic nor profit-seeking. As proof, look at the life of the founder.
4) No one likes being told they are wrong, especially in religious matters: This is one point where you are probably right. I've learned not to mind it, though. Hopefully when someone says that I'm wrong they can show me how to correct myself. I'm trying to seek truth. A false religion does nothing for me, after all.
Point 1 I can agree with if there really was a person named Jesus who started a church.
Point 2: It is possible that Jesus was a real person. But I strongly believe that his "story" evolved over time until he became what most people believe today; just like the Mormon stories evolve. Stories, when given enough time, evolve. That is a fact. I am certainly no expert in history, but I don't think the world remembers Jesus the way it remembers Alexander the Great, or Napeolian, or Martin Luther King. If you claim his existance is well documented, I would love to see those sources. The only document I am aware of that talks about Jesus is the New Testament, and that was altered and perhaps even written by the early church. And your comment about certain events in the Bible being mythological was my point exactly. Doesn't a lie look better when it is wrapped around a little truth? Why would actual historical events be mixed with stories that "are not objectively true"? But your comment about Jesus' existance being well documented is something I am definitely interested in checking out because all the evidence I have ever seen, which is not a whole lot I admit, shows he may have been a man with good teachings, but nothing more. You also mentioned well documented ancient historical events as described in the Bible. Can you give me an example of some of them? I'm not doubting they are there; I am genuinely curious as to what they are. It is not a fact either way that Jesus was what the Bible claims, but I have come to understand personally that he is nothing more than a modern mythological character. I don't deny his teachings are beneficial; I believe and live by most of them.
Point 3 I can agree with mostly. I will restate: "All religions claiming to have the one and only truth or only way to God are cults and/or businesses, especially if they want your time and money."
Point 4. I couldn't have said it better myself.
I suppose to call them "facts" was going a little too far, since a fact is an idea that most everyone understands to always be true and has been proven to be true again and again. Thank you for pointing out my error.
I have never read anything about Jesus in a history book. Has anyone else?
I have never read anything about Jesus in a history book. Has anyone else?
I'm learning about him in my World Civilizations class right now, dude.
I have to study for some exams coming up, Ray, but I will be sure to answer your questions about Jesus as a historical figure when I get the chance. I'll also be sure to explain what I mean by "myth" since you seem to have misunderstood.
As for your second post, yes, I have read about Jesus in every world history book I have encountered, as well as history books on Palestine, the Middle East, the Roman Empire. You'll also find contemporary histories about Jesus in India, although far fewer in number.
It looks like my earlier comment didn't make it through ... probably because of something stupid I did, so I'll retype it as best as I can.
Ray,
I can understand that you don't accept Jesus as the Savior. I can certainly see how you could choose not to believe He rose from the dead or that he is the Son of God.
But to deny he ever existed? That He ever walked the earth? To say he is a mythical character? That's just plain ignorant, and you don't strike me as the type of person who doesn't do his homework.
There are plenty of non-Biblical, non-Christian sources that refer to the existence of Jesus.
The Romans kept extensive records and historical texts. Some of them even refer to the reports of Pontius Pilate and the events of the night of the crucifixion, including one report that describes the darkness that fell over the earth at the time of His death.
The Jewish Pharisees also kept extensive records and these too refer to Jesus.
In addition, there is also physical evidence of not just His existence, but also fo the resurrection: the shroud of Turin, the Veil of Veronica, the empty tomb, the Sudarium of Oviedo ....
If you want to deny the Bible, that's your choice. If you choose to deny Jesus as the Christ, certainly that's up to you. But to deny He even existed? Even in the face of non-Biblical, non-Christian historical texts? What could you possibly have to gain from that?
We can disagree on theological matters and matters of faith and that's fine, but I never thought of you as someone who was prone to ignorance.
Oh for the love of god--that video was sickening. Now I wondered if that was just a really bad joke or if it were real. It cannot be real, can it?
that was the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.
The Prophet Joseph, the Prophet Joseph, the Prophet Joseph, the Prophet Joseph--good hell. That makes me SICK!
