Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Lexilogio

Cults

What defines a cult?

Its something I've been thinking about recently.

Its weird. I think scientology is a cult. I think the hierarchy of the organisation is more interested in self agrandissment than any religious aspect. There might be something in the personality testing, but the whole alien race stuff... well...

But .... I don't think JW's are a cult. Bear in mind, I passionately disagree with some of the tenants, but I think they genuinely believe and think they are trying to help.

So how do we define cult?

You see. I was brought up Episcopalian. And for the first 80 years, the organisation was largely considered a cult.... Makes you think...
Jim

Re: Cults

Agreed on both counts, Lexi.
While I don't accept the wtbts as Christian (they are a seperate religion), niether are they cults in the same way as scientology or Branch Davidians, etc.
Lexilogio

Re: Cults

Jim wrote:
Agreed on both counts, Lexi.
While I don't accept the wtbts as Christian (they are a seperate religion), niether are they cults in the same way as scientology or Branch Davidians, etc.


But surely Christian is anyone who purports, or who believes they follow Christ? Just because we think they aren't actually following Christ's teachings, that doesn't mean they aren't Christian?

You see, I've been accused of not being a Christian because I was Episcopalian. So according to one Minister of the Church of Scotland, we weren't Christians. I've had the same from Reformist and Fundamentalist born again Christians - who state that because I haven't said a sentence out loud - I wasn't a Christian. They argued that no Catholics, Cof E etc.... were actually Christian.

Its all too easy to accuse people of not being Christian, without actually considering what the word means.

Jesus did not ask for a divided church were everyone accused each other of not being real Christians. He had seen this happen in Judaism, with various sects throwing mud at others and saying they weren't real Jews. Remember the Good Samaritan? Surely if a person behaves like a Christian, and says they follow Christ - that makes them a Christian - regardless of which "church" they adhere to?
gone

I think the 'you must be 'saved' or go to hell' dogma is a cult.
Farmer Geddon

I know you'll disagree, but even Christianity started off as a cult.

I'm guessing the question should be:

When does a cult become an organised religion?

cult  
/kəlt/
Noun

   A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
   A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Synonyms
worship - religion - adoration
Jim

Re: Cults

Surely the inverse is true, though.
Since the JWs themselves see all non JWs as apostate, and themselves as Christian, don't they cut themselves of de facto from Christianity?

Anyway, as FG said, cults usually have a poer crazed figure at the head of the tree.
Since Brooklyn central don't have such a figure, they cannot really be classed as a cult.

I've been accused by the...er....shall we say more fervent branches of our own Christian faith of not being truly 'Christian' - but I suspect they wouldn't admit Christ Himself in, seeing Him as too worldly!
Ketty

Re: Cults

Lexilogio wrote:
What defines a cult?


I'm happy with http://carm.org/cults analysis:

Cults are everywhere. Some are mainstream and widely accepted.  Others are isolationist and hide from examination at great expense. They are growing and flourishing.  Some cause great suffering while others appear very helpful and beneficial.  . . .

The quick comparison chart is handy:  http://carm.org/cult-comparison-chart
northernstar

ALL religions are cults, end of.
Lexilogio

Farmer Geddon wrote:
I know you'll disagree, but even Christianity started off as a cult.

I'm guessing the question should be:

When does a cult become an organised religion?


Synonyms
worship - religion - adoration


Agree
Lexilogio

Re: Cults

Ketty wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
What defines a cult?


I'm happy with http://carm.org/cults analysis:

Cults are everywhere. Some are mainstream and widely accepted.  Others are isolationist and hide from examination at great expense. They are growing and flourishing.  Some cause great suffering while others appear very helpful and beneficial.  . . .

The quick comparison chart is handy:  http://carm.org/cult-comparison-chart


Interesting site. I did like this:
Quote:
Cults are most often religious groups that use teaching and social structures to exhibit strong and/or controlling influence over its members’ financial, material, and social circles.  


I think the control of financial and social circles is key in any description of a cult. While all religious organisations do seek donations, a cult seeks greater control.

So what cults are there?
IvyOwl

Sorry Ketty but as the chart you referred to started of with 'Christianity the Truth to compare against' and then went on to say that Jesus was the Founder (did he actually found the religion and if so which branch? I'd have thought St.Paul had as much to do with the founding as anyone. Jesus Christ was the inspiration not necessarily the founder) and to start from a particular dogma I couldn't quite take it that seriously.
Lexilogio

IvyOwl wrote:
Sorry Ketty but as the chart you referred to started of with 'Christianity the Truth to compare against' and then went on to say that Jesus was the Founder (did he actually found the religion and if so which branch? I'd have thought St.Paul had as much to do with the founding as anyone. Jesus Christ was the inspiration not necessarily the founder) and to start from a particular dogma I couldn't quite take it that seriously.


Whilst I agree with your point about the make up of the chart (and I was hoping for a list of various Christian branches), I do think Jesus was the founder of the church. He did tell Peter that he was the rock on which he founded his church. St Paul did have a massive influence - and its arguable that without St Paul, Christianity would have remained a small branch of Judaism. But the Christianity is followers of Jesus - something Jesus himself began with the disciples, and the founded on St Peter.
IvyOwl

Ok fair enough ... I see your point Lexi  

That is if you are taking the words in the Bible as having been spoken by Jesus and not words put into his mouth by the gospel writers.
Ketty

Ivy, Christ Jesus is the founder of the, one world-wide holy catholic church: His body of believers.  That must be the measure by which we judge the 'pretenders'.  The two most common teachings of cults are that Jesus was not God, and that salvation is not by faith alone.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sect-cult.html

From a Christian perspective, a cult is any group that follows teachings that contradict orthodox Christian doctrine and promote heresy. Under this definition, the Watchtower Society and the Latter-day Saints (Mormons) are both cults.

Because not all cults are immediately recognized as such, and some people may easily confuse cults with sects or denominations, it is critical to follow the example of the Bereans in Acts 17:11: "Now the Bereans . . . received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Always research the beliefs of a group before committing to it, examine its behaviors and doctrines in light of the Bible, and beware of the methods listed in the BITE model. Talk to members, but refuse to be coerced by them. Importantly, if something doesn’t seem right, don’t do it
.



http://carm.org/religious-movemen...st-cults-and-non-christian-groups

 
    Alamo Christian Foundation
       Anthroposophical Society
       Astara
       Children of God
       Christadelphianism
       Christian Family Fellowship
       Christian Identity Movement
       Christian Science
       Church of Armageddon
       Divine Light Mission
       Eckankar
       Est
       Foundation of Human Understanding (Roy Masters)
       Jehovah's Witnesses
       Krishna
       Life Spring
       Mormonism
       Oneness Pentecostal
       Rosicrucianism
       Scientology
       Self Realization Fellowship
       Silva Mind Control
       Swedenborgianism
       The Farm
       The Unification Church
       The Way International
       Theosophy
       Two by Two's
       Transcendental Meditation
       Unitarian Universalist
       Unity School of Christianity
       Urantia
IvyOwl

That's a long list there Ketty! I can see that if you take the belief that Jesus was God and that salvation is by faith alone and, as I said to Lexi, that you believe the words quoted in the Bible were actually spoken by Jesus and not the gospel writers, then those others won't fall within the remit of being Christian according to your strongly held beliefs.

But I still don't see that they are cults as such. To my way of thinking a cult, whatever religion or none that it springs from, is, as someone pointed out above, to do with level of control. All religions to a certain extent are about control but some have a less heavy and or overt hand than others. Some are subtle and concern deep psychology. But basically if the members are free to leave without any adverse consequences from the other members then it's not really a cult.

I dunno though it's a fine line.
Ketty

IvyOwl wrote:
That's a long list there Ketty!


It is, isn't it.     Read some websites, it's an even longer list!  I've never heard of most of 'em.

I agree with your last sentence, sometimes it is indeed a fine line but the bottom line, for me, is: does what they preach and teach align with the Bible and Christ Jesus?  Prima facie, if so: are there any extra-Biblical add-ons which do not align with the Bible; do they ascribe to only one version, namely and usually the KJV; and do they restrict their adherents' individual freedom to eat, drink, dress, act, question, and just 'be'; do they have a policy of 'ex-communication'; does anything about it give me a niggle in my 'knowery'?
Shaker

IvyOwl wrote:
To my way of thinking a cult, whatever religion or none that it springs from, is, as someone pointed out above, to do with level of control. All religions to a certain extent are about control but some have a less heavy and or overt hand than others. Some are subtle and concern deep psychology. But basically if the members are free to leave without any adverse consequences from the other members then it's not really a cult.

That's one take on it, certainly. Along with that I go with the older definition as well: it's a cult if only a few people believe it. If lots and lots of people believe the same thing, it's a religion  
IvyOwl

Quote:
That's one take on it, certainly. Along with that I go with the older definition as well: it's a cult if only a few people believe it. If lots and lots of people believe the same thing, it's a religion  


Yep there is something in that. Especially as most religions are about control in some form or another albeit subliminally and subtle in some instances.
Lexilogio

The problem with saying that a cult is anything which goes against orthodox Christianity - is what is Orthodox Christianity? Anything not Catholic? Anything not Russian / Greek Orthodox?

I could argue that any "church" which didn't have communion at every meeting was a cult, under that definition. Because there are reasonable arguments that there should be communion every week.

This is why I prefer the definition of "control". Although I'm tempted to extend it to controlling finance, health and social circles. The question there, is whether an organisation which tells its adherents to avoid healthcare services is a cult?

When I used to read about cults, there was always a clear pattern. They targeted the vulnerable, often going for students or lone travellers. They drew people in, then removed the things needed to safely leave. There was a period of brainwashing, and then full control was exerted.
bnabernard

Based on Noah being chosen by God to be head of the family tree post flood then anyone who does not beleive in the same way as Noah belongs to a cult   Lets face it he did anough to survive that apocalypse innit  

bernard (hug)
Lexilogio

bnabernard wrote:
Based on Noah being chosen by God to be head of the family tree post flood then anyone who does not beleive in the same way as Noah belongs to a cult   Lets face it he did anough to survive that apocalypse innit  

bernard (hug)


I wonder which of the two Jewish kingdoms Noah came from?
Derek

A cult is simply a new religion, that differs in its doctrinal interpretation from other religions, and who have low numbers. For example, Mormonism was a cult during the early years when Joseph Smith introduced it. Today it has gone from a cult to a sect and now a main stream religion.

The word cult in current usage is a pejorative term for a new religious movement or other group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre by the larger society. The word cult is used as an ad hominem attack against groups with simply differing doctrines or practices, and without a clear or consistent definition.

The following is Not indicative of a cult.

Quote:
Prima facie, if so: are there any extra-Biblical add-ons which do not align with the Bible; do they ascribe to only one version, namely and usually the KJV; and do they restrict their adherents' individual freedom to eat, drink, dress, act, question, and just 'be'; do they have a policy of 'ex-communication'; does anything about it give me a niggle in my 'knowery'?


It is not so much of a Prima facia as it is your personal opinion. There is no connection between any of these points and a cult. Let me elucidate and clarify.

1. extra-Biblical add-ons which do not align with the Bible

Any interpretation of scripture can be construed as add-ons not aligning with yours or my religion. To what standards do you measure this? For Example: the Born Again Christian insist that you are only a Christian if you believe in the Trinity. The Trinity is an extra Biblical add-on, according to Unitarians, Mormons and me, so by our standards they, Born Again Christians, are a cult. By their own logic they are not Christians, but they would never admit that. Why, because they consider themselves to be the only dwellers in the Kingdom of God. So, what is the standard? Simple

Matthew 18:20

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

That is all that is required. None of this elitist doctrine that condemns other religion, but just two or three gathered in His name. That is it. Some of us have it seriously wrong, don't we? No condemnation of other religions, No Old men in the third century dictating to us how we should worship God, no man mad religions who have interpreted the Gospel via the intellect of men instead of knowledge by God and His son Jesus Christ, indeed, no other religions. Just a world congregation that gather in His name.

2. do they ascribe to only one version, namely and usually the KJV;

Nothing wrong with KJV of the bible. It has been with us since the 16th century and is a reliable translation. No need for anymore translations either as this one does the job perfectly so those who have changed it to read better may have changed the precepts and principles it contains.

Quote:
James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[8] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[9] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.[10] By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars. Today, the most used edition of the King James Bible, and often identified as plainly the King James Version, especially in the United States, closely follows the standard text of 1769, edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford.


3. and do they restrict their adherents' individual freedom to eat, drink, dress, act, question, and just 'be';

What religion does this? If you think it is Mormons then you are ill informed. There is a "word of wisdom", as shown below, that is a health code and advice to the saints but nothing is compelled. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with a dress code. Perhaps if all religions adhered to it there may be a reduction in rape and other sexual crimes. Mormon girls have one of the lowest records of rape greatly attributed to their dress code. No cases of Mormon Pedophilia by known assailants have ever been reported. My daughters both dress modestly, at my insistence, and it never harmed them. I think that they may have taken cloths out to change without me knowing, but I can handle that. One married to a lawyer the other to a professional footballer. They have never moaned to me about my belief in dressing moderately.  

