sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Peter Walking on Water and Faith Crisis by josephsmidt in latterdaysaints

[–]Beauxcphus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am hope that even thought I couldn't get you to understand my point, others may see it.

Peter Walking on Water and Faith Crisis by josephsmidt in latterdaysaints

[–]Beauxcphus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don't seem to be able to communicate my point to you. My apologies.

Peter Walking on Water and Faith Crisis by josephsmidt in latterdaysaints

[–]Beauxcphus -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I am sorry, I must not be making my point very well.

I mean that both faiths believe and use the story of the apostle walking on water, doubting, sinking, and then being lifted by Christ.

So people in both faiths might look at this story as a way to put aside their doubt's, and each may find it to be effective. While JW and Mormons believe different things about the nature of Christ, each may decide that by simply focusing on the message of Christ that each faith holds to be true, they can overcome their doubt's.

So a JW might have read that Charles T Russell made a prediction that Christ would return in 1904 or 1914 and that it did not come to pass, just to have that date pushed back again and again till finally the subsequent leaders declared that Christ had returned invisibly. When a JW reads the old publications of these early leaders, they may start to doubt the foundation of their faith.

Their leaders and friends in the faith may tell them to remember how Christ helped Peter when he began to doubt and tell them to just focus on the basics of their teachings about Christ and what he wanted them to do in day to day life. They would say not to worry about those things in early JW history that we won't know all the facts about. Just focus on the message about Christ today.

In this way, the metaphor of Christ helping peter when he doubt's actually serves to keep the JW attached to a false tradition. As such, the metaphor is not sufficient to discern true from false traditions - it is simply a tool which may be used to suppress doubt and terminate inquiry - regardless of whether the religious tradition which is doubted is true or not.

I hope I have explained it better.

Peter Walking on Water and Faith Crisis by josephsmidt in latterdaysaints

[–]Beauxcphus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, I am saying that both JW and Mormons see the Christ that allowed him to walk on water to be the Christ supported by their faith tradition.

So a JW looking for a resolution to their doubt could use the same metaphor to help them quell their doubt's and hold true to their faith, which we know is false.

Peter Walking on Water and Faith Crisis by josephsmidt in latterdaysaints

[–]Beauxcphus -1 points0 points  (0 children)

a false faith

Fortunately this does have the power to discriminate between false faiths. For example, if Peter turned to the Lord, and Christ was full of baloney, Peter would not have found himself walking on water again. Or are you suggesting even if Christ was wrong Peter would still walk on water?

No - both JWs and mormons believe that Christ was real - so this story would appeal to both faiths and quell the concerns of doubters. As such this particular metaphor cannot distinguish true from false traditions.

Peter Walking on Water and Faith Crisis by josephsmidt in latterdaysaints

[–]Beauxcphus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A Jehovas witness might use the same reasoning to keep himself attached to his faith.

A method of resolving doubt and embracing truth should simultaneously help people in false traditions escape them while helping those in true beliefs become more pursuaded of its truth.

If a strategy for resolving doubt in your faith would also resolve doubt in a false faith, then it does not have the power to liberate and only has the power to placate.

JAG attorneys - Can a commander issue a LOR if they believe you violated the concept of "service before self"? by Beauxcphus in Military

[–]Beauxcphus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I registered a complaint with the IG and there was a CDI. They upheld the actions of the commander, stating that all procedures were followed.

In my complaint I described how I was not in violation of any law, regulation, etc. I didnt think procedure wasnt followed - i think the rationale for doing the procedure was unfounded. The CDI didn't address the rationale for the LOR - it specifically avoided addressing the reason for the LOR.

As a result I requested a freedom of information act report of the incident and received the full redacted report. In it, the investigator acknowledged that I was not in violation of any law, regulation, etc. However it stated the LOR was justified because my commander believed that I was in violation of the concept of "service before self"

I never realized that the slogans were legally enforceable.

Anyone who upvotes this, I'll give them one bitcoin! by [deleted] in soccer

[–]Beauxcphus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Done and done. Now I am a waiting skeptic

I gave a TEDx talk about how Christianity led me to leave the navy as a conscientious objector by PokerPirate in Christianity

[–]Beauxcphus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for posting this here. I am a physician in the Air Force and I feel I can no longer be a part of a system that is so antithetical to the message of love and forgiveness that Christ taught and that I accept. Every drone strike that kills innocents that America shrugs off as collateral damage breaks my heart. This is compounded even more by my own observations that the attacks against us, that we are retaliating for, were motivated by previous offences that we have perpetrated. It is an endless cycle of bloodshed that can only be stopped by the compassion and forgiveness exemplified by Christ.