I want to say thanks for posting that because it is something I will share with my friends. I know they will be equally disgusted. If I had not already found out what a cult the LDS church is, THAT video would have sealed the deal for me.
Bonnie
I just read the posts above. Eric comes here and says God Bless like that should make everything OK. Eric, you are full of bull. You condemn more than the Mormons do. I used to listen to you as well, but no more.
I think you are as phony as the Mormons.
So take your god Bless and info about the Tanners (did you really think we would not see that info somewhere without needing YOU to tell us??)
You want air time. go away with your dumbass friends. You aren't a christian. If you were, you would never condemn others the way you do.
Do you think I, as a Mormon, am completely ignorant and inexcusably naive to live and believe my faith without having 100% conclusive material proof and a perfect answer to every question?
Also, Sam... what kind of implications has this had on your marriage and family? Are you doing OK? Have you recovered from your loss?
Also, Sam... what kind of implications has this had on your marriage and family? Are you doing OK? Have you recovered from your loss?
Thanks for asking McKay, as I've discussed this a few times, but I'll just say that it has had a dramatic impact on my life and the relationships with my family and friends. Some positive and some negative, but mostly negative. Grant Palmer described the pain of his discoveries and it's impact on him personally, as much worse and more painful, than the chemotherapy he went through, while battling cancer.
I haven't been through that, thank goodness, so I can't say, but it is for sure, one of the most painful things in my life to this point, other than losing loved ones to death. It impacts a person mentally and psychologically as well as emotionally, physically and spiritually and the impact is dramatic, as many here will testify.
Most people in my family, along with most of my friends, don't even know what I'm doing, other than I have some questions about the church and things that I don't like, that confuse me.
The best part is, they can't resolve the questions and are left wondering themselves. I've been cut off by several people, just for asking questions and wondering about certain things. Imagine if they knew what I was really doing?
So, I'm doing okay, but I'll never fully recover from my losses, because the pain has been too great. It's hard and very sad, to see lifelong relationships just end over Mormonism.
I've dealt with the reality now, of those that will no longer be in my life, probably ever again, but it still sucks. Whenever you lose a part of who and what you are or someone that was important in your life, whether through death or religion(they might as well be dead), you can't get that back. Lori knows all about this, as she lost her entire family over Mormonism.
It's not me ending things, but them. I can be tolerant and accepting of anyone belonging to almost any religion, but sadly, the Mormons can't tolerate my decision to no longer believe.
If I was fully open, to all my friends and family, about what I'm doing and how I really believe now, I'd probably lose about everybody. If somebody figures it out, then so be it and I'll deal with it.
Most of them, wouldn't ever be caught dead, even looking on a site like mine or listening to a podcast, being put on by an "evil anti-Mormon."
Good to see you back McKay and I hope that I answered your question. I can't be too specific for obvious reasons and I hope you understand that.
Take care,
Samuel
Yes Sam,... I understand totally.
I really would actually like to apologize. To Sam and Lori especially. After really thinking about it, I feel I may have been trying to force a point a view or had an attitude that I know more than you..because I have been where you are. Sometimes it takes a sincere introspective evaluation for me to understand my true intentions... I really wasn't trying to convert, but I was concentrating too much on telling my point of view than just understanding. There is no need for me to argue these points or convince you of anything. I would much rather just be a friend without passing judgement or having any other motive.
So there you have it... I just wanted to apologize.
My faith helps me in imeasurable ways to become a better person. I am very grateful for it. But obviously it is not that way for everyone.
When I here people like Eric and many evangelists.. I just dont know how these people get what they do out of the scriptures...are we reading the same thing?? I guess I just get something totally different out of it. It's an inward quite, contemplative, peaceful thing for me. Not a outspoken, in your face, judgemental thing. If I offer a testimony to anyone.. It will have to be just in quietly doing my best to live it.
Lori stated previously that she appreciates many of Christ's teachings although she does not accept Him as God. Well, I think in many ways she has a better grip on His message of charity than Eric or someone of the likes. It seems Ironic, yet obvious to me. Funny how that works isnt it?