Quote:
1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.



4. do they have a policy of 'ex-communication';

It is the right of any organization to excommunicate. It is for the benefit of those who have transgressed. A program is immediately put into place to care for them and help to bring them back to full activity. If you are ill informed on the process of excommunication then you would not know this. It is all done with love and compassion. Excommunication does not mean exclusion. It is a method to educate and demonstrate how our Savior wants us to conduct ourselves. It is only in extreme cases of sexual sins, murder, or bringing the church into disrepute, with the offender being unrepentant of his/her sin, that excommunication becomes necessary.

Having said this, it is a power and we all know what power does to people.

Quote:
D&C 121

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.


5. does anything about it give me a niggle in my 'knowery'

We can all get it wrong, especially when we belong to an organization that advocates condemning other religions. We are instantly on a wrong footing when we do that and the consequences are that the source that feeds our ‘knowery’ becomes contaminated and vague to decipher.

In conclusion, none of these points are indicative of a cult, or are any part of its definition, anywhere. They are all just dislikes by elitists groups on how other people choose to worship, a right that we all have. Cults is defined as a new religion that has interpreted doctrine in a different way to other religions and are few in numbers. Like the Trinity these points are extra biblical and false and should be ignored by the reader, in my opinion.

I post in places like this to expose the dishonesty and falsehoods of religious organizations that claim the moral high ground based on their erroneous, self-righteous, and sanctimoniously dogmatic twaddle. To ascribe a whole new definition to the word "Cult" fulfils this criteria. Consider it exposed.
Lexilogio

Quote:
A cult is simply a new religion,


Not sure if I would agree with that either. That panders to the idea that anything different is a cult.

For example, I don't think Methodism was considered a cult when it first started.

Freedom to eat? Catholicism restricted meat on Fridays for years. This would make Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam etc... all cults. If it was restrictive to the point of risking health, then I might be inclined to agree.

Policy of Excommunication? Again, history is littered with excommunicated Catholics. I don't think its right, but it doesn't mean an organisation is a cult. Forcibly separating families and preventing communication because of someone leaving a religious organisation I would say is indicative of a cult.
Derek

[quote="Lexilogio:92923"]
Quote:
A cult is simply a new religion,


Not sure if I would agree with that either. That panders to the idea that anything different is a cult.

It is not my words. It is defined thus in most reputable sources.

Quote:
Most sociologists and scholars of religion also began to reject the word "cult" altogether because of its negative connotations in mass culture. Some began to advocate the use of new terms like "new religious movement", "alternative religion" or "novel religion" to describe most of the groups that had come to be referred to as "cults",[27] yet none of these terms have had much success in popular culture or in the media. Other scholars have pushed to redeem the word "cult" as one fit for neutral academic discourse.[28]

Scholars have estimated that new religious movements, of which some but not all have been labeled as "cults," number in the tens of thousands world-wide. Most originated in Asia or Africa. The great majority have only a few members, some have thousands, and only very few have more than a million.[29] In 2007 religious scholar Elijah Siegler commented that although no NRM had become the dominant faith in any country, many of the concepts which they had first introduced (often referred to as "New Age" ideas) have become part of world-wide mainstream culture.

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




Quote:
For example, I don't think Methodism was considered a cult when it first started.


I do not know but according to the definition of the word cult it would have been.

Quote:
Freedom to eat? Catholicism restricted meat on Fridays for years. This would make Hinduism, Sikhism, Islam etc... all cults. If it was restrictive to the point of risking health, then I might be inclined to agree.


I agree, therefore. a religion that controls your freedom to eat is wrong in its practices but you just cannot call it a cult as that already has a meaning assigned to it

Quote:
cult
noun    (Concise Encyclopedia)

Collective veneration or worship (e.g., the cult of the saints—meaning collective veneration of the saints—in Roman Catholicism). In the West, the term has come to be used for groups that are perceived to have deviated from normative religions in belief and practice. They typically have a charismatic leader and attract followers who are in some way disenfranchised from the mainstream of society. Cults as thus defined are often viewed as foreign or dangerous.



Quote:
Policy of Excommunication? Again, history is littered with excommunicated Catholics. I don't think its right, but it doesn't mean an organisation is a cult.


Agreed

Quote:
Forcibly separating families and preventing communication because of someone leaving a religious organisation I would say is indicative of a cult.


Well no. It is just wrong to do that regardless as to whether a religion is doing it or some other organization is doing it. You just cannot steal a pre-defined word to cover something not contained in its definition. It would be like me calling a religion "decanter" because it excommunicates its members.
Shaker

Quote:
... there is nothing wrong with a dress code. Perhaps if all religions adhered to it there may be a reduction in rape and other sexual crimes. Mormon girls have one of the lowest records of rape greatly attributed to their dress code.

So - according to you - dressing a certain way predisposes a woman to being raped, and dressing a different way lessens the chances.

How does that work, then?

Quote:
No cases of Mormon Pedophilia by known assailants have ever been reported.

This is one of those cases - I've known too many to list - where a statement is so divorced from the truth that it's either a deliberate and conscious lie or an example of almost unbelievable ignorance. It took me a few seconds to find these articles:

Child Abuse Cover-Up Costs Mormon Church $3 Million

LDS linked to abuses

Mormons caught up in wave of paedophilia accusations

Not just the Catholic Church

Church Settles Portland Abuse Case for $3 Million

Ex-bishop in Harrisville gets prison for sex abuse

Mormon Sexual Abuse

As I say ... seconds.
Derek

Shaker

Quote:
So - according to you - dressing a certain way predisposes a woman to being raped, and dressing a different way lessens the chances.

How does that work, then?


I don't think I need answer that . You are a man as i am and know the effects of provocative clothing, regardless as to whether it is right or wrong it is the world we live in. So yes, dressing a certain way predisposes a woman to being raped, and dressing a different way lessens the chances. And no, it is not according to me. It is regrettably a well known fact

Quote:
Quote:
No cases of Mormon Pedophilia by known assailants have ever been reported.

This is one of those cases - I've known too many to list - where a statement is so divorced from the truth that it's either a deliberate and conscious lie or an example of almost unbelievable ignorance. It took me a few seconds to find these articles:

As I say ... seconds.


Well good for you. It is a shame that you did not read these articles, check their sources, and check to see if they referred to the official LDS or a splinter group. That way you might have saved the embarrassment of being wrong by calling ME ignorant.

Secondly, I did say known assailants for a very good reason. By that I mean close family

Lastly, you need to check the sources of your articles. It looks like you only spent a couple of seconds finding them and then publishing them without noticing how erroneous the sources are. Oh wait, you did only take a couple of seconds. An there is you picking me up on one small detail and trying to make me the fool instead of politely asking me to explain.

Quote:
AnonymousApril 3, 2010 at 4:32 PM

I have enjoyed your site for quite some time but was greatly disheartened at your portrayal of an 11-year old news story as presenting some sort of pattern and indictment against the "Mormon clergy to cover up for pedophiles." I sincerely hope this is not a sign of things to come. Thanks, for you usually timely and very insightful and relevant news and commentary.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot...atholic-church-mormon-church.html


This link is to do with the neglect of the Bishop. Human Error for not taking precautions to stop this person from exposing himself. The money was paid to the victim as compensation for the Bishops neglect not as hush money. It was a right and proper thing to do and the Church made sure that it was made public.

Quote:
Church Settles Portland Abuse Case for $3 Million

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Citing unfavorable rulings by a local judge that will take protracted appeals and significant expense to reverse, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agreed Tuesday to settle a lawsuit over child abuse by a church member. The Church agreed to pay $3 million to 22-year-old Jeremiah Scott, who claims that his then-Bishop knew that Franklin Richard Curtis was a pedophile and failed to tell his mother of the man's history when she sought advice on taking Curtis into their home. The case also breaks new ground because the Church has for the first time disclosed the amount and substance of the settlement of a child abuse case.

Franklin Richards Curtis, who was 87 at the time of the abuse, had been excommunicated by the Church in Pennsylvania for previous abuse. Church records indicate that he was rebaptized in 1984, but as a member of the Rocky Butte Ward in Portland he then abused five additional children. Although the Bishop of that ward confronted him, and Curtis confessed, the Bishop never reported the abuse to the police, and only reported the abuse to Salt Lake City when parents in his ward complained.


Anymore blogs or newspaper reports that you have should really be considered as erroneous as they are seeking a good story to sell paper not trying to be truthful.
gone

The Mormon who isn't a Mormon is defending the indefensible!
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I don't think I need answer that .

Yes you do. You made a statement, which I questioned. Therefore yes, you do need to answer it.  

Quote:
You are a man as i am and know the effects of provocative clothing

What "effects"? I've managed to get thus far in my life without ever having raped anyone. Not once. Ever. At all. Your mileage may vary, of course, but in my case I've never raped anyone no matter how "provocative" the clothing.

Quote:
So yes, dressing a certain way predisposes a woman to being raped, and dressing a different way lessens the chances. And no, it is not according to me. It is regrettably a well known fact

So if it's a fact it won't trouble you to provide some evidence for it, will it? And once you've done that, explain how the fact that women in full burqa are kidnapped and raped squares with your thesis. This man has a few pertinent observations to make on the subject.

Quote:
It is a shame that you did not read these articles

I did.

Quote:
check their sources, and check to see if they referred to the official LDS or a splinter group.

Both are the case.

Quote:
That way you might have saved the embarrassment of being wrong by calling ME ignorant.

We already know how ignorant you are: you don't need any help in that direction from me.

Quote:
Secondly, I did say known assailants for a very good reason. By that I mean close family

What? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you used the word 'known' (in reference to Mormon paedophiles) to refer only to sex abusers of children who abuse children of their own, or within "close family"? Are you absolutely and utterly insane? Or are you just trying to squirm your way out of the fact that you made an unbelievably stupid comment and are desperately trying to distance yourself from it? When somebody says, as you did:

Quote:
No cases of Mormon Pedophilia by known assailants have ever been reported


how are people supposed to know that you apparently use the word 'known' to mean 'close family'? Are you saying you don't know full well that in a sentence such as the above-quoted, the word has a perfectly clear and straightforward meaning? Pull the other one.

Quote:
An there is you picking me up on one small detail and trying to make me the fool

Again, you need no assistance in that from me. You seem to be doing a sterling job all on your own.

Quote:
Anymore blogs or newspaper reports that you have should really be considered as erroneous as they are seeking a good story to sell paper not trying to be truthful.

Why should they be considered erroneous? Are you stating that these reported stories are factually untrue?
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Shaker:92941"]
Ralph2 wrote:
I don't think I need answer that .

Quote:
Yes you do. You made a statement, which I questioned. Therefore yes, you do need to answer it.  


No, no I do not. If I think the answer is more than obvious then no I don't

Quote:
Quote:
You are a man as i am and know the effects of provocative clothing

What "effects"? I've managed to get thus far in my life without ever having raped anyone. Once. Ever. At all. Your mileage may vary, of course, but in my case I've never raped anyone no matter how "provocative" the clothing.


Well you are a saint aren't you. Me to, actually, and everyone I know or who even lives close by and I don't know. But guess what, as if you need telling, there are some idiots in our world who do rape girls spurred on by the provocative nature of their dress. Once again, an answer that I should not have to give you, but you know what they say about ignorance don't you. The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

Quote:
Quote:
So yes, dressing a certain way predisposes a woman to being raped, and dressing a different way lessens the chances. And no, it is not according to me. It is regrettably a well known fact


So if it's a fact it won't trouble you to provide some evidence for it, will it?


If it were for someone who had a genuine interest in the subject, and because evidence for anything is easy to find on the internet, then I would bother to find it, however, because it is for someone who obviously does not have the intellect to just know this without someone telling him and then uses the back of others, who do know it, to egotistically elevate himself above them, then I wont.

Quote:
Quote:
It is a shame that you did not read these articles


I did.


Then that makes you a liar sir. You see it would be quite impossible for anybody, except God, of course, to read and check the sources all withing 2 seconds. Unless you consider yourself to be a God. That is one, two, job done. As you obviously have either lied about the time it took you to read it or that you actually read it at all, why should we believe anything else you say here.

Quote:
Quote:
check their sources, and check to see if they referred to the official LDS or a splinter group.


Both are the case.


Just like you read it in 2 seconds - OK

Quote:
Quote:
That way you might have saved the embarrassment of being wrong by calling ME ignorant.


We already know how ignorant you are: you don't need any help in that direction from me.


No that would matter to me if I cared what your opinion is, however, guess what?

