Hamer?????s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

[_Lemmie]

...I don’t think you’ll see members of the LDS church dissing those of other faiths or those of no faith at all for their righteous desires and actions.

You've got to be kidding. That is literally exactly what you do here.

[_Philo Sofee]

Mormon Church not dissing other religions?!? Only that there was an apostasy and no others have the actual real and true authority of God, and so, by that definition - the literal CORE of the reason to exist for Mormonism - all others are lesser than, not good enough, won't make it to the highest order of existence, etc. I could go on, but MG won't even acknowledge this most obvious point, the rest is wasted breath. Even most Mormons won't make it or get their second anointing! But not to worry, the brethren are safe and sound in God's arms.......to hell with the rest of we mere mortals......it's all about the leaders......

[Guest]

Look at our conversation here. I talk about righteous "valiant" people outside the church, and you point out that the truly valiant according to the LDS church can only be those in the LDS church.

The problem is, essentially, assigning righteousness to association with the church more than association to principles. Thus people and their relationships are governed less by principles and more by their relationship to the LDS church.

Well, in order to receive the saving/exalting ordinances one does have to be a member of Christ’s church. There is precedent for submitting to ordinances in the New Testament. Ordinances are more or less mile markers showing where we’re meeting up with God and following in the footsteps of Christ. We covenant to follow ‘in the way’ walking in obedience to God’s law. In other words, living the principles of truth and righteousness.

That’s not something to be dissed, in my opinion. I don’t think you’ll see members of the LDS church dissing those of other faiths or those of no faith at all for their righteous desires and actions.

Now what other folks outside of the church are doing to demonstrate their valiance, that’s between them and their God. Or between them and their own code of ethics if they are a non-believer.

Regards,
MG

That seems avoidant.

I'll continue from this point:

"The problem is, essentially, assigning righteousness to association with the church more than association to principles. Thus people and their relationships are governed less by principles and more by their relationship to the LDS church."

Now look at church members and their family members. They are taught that their relationships are absolutely impacted by their family member's association to the church. Little children are taught this from birth. Parents are taught this in reference to their children. All are taught that this is critical to marriage, too.

How can decisions to join the church, have children, and marry be genuine, well-informed decisions under these conditions? How can the relationships be healthy under these conditions?

Again, according to the church, adherence to principles are not and will never be enough if the church association is lacking. However, according to the LDS church, association to it can cover many faults when principles are lacking. This is a recipe for dysfunction.

[_Meadowchik]

Dp

[_mentalgymnast]

...I don’t think you’ll see members of the LDS church dissing those of other faiths or those of no faith at all for their righteous desires and actions.

You've got to be kidding. That is literally exactly what you do here.

When have I ever dissed anyone for theIr righteous desires and actions?

Regards,MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Mormon Church not dissing other religions?!?

Notice that I said dissing those individuals that are members of other faiths.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

However, according to the LDS church, association to it can cover many faults when principles are lacking. This is a recipe for dysfunction.

What? This provides no allowance for the foundation on which the gospel rests.

Repentance.

Repentance sits upon the foundation of a principle/morally based life.

I would agree with you that if certain principles and/or practices aren’t followed then that will cause a natural divide between family members as some are active and some are not, but that doesn’t, in effect, mean that common principles of love, forebearance, charity, etc.,are out of play. They would be ever more ‘in play’ as we seek to overcome differences and move forward in love.

At least that’s what we try to practice in our family. I have family members that have left the church and live a different life style than I, but that doesn’t get in the way of our relationships.

They are ‘valiant’ in their sphere and I try to be valiant in mine. And it’s all good.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

At least that’s what we try to practice in our family. I have family members that have left the church and live a different life style than I, but that doesn’t get in the way of our relationships.

They are ‘valiant’ in their sphere and I try to be valiant in mine. And it’s all good.

You say the words, but your other posts say something entirely different.

Honor may have at one time understood that language of the Spirit, but he has forgotten it or more likely reinterpreted it as being something else.

[Guest]

However, according to the LDS church, association to it can cover many faults when principles are lacking. This is a recipe for dysfunction.

What? This provides no allowance for the foundation on which the gospel rests.

Repentance.

Repentance sits upon the foundation of a principle/morally based life.

I would agree with you that if certain principles and/or practices aren’t followed then that will cause a natural divide between family members as some are active and some are not, but that doesn’t, in effect, mean that common principles of love, forebearance, charity, etc.,are out of play. They would be ever more ‘in play’ as we seek to overcome differences and move forward in love.

At least that’s what we try to practice in our family. I have family members that have left the church and live a different life style than I, but that doesn’t get in the way of our relationships.

They are ‘valiant’ in their sphere and I try to be valiant in mine. And it’s all good.

Regards,
MG

You only include part of the "recipe" in the quote. The prevailing LDS belief is that exmormons cannot be valiant. They can only be so if they return to the LDS church. They can be wonderful, principled people of integrity in every aspect of their lives but still lacking due to their voluntary disassociation from the church.

So, repentance in not fully functioning in the LDS paradigm, because it requires something extra. It requires the truly repentant to go through the LDS Church for their repentance to be valid.

If you swim against that prevailing current in your personal relationships with former members, do you tell them? Do you tell them that in your eyes they don't need the church to be their best selves? If you communicate this somehow, great, but if you don't explicitly say it, the church's position very likely communicates in your stead.

[_Meadowchik]

Full circle!