I am sorry for your losses, I can't imagine the hurt that must be felt and the emptyness that can come from loosing a faith that is so all encompassing. I hope you can find a constuctive and positive way to fill the void.
Again, just know.. that while I cant speak for any other member. I would never reject you as a friend as long as you were a decent person and could respect my faith as well. Sam, sometimes you come across as very quick to condemn... and I was turned off by that as I felt misjudged, but when I really think about it. I can totally understand it. And there was probably an element of truth to your criticisms of me.
Cernovog, 123,
If it sounded like I firmly believe that Jesus never existed, then I must have either misspoke or just didn't clarify. Since you have both called me out, I am willing to listen to what you have to say. If you can show me legitimate sources documenting the actual existance of Jesus, then I will have to admit I was incorrect.
But first, let me clarify. When I said Jesus is a mythological character, what I meant (and should have stated) was that the story of the man Jesus has evolved until he becomes a god. I didn't deny the existance of Jesus. If it sounded that way, I apologize.
I suppose you are right, Cernovog. I must be ignorant in this case because I have honestly never read or even heard of any other documents that confirmed Christ's existance.
Samuel, you are always so much better at saying things than I am. Your comment about Jesus and the Bible was exactly what I have been poorly trying to explain. Thanks.
123, good luck with your exams. I just took 2 today. When you have time, I would greatly appreciate those sources. Again, I apologize to everyone. I didn't mean to stir up a big discussion with my ignorant statements. I will definitely check out everything you give me and will proceed to reform my conclusions.
Ray,
As I said before, there are many non-Biblical, non-Christian records of Jesus' life.
Take for example, the Roman historian Tacitus. He wrote:
"To dispel the rumor [of his having started the great fire which damaged Rome], Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor by order of the procurator Pontius Pilate" (Annals XV, 44).
He is also mentioned in the writings of another Roman, Pliny the Younger, the Governor of Bithynia, in a report to the Emperor Trajan.
Suetonius, in Lives of the Caesars, wrote that the Jews were expelled from Rome "because they were constantly rioting at the instigation of Chrestus" (25.4).
"Christus" is probably just a misspelling of "Christus".
A roundabout mention of Jesus may be found in a letter by Mara bar Serapion who mentions, along with Socrates and Pythagoras, a wise king of the Jews whom the Jews themselves later had killed.
Now there are other Roman records and records kept by the Jewish Pharisees that I haven't even touched yet.
For more information, checkout F. F. Bruce's Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament and R. T. France's The Evidence for Jesus.
the idea that Jesus is both God and Man stems simply from the fact that the gospels were selected according to this belief.
Other gospels which were not promoting this belief but either the belief that Jesus was only man or that he was only God were simply
kicked out during the process of canonization.
Books of the Bible were not simply chosen and discarded at random. Like a police officer sorting through eye-witness testimonies, early church leaders looked for consistencies among the early texts that were later compiled into today's Bible.
The apocrypha all display common characteristics:
- ideaologies or stories that are not consistent with other testimonies
- non-public or private accounts or teachings
- no references to other books of the Bible
- no references from other books of the Bible
Whereas the books of the Bible are consistent with each other. They refer to each other and quote each other. They do not refer to the books of the apocrypha.
With regard to the similarities between Christianity and Bhuddism, this is not news to me. I've known about them for many years. My uncle was a Bhuddist monk.
It is known in the Catholic Church that Jesus spent His life traveling and preparing for His mission. At the time, as Dharma has mentioned, there was a significant amount of trading between the the Middle East and South Asia. Though we don't know for sure, it is certainly possible that Jesus spoke with Bhuddist who came to that area for trade or that he himself traveled. Some people say He traveled all the way to Kashmir. Who knows?
I don't see how similarities harm either religion. And I'm also not sure I understand how or why Dharma finds the discovery of these similarities to be hurtful. I think they are wonderful.
Finally, there has been a scripture in my head ever since we started talking about Eric.
Mark 9:38-40
"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.
So this Scripture alone makes Eric's claims and especially his attacks on other Christians simply ridiculous.
"Whoever is not against us is for us."