Quote:
Quote:
Secondly, I did say known assailants for a very good reason. By that I mean close family


What? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you used the word 'known' (in reference to Mormon paedophiles) to refer only to sex abusers of children who abuse children of their own, or within "close family"? Are you absolutely and utterly insane? Or are you just trying to squirm your way out of the fact that you made an unbelievably stupid comment and are desperately trying to distance yourself from it? When somebody says, as you did:


Are you trying to tell me that you read this in 2 seconds? Did you check and read the records of the organization that you have accused. The LDS church. Surely a minute tops would have sufficed.

Just out of idle curiosity, would you ask someone if they are utterly insane face to face. I am interested in just how far your verbal abuse extends.

Quote:
Quote:
No cases of Mormon Pedophilia by known assailants have ever been reported


how are people supposed to know that you apparently use the word 'known' to mean 'close family'? Are you saying you don't know full well that in a sentence such as the above-quoted, the word has a perfectly clear and straightforward meaning? Pull the other one.


Because they can see the addition of the words "known" and because most of us can think laterally and decipher that known means someone we know. Do we know strangers, or even friends and acquaintances. No, of course not so "known" obviously means family. If I were intellectually redundant I would just think it had no meaning for being in the sentence and assume that I meant the whole world and his friend, however, I appear not to be, therefore, I would know that the word was there for a reason.

Quote:
Quote:
An there is you picking me up on one small detail and trying to make me the fool


Again, you need no assistance in that from me. You seem to be doing a sterling job all on your own.


Why, thank you so much. Nice

Quote:
Quote:
Anymore blogs or newspaper reports that you have should really be considered as erroneous as they are seeking a good story to sell paper not trying to be truthful.


Why should they be considered erroneous? Are you stating that these reported stories are factually untrue?


Yes, I recon that is a distinct possibility for anti-theists to fabricate stories like this. What about you? Secondly, I am also suggesting that some are in connection with LDS splinter groups. But Hey, what do I know, Mr Ignorant and all.

Another question that had no need to be asked.

Oh dear, I have crossed the man who put this forum together. Will I now loss favor with the residence and be excommunicated for daring to confront you by return the vitriolic insults that seem to have a well deserved reputation of.

Quote:
There comes a time that you realize that no matter what you say nobody listens when they think they are the lighthouse and you are the battleship

Derek Smart
Derek

Floo wrote:
The Mormon who isn't a Mormon is defending the indefensible!


I know what you are all about Floo. I meet someone like you everyday. You know that I know that as well. You need to turn unto your Christ and confess your sins and be born again. I pray that you will realize who your motivator is and get on your knees and pray to the father, through the name of His son, Jesus Christ, and open up your heart to his love and charity. He will open the eyes of your understanding and make you realize that to verbally abuse your fellow man is not his way but it is the way of the adversary.
Lexilogio

It is not obvious. A woman is entitled to dress how she wants without a man assuming that she wants to have sex with him.

I do not like the way some people dress - but it is NOT an invitation to rape.

That is a misogynistic view formed by thousands of years of a male dominated society - suggesting that the woman is somehow to blame. Its akin to suggesting that a bloke with glasses is inviting someone to punch him. Its the same playground reaction, and neither is acceptable.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
No, no I do not. If I think the answer is more than obvious then no I don't

It's not obvious to me as to why the way a woman dresses herself increases or decreases her likelihood of being raped, especially given the evidence in this area (to some of which I've already alluded). So I don't consider it obvious. Lexi doesn't either.

Quote:
Well you are a saint aren't you.


No. But then nobody is. I'm just not-a-rapist.

Quote:
But guess what, as if you need telling, there are some idiots in our world who do rape girls spurred on by the provocative nature of their dress.


Are there? How do you know this?

Quote:
Once again, an answer that I should not have to give you, but you know what they say about ignorance don't you.

Good grief, yes, I know exactly what they say about ignorance. I know that they say gross ignorance is 144 times worse than ordinary ignorance, and you are demonstrating gross ignorance.

Quote:
If it were for someone who had a genuine interest in the subject, and because evidence for anything is easy to find on the internet, then I would bother to find it


I do have a genuine interest in the subject. I have a far, far greater interest in seeing you substantiate your claims.

Quote:
however, because it is for someone who obviously does not have the intellect to just know this without someone telling him and then uses the back of others, who do know it, to egotistically elevate himself above them, then I wont.


Cop-out. In fact cop-out, cop-out, cop-out. Coward, coward, coward.

Quote:
Then that makes you a liar sir. You see it would be quite impossible for anybody, except God, of course, to read and check the sources all withing 2 seconds.

I said seconds, not two seconds. Two seconds comes entirely from you.

Quote:
Unless you consider yourself to be a God.


Somebody has to do the job.

Quote:
Just like you read it in 2 seconds - OK

Already dealt with.

Quote:
Are you trying to tell me that you read this in 2 seconds?


Still your term. Not mine.

Quote:
Just out of idle curiosity, would you ask someone if they are utterly insane face to face.


Yes. Especially and particularly if they struck me as being utterly insane.

Quote:
I am interested in just how far your verbal abuse extends.

A great deal further than the house rules of this forum go, alas.

Quote:
Why, thank you so much.


You're welcome.

Quote:
Nice


It wasn't and was never intended to be.

Quote:
Yes, I recon that is a distinct possibility for anti-theists to fabricate stories like this. What about you?

I think that if you believe the stories to be fabricated, then demonstrate them to be so. Provide your evidence. Marshal your facts. Prove that they are fabrications.

You will not so do, not just because you can't (i.e. the reports are accurate and truthful) but because you will cop out of the challenge yet again.

Quote:
Oh dear, I have crossed the man who put this forum together.


Only by churning out the same unevidenced, unsubstantiated, unsupported shite that a hundred of the likes of you before you have done and doubtless a hundred more of the same of your kind will do long after you've gone.

Quote:
Will I now loss favor


You've never had any to "loss."

Quote:
with the residence and be excommunicated for daring to confront you by return the vitriolic insults that seem to have a well deserved reputation of.


You're more than welcome to try. I couldn't give two shiny ones: it's the moderators you have to consider who will rein you in, not me. From my point of view, it's game on. Go ahead. Give me the best poorly spelt, inarticulate, incoherent postings you've got.
Derek

Lexilogio wrote:
It is not obvious. A woman is entitled to dress how she wants without a man assuming that she wants to have sex with him.

I do not like the way some people dress - but it is NOT an invitation to rape.

That is a misogynistic view formed by thousands of years of a male dominated society - suggesting that the woman is somehow to blame. Its akin to suggesting that a bloke with glasses is inviting someone to punch him. Its the same playground reaction, and neither is acceptable.


I never said that it is the woman who is at fault, it clearly is not. I never said that women should not wear whatever she want to wear, they clearly should. What I said was that we live in a wicked world. This, below, is what I meant. Please follow the link and watch the short video. This is the world we live in and if we think any different then we are fooling ourselves.

Quote:
He continued: “We are witnessing a society that is completely detached, and we are detached because we have an agenda. Why didn’t we tell the story of the 13-year-old-girl? Because of an agenda. The second rapist was black, the others were illegal immigrants, so we don’t tell that story. That’s not a good story, that doesn’t help us with our agenda…”

“Does anything even matter anymore? Does the truth matter? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? I don’t even recognize us anymore,” Beck said with disgust.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2...ause-it-doesnt-further-an-agenda/


I made sure my daughters were dressed modestly to avoid such an atrocity happening to them. It is prevention rather than a cure. It is knowing the world in which we live and reducing the likelihood for perverts and rapists to attack.
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
I know what you are all about Floo. I meet someone like you everyday. You know that I know that as well. You need to turn unto your Christ and confess your sins and be born again.  I pray that you will realize who your motivator is and get on your knees and pray to the father, through the name of His son, Jesus Christ, and open up your heart to his love and charity. He will open the eyes of your understanding and make you realize that to verbally abuse your fellow man is not his way but it is the way of the adversary.


Ralph2 wrote:
Derek Smart
, being as you can't help yourself in becoming personal, - make up your mind!

http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org...94.php&highlight=wicked#92394

Ralph2 wrote:
I believe that Born Again Christians are the most wicked religion on the face of the earth


Ralph2 wrote:
Derek Smart
 you have said yourself, that you "did not receive the testimony" of the Holy Spirit when you were "called into almost every position in the Church, including Bishop".  You "have been washed and anointed, endowed and sealed to your companion for time and all eternity in the Temple", and that you were "a Temple worker as well as an officiator."

Ralph2 wrote:
Derek Smart
 leave behind the false teaching and preaching of LDS and the consequence that you feel it's fine to be a deceiver and liar.  Who is the arch deceiver and liar?  Being "washed, annointed, endowed, sealed, a temple worker, an officiator, a bishop, blah, blah, blah" within a cult is not going to bring anyone salvation in Christ Jesus. It is not until somebody is born again in Spirit and in Truth, that they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  

That is why you couldn't recognise the markers of a cult, because you are swallowed up by the teaching of one; the one that you say you no longer belong to, but yet you spend a long time promoting their propaganda.


Quote:
There comes a time that you must realise that no matter what you say nobody listens when they know you're a self-confessed deceiver, a liar, and talking out of your bottom.

Ketty
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
I know what you are all about Floo. I meet someone like you everyday. You know that I know that as well. You need to turn unto your Christ and confess your sins and be born again.  I pray that you will realize who your motivator is and get on your knees and pray to the father, through the name of His son, Jesus Christ, and open up your heart to his love and charity. He will open the eyes of your understanding and make you realize that to verbally abuse your fellow man is not his way but it is the way of the adversary.


Ralph2 wrote:
Derek Smart
, being as you can't help yourself in becoming personal, - make up your mind!

http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org...94.php&highlight=wicked#92394

Ralph2 wrote:
I believe that Born Again Christians are the most wicked religion on the face of the earth


Ralph2 wrote:
Derek Smart
 you have said yourself, that you "did not receive the testimony" of the Holy Spirit when you were "called into almost every position in the Church, including Bishop".  You "have been washed and anointed, endowed and sealed to your companion for time and all eternity in the Temple", and that you were "a Temple worker as well as an officiator."

Ralph2 wrote:
Derek Smart
 leave behind the false teaching and preaching of LDS and the consequence that you feel it's fine to be a deceiver and liar.  Who is the arch deceiver and liar?  Being "washed, annointed, endowed, sealed, a temple worker, an officiator, a bishop, blah, blah, blah" within a cult is not going to bring anyone salvation in Christ Jesus. It is not until somebody is born again in Spirit and in Truth, that they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  

That is why you couldn't recognise the markers of a cult, because you are swallowed up by the teaching of one; the one that you say you no longer belong to, but yet you spend a long time promoting their propaganda.


Cannot comment I am afraid, other than to say there is a world of difference between being a born again christian and being born again.

Did you watch that program on the TV about cyber stalking one of the atomic kittens. A real interesting program informing the viewer not to sit by and do nothing but to take action as that is the only was to stop stalking on the internet.

That is why you couldn't recognise the markers of a cult, because you are swallowed up by the teaching of one; the one that you say you no longer belong to, but yet you spend a long time promoting their propaganda.

According to you I am no longer a member of the Mormon mainstream faith.

I am not promoting them I am discrediting your religion.
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
I never said that it is the woman who is at fault, it clearly is not.


So why mention the way women dress and furthermore use a word such as "provocatively"?

Quote:
I never said that women should not wear whatever she want to wear, they clearly should.


So why mention the way women dress and furthermore use a word such as "provocatively"?

Quote:
What I said was that we live in a wicked world. This, below, is what I meant. Please follow the link and watch the short video. This is the world we live in and if we think any different then we are fooling ourselves.


I have followed this link. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does it address the issue (which I have already raised, with documentary evidence) of how and why a woman dressed head-to-toe in a black burqa can be also be kidnapped and gang raped.

What say you? And I don't want to hear you squirm out of it with another non-answer such as "We live in a wicked world." No we don't. We live in a world. Not a good world. Not a wicked world. It's just a world, which is the stage where sometimes some people do bad things. You are the one making some sort of link between the "provocative" way some women dress and their likelihood of being raped, even though you're now trying to backtrack from it. You made the link, you defend it.

Quote:
“Does anything even matter anymore? Does the truth matter? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? I don’t even recognize us anymore,” Beck said with disgust.


That'll be because Glenn Beck is a genital wart with shoes.

Quote:
I made sure my daughters were dressed modestly to avoid such an atrocity happening to them.


Why are women who are dressed about as "modestly" as can be - i.e. like a black post box - still kidnapped and gang raped?
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:
Cannot comment I am afraid,  other than to say there is a world of difference between being a born again christian and being born again.


I agree, there's a world of difference between a born again in Spirit and in Truth Christian, and somebody who is an LDS who isn't an LDS, and who says they are born again but "did not receive the testimony" of the Holy Spirit.  What on earth does born again mean in that context?  Born again as a washed and anointed, endowed and sealed to a companion for time and all eternity, bishop and a Temple worker as well as an officiator?  Be sure that means diddly squat in the eternal realm.

Ralph2 wrote:
Did you watch that program on the TV about cyber stalking one of the atomic kittens. A real interesting program informing the viewer not to sit by and do nothing but to take action as that is the only was to stop stalking on the internet.


