Reorganized -- Community of Christ

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Dan

Can I get a show of hands as to how many people really take Seattle Ute seriously on discussions of Mormonism. I am well aware of problems with BoM historicity, etc., and the potential to interpret BoM teachings in certain places as racist, but because the great Seattle Ute spins it that one would have to be a moron to see things any other way is ridiculous. Sorry, maybe it is just late, but it seems most of Seattle Ute's posts, that I recall at least, have the same pompous - 'hey I am a big smart guy, my opinion is beyond repraoch and therefore you would be an idiot to try to claim different views when it comes to Mormonism's veracity, historicity, etc.'. Give me a break, there are so many things that are unsettled and uncertain that I believe no one can really say one way or another on veracity claims. Your act is tiring. Maybe I should go to bed as I am tired and grumpy.

Never noticed. You would think he was either an asshole or a dickhead, or both.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Dan

Can I get a show of hands as to how many people really take Seattle Ute seriously on discussions of Mormonism. I am well aware of problems with BoM historicity, etc., and the potential to interpret BoM teachings in certain places as racist, but because the great Seattle Ute spins it that one would have to be a moron to see things any other way is ridiculous. Sorry, maybe it is just late, but it seems most of Seattle Ute's posts, that I recall at least, have the same pompous - 'hey I am a big smart guy, my opinion is beyond repraoch and therefore you would be an idiot to try to claim different views when it comes to Mormonism's veracity, historicity, etc.'. Give me a break, there are so many things that are unsettled and uncertain that I believe no one can really say one way or another on veracity claims. Your act is tiring. Maybe I should go to bed as I am tired and grumpy.

He's playing with us, because psychologically he wishes to justify his decision, he does not wish to examine his decision but gladly looks for evidence that justifies his own decisions. Most people do this, just not as conspicuously as he.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

He's playing with us, because psychologically he wishes to justify his decision, he does not wish to examine his decision but gladly looks for evidence that justifies his own decisions. Most people do this, just not as conspicuously as he.

Please. I'm trying to help you. That you resort to such cliched characterizations of me is really disappointing. You have the audacity to say such things after going on at length here about what a horrifying bore Mormon services are.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Dan

Give me a break, there are so many things that are unsettled and uncertain that I believe no one can really say one way or another on veracity claims.

I disagree. It's inconcievable to me that anyone seemingly as smart as you would consider "unsettled or uncertain" the Book of Mormon's historicity or etiology. Inconcievable. I'm tempted to wonder about what else is going on beyond simple hard headed analysis and common sense. Maybe I'm just narrow minded but I doubt it since I have good company. As we've established, academia doesn't even take these questions seriously. The only thing that gives you a case for uncertainty is nothingness. Vacuousness does not a case make. It's not uncertain, not by well established scientific standards. Did you know there's tons of archeological evidence of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis? (Literally tons and tons in terms of sheer mass.)

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I note that the church that Emma (JS?) founded is in many ways more enlightened and forthright than the big LDS movement (I hesitate to say mainstream in this context), and lacks many of the skeletons. Apparently they have repudiated the Book of Mormon's racism and any other racism in JS's writings. They are all but agnostic on the Book of Mormon's origins, forthrightly recognizing the absurdity of any claim to historicity. They are aggresively eccumenical. Am I correct that they were not polygamists? Did they have a priesthood ban? If so, they seem to have explicitly addressed and repudiated and condemned that too. Not a bad legacy for Emma (and Joseph?).

Interesting that of all my posts this one would set Dan off. I'm simply contrasting RLDS's history and doctine with big LDS's. He has not challenged the accuracy of my summary from a factual standpoint nor has anyone else. Jeff Lebowski confirmed that RLDS has women priesthood holders and Waters noted it has women apostles. Apparently what made Dan angry is that I said RLDS is more enlightened than big LDS and lacks big LDS's skeletons.

I submit that I have not gone out on a limb calling more enlightened no history of polygamy, repudiation of B of M racist passages, no priesthood ban or explicit repudiation and condemnation of it, allowing women to hold the priesthood, and agnosticism concerning the B of M origins. Clearly I not Dan have mainstream science and our national public virtue on my side.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Christ

Interesting, they have added and continue to add to the Doctrine and Covenants (their version).

and then the Church will buy the rest of the Nauvoo historical sites.