Lastly, to address your criticism of my response to Ray's inquiry, there are many more sources in addition to the ones I specifically quoted. I personally am partial to the Roman sources because the Romans themselves kept very good records and also make for a credible third-party because of their disinterest and adversity toward Christianity.
I believe that a report from Pontius Pilate regarding Jesus' crucifixion still exists. This report certainly fits your criteria of being contemporaneous with Jesus' life. I'm not sure why you are being so adversarial in this matter, especially since you say you don't deny Jesus' existence.
And did I detect a tone of condecension in your response? Why the quotation marks when referring to my "sources"? What are we to infer from that?
Although I do respect Bhuddist beliefs, the mere philosophy "abstain from evil" is not always enough to guide us through life. We sometimes face many challenging decisions and what is good and what is evil is not always clear. The Catholic Church, as one example, has worked hard to come up with specific doctrintes that help us apply Biblical teachings to our modern lives.
Dharma,
Would you consider yourself Buddhist? If you've been following our discussion for the last few weeks, then you've probably noticed that I have expressed an interest in learning more about it. I got a book from the library about basic Buddhism and it is very interesting.
Yes, I have also noticed that Christianity is full of "don't do's". That immediately sets up a prideful situation where people compare themselves to each other and get caught up in "who did what".
Buddhism teaches that worldly misery comes from the desire of worldly things. If you can train yourself to no longer desire worldly things, then you can be truly happy, no matter what outside circumstances are present. If your mind is calm and at peace, true happiness will be an automatic side-effect. All of this is accomplished by practicing dharma meditation.
If you have any advice for a beginner, it would be most welcome.
If you are interested in good resources on the internet,
I can suggest a few sites.
As I don't like reading huge texts on the computer, I have mostly downloaded audio-teachings in mp3 format.
They are easy to follow along.
First here is an introductory lecture by Bikkhu Bodhi:
http://www.buddhanet.net/audio-lectures.htm
It is a great introduction to Buddhism.
If you are interested in a good scientific introduction to Buddhism, I can suggest the Lecture on Buddhism offered by the Teaching Company, though you have to pay for it.
Currently, I am listening to a series of lectures about the actual Buddhist "bible", the Pali Canon, especially the middle length discourses, also held by Bikkhu Bodhi, an american monk who lived in Asia and is able to understand the original language Pali.
He gives a very thourough lecture, which I find very fascinating and interesting. But even more interesting than the lecture are the texts themselves. To me, Buddha does not appear to have lived in ancient India 500 BC, but he seems to have had all scientific insights we have nowadays.
He describes the big bang, "process orientation" and many modern ideas in these ancient texts, uses wonderful similes, etc. The pali canon is really amazing.
http://www.bodhimonastery.net/mntalks_audio.html
However, besides reading and thinking, it is important to establish a meditation practice, so maybe you should look for a place nearby to learn it, because especially the correct sitting posture is important in order not to get an aching back etc, so you should learn it by some Buddhist meditation group.
I cannot give much more advice, cause I am rather new to the subject as well, although I have read several books on the subject and have some practice in tea ceremony as well, which is connected to Zen Buddhism.
Greets,
Dharma12.
Hello everyone,
First I want to say that Robert Millet’s presentation is sickening. I especially love the part where his life was supposedly threatened by a ‘large African American.’ The guy was obviously yanking his chain, and Mr. Millet made himself out to be some kind of hero that he said the right thing to ‘save his own life’.
I’ve found the other posts very interesting…I hope you don’t mind me budding in and being ‘off topic’ here, and I apologize to Sam who probably would rather not bring in politics to any discussion, but I really want to get everybody’s opinion on this matter. Besides, it does relate to Mormonism, in a strange sort of way.
I’ve never been a conspiracy theory buff, but some of the latest theories about 9/11 have been very thought provoking. My TBM brother brought it to my attention in the first place, and my first inner reaction was “how can you examine your government so critically, but you can’t examine your faith just the same?” But when I took an honest look at some of the evidence and theories, I realized they have some very valid points. For those who haven’t heard of any of the controlled demolition theories concerning 9/11, take a look at these videos:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3249714675910247150&pr=goog-sl
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=loose+change
So since these theories sound crazy at first, people often dismiss the advocates as nut jobs. But take a look for yourself. Anyway, a BYU physics professor named Steven Jones joined the league late last year of theorists who claim 9/11 was an inside job, and he’s become very well renowned amongst the conspiracy theorists (they practically grovel at his feet) since he is a higher esteemed individual joining their ranks (along with Charlie Sheen and others).