Excellent programme.  It's always good to get the measure of those who threaten you.     Not sure what it's got to do with Mormons being a cult though.

Ralph2 wrote:
Derek Smart
 leave behind the false teaching and preaching of LDS and the consequence that you feel it's fine to be a deceiver and liar.  Who is the arch deceiver and liar?

It is not until somebody is born again in Spirit and in Truth, that they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  

That is why you couldn't recognise the markers of a cult, because you are swallowed up by the teaching of one; the one that you say you no longer belong to, but yet you spend a long time promoting their propaganda.

As somebody quite wise quite recently said:  Sounds like you went all out for Mormonism and put everything you had into it.  It certainly sounds like your inner being is still searching for 'something'.  The 'inner something' can be found by placing your faith in what Christ Jesus has already done on the cross for you.  Nothing we do, including washed and anointed, endowed and sealed to a companion for time and all eternity, bishop and a Temple worker as well as an officiator, can ever be 'good enough' to gain us entrance to heaven.  It's because of the blood of Christ Jesus that He shed on the cross.  God sees us Through His blood just as if we'd never sinned.  Justification and Salvation is through Christ's blood.  But a person needs to acknowledge their need and accept His gift, personally.  A person can choose to do that at any time they want to.  No special place or time.

Funnily enough I got that from the website you (and your alter-ego Clive) were so keen for everyone to follow you to - you both mentioned it so many times.  Isn't that amazing.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Shaker:92974"]
Ralph2 wrote:
No, no I do not. If I think the answer is more than obvious then no I don't

It's not obvious to me as to why the way a woman dresses herself increases or decreases her likelihood of being raped, especially given the evidence in this area (to some of which I've already alluded). So I don't consider it obvious.


Then watch this. If that does not do it for you then nothing will

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2...ause-it-doesnt-further-an-agenda/

Quote:
Quote:
Well you are a saint aren't you.


No. But then nobody is. I'm just not-a-rapist.


How do I know that?
Quote:

Quote:
But guess what, as if you need telling, there are some idiots in our world who do rape girls spurred on by the provocative nature of their dress.


Are there? How do you know this?


I know it by life's experience and knowledge. Why don't you know this?

Quote:
Quote:
Once again, an answer that I should not have to give you, but you know what they say about ignorance don't you.


Good grief, yes, I know exactly what they say about ignorance. I know that they say gross ignorance is 144 times worse than ordinary ignorance, and you are demonstrating gross ignorance.


To insult is to demonstrate a lack of intelligence to amicably convey ones opinions.

Quote:
Quote:
If it were for someone who had a genuine interest in the subject, and because evidence for anything is easy to find on the internet, then I would bother to find it


I do have a genuine interest in the subject. I have a far, far greater interest in seeing you substantiate your claims.


Do you really
Quote:

Quote:
however, because it is for someone who obviously does not have the intellect to just know this without someone telling him and then uses the back of others, who do know it, to egotistically elevate himself above them, then I wont.


Cop-out. In fact cop-out, cop-out, cop-out. Coward, coward, coward.


To insult is to demonstrate a lack of intelligence to amicably convey ones opinions.
Quote:

Quote:
Then that makes you a liar sir. You see it would be quite impossible for anybody, except God, of course, to read and check the sources all withing 2 seconds.


I said seconds, not two seconds. Two seconds comes entirely from you.


You did indeed. I stand corrected. You said It took me a few seconds to find these articles: Less then a minute then. Still makes you a liar.

Quote:
Just like you read it in 2 seconds - OK


You did indeed. I stand corrected. You said It took me a few seconds to find these articles: Less then a minute then. Still makes you a liar.

Quote:
Are you trying to tell me that you read this in 2 seconds?


You did indeed. I stand corrected. You said It took me a few seconds to find these articles: Less then a minute then. Still makes you a liar.

Quote:
Quote:
Just out of idle curiosity, would you ask someone if they are utterly insane face to face.


Yes. Especially and particularly if they struck me as being utterly insane.


Yes, that is what I thought.

Quote:
Quote:
I am interested in just how far your verbal abuse extends.

A great deal further than the house rules of this forum go, alas.


Yes, unfortunately I thought that as well

Quote:
Quote:
Yes, I recon that is a distinct possibility for anti-theists to fabricate stories like this. What about you?


I think that if you believe the stories to be fabricated, then demonstrate them to be so. Provide your evidence. Marshal your facts. Prove that they are fabrications.


As you provided them you prove what you are using as evidence to be true and precise. I have looked at them and would exhort everyone to do the same. Two of them are the same article, another is a link to a neglect charge and not pedophilia. Another pertains to the RLDS and the rest are all strangers. Unreliable and erroneous
Quote:

You will not so do, not just because you can't (i.e. the reports are accurate and truthful) but because you will cop out of the challenge yet again.


Already dealt with
Quote:

Quote:
Oh dear, I have crossed the man who put this forum together.


Only by churning out the same unevidenced, unsubstantiated, unsupported shite that a hundred of the likes of you before you have done and doubtless a hundred more of the same of your kind will do long after you've gone.


Ah a new arbitrator on the truth. A vet no doubt with heaps of experience. I have been around long enough to no that the loyalty of friendship or membership to the same group outweighs the principle of truth. People will agree with you rather than agree with me and they know how course you can be so tow the line. I rarely associate myself with people of you ilk as do most of those in my social circle. Ask Lexi. She apparently knows me, or my daughter.

Quote:
Quote:
Will I now loss favor


You've never had any to "loss."


You know that this is not a logical statement, right.

Quote:
Quote:
with the residence and be excommunicated for daring to confront you by return the vitriolic insults that seem to have a well deserved reputation of.


You're more than welcome to try. I couldn't give two shiny ones: it's the moderators you have to consider who will rein you in, not me. From my point of view, it's game on. Go ahead. Give me the best poorly spelt, inarticulate, incoherent postings you've got.


I have seen the protection you receive.
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Cannot comment I am afraid,  other than to say there is a world of difference between being a born again christian and being born again.


I agree, there's a world of difference between a born again in Spirit and in Truth Christian, and somebody who is an LDS who isn't an LDS, and who says they are born again but "did not receive the testimony" of the Holy Spirit.  What on earth does born again mean in that context?  Born again as a washed and anointed, endowed and sealed to a companion for time and all eternity, bishop and a Temple worker as well as an officiator?  Be sure that means diddly squat in the eternal realm.

Ralph2 wrote:
Did you watch that program on the TV about cyber stalking one of the atomic kittens. A real interesting program informing the viewer not to sit by and do nothing but to take action as that is the only was to stop stalking on the internet.


Excellent programme.  It's always good to get the measure of those who threaten you.     Not sure what it's got to do with Mormons being a cult though.

Ralph2 wrote:
Derek Smart
 leave behind the false teaching and preaching of LDS and the consequence that you feel it's fine to be a deceiver and liar.  Who is the arch deceiver and liar?

It is not until somebody is born again in Spirit and in Truth, that they receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  

That is why you couldn't recognise the markers of a cult, because you are swallowed up by the teaching of one; the one that you say you no longer belong to, but yet you spend a long time promoting their propaganda.

As somebody quite wise quite recently said:  Sounds like you went all out for Mormonism and put everything you had into it.  It certainly sounds like your inner being is still searching for 'something'.  The 'inner something' can be found by placing your faith in what Christ Jesus has already done on the cross for you.  Nothing we do, including washed and anointed, endowed and sealed to a companion for time and all eternity, bishop and a Temple worker as well as an officiator, can ever be 'good enough' to gain us entrance to heaven.  It's because of the blood of Christ Jesus that He shed on the cross.  God sees us Through His blood just as if we'd never sinned.  Justification and Salvation is through Christ's blood.  But a person needs to acknowledge their need and accept His gift, personally.  A person can choose to do that at any time they want to.  No special place or time.

Funnily enough I got that from the website you (and your alter-ego Clive) were so keen for everyone to follow you to - you both mentioned it so many times.  Isn't that amazing.


Tell me. Is it forum rules to take my post from another forum and post it on here. I do not mind in the slightest but I know how apt you are at taking my words out of context, like you have done here with my post from the Proof Directory Forum. Oh, I have updated my Facebook profile. Let me know what you think. I am eventually famous. My own stalker - Yes

Oh, Clive is still on there and I mentioned it twice, surprise surprise

Moderators note: I have released this post - but Ralph2 please be aware you have invited a poster/s to view your facebook page. If it happens don't say you were not warned. You may wish to edit this post
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Shaker:92978"]
Ralph2 wrote:
I never said that it is the woman who is at fault, it clearly is not.


So why mention the way women dress and furthermore use a word such as "provocatively"?


I fear that an explanation would be wasted on you.

Quote:
Quote:
I never said that women should not wear whatever she want to wear, they clearly should.


So why mention the way women dress and furthermore use a word such as "provocatively"?


I fear that an explanation would be wasted on you.

Quote:
Quote:
What I said was that we live in a wicked world. This, below, is what I meant. Please follow the link and watch the short video. This is the world we live in and if we think any different then we are fooling ourselves.


I have followed this link. Nowhere, absolutely nowhere, does it address the issue (which I have already raised, with documentary evidence) of how and why a woman dressed head-to-toe in a black burqa can be also be kidnapped and gang raped.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2...ause-it-doesnt-further-an-agenda/

Quote:
What say you? And I don't want to hear you squirm out of it with another non-answer such as "We live in a wicked world." No we don't. We live in a world. Not a good world. Not a wicked world. It's just a world, which is the stage where sometimes some people do bad things. You are the one making some sort of link between the "provocative" way some women dress and their likelihood of being raped, even though you're now trying to backtrack from it. You made the link, you defend it.


Live with pigs long enough and you begin to squeal and act like a pig. Do you think that a pig thinks his world is dirty? I wonder if you will get that. May go clear over your head.

I am not back tracking. Provocative dressing is a contributory factor in rape. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to know that.

Tell me, do you watch pornography?

Quote:
Quote:
“Does anything even matter anymore? Does the truth matter? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? I don’t even recognize us anymore,” Beck said with disgust.


That'll be because Glenn Beck is a genital wart with shoes.


How very eloquently said, as expected
Quote:

Quote:
I made sure my daughters were dressed modestly to avoid such an atrocity happening to them.


Why are women who are dressed about as "modestly" as can be - i.e. like a black post box - still kidnapped and gang raped?


So when did the 10pm news report a black post box being raped. To be honest this stuff goes clear over your understanding and comprehension. You appear to be well out of your depth so your responses are doing your credibility no favors
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
Then watch this. If that does not do it for you then nothing will

You've already posted this before and it was crap the first time round.

Quote:
How do I know that?


You don't - in exactly the same way that I don't know that you're not, either.

Quote:
I know it by life's experience and knowledge.


So provide an example of this "experience" and "knowledge."

Quote:
Why don't you know this?

Because it's bullshit.

Quote:
Do you really

Yes.
Quote:
As you provided them you prove what you are using as evidence to be true and precise.

More cowardice. You're the one who is alleging that these reports are untrue. You made that allegation, which means that you bear the burden of proof. You, not me. You, because are the one who thinks that they might be fabricated by anti-theists. Oh really? So go ahead and prove it. Go on, we can wait. Demonstrate, with evidence, the truth of your claim that these reports are fabricated, whether by anti-theists or anyone else for that matter.

Quote:
I rarely associate myself with people of you ilk as do most of those in my social circle.

Unfortunately not rarely enough.

Quote:
You know that this is not a logical statement, right.

Your statement (to which it is a reply) wasn't a logical statement to begin with.
trentvoyager

Ralph

Your posts on the subject of rape are insufferable rubbish - managing to denigrate both sexes at the same time.

Women because they provoke men because they dare to wear short dresses or other "provocative" clothes - and men, because they are so weak they are unable to control their primal urges - and indeed want to shag anything that shows a bit of flesh.

This, fortunately, is more a reflection of your state of mind, than it is the state of mind of the population in general.
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Ralph

Your posts on the subject of rape are insufferable rubbish - managing to denigrate both sexes at the same time.

Women because they provoke men because they dare to wear short dresses or other "provocative" clothes - and men, because they are so weak they are unable to control their primal urges - and indeed want to shag anything that shows a bit of flesh.

This, fortunately, is more a reflection of your state of mind, than it is the state of mind of the population in general.


That you interpret what I have said thus is sufficient for me to ignore everything else that you have said here. You are ascribing things to me that I have not said. Perhaps because you are not reading it for comprehension or because you don't want to see it in the way that I said it. Probably the latter as I am the notorious Ralph and agreeing with me is sacrilege. That is fine though. I do not expect agreement from you on anything I say.
gone

Ralph's posts are highly offensive, imo!
Jim

Yep.
trentvoyager

Quote:
You are a man as i am and know the effects of provocative clothing, regardless as to whether it is right or wrong it is the world we live in. So yes, dressing a certain way predisposes a woman to being raped, and dressing a different way lessens the chances.


