Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> If you want to get into dietary restraints, the Jewish teachings are 
>> much more restrictive.  All that stuff about not drinking caffeine is BS.
> 
> It's amazing how often the fallacy of "et tu" comes up in religious 
> conversations.   "Your religion is broken."  "Well, theirs is broken 
> worse, so that's OK."

Sorry, I should have been more clear: I was certainly pointing out that 
Jewish dietary restrictions are more strict, but I was not claiming the 
final "so that's OK."

>> Not much too it, and pretty much common sense.
> 
> The jewish dietary restrictions were pretty common sense for their time 
> too. But that's utterly irrelevant.

You're absolutely right.  Whether or not they're common sense has no 
bearing on whether or not God asked His people to follow those laws.

It's worth noting, however, that I was not offering the "common sense" 
statement as a justification, but as an explanation.  Most of the Mormon 
dietary law (known as the "Word of Wisdom") is, indeed, common sense 
about health.  That makes the majority easier to remember.

> You contended the church doesn't 
> tell people what to do.

No, I don't.  Here's what I said:

"Historically, the LDS Church has never been about telling people what 
to specifically do (ie, how to vote), but rather how they should live 
their lives, and letting members apply those teachings appropriately.

"One of the basic beliefs of the LDS Church is that you shouldn't need 
to be told what to do, anyway.  An intelligent member, who is familiar 
with the life and teachings of Christ, should have no problems figuring 
out how to live a moral life. "

I can see how that could make my position confusing, though, and I 
should have been more clear.

Because of our natural weakness, God pretty much has to be pretty 
specific at times.  Whenever possible, however, He avoids it, letting us 
choose for ourselves how to live appropriately.

If enough people start nitpicking commandments, looking for loopholes 
and ways to get around them, then God gets specific.  But He also gets 
annoyed by the necessity.

> Aren't mormons also disallowed from smoking, or at least chewing 
> tobacco? (And doesn't that rule hold from even before it was common 
> sense?)

Yeah, that one surprised a lot of people at the time, as did the 
injunction against alcohol.  Members at the time had to take it on faith 
that God had their best interests at heart when He asked them to abstain 
from those substances.  It was only later medical research that backed 
up their beliefs.

> Isn't (or at least wasn't) it very bad for a white to marry a 
> black?

Was it a sin?  No.
But you would be excluded from certain rites if your spouse were unable 
to participate.

The understanding was always that Blacks would, at some point, be able 
to participate, but noone knew when the change would be made.

> To masturbate? To be homosexual?

Yes, those behaviors are prohibited.

> Isn't this telling people specifically what to do in many circumstances?

Yes, it is.  As I explained above, God gets specific when He needs to, 
but He'd rather not have to.

>> Individual members may have espoused those beliefs, but they aren't 
>> the majority, and any time someone in a position of authority starts 
>> saying stuff like that the higher-ups come down pretty hard on them.
> 
> So none of these quotes are actually accurate?
> http://nowscape.com/mormon/negro.htm

I recognize some of those statements, but not all of them.  Bruce R 
McConkie, in particular, was well known for being quite opinionated... 
and later being shown to be wrong (for instance, he was quite vocal 
about his idea that the Blacks wouldn't receive the Priesthood until 
after Armageddon).  In fact, he wrote a series of books titled "Mormon 
Doctrine," which are really just his opinions on a variety of topics.

Because of things like that, the Church has had to specify: When the 
Prophet stands at the podium, and says "Thus saith the Lord," then his 
words are doctrine.  Everything else is personal opinion, no matter who 
it comes from or when you hear it (including if you hear it from an 
Apostle or Prophet).  Every member is encouraged to pray and ask God His 
opinion of the teachings they've heard, and if what they've heard is 
correct.

> How about these? Who comes down hard on the LDS president

Well, you'd have to go up the chain of command.

Once you get to the President, the next level of the chain is God.  He's 
the one chastises the President.

> when he mentioned that homosexuality is unholy?

What's wrong with saying that homosexuality is unholy?  Whether or not 
you believe it is your decision, but it's one of the teachings of the 
LDS Church, and they're unapologetic about it.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message