So what did BYU do? They put him on administrative leave and may fire him. http://oldthinker.wordpress.com/2006/09/08/byu-places-911-truth-professor-on-paid-leave/
I for one think Steve Jones has some very good points, and although I think it’s strange that he couldn’t look at the rest of his life with the same critical thinking process (ie: LDS faith), I have a lot respect for him for advocating for truth no matter the consequences. So why would BYU or the LDS church (since they are interconnected) have a problem with his advocating for truth? Why would they force him to take administrative leave? Because it makes them look bad in the public eye! They’re all about PR, folks! They don’t want to look bad since the conspiracy theorists are generally viewed as over-paranoid nut jobs.
My other point is that I think its funny how Mormons love this kind of stuff, because it supposedly makes the Book of Mormon’s description of the Gadianton Robbers true (even though the two cases are very different), so the BoM must be true, or it makes BY’s ‘prophecies’ about the constitution ‘hanging by a thread’ true. Maybe they all think Mitt Romney (www.runmittrun.org) is the heroic priesthood holder who is going to come into presidential office and ‘save the constitution.’ You’ve all heard that supposed prophecy, right?
Anyway, these are my thoughts. Once again, sorry for veering in a direction unrelated to Sam’s blog post or any of your comments.
~Brad
Dharma,
It is my belief that you are not giving enough credit to Roman historians. Your argument implies that as early as 100 AD Roman scholars and record keepers were duped into believing some heretical conspiracy about a man who never existed.
Are we to assume that Tacitus rose to a position of trust and scholarship in the Roman Empire by being a naive fool?
What you imply may be possible, but I find it unlikely. The Roman sources should be given more credence. Combined with other sources and physical evidence, the case is compelling, if not convincing.
Also keep in mind how much time has passed. There is still much evidence that has either succumbed to the passage of time or has yet to be discovered. The tomb of the high priest Caiaphus was only recently found and his is a name that is only mentioned in the Bible.
By your criteria, he shouldn't exist because the only record of him is Biblical.
But enough of that. To be honest, I'm tired of this debate because you've already admitted that you believe Jesus as being a real historical figure. I think at this point, just about everyone who participates on this blog does too.
Getting back to your direct criticism of Catholicism:
However, by oppressing divorced people, shunning them, discriminating against them, a broken marriage in which the husband and the wife don't love each other cannot be saved.
By excluding divorced or remarried couples from the eucharist, the catholic church is judgemental, as if Jesus did not die for the sins of divorced people.
Were you ever Catholic? Because I don't know where you are getting your information from. I have no problem with people who disagree with the Catholic Church. However, there are plenty of practices to disagree with without having to resort to inaccurate accusations of situations that don't exist.
The Cathechism of the Catholic Church states: Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions.... Toward Christians who live in this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:
They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.
So, in what way are divorcees shunned or oppressed?
Perhaps you have forgotten that Catholicism also teaches that we are all sinners, that none of us are perfect and that God's forgiveness and compassion are infinite. The cornerstone of our faith is the forgiveness of sins. There is never a point in one's life when one is beyond salvation.
The Eucharist is another matter in which you are inaccurate.
The Euchraist is not a reward for being good. Rather, it is a gift from Jesus to us to bring us closer to God, to help us in our time of need. When we are being sinful or weak is the time we are in most need of the Eucharist.
To be perfectly frank, I really don't see how it is the business of a non-Catholic to criticize how our Sacraments are conducted.
If you have some grand reason as to why we should accept your criticism, please enlighten me. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive or maybe you caught me in a bad mood, but I find this line of questioning an annoyance.
cernovog, you said:
"The Euchraist is not a reward for being good. Rather, it is a gift from Jesus to us to bring us closer to God, to help us in our time of need. When we are being sinful or weak is the time we are in most need of the Eucharist."