Sorry that seems to be exactly what you are saying above. So don't give me the reading for comprehension crap.

And substantiate your claim that dressing a different way lessens the chances.

Because 2 of my women friends have been raped and neither of them dress provocatively - in fact one was a lesbian of the more jeans and workshirt type - so less provocative you can't really get - unless you consider the fact that she is a lesbian provocation enough.
Jim

Agreed, TV.
I know some who have been raped (one of them male).
One lady was in her seventies.
I doubt that dressing provocatively was one of her priorities.
gone

Only complete sickos or active/would be rapists would blame the victims for being raped!
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Shaker:92987"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Then watch this. If that does not do it for you then nothing will

You've already posted this before and it was crap the first time round.


You said that you could not make the link work so I politely posted it again.

Quote:
Quote:
I know it by life's experience and knowledge.


So provide an example of this "experience" and "knowledge."


Because my young niece of 14 was raped by her uncle and his defense was that she wore clothing that exited him, his wife agreed.

Quote:
Quote:
Why don't you know this?

Because it's bullshit.


Well yes, of course. Very eloquently said again

Quote:
Quote:
Do you really


Yes.


I am not going to ask. It will no doubt be some cock and bull story.

Quote:
Quote:
As you provided them you prove what you are using as evidence to be true and precise.


More cowardice. You're the one who is alleging that these reports are untrue. You made that allegation, which means that you bear the burden of proof. You, not me. You, because are the one who thinks that they might be fabricated by anti-theists. Oh really? So go ahead and prove it. Go on, we can wait. Demonstrate, with evidence, the truth of your claim that these reports are fabricated, whether by anti-theists or anyone else for that matter.


I said that provocative attire is a contributory factor in Rape. You provided us with erroneous articles as evidence of my ignorance and testimony of the sub-human that you accuse me of being. It is not my responsibility to prove the contrary evidence against me to be true thereby proving myself wrong. Come on. My previous post is far less argumentative then this and has still not been published. Why do you think that is then.

Quote:
Quote:
I rarely associate myself with people of your ilk as do most of those in my social circle.

Unfortunately not rarely enough.


Aha, took a while but you got there. This is the bit where you say that I do not have to post here if I do not like it and then comes the word "WE" and "US" when you suggest that the whole board want me to stop posting here as I am thick and stupid, not that the group belief is just wrong when they want a social forum of peace and quite talking about dining out and flowers instead of a lively forum of constructive debate. It is just one of your traits. The exposure of your other traits has been curtailed by the length of time it has taken to publish my post. It is indicative of you being protected whilst you say whatever you like. It is also evidence of one of the moderators using their position to prevent their exposure.  

Quote:
Quote:
You know that this is not a logical statement, right.

Your statement (to which it is a reply) wasn't a logical statement to begin with.


No, of course it wasn't
Derek

Floo wrote:
Only complete sickos or active/would be rapists would blame the victims for being raped!


Yes, I agree
Derek

Jim wrote:
Agreed, TV.
I know some who have been raped (one of them male).
One lady was in her seventies.
I doubt that dressing provocatively was one of her priorities.


     C. C. Patil’s (Karnataka’s Women & Child Welfare minister ) comments that women should “know how much skin they should cover” and Dinesh Reddy’s (Director General of Police A.P.) comment’s that the provocative dressing of women is an indirect cause of Sexual assault on women have brought the old question. “Does provocative dressing increase the occurrence on sexual assault ?” to the fore.

          At the outset let me clarify one thing, I do believe that sexual assault/ rape is one of the most heinous crimes and a provocative dressing by the female is never an excuse for the man to take advantage, it would never exonerate him  from the crime committed. The entire discussion in the subsequent paragraphs is whether it increases the vulnerability of the woman or not.

         Naturally, the reaction of women bodies to these comments has been strong , after all , the slut walk which was organized in Delhi (and all over the world last year) was because of such a remark by a police man somewhere in Canada.

“You cannot justify violence by saying that the woman was not appropriately dressed… Indian women are conditioned to behave in a certain way so as to “protect themselves”, while men are hardly ever told how to behave. Why am I told not to wear skimpy clothes at night or make eye contact with strangers who stare at me? Every section of society is putting pressure on [the woman] to feel ashamed.”  

Says Umang Sabharwal, the 19 year old fiery DU journalism student who was the spirit behind the Delhi Slut walk.

http://satyasurya.wordpress.com/2...ative-dressing-and-crime-my-take/
Derek

Floo wrote:
Only complete sickos or active/would be rapists would blame the victims for being raped!


Yes, I agree
Derek

Jim wrote:
Agreed, TV.
I know some who have been raped (one of them male).
One lady was in her seventies.
I doubt that dressing provocatively was one of her priorities.


I have a niece of 14 that was raped because of the cloth she wore. It was his defense in court. So which one of us is right. Men are sexually aroused by provocative attire. To argue to the contrary is positively ludicrous and you are all wrong as well as all being people who would never agree with anything I would say, apart from Floo. She seems to be on my side
Derek

Floo wrote:
Ralph's posts are highly offensive, imo!


In order for your opinion to affect me I would have to care what your opinion is, guess what, I don't
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
Ralph

Your posts on the subject of rape are insufferable rubbish - managing to denigrate both sexes at the same time.

Women because they provoke men because they dare to wear short dresses or other "provocative" clothes - and men, because they are so weak they are unable to control their primal urges - and indeed want to shag anything that shows a bit of flesh.

This, fortunately, is more a reflection of your state of mind, than it is the state of mind of the population in general.

Quite apart from the fact that that was an excellent post, the middle paragraph reminded me instantly of this:

Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
You are a man as i am and know the effects of provocative clothing, regardless as to whether it is right or wrong it is the world we live in. So yes, dressing a certain way predisposes a woman to being raped, and dressing a different way lessens the chances.


Sorry that seems to be exactly what you are saying above. So don't give me the reading for comprehension crap.

And substantiate your claim that dressing a different way lessens the chances.

Because 2 of my women friends have been raped and neither of them dress provocatively - in fact one was a lesbian of the more jeans and workshirt type - so less provocative you can't really get - unless you consider the fact that she is a lesbian provocation enough.


My young niece of 14 was raped by her uncle and his defense was that she wore clothing that exited him, his wife agreed. All that says is that it is a contributory factor and not the only reason for rape. I would have expected some of you to know that but if you spend your life out of the world we should not expect you to know what is happening in the world
trentvoyager

Quote:
Men are sexually aroused by provocative attire.


So are you saying you are aroused so much that it makes you want to commit rape?

Complete and utter bullshit. There are other factors at work.

The claim of provocation ia complete and utter smokescreen for people who cannot control themselves. You are once again blaming the victim - and if you took the time to think about it you would realise that.
trentvoyager

Quote:
apart from Floo. She seems to be on my side


Have you got a split personality ?

Quote:
In order for your opinion to affect me I would have to care what your opinion is, guess what, I don't
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
apart from Floo. She seems to be on my side


Have you got a split personality ?

Quote:
In order for your opinion to affect me I would have to care what your opinion is, guess what, I don't


     
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
My young niece of 14 was raped by her uncle and his defense was that she wore clothing that exited him, his wife agreed. All that says is that it is a contributory factor and not the only reason for rape.

I'm extremely sorry to hear it. What in fact it actually says it that a rapist blames the victim for the offence he has committed instead of admitting his own share of the guilt (and has a wife stupid enough to play along), that share being 100%. The girl was at fault, your honour - she was dressed so sexily that I just couldn't help myself and just had to rape her. It was her fault - if she hadn't been dressed like that, it would never have happened, your honour. There's a modern term for it - slut shaming - but it's an old, old story. We hear it over and over and over again. Wasn't my fault, it was her. It was the way she was dressed, your honour.

What you are saying is that a grown man was incapable of restraining his behaviour at the sight of a 14-year-old girl dressed, according to him and his almost equally witless spouse, in a manner which made him so excited that he just wasn't able not to rape her, something which the overwhelming majority of men somehow manage.

I am frankly astonished that you can't actually see this for what it is. So astonished in fact that I suspect you can, and are just trolling for the sake of it.
The Boyg

Floo wrote:
Only complete sickos or active/would be rapists would blame the victims for being raped!


You're quite right.

I don't think that Ralph has said this though.

He has suggested that women should moderate what they wear as a consequence of the fact that some men are rapists (something that I don't agree with him on) and that what a woman wears can increase her chances of being raped.

I don't see how you can chastise him for this though, considering that you recently said substantially similar things:

Floo wrote:
There is NEVER any justification for sexual assault of any kind. However some women who dress in a very provocative way are putting themselves in danger from sexual molestors who prey on those they consider easy targets.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/i...hp?topic=6644.msg323932#msg323932

Floo wrote:
As I have said before, there is NEVER any excuse for sexual assault, but a woman puts herself at greater risk if she wears very provocative clothes which gives evil sexual predators the 'come on'.

This morning I saw some teenage schoolgirls wearing skirts so short you could see their knickers through their tights. If I had been their parents they would not have been permitted to go out looking like that for their own safety.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/i...hp?topic=6644.msg326426#msg326426
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
Men are sexually aroused by provocative attire.


So are you saying you are aroused so much that it makes you want to commit rape?

Complete and utter bullshit. There are other factors at work.

The claim of provocation ia complete and utter smokescreen for people who cannot control themselves. You are once again blaming the victim - and if you took the time to think about it you would realise that.


PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:32 pm   Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post

I never said that it is the woman who is at fault, it clearly is not. I never said that women should not wear whatever she want to wear, they clearly should. What I said was that we live in a wicked world. This, below, is what I meant. Please follow the link and watch the short video. This is the world we live in and if we think any different then we are fooling ourselves.

Quote:
Quote:
He continued: “We are witnessing a society that is completely detached, and we are detached because we have an agenda. Why didn’t we tell the story of the 13-year-old-girl? Because of an agenda. The second rapist was black, the others were illegal immigrants, so we don’t tell that story. That’s not a good story, that doesn’t help us with our agenda…”

“Does anything even matter anymore? Does the truth matter? Is there such a thing as right and wrong? I don’t even recognize us anymore,” Beck said with disgust.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2...ause-it-doesnt-further-an-agenda/


Quote:
Posted: Wed Aug 14, 2013 3:34 pm    Post subject:

Well you are a saint aren't you. Me to, actually, and everyone I know or who even lives close by and I don't know. But guess what, as if you need telling, there are some idiots in our world who do rape girls spurred on by the provocative nature of their dress. Once again, an answer that I should not have to give you, but you know what they say about ignorance don't you. The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.


Dam, I am good at this. try reading the thread before joining the assault.
IvyOwl

Quote:
My young niece of 14 was raped by her uncle and his defense was that she wore clothing that exited him, his wife agreed.


She was protecting herself from the knowledge that her husband was actually a rapist. It's not uncommon for wives to pretend that abuse isn't happening turning a blind eye to what's going on. Then when it's discovered make excuses.

Maybe this out of control brute used to rape her, his wife, and she was only too glad that someone else was suffering for once and not her? Just speculation on my part of course but rape within marriage is a vastly unreported crime .... mainly because for long enough it wasn't considered one.

So to sum up Ralph I'm not quite sure what you were tyring to prove by saying that his wife agreed about the provocative clothing.
trentvoyager

Quote:
Dam, I am good at this.


Look what you've done now - I've got an image of you talking to the bottom of a huge concrete wall.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Floo wrote:
Only complete sickos or active/would be rapists would blame the victims for being raped!


You're quite right.

I don't think that Ralph has said this though.

Yes he has, actually. He really has. It's said every time somebody mounts the argument that women shouldn't wear what they like, when they like, where they like in case they so excite some random man that said man just can't stop himself from committing rape. It's slut-shaming and victim-blaming.

How the term slut-shaming came about is highly instructive.

Quote:
He has suggested that women should moderate what they wear as a consequence of the fact that some men are rapists (something that I don't agree with him on) and that what a woman wears can increase her chances of being raped.

Why should they have to? Saying that a woman's mode of dress increases her likelihood of being raped is just another way of shifting some of the blame for rape away from where it solely and squarely belongs - with the rapist - onto the woman, who on this view is deemed to have contributed to the rape in some way, however small.

As for 'suggest' - he didn't exactly 'suggest' anything to his daughters, did he?

Quote:
I made sure my daughters were dressed modestly to avoid such an atrocity happening to them.
Derek

Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
My young niece of 14 was raped by her uncle and his defense was that she wore clothing that exited him, his wife agreed. All that says is that it is a contributory factor and not the only reason for rape.

I'm extremely sorry to hear it. What in fact it actually says it that a rapist blames the victim for the offence he has committed instead of admitting his own share of the guilt (and has a wife stupid enough to play along), that share being 100%. The girl was at fault, your honour - she was dressed so sexily that I just couldn't help myself and just had to rape her. It was her fault - if she hadn't been dressed like that, it would never have happened, your honour. There's a modern term for it - slut shaming - but it's an old, old story. We hear it over and over and over again. Wasn't my fault, it was her. It was the way she was dressed, your honour.