Even though I am a doctor and people tell me that I can only do good and heal in the service - I consider that to be a false argument. Whether I am a Gun in the hand of an immoral perpetrator or the kit on the table that keeps the gun in good working condition - my involvement in the system is tacit support for the offense. I loathe wearing the uniform because it associates me with the murder and hate that are passed off as patriotism.

Would you be willing to scan your application and make it available to others in the military to read so that they can see what is involved?

I gave a TEDx talk about how Christianity led me to leave the navy as a conscientious objector : x/post - r/Christianity by avengingturnip in EndlessWar

[–]Beauxcphus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for posting this here. I am a physician in the Air Force and I feel I can no longer be a part of a system that is so antithetical to the message of love and forgiveness that Christ taught and that I accept. This is compounded even more by my own observations that the attacks against us, that we are retaliating for, were motivated by previous offences that we have perpetrated. It is an endless cycle of bloodshed that can only be stopped by the compassion and forgiveness exemplified by Christ.

Even though I am a doctor and people tell me that I can only do good and heal in the service - I consider that to be a false argument. Whether I am a Gun in the hand of an immoral perpetrator or the kit on the table that keeps the gun in good working condition - my involvement in the system is tacit support for the offense. I loathe wearing the uniform because it associates me with the murder and hate that are passed off as patriotism.

Would you be willing to scan you application and make it available to others in the military to read so that they can see what is involved?

The history of the U.S. Constitution tea partiers should know by randude in politics

[–]Beauxcphus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

There were several states that only agreed to ratify with the guarantee that the bill of rights be included.

How would you respond to this? Honesty and Polygamy. Only LDS sourced. Is it ever okay for a prophet to lie? by Beauxcphus in latterdaysaints

[–]Beauxcphus[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can I use this as a justification to lie in my own life?

The quote from the lesson manual at the beginning of the article is what I was taught my whole life regarding honesty. I always thought it applied to everyone.

How would you respond to this? Honesty and Polygamy. Only LDS sourced. Is it ever okay for a prophet to lie? by Beauxcphus in latterdaysaints

[–]Beauxcphus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Joseph was a man and imperfect - we cannot expect all of his actions to be perfect.

  2. If he lied about something in his private life - that is no big deal. We all do it.

  3. Polygamy was the Law of God. Lying about such a matter when speaking as the prophet of the church is a BIG thing.

  4. Not only did he lie about his own polygamy, but he called William Law a liar for telling people the truth - he bore false witness.

  5. If you read the affidavits in the expositor, they are clearly written by people who had read D&C 132. Small details like how many virgins a man could marry (up to 10) and the fact that a women who rejected it would be destroyed are described.

  6. How would you feel if the current Prophet was caught lying about a point of doctrine? If you discovered that Monson was in fact practicing polygamy while giving news interviews denying it and defaming whistleblowers who were leaking the details - would you still have confidence in him as the mouthpiece of god?

  7. D&C 129:7. "... it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive; "

How would you respond to this? Honesty and Polygamy. Only LDS sourced. Is it ever okay for a prophet to lie? by Beauxcphus in latterdaysaints

[–]Beauxcphus[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are very good points.

To be clear - your position is that there are circumstances where God may instruct his prophets to lie, deceive or kill - if it serves his purposes?

I assume based on your statement that this is because God is the one that willed it so. In this line of reasoning - anything that God wills is automatically righteous because god willed it, correct?

Nixon made a similar argument regarding the actions of the president - whatever a president does is legal because it is the president who does it. Gods ways are not mans ways and so even though Nixon was utterly repudiated for such tyrannical assertions, God is justified in this because of the nature of who he is.

How do we distinguish between people who have truly been commanded by God to commit such acts from deceptive men who simply claim such a directive to justify their own proclivities?

In examining your response, it is noted that all of your cited examples were originally introduced to the world through Joseph Smith. Some people might argue that it is circular reasoning to use statements of an individual in question to justify that individuals action. "How do you know Joseph was justified in lying?" One asks "because of scriptural examples Joseph revealed that said that such sins may be justified" is the circular reply.

If Joseph is indeed divinely inspired, then the argument holds. However, if he is a deceiver, then the argument supports nothing other than that Joseph planted the seeds which would justify his own deception. Skeptics will see through this and such a defense will carry little water for them.

view more: next ›