As far as I know, people divorced and remarried to other spouses are excluded from the Eucharist. Thus, "when they are sinful and weak, and it is the time they are in most need of the Eucharist", the pope and the priest deny them partaking. I find that a contradiction to the love and compassion you are claiming.
In Catholicism, only people who are obedient are allowed to take of the Eucharist. Sounds like Mormonism temple ceremony to me.
I know a woman who divorced and married another husband. Her pious catholic mother never accepted her new husband, and whenever she could, she intrigued against him by telling the womans children bad things about him.It took years and a lot of effort until she could accept the "great and abominable sin" of divorce.
But, I am not an expert and to be honest not interested in a religion which arouses so much hatered and violence as the Pope did recently.
The Buddha is said to talk about delicate topics only if he knows that it is the right time.
Pope Benedict obviously is not enlightened, as he aroused millions of people with his provocative speech in Regensburg.
Dharma12.
Sam,
After posting my previous comment, I saw where you posted on September 13 the interview with Steven Jones on Google video
Granted, in this interview Jones did a terrible job on the explaining his theories, and Tucker Carlson made him out to be a complete nut case, but take a look at some of the videos I linked before:
video 1
video 2
video 3
I think Jones and others have some very strong claims...so, before you dismiss Jones as a nut case (and myself for supporting him) see for yourself...watch the videos.
You said that Gordo put him on leave right after meeting with Bush? Could it be that there was a little pressure there from Bush (because the studies of Jones go against his agenda)? And since the so-called prophet doesn't really know the truth of all things, he believed him?
I would think that somebody like you, an advocate for truth, would take a closer look at the evidence before casting it all aside and calling Jones a clown. There are definitely questions that need to be answered, and I respect Jones for his courage in calling them on it.
~Brad
I'd originally written a long, detailed examination of what dharma12 has been saying, but I'm getting the impression that he either has absolutely no clue what he's talking about and doesn't want to learn, or he's deliberately trying to stir controversy with stupid comments--neither of which merit a serious response. Does anyone feel like he should be taken seriously when he says things like this?:
"He describes the big bang, 'process orientation' and many modern ideas in these ancient texts, uses wonderful similes, etc. The pali canon is really amazing."
Yeah...okay. Read the Bible or the Qu'ran or the Book of Abraham. Just because some spiritual leader with a wild imagination claims that (with a *very* liberal interpretation) any of these texts reveal scientific truths doesn't mean they have any credibility. Nearly all scripture uses "wonderful similes" and are "amazing." (Hell, listen to General Conference if all you want are absurd claims of scientific proofs, "wonderful similes," and "amazing" discourses.) Furthermore, the theory of process orientation is completely bogus. Process orientation doesn't even exist, since you're only augmenting your final goal into many goals, meaning that there is no focus on a process at all!
From a scholarly point of view, dharma12 is absolutely ignorant (as he himself admits). From a logical or philosophical point of view, the ideas he is advocating are completely naive. Maybe when he actually learns what the hell Buddhism tries to accomplish, then we can have an intelligent discussion about it. But for the time being, he's like the 8-year-old getting baptized who "knows" the Church is true and whatever else they claim these days, but hasn't a darned clue what he's talking about.
==
Brad, you should feel perfectly comfortable bringing whatever ridiculous or controversies to Mormon Truth you want. Read some of these other comments and you'll immediately understand why.
While the controlled demolition theory makes sense from what I've read of it, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the U.S. government was behind it. It doesn't even make sense why they would. We had plenty of justification for launching a "War on Terror" and invading Iraq and Afghanistan without the 9/11 attacks. If there was a controlled demolition, why not pin the blame on al-Qaeda? We already know that they got bombs around the base of the WTC back in 1993. Why not in 2001 as well?
==
Cernovog, I was wondering if I could discuss some of the things you've said over IM or email? Email me at 123blogger@gmail.com if you're interested.
Again, you are speaking out of pure ignorance.
Divorcees are not denied the sacrament of the Eucharist, rather, only those who divorce and then remarry.