What you are saying is that a grown man was incapable of restraining his behaviour at the sight of a 14-year-old girl dressed, according to him and his almost equally witless spouse, in a manner which made him so excited that he just wasn't able not to rape her, something which the overwhelming majority of men somehow manage.

I am frankly astonished that you can't actually see this for what it is. So astonished in fact that I suspect you can, and are just trolling for the sake of it.


That you cannot discern the truthfulness of this speaks volumes to me. I have never said that it is an excuse, I have said that it is a contributory factor. I do not blame the women or what she wears I blame men who lack the self control to prevent their sordid actions. I have told you but one bit of this story. I would have expected you to know that there is far more to it than this. No, I am not trolling. That is the label that someone else on here wears proudly.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
He has suggested that women should moderate what they wear as a consequence of the fact that some men are rapists (something that I don't agree with him on) and that what a woman wears can increase her chances of being raped.

Why should they have to? Saying that a woman's mode of dress increases her likelihood of being raped is just another way of shifting some of the blame for rape away from where it solely and squarely belongs - with the rapist - onto the woman, who on this view is deemed to have contributed to the rape in some way, however small.


They shouldn't have to. I agree with you about the shifting of the blame on to the victim.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="IvyOwl:93011"]
Quote:
My young niece of 14 was raped by her uncle and his defense was that she wore clothing that exited him, his wife agreed.


She was protecting herself from the knowledge that her husband was actually a rapist. It's not uncommon for wives to pretend that abuse isn't happening turning a blind eye to what's going on. Then when it's discovered make excuses.


Very discerning. You are absolutely right

Quote:
Maybe this out of control brute used to rape her, his wife, and she was only too glad that someone else was suffering for once and not her? Just speculation on my part of course but rape within marriage is a vastly unreported crime .... mainly because for long enough it wasn't considered one.


Yes, you are discerning. You are spot on. Maybe those other people included his own daughter.

Quote:
So to sum up Ralph I'm not quite sure what you were trying to prove by saying that his wife agreed about the provocative clothing.


That it is generally accepted that provocative clothing can be a contributory factor in Rape. That is can tip the idiot, with a lack of self control, over the edge. That Ketty's dig at Mormonism for suggesting that women should dress modestly is more a promotion of her own religion then a genuine understanding of Rape and what causes men to act in such a depraved manner
Shaker

Ralph2 wrote:
That it is generally accepted that provocative clothing can be a contributory factor in Rape.

"Generally accepted" by whom? Are you saying that this is a majority belief?

Quote:
That Ketty's dig at Mormonism for suggesting that women should dress modestly is more a promotion of her own religion then a genuine understanding of Rape and what causes men to act in such a depraved manner

Which, needless to say, you have all figured out and sewn up tighter than a mouse's earhole.
Derek

[quote="Shaker:93017"]
Ralph2 wrote:
That it is generally accepted that provocative clothing can be a contributory factor in Rape.

"Generally accepted" by whom? Are you saying that this is a majority belief?

In my world it is.

Quote:
That Ketty's dig at Mormonism for suggesting that women should dress modestly is more a promotion of her own religion then a genuine understanding of Rape and what causes men to act in such a depraved manner

Which, needless to say, you have all figured out and sewn up tighter than a mouse's earhole.

I have been in confrontation with her for a long time and know her agenda inside and out, if that is what you mean. I know how she thinks and the lengths that she will go to.

Moderators Note: I have removed some of this post for discussion by the moderation team - after which a decision will be made as to the content and its relevance.
Shaker

[quote="Ralph2:93018"]
Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
That it is generally accepted that provocative clothing can be a contributory factor in Rape.

"Generally accepted" by whom? Are you saying that this is a majority belief?

In my world it is.

And is that world representative of the whole spectrum of soceity - British society, even Western society generally?
Derek

[quote="Shaker:93020"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
That it is generally accepted that provocative clothing can be a contributory factor in Rape.

"Generally accepted" by whom? Are you saying that this is a majority belief?

In my world it is.

And is that world representative of the whole spectrum of soceity - British society, even Western society generally?


As I expected. Half of my post is missing because it exposes

Moderators Note: I gave my reasons - if you don't like the way we moderate you can always go to  R & E - Oh wait.....
Derek

[quote="Ralph2:93021"]
Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
That it is generally accepted that provocative clothing can be a contributory factor in Rape.

"Generally accepted" by whom? Are you saying that this is a majority belief?

In my world it is.

And is that world representative of the whole spectrum of soceity - British society, even Western society generally?


As I expected. Half of my post is missing because it exposes

Moderators Note: I gave my reasons - if you don't like the way we moderate you can always go to  R & E - Oh wait.....


I have emailed you the deleted part as I would like your opinion

How very sanctimonious this moderation is. The rules say that I will recieve a PM setting out clearly why the actions have been taken not a lump it or like it biased response of a 12 year old school yard gang leader.
Shaker

[quote="Ralph2:93021"]
Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
That it is generally accepted that provocative clothing can be a contributory factor in Rape.

"Generally accepted" by whom? Are you saying that this is a majority belief?

In my world it is.

And is that world representative of the whole spectrum of soceity - British society, even Western society generally?


As I expected. Half of my post is missing

Maybe it is - but not the bit about whether the opinion of "your world" (that clothing is a contributory factor in rape) is representative of British or even Western society generally. Surely it's perfectly possible to answer that point?
Ketty

Tut tut "Ralphie", you're at it again, but I guess to somebody who thinks it's okay to be a deceiver, there's nothing like the old habit of a lie with an element of truth to make it sound 'feasible'.  I have never on this thread mentioned Mormonisity and dress codes.

I have however poked a bit of fun at magic underwear, on other threads.  

Ralph2 wrote:
That Ketty's dig at Mormonism for suggesting that women should dress modestly


Eh?!  

Ah, you mean this?

Ketty wrote:

Sometimes it is indeed a fine line but when deciding if something is a cult or not, the bottom line, for me, is: does what they preach and teach align with the Bible and Christ Jesus*?  Prima facie, if so: are there any extra-Biblical add-ons which do not align with the Bible; do they ascribe to only one version, namely and usually the KJV; and do they restrict their adherents' individual freedom to eat, drink, dress, act, question, and just 'be'; do they have a policy of 'ex-communication'; does anything about it give me a niggle in my 'knowery'?


Well, yes, if the cap fits a Mormon who isn't a Mormon, then it will be seen as a dig.   More proof it's a cult (as if any more proof was needed).  



Sounds like you went all out for Mormonism and put everything you had into it.  It certainly sounds like your inner being is still searching for 'something'.  The 'inner something' can be found by placing your faith in what Christ Jesus* has already done on the cross for you.  Nothing we do, including washed and anointed, endowed and sealed to a companion for time and all eternity, bishop and a Temple worker as well as an officiator, can ever be 'good enough' to gain us entrance to heaven.  It's because of the blood of Christ Jesus* that He shed on the cross.  God* sees us Through His blood just as if we'd never sinned.  Justification and Salvation is through Christ's* blood.  But a person needs to acknowledge their need and accept His gift, personally.  A person can choose to do that at any time they want to.  No special place or time.

In Christ Jesus*, I love you Derek - but even better: Christ Jesus* loves us more than we can ever love.  Turn away from from the cult who has allowed you to think it's okay to deceive and lie, and turn to the Lord* and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

* I AM: the triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Jim

Actually, Ketty, I don't see the lds as a cult in the normal sense of the world's definition of the word.
However, niether is it in any way mainstream Christian. At worst it is pseudo-Christian in aspiration, but in reality a seperate religion and should not be regarded as part of Christianity.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Actually, Ketty, I don't see the lds as a cult in the normal sense of the world's definition of the word.
However, niether is it in any way mainstream Christian. At worst it is pseudo-Christian in aspiration, but in reality a seperate religion and should not be regarded as part of Christianity.


"A cult is a religion with no political power." -- Tom Wolfe

One of the most repeated accusations made by critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that we are a "cult" - the dread "Mormon Cult." When you hear this accusation, please ask precisely what is meant by the frightening term "cult." The use of that word is not really meant to explain anything about the Church or its positions, but is meant to end discussion and investigation with scare tactics.

The primary definition for "cult" in many dictionaries is synonymous with "religious organization." For example, in the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the first two definitions given are (as viewed March 2007):

   1: formal religious veneration : worship
   2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual.

I have to admit that BOTH definitions fit us, though we're really not that formal. But these definitions don't spook people enough to be used by our critics. Honestly, ambitious anti-Mormons would not sell many books and videos if they had titles like, "Mormonism is a Religious Organization: Find Out Why!" or "Kingdom of the Religious Organizations." it's much more ominous to call us the Mormon Cult!

According to the dictionary, "cult" can also mean a group that pays special devotion to some individual. For example, in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition given is "a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object." Yes, I suppose that definition fits us as well, with the particular figure or object of our worship being the Lord Jesus Christ. So, yes, we are guilty as charged -- but forgiven! (And yes, you bet we believe in the grace and Atonement of Jesus Christ -- it's our only hope.)

But recently, contrary to its original generic meaning, the word "cult" in popular use carries frightening overtones. It evokes images of suicidal, comet-chasing groups, physically abusive regimens, corrupt tyrants and Satanic rituals. Clearly there are some odd beliefs and groups in the world -- but every religion can seem odd or even extreme to those who do not understand it.

The problem is that any general definition of "cult" in the negative, frightening sense is likely to include many presumably "decent" religions, including early Christianity, which was also denounced as a "sect" and a "cult" by its critics. In my opinion, the "Mormon Cult" is much like the "Christian Cult" from 2000 years ago. Misunderstood, controversial, but nothing to fear.

When other Christian label Latter-day Saints as "the Mormon Cult" to frighten people, they implicitly create their own special definitions, but nearly all of these special definitions would likewise condemn Christ and the early Christians as cultists, as I will show below. Many of the special definitions of cult that "cult warriors" use boil down to this: "A cult is any group whose members don't believe exactly the same way I do." And if you're not LDS, then yes, I guess that definition applies to us once again, at least for the moment - but perhaps that can change if you'll just meet with a couple of our fine LDS missionaries....

A tongue-in-cheek demonstration of the tactics used by some self-proclaimed cult experts can be found on the Web page for the popular CultMaster 2000 Software System. This powerful software enables you to prove that anybody you don't agree with belongs to a cult. (Not for the comically impaired!) A demo of the one of the many tools that come with the CultMaster 2000 CD set is the Letter of Love to a Cultist. Try it today! (Customize your own version online and send a printout to a cultist you love.)

The specific doctrinal differences that are cited to condemn the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a cult would equally well condemn the original Church of Jesus Christ. Please remember how severely that Church was persecuted. The Bible reports that it was called a "sect" and spoken against everywhere (Acts 28:22). People thought they were serving God by reviling it and even killing its leaders. Religious leaders were the most zealous in condemning it. It even had professional critics, such as Celsus in the second century, who condemned it as a "cult" and twisted its doctrines to sound terrible and wrong. A great essay on this topic is "Celsus And Modern Anti-Mormonism" by Aaron Christensen, available at the FAIRLDS.org site.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_cult.shtml
Derek

Jim wrote:
Actually, Ketty, I don't see the lds as a cult in the normal sense of the world's definition of the word.
However, niether is it in any way mainstream Christian. At worst it is pseudo-Christian in aspiration, but in reality a seperate religion and should not be regarded as part of Christianity.


Are Latter-day Saints Christians?

YES! As a Latter-day Saint, I have been taught, and have personally chosen, to accept Christ as my Savior. I am taught to follow Him and feast on His word. I have no qualms in insisting that real Mormons are Christians. We worship Christ and covenant to follow Him. We are baptized in His name to follow Him, we partake of the sacrament (the holy communion) weekly to remember the sacrifice of His blood and to remember His victory over death, we pray to the Father in His name, and we strive to obey Him, knowing that it is only through His merits and grace that we are saved. He is constantly held up in our meetings as our Savior, our Redeemer, our Lord, and the author of our faith and our salvation. We believe that He stands at the head of His living Church, leading it as in days of old through revelation to His prophets and apostles. The Christ we worship is the living Christ, the Son of God, foretold in the Old Testament, revealed in the New Testament, and affirmed in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

For a more in-depth perspective, consider the comments of President Gordon B. Hinckley at the April 2000 General Conference, entitled "My Testimony." Can any sincere person read those powerful words and wonder if that man is not a Christian, or if this Church is not all about following the living Christ, our Savior and Redeemer? See also the article, "Are Mormons Christians?" at the Church's Mormon.org site, and see "Mormonism 101" at the LDS Newsroom. official LDS site. Another good resource is "Latter-day Saint Christianity: Ten Basic Issues" - an excellent online booklet that deals with some common questions and controversies about Latter-day Saint beliefs.
How can you be Christian? Don't you believe that you are saved by works? Don't you deny the basic truth of the Trinity?

We are Christian because we look to Christ for salvation and worship Him and the Father. We are not saved by our works, but through the grace of Christ (as explained more fully below). We believe in God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost as the members of the Godhead, being one in purpose, heart, and intent. I discuss these issues more fully below, noting that we do differ from many churches in our theology. Although I may disagree with the theology of some other Christians, that gives me no right to say that they are not Christians because they don't see things the way I do. If someone looks to Christ for salvation and seeks to follow Him, in my mind, that's enough to qualify as being a Christian, regardless of other theological differences.

Now let's examine the two primary charges. We are said to be unchristian because 1) we allegedly think we must keep the commandments to be saved and 2) we do not accept the standard doctrine of the Trinity. These issues are treated in more length in my discussion on grace, works, and salvation), but here's my quick response to both charges:

1) Commandment keeping? In Matthew 19:16-22, somebody asked Christ directly what he needed to do to have eternal life. Christ answered: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." We believe Christ said this for a reason - and there are dozens of similar statements in the Bible (scripture-lovers may wish to study a sampling of such statements). This does not mean that we are saved by works, but that we must follow Christ to receive His grace. We will be saved from physical death - thanks to the resurrection of Christ - by grace, regardless of what we do (1 Cor. 15:20-22). We also can be saved from spiritual death through the grace of Christ, thanks to His infinite atoning sacrifice. (Spiritual death = being cast out of God's presence because of sin, losing "eternal life" - the heavenly immortal life that is possible for those living in the presence of God.) But to receive that grace and forgiveness, we must repent of our sins (Matt. 4:17, Mark 6:12; Acts 2:37,38; Acts 17:30; Heb. 6:1-3), have faith in Him, follow Him and strive to keep His commandments (Matt. 7:21, Rom. 2:4-11), "relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save" (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 31:19). I know that many good Christians will disagree with my interpretation of scripture, but I hope they will still accept my sincere declaration that Latter-day Saints are Christians and are taught to have faith in Christ and to look to Him and His grace for salvation. (A more detailed discussion is given in my article on faith, grace, works, and salvation.)

2) The Trinity? According to my reading of history, the doctrine of the Trinity as taught today (including the concept of an immaterial Godhead, one in substance, bodiless) was formulated in councils of men amid hot debate many years after Christ and the apostles. The doctrine of the Trinity is defined in a variety of creeds and statements such as the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and, as an example of a more recent formulation from 1646, the Westminster Confession of Faith (background provided at Wikipedia's article on the Westminster Confession of Faith). In many of the creeds and related statements of belief, it is taught that there is one God manifest in three persons, all of one substance, without body, parts, or passions. This differs from the LDS view, as we shall see. Many feel it is exactly what the Bible teaches, but other sincere Christians interpret the text differently.

Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, and believe that they are one in purpose and one in heart, but not one in substance. Recall the great prayer of Christ in John 17. There (in verse 21), Christ prayed that His followers "all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me; that they also may be one in us." In verse 22, He again prayed "that they may be one, even as we are one." In my view, this kind of oneness is a unity of purpose, intent, and heart, not a blending of substance into one being. When Christ prayed (many times) to His Father in Heaven, we believe that He was doing exactly that - communicating with His Father. Likewise, In Acts 7:55,56, before being killed by hateful critics, Stephen looked up towards heaven "and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God." He saw two Beings. Further, in the creation story in Genesis 1, God (Elohim, a plural noun) says in verse 26: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." We feel inclined to take that literally. (Note that the same wording is used to describe the physical similarity between Adam and one of his sons in Genesis 5:1-3; see also Heb. 1:3 and James 3:9.) Likewise, I see a similar concept in James 3:9, which says that "men ... are made after the similitude of God." I know our view goes against what most churches teach and is certainly open to debate, but taking the Bible too literally should not be sufficient cause to say we are not Christians.

We really bother some people by our literal views of Luke 24 (and other passages on the resurrection and the nature of God). In this chapter (verses 36-43), the resurrected Christ shows his body to his surprised disciples. They first think it is a spirit, but Christ asks them to feel his tangible body: "handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." To drive the point home, he then asks for some food, and eats it in front of them. We actually believe that this happened and was a real event, not a dream or a metaphor. In contrast to my understanding of the standard Trinity doctrine (God "without body, parts, and passions"), we believe in a literal resurrection and believe that Christ is a resurrected Being with a tangible body, exactly as He showed us in Luke 24. And Christ, in the image of God, said in John 14:9 that "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" - which I interpret as meaning that Christ looks like the Father. This is consistent with Col. 1:15 which describes Christ, the "firstborn of every creature," as "the image of the invisible God." Christ, in my view, has a tangible, glorious body. It is spiritual, being divine and permanently united with His spirit, but it is also tangible and real. It does not limit Him, but adds to His power and glory (see Philippians 3:21).

All this means, of course, that we believe God and Christ to be one Godhead (with the Holy Ghost), perfectly one in purpose, yet not one in substance. I feel that view is quite consistent with the Bible. Again, in Acts 7:55,56, Stephen, who is being martyred by enemies of the Church, sees God and Christ standing at the right hand of God. He saw two distinct beings - just as Joseph Smith did in his First Vision. In John 14:28, Christ says that "my Father is greater than I." In John 20:17, the newly resurrected Lord tells Mary to tell His disciples ("my brethren") that He will "ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and unto my God, and your God." Paul, in 1 Cor. 11:3, notes that the "head of Christ is God" just as "the head of the woman is the man" and the "head of every man is Christ." The implication to me is that distinct beings have distinct roles, allowing one to be the head, but in each case there is or should be unity. Indeed, the husband and wife should be "one flesh" according to the scriptures, believers and Christ should be one just as Christ and God are one (John 17:20-23) - but this unity does not imply that there is only one Being having three roles or manifestations or even "persons" of one substance. (You may also wish to compare Matt. 5:48 with Luke 13:32, Heb. 2:10, and Heb. 5:8,9.) God is the Father, Christ is the Son, yet he represents the Father and is God Himself, part of the united Godhead. It is appropriate to call Christ the Everlasting Father, not only because of His unity with God but because of His role as Creator, as described in Heb. 1:1-3 and Col. 1:15-18, and as Author of our salvation.

The distinctness of the three Beings in the Godhead is evident in Matthew 3:13-17, in which Christ is baptized. In this event, Christ is in the water, the Holy Ghost is descending in the form of a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Likewise, the many times that Christ went off to pray to the Father in private would be confusing, in my opinion, if Christ were the same substance and Being as the Father. In my reading of the Bible, they are distinct. Though there are distinct Beings, there is only one Godhead and only one source of salvation. Through their unity, to worship Christ is to worship the Father. In general, we worship and pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, though Christ represents the Father and is one with Him.

Of course, you don't have to agree with us! Feel free to charge us with being overly literal. And for good measure, why not say we are wackos and fools? But please don't say that we aren't Christians if we don't interpret the Bible the way you do. It pains me much less to be called a wacko and a fool (which is at least partially correct, in fact) than to be rashly denied the one label that I truly desire: Christian.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Christian.shtml#are
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Jim wrote:
Actually, Ketty, I don't see the lds as a cult in the normal sense of the world's definition of the word.
However, niether is it in any way mainstream Christian. At worst it is pseudo-Christian in aspiration, but in reality a seperate religion and should not be regarded as part of Christianity.


Well yes, I could go with that Jim.


"A cult is a religion with no political power." -- Tom Wolfe

One of the most repeated accusations made by critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that we are a "cult" - the dread "Mormon Cult." When you hear this accusation, please ask precisely what is meant by the frightening term "cult." The use of that word is not really meant to explain anything about the Church or its positions, but is meant to end discussion and investigation with scare tactics.

The primary definition for "cult" in many dictionaries is synonymous with "religious organization." For example, in the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the first two definitions given are (as viewed March 2007):

   1: formal religious veneration : worship
   2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual.

I have to admit that BOTH definitions fit us, though we're really not that formal. But these definitions don't spook people enough to be used by our critics. Honestly, ambitious anti-Mormons would not sell many books and videos if they had titles like, "Mormonism is a Religious Organization: Find Out Why!" or "Kingdom of the Religious Organizations." it's much more ominous to call us the Mormon Cult!

According to the dictionary, "cult" can also mean a group that pays special devotion to some individual. For example, in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, the first definition given is "a system of religious worship directed towards a particular figure or object." Yes, I suppose that definition fits us as well, with the particular figure or object of our worship being the Lord Jesus Christ. So, yes, we are guilty as charged -- but forgiven! (And yes, you bet we believe in the grace and Atonement of Jesus Christ -- it's our only hope.)

But recently, contrary to its original generic meaning, the word "cult" in popular use carries frightening overtones. It evokes images of suicidal, comet-chasing groups, physically abusive regimens, corrupt tyrants and Satanic rituals. Clearly there are some odd beliefs and groups in the world -- but every religion can seem odd or even extreme to those who do not understand it.

The problem is that any general definition of "cult" in the negative, frightening sense is likely to include many presumably "decent" religions, including early Christianity, which was also denounced as a "sect" and a "cult" by its critics. In my opinion, the "Mormon Cult" is much like the "Christian Cult" from 2000 years ago. Misunderstood, controversial, but nothing to fear.

When other Christian label Latter-day Saints as "the Mormon Cult" to frighten people, they implicitly create their own special definitions, but nearly all of these special definitions would likewise condemn Christ and the early Christians as cultists, as I will show below. Many of the special definitions of cult that "cult warriors" use boil down to this: "A cult is any group whose members don't believe exactly the same way I do." And if you're not LDS, then yes, I guess that definition applies to us once again, at least for the moment - but perhaps that can change if you'll just meet with a couple of our fine LDS missionaries....

A tongue-in-cheek demonstration of the tactics used by some self-proclaimed cult experts can be found on the Web page for the popular CultMaster 2000 Software System. This powerful software enables you to prove that anybody you don't agree with belongs to a cult. (Not for the comically impaired!) A demo of the one of the many tools that come with the CultMaster 2000 CD set is the Letter of Love to a Cultist. Try it today! (Customize your own version online and send a printout to a cultist you love.)

The specific doctrinal differences that are cited to condemn the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a cult would equally well condemn the original Church of Jesus Christ. Please remember how severely that Church was persecuted. The Bible reports that it was called a "sect" and spoken against everywhere (Acts 28:22). People thought they were serving God by reviling it and even killing its leaders. Religious leaders were the most zealous in condemning it. It even had professional critics, such as Celsus in the second century, who condemned it as a "cult" and twisted its doctrines to sound terrible and wrong. A great essay on this topic is "Celsus And Modern Anti-Mormonism" by Aaron Christensen, available at the FAIRLDS.org site.
Ketty

Jim wrote:
Actually, Ketty, I don't see the lds as a cult in the normal sense of the world's definition of the word.
However, niether is it in any way mainstream Christian. At worst it is pseudo-Christian in aspiration, but in reality a seperate religion and should not be regarded as part of Christianity.


Well yes, I could go with that Jim - but as long as they continue to claim the label 'christian' for themselves, they will remain a cult.
Lexilogio

Ketty wrote:
Jim wrote:
Actually, Ketty, I don't see the lds as a cult in the normal sense of the world's definition of the word.
However, niether is it in any way mainstream Christian. At worst it is pseudo-Christian in aspiration, but in reality a seperate religion and should not be regarded as part of Christianity.


Well yes, I could go with that Jim - but as long as they continue to claim the label 'christian' for themselves, they will remain a cult.


I disagree. They follow Jesus, and use the Bible, therefore they are Christian. Their followers are not subject to any control, therefore they are not a cult.

You could consider the teachings heresy, if you wish, on grounds of not accepting the Trinity - but that doesn't make them a cult.
Jim

Surely their heresy is not soley based on non-Trinitarianism, though, Lexi?
Rejection of only One God, only faith earning salvation, extra biblical Scriptures which have no canonicity as we would define it - these are only three of quite a few other reasons that bar them from being part of Christianity.

It still doesn't make them a cult, though; simply a seperate religion verging on polytheism.
Ketty

Lexilogio wrote:

I disagree. They follow Jesus, and use the Bible, therefore they are Christian. Their followers are not subject to any control, therefore they are not a cult.

You could consider the teachings heresy, if you wish, on grounds of not accepting the Trinity - but that doesn't make them a cult.



So returning to your OP, what do you consider to be a cult?  What about the JWs?

Lexilogio

Ketty wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:

I disagree. They follow Jesus, and use the Bible, therefore they are Christian. Their followers are not subject to any control, therefore they are not a cult.

You could consider the teachings heresy, if you wish, on grounds of not accepting the Trinity - but that doesn't make them a cult.



So returning to your OP, what do you consider to be a cult?  What about the JWs?