You have to understand that we believe very strongly in the committment of marriage. It is a promise that you make to another person for life.
This socially accepted practice of continuous divorce and re-marriage is no better than polygamy. In fact, I find hard to understand why polygamy is illegal, but to have children with multiple partners and father a multitude of broken homes is perfectly okay.
Once you get married in the Catholic Church it is for life. It's not a committment we take lightly.
Life isn't always perfect and it is understandable that some marriages must end in divorce. In many cases, an annulment is possible. It is also possible to remarry if the spouse is not a baptised Christian.
However, it is wrong of you to judge the entire Catholic faith based on the actions of a single person who obviously was acting out of ignorance.
If the mother never accepted her daughter's new husband, then she obviously was not aware of the teachings of the Church to manifest an attentive solicitude and encourage participation in the Mass and in the Sacraments.
Your criticism of the Pope is again, made from ignorance. The Pope was using an old quotation as an example of what not to do. He was using it as an example of intolerance from the past that we must not allow to be repeated.
The media then took this quotation, and only the quotation out of context and attributed it to the pope causing this uproar over nothing.
I encourage you to listen to Father Roderick's podcast The Daily Breakfast, Episode #166 for more detailed information, including info on where you can read the Pope's entire speach and see the quotation used in context.
Your statements are judgemental, ignorant and, as a whole, inaccurate.
If you've got some legitimate concerns over the Catholic Church over an actual practice, you may find that I just might agree with you.
The Millet video makes me angry. I've been on both side of this issue. I was TBM, served a mission and employed most of tactics Millet speaks of. Now (15 years later) I see the all of this as a sales tactic for a theology that can't be sold at face value. He talks of pre-requisites. I have been a member for 30+ and still get this run around when I try to dicuss more difficult doctrines. The Church needs to realize that milk WILL NOT do-- only the truth will. At least give the members enough credit to be able to deal with the truth-- and let investigators judge mormonism by the information they feel is necessary.
"Answer the question they should have asked????!!!!" The arrogance of this statement is stunning. Basically the relig profs at the Y now teach missionaries to "dodge the question" and fire back with the first vision story. The same ol' white-washed story.
Dharma,
I hope that you'll read this, but I just noticed that Eric was challenging you to go on his podcast as well and you wisely declined. Then he asked if you would debate him either on the phone or a "Skype call."
I just wanted to give you a heads up that he has a recorder program, on all of his computers, which we used for our shows, that will record his Skype conversations, without you even knowing it, as there is no way to even tell.
He did this to me several times, and after we had chatted for a while, said that he was recording the conversation. So, I started doing it to, just in case I needed it down the road and had to fight fire with fire, as my trust in him took a nosedive. I thought we were just chatting "off the record", but I guess we weren't, not that I knew it.
Anyway, I'm sure you weren't going to do it, but as you said, I wouldn't trust him either and the likelihood that he would be recording the conversation, without your knowledge, would be very high. Why else would he suggest a "Skype phone call?"
I know he has a cell, a home phone, had an office phone number when he worked for his dad; so there would be no other reason to have a "Skype conversation." Just curious, did he boot you yet?
I noticed he got very offended at the "King of Calvary" comment and gave you your first warning, saying that the next time, you'd be gone. Wow, what a tolerant person, right? He can dish out blanket condemnations, but God forbid anyone say something hostile to our MASTER.
So, he can openly condemn anyone that doesn't believe as he does, suggest to me, in a voicemail, that I "should check into pedophilia as an alternative lifestyle", but then warns you for what you said? Like I've said, the guy needs some help man. Can you imagine saying that to someone? Does he apologize? No!!
Anyway, I just wanted to give you a heads up on the phone call thing, because he always has a motive and agenda, which always goes back to "you are gonna burn in hell" and he isn't, because "he has the only truth."
I didn't have an Email for you, but if you want to drop me a line, we can continue this in Email. I would have just Emailed you, instead of posting this here, but maybe it's a good thing, so that I can warn everyone about his methods.
Well take care and let us know if, I mean WHEN, you get the boot...LOL!!
Samuel
Post a Comment