I think a cult is an organisation, not necessarily Christian, which exerts considerable psychological, or physical control over its members. Which isolates members from non members.
Derek

Jim wrote:
Surely their heresy is not soley based on non-Trinitarianism, though, Lexi?
Rejection of only One God, only faith earning salvation, extra biblical Scriptures which have no canonicity as we would define it - these are only three of quite a few other reasons that bar them from being part of Christianity.

It still doesn't make them a cult, though; simply a seperate religion verging on polytheism.


As you have been told so many times Jim that I have lost count. The BOM is not extra biblical scriptures it is a companion to the bible it says this on the front cover as well. Another testament of Jesus Christ. If you are not willing to accept that which is true then how can you be trusted to judge who are Christians and who are not.

The article I posted her makes it perfectly clear that Mormons believe in one God but they do believe that it is not by faith alone that we will gain salvation. Why do you not listen to someone who knows what he is talking about instead of reading the lies in anti-Mormon sites?
Ketty

Lexilogio wrote:
I think a cult is an organisation, not necessarily Christian, which exerts considerable psychological, or physical control over its members. Which isolates members from non members.


I don't disagree.  

But what about the ones who prima facie seem to be 'christian' - what about the people they suck in through catching them at a vulnerable time in their lives?  It's still a problem, of course it is if they are not a 'christian' cult, but it's the ones who erroneously claim the label who concern me the most.
The Boyg

Ketty wrote:
It's still a problem, of course it is if they are not a 'christian' cult, but it's the ones who erroneously claim the label who concern me the most.


Why are they of more concern than, for example, the Church of Scientology?
Derek

An insight into Mormonism Jim. Worth a read.

My Testamony by Gordon B Hinkley.

Now it becomes my opportunity to say a few words, my brothers and sisters. I am overwhelmed with feelings of thanksgiving this morning. I feel so richly blessed of the Lord. As I look into the faces of the thousands upon thousands who are gathered in this new and beautiful hall and then think of the hundreds of thousands who are assembled across the world listening to this conference, I am almost overcome with feelings of gratitude for the great unity that exists among us. If I may speak personally for a little while, I think no man has been blessed so richly as I have been blessed. I cannot understand it. I so much appreciate your many expressions of kindness and love.

Through the great goodness of others I have traveled far and wide across the earth in the interest of this Church. I have had remarkable opportunities to speak to the world through the generosity of the media. I have lifted my voice in testimony in the great halls of this nation, from Madison Square Garden in New York to the Astrodome in Houston. Men and women of high station have received me and spoken with great respect concerning our work.

On the other hand, during these years I have come to know of the mean and contemptuous ways of our critics. I think the Lord had them in mind when He declared:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, … but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

“… Those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves. …

“Wo unto them. …

“Their basket shall not be full, their houses and their barns shall perish, and they themselves shall be despised by those that flattered them” (D&C 121:16–17, 19–20).

We leave to Him, whose right it is, judgments that may come to those who oppose His work.

I return to my expressions of gratitude. Thank you, brothers and sisters, for your prayers. Thank you for your support in the great work we are all trying to accomplish. Thank you for your obedience to the commandments of God. He is pleased and loves you. Thank you for your faithfulness in carrying forward the great responsibilities which you have. Thank you for your ready response to every call which is made upon you. Thank you for bringing up your children in the way of light and truth. Thank you for the unfailing testimonies which you carry in your hearts concerning God our Eternal Father and His Beloved Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am so grateful for the youth of the Church. There is so much of evil everywhere. Temptation, with all its titillating influences, is about us everywhere. We lose some to these destructive forces, unfortunately. We sorrow over every one that is lost. We reach out to help them, to save them, but in too many cases our entreaties are spurned. Tragic is the course they are following. It is the way which leads down to destruction.

But there are so many, many hundreds of thousands of our young people who are faithful and true, who are straight as an arrow and as strong as a great wave of the sea in following the course they have mapped out for themselves. It is a course of righteousness and goodness, a course of accomplishment and achievement. They are making something of their lives, and the world will be so much the better for them.

I am profoundly grateful for this wonderful season of history in which we live. There has never been another like it. We, of all people who have walked the earth, are so richly and abundantly blessed.

But of all the things for which I feel grateful this morning, one stands out preeminently. That is a living testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Almighty God, the Prince of Peace, the Holy One.

On one occasion at a missionary meeting in Europe, an elder raised his hand and said, “Give us your testimony and tell us how you gained it.”

I feel I might try saying a few words this morning on the evolution of my testimony. This is a personal area, of course. I hope you will excuse that.

The earliest instance of which I have recollection of spiritual feelings was when I was about five years of age, a very small boy. I was crying from the pain of an earache. There were no wonder drugs at the time. That was 85 years ago. My mother prepared a bag of table salt and put it on the stove to warm. My father softly put his hands upon my head and gave me a blessing, rebuking the pain and the illness by authority of the holy priesthood and in the name of Jesus Christ. He then took me tenderly in his arms and placed the bag of warm salt at my ear. The pain subsided and left. I fell asleep in my father’s secure embrace. As I was falling asleep, the words of his administration floated through my mind. That is the earliest remembrance I have of the exercise of the authority of the priesthood in the name of the Lord.

Later in my youth, my brother and I slept in an unheated bedroom in the winter. People thought that was good for you. Before falling into a warm bed, we knelt to say our prayers. There were expressions of simple gratitude. They concluded in the name of Jesus. The distinctive title of Christ was not used very much when we prayed in those days.

I recall jumping into my bed after I had said amen, pulling the covers up around my neck, and thinking of what I had just done in speaking to my Father in Heaven in the name of His Son. I did not have great knowledge of the gospel. But there was some kind of lingering peace and security in communing with the heavens in and through the Lord Jesus.

When I went on a mission to the British Isles, that testimony quickened. Each morning, my companion and I read the Gospel of John together, commenting on each verse. It was a wonderful, illuminating experience. That marvelous testament opens with a declaration of the divinity of the Son of God. It states:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

“The same was in the beginning with God.

“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. …

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:1–3, 14).

I thought of that declaration much then, and I have thought of it much since. It leaves no doubt concerning the individuality of the Father and the Son. To the Son the Father gave the great responsibility of creating the earth, “and without him was not any thing made that was made.”

I have seen much of ugliness in this world. Most of it is the work of man. But I think I have seen much more of beauty. I marvel at the majestic works of the Creator. How magnificent they are. And they are all the work of the Son of God.

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” He, the Son of the Father, came to earth. He condescended to leave His royal courts on high—where He stood as Prince, the Firstborn of the Father—to take upon Himself mortality, to be born in a manger, the humblest of all places, in a vassal state ruled by the centurions of Rome.

How could He have condescended further?

He was baptized of John in Jordan “to fulfil all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15). His earthly ministry was preceded by the clever temptations of the adversary. He withstood, saying, “Get thee behind me, Satan” (see Luke 4:8).

He went about Galilee, Samaria, and Judea preaching the gospel of salvation, causing the blind to see, the lame to walk, the dead to rise to life again. And then, to fulfil His Father’s plan of happiness for His children, He gave His life as a price for the sins of each of us.

That testimony grew in my heart as a missionary when I read the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, which further bore witness of Him. That knowledge became the foundation of my life, standing on the footings of the answered prayers of my childhood.

Since then my faith has grown much further. I have become His Apostle, appointed to do His will and teach His word. I have become His witness to the world. I repeat that witness of faith to you and to all who hear my voice this Sabbath morning.

Jesus is my friend. None other has given me so much. “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). He gave His life for me. He opened the way to eternal life. Only a God could do this. I hope that I am deemed worthy of being a friend to Him.

He is my exemplar. His way of life, His absolutely selfless conduct, His outreach to those in need, His final sacrifice all stand as an example to me. I cannot measure up entirely, but I can try.
He marked the path and led the way,
And ev’ry point defines
To light and life and endless day
Where God’s full presence shines.

He is my teacher. No other voice ever spoke such wondrous language as that of the Beatitudes:

“And seeing the multitudes, … he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,

“Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

“Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

“Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

“Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

“Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

“Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:1–10).

No other teacher has ever offered the matchless counsel given the multitude on the mount.

He is my healer. I stand in awe at His wondrous miracles. And yet I know they happened. I accept the truth of these things because I know that He is the Master of life and death. The miracles of His ministry bespeak compassion, love, and a sense of humanity wonderful to behold.

He is my leader. I am honored to be one in the long cavalcade of those who love Him and who have followed Him during the two millennia that have passed since His birth.
Onward, Christian soldiers!
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.
Christ, the royal Master,
Leads against the foe;
Forward into battle,
See his banners go!

He is my Savior and my Redeemer. Through giving His life in pain and unspeakable suffering, He has reached down to lift me and each of us and all the sons and daughters of God from the abyss of eternal darkness following death. He has provided something better—a sphere of light and understanding, growth and beauty where we may go forward on the road that leads to eternal life. My gratitude knows no bounds. My thanks to my Lord has no conclusion.

He is my God and my King. From everlasting to everlasting, He will reign and rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. To His dominion there will be no end. To His glory there will be no night.

None other can take His place. None other ever will. Unblemished and without fault of any kind, He is the Lamb of God, to whom I bow and through whom I approach my Father in Heaven.

Isaiah foretold of His coming:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9:6).

Those who walked with Him in Palestine bore witness of His divinity. The centurion who watched Him die declared in solemnity, “Truly this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54).

Thomas, on seeing His resurrected body, cried out in wonder, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28).

Those in this hemisphere to whom He appeared heard the voice of the Father introduce Him: “Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name” (3 Ne. 11:7).

And the Prophet Joseph, speaking in this dispensation, declared:

“And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

“For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father” (D&C 76:22–23).

To which I add my own witness that He is “the way, the truth, and the life” and that “no man cometh unto the Father, but by [Him]” (John 14:6).

Gratefully, and with love undiminished, I bear witness of these things in His Holy name, even the name of Jesus the Christ, amen.
Ketty

The Boyg wrote:

Why are they of more concern than, for example, the Church of Scientology?


The answer is on page two.
The Boyg

Ketty wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

Why are they of more concern than, for example, the Church of Scientology?


The answer is on page two.


I can't find your answer to the question "Why are they of more concern than, for example, the Church of Scientology? on page 2.

Perhaps you could just tell me why you think they are of more concern?
Ketty

The Boyg wrote:
I can't find your answer to the question "Why are they of more concern than, for example, the Church of Scientology? on page 2.


Oh well, never mind.

The Boyg wrote:
Perhaps you could just tell me why you think they are of more concern?


They're not.
The Boyg

Ketty wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Perhaps you could just tell me why you think they are of more concern?

They're not.


So why are you more concerned about them then?
Ketty wrote:
It's still a problem, of course it is if they are not a 'christian' cult, but it's the ones who erroneously claim the label who concern me the most.
Ketty

The Boyg wrote:

So why are you more concerned about them then?


Whoever you think I'm more concerned about, I will not be answering your question.
The Boyg

Ketty wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

So why are you more concerned about them then?

I will not be answering your question.


Why not?

Is it unreasonable to ask why you are more concerned about cults that claim to be Christian than those that don't?
Derek

Ketty wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

So why are you more concerned about them then?


Whoever you think I'm more concerned about, I will not be answering your question.


Why?
Ketty

Ralph2 wrote:

Why?


Nothing to do with you, so I will not be answering your question.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
Ketty wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

So why are you more concerned about them then?


Whoever you think I'm more concerned about, I will not be answering your question.


Why?


I asked the same thing but for some strange reason my post hasn't been revealed.



Because there is nothing that breaks the house rules in my post one can only presume that the person who has decided to release your post but keep mine hidden has done so for reasons other than moderation.
The Boyg

Ketty wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

Why?


Nothing to do with you, so I will not be answering your question.


Your statement that you are more concerned about cults that claim to be Christian than those that don't was a public one so I don't why anyone shouldn't be allowed to pursue this.
Jim

Ralph;
So the "BoM", "BoA" and "Pearl of great price" are not scripture?
That means that, for the Christian, they are not God-breathed, not inspired as part of God's word, and therefore useless as part of any meaningful Christology?
I rejoice at this.
Perhaps Salt Lake City should be told?

As for your post; any religion can sound pious.
I'm just doing some work on the "Great Hymn to the Aten" in the tomb of Ay at Amarna.
It sounds amazing!
The comparison to the psalms is obvious.....

http://www.osirisnet.net/docu/akhenat/e_akhen2.htm



but it is not either Jewish or Christian (nor, as we term the word, monotheistic)
Anything can sound good.
Lexilogio

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
Ketty wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

So why are you more concerned about them then?


Whoever you think I'm more concerned about, I will not be answering your question.


Why?


I asked the same thing but for some strange reason my post hasn't been revealed.



Because there is nothing that breaks the house rules in my post one can only presume that the person who has decided to release your post but keep mine hidden has done so for reasons other than moderation.
]

I delayed releasing it. Why? Because you have only just gone on pre-mod due to behaviour today, and I am considering whether an outright ban is appropriate. Continue to argue about the moderation / releasing posts, and that is what will happen.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum