Wolf : Excuse me for ASKING questions. I obviously DO NOT KNOW Raf like you do. I merely asked, I DID NOT ACCUSE nor did I CONDEMN. It just seemed he got pretty defensive when I pointed out that The JWs also had their own translation of the Bible.
I will certainly think TWICE before making any further POSTS.....
A) You DID jump to conclusions.
If you think I attacked you in my reply,
you're unfamiliar with REALLY hostile posts on messageboards.
You ARE oversensitive on the subject.
That really shouldn't count as news to you-it isn't to me.
Just take that into account before going on the warpath.
B) You did "accuse" when you said
"You are protective of the JWs".
C) He didn't get "pretty defensive"-
he saw an error and posted a correction.
You could have said "thanks" and adjusted your complaint,
or just taken it and let the subject drop.
He also never defended "having their own version of the Bible".
He addressed the translation of ONE word and some places where it is
CORRECT. He also suggested there were places it was INcorrect.
Reread his post and you may see what I mean.
D) I always recommend thinking twice before making posts.
I've deleted some posts unwritten that way, myself.
If the sole reason is "others may disagree", then you're in
for a rude awakening: in cyberspace, disagreeing is typical,
The Mormons who have come knocking at my door have been good sports. Why last year, they even offered to help me paint my house! Though I declined at the time, I thought that was awful nice of them.
I hope they come back next year when it's time to re-shingle my roof.
I've been witnessed to by mormon missionaries, which is a two-year program that takes young men away from their families
You make it sound tlike they are dragged kicking and screaming from their mothers arms. Being a missionary is VOLUNTARY. You are not excommunicated if you don't go--in fact nothing happens to you if you don't go. Many young men do go and young women also. It is a commitment they make--two years serving the Lord.
What most people don't understand is that other that the First presidentcy the 12 Apostles and the Quorum there are no paid positions in the LDS Faith. Everyone supports themselves with an outside job--Every calling in the church is unpaid whether you are the Bishop the Stake president, or the bulletin person.
ThE Mormon TAbernacle choir is all unpaid volunteers--when they tour they pay for their own airfare, hotels meals. What motivates us is the Love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. No one is forced to do anything--you can refuse a calling , or leave a calling whenever you want.
If they don't have your doctrines right, then you should get on the phone with your Branch leader. (another way term)
LDS teachings on Lucifer
LUCIFER:
Literally the Shining One; also Lightbringer or Son of the Morning. Lucifer is also known as Satan or the devil. The name Lucifer appears only once in the Bible (Isa. 14: 12, but cf. Luke 10: 18). Apparently Lucifer is the name of the devil before his rebellion and fall. Latter-day revelation clarifies the fall of Lucifer and equates him with Satan (D&C 76: 25-38; cf. Rev. 12: 1-17; 2 Ne. 9: 8; D&C 29: 36-38; Moses 4: 1-4).
WAR IN HEAVEN
This term arises out of Rev. 12: 7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as agency, how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer. The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior. Such a refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan of redemption. It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (see Isa. 14: 12-20; Luke 10: 18; Rev. 12: 4-13; D&C 29: 36-38; Moses 4: 1-4). The spirits who thus rebelled and persisted were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, “and thus came the devil and his angels” (D&C 29: 37; see also Rev. 12: 9; Abr. 3: 24-28).
DEVIL:
The devil is called the prince of this world (John 12: 31; John 14: 30; John 16: 11); the adversary (1 Pet. 5: 8); Beelzebub, meaning the prince of the devils (Mark 3: 22); the wicked one (Matt. 13: 38); the enemy (Matt. 13: 39); Lucifer (Isa. 14: 12; D&C 76: 26); Satan (Rev. 12: 9); prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2: 2-3); Perdition (D&C 76: 26); son of the morning (D&C 76: 26-27); that old serpent (Rev. 12: 9; D&C 76: 28); the great dragon (Rev. 12: 7-9); a murderer from the beginning (John 8: 44); a liar from the beginning (D&C 93: 25); and the accuser (Rev. 12: 10).
The importance of not accommodating temptation in the least degree is underlined by the Savior's example. Did not he recognize the danger when he was on the mountain with his fallen brother, Lucifer, being sorely tempted by that master tempter? He could have opened the door and flirted with danger by saying, "All right, Satan, I'll listen to your proposition. I need not succumb, I need not yield, I need not accept—but I'll listen." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 163)
Brother in this sense is used since the LDS recognize GOD as the creator of all (we are not trinitarians)
THerefore God created Jesus his only Begotton son and he created Lucifer --the angel of Light.
Their "brotherhood' comes from both being the creation of God and in no way places Lucifer on an eqaul footing with CHrist.
Christ is the second person in the Godheaad and always was, while Lucifer was an angel who chose to rebel.
we speak of the brotherhood of man, Christians acknowledge that we all all the children of Adam and Eve yet we can differentiate between that "brotherhood" and our natural siblings--so to is it in heaven
THIS ARTICLE describes a group that is just a little too 'cultish' for me
While I blanch at Ted Haggard's style and doctrine, there's nothing cultish about it. He is the personification of inclusive. He's built a big thing because he has boatlads of charisma. Now charisma can be a dangerous thing. As far as I know, he's used his ethically.
It sounded a little too wayish to me Evan--from The Charismatic leader who started the church by 'revelation', to the community who is bound and determined that they are the right ones to save the world, to the personal visions and prophecies that guide them, to their 'utopia in the making' -- the mega structures and gospel that are centered around business principals---
I am sure they have the 'energy of their convictions' but like The Way I'd like to see what it will look like 20-30 years down the road after the initial waves of enthusiasm have died down, maybe its just me but i sort of doubt it will all be as pretty as the image it attempts to project...
I very much agree, mstar.Ted's work just doesn't make into cult status for me.
Bear in mind we all have our own threshold for what makes a cult. His group doesn't make onto my s-list because they talk like normal folks, they seem to welcome disagreement, they have a diverse congregation (though tending towards youngishness), and most importantly, the church submits itself to outside accountability in financial and other matters.
Evan said something that I believe is important to this discussion. he said:
"Bear in mind we all have our own threshold for what makes a cult."
Not only we as individuals have our own trhreshhold or criteria, but organizations do as well.
For exanmple, hard core trinitarians concerned with cults usually list a non-trinitarian belief system as the first criterion for defining a cult. "Cult" is also used by some as a form of namecalling, or by others (mostly well meaing religious folks), to expose or warn of a group whose doctrine does not agree with their own. Sometimes another religious group's beliefs are not understood and in some cases this is enough to warrant the label of "cult".
However there are dangerous "cults". Actually I prefer the term "harmful or dangerous religious organizations" because few people in a discussion like this can agree as to what makes a group a "cult".
I think a harmful group is one that actually does damage to it's adherants. The damage can be physical, emotional, financial, etc. The physical harm is obvious. The emotional and financial may not be so obvious since the members may not even be aware that they are being used and abused.
I think a dangerous group is one that is potentially dangerous to it members or to society in general. For example a group that has the potential to "drink the Kool Aid", kill dissenters, or send out suicide bombers.
Ok so how many harmful groups are there? How many dangerous ones? Who are they?
I haven't much of a clue these days, but I do know that Scientology is alive and well. How harmful or dangerous they are I am not sure. I think they are more about money and privilege for the leaders than anything. But I do also know that they will harrass, threaten, or blackmail just about anyone who gets in their way, including government offcials.
Of course TWI is still going, but it is probably not very dangerous. Harmful maybe, but not dangerous. However, I do believe that there was a possiblity that TWI could have become dangerous under Martindale had he been allowed to continue without restraint. I hear that there were some glassy-eyed supporters that would have killed "homos" if he had given the ok. Thats pretty scary. And I also suspect that at one point in time there were a small few die hard VPW supporters (not those who really knew him) who would have drank the Kool Aid if they had been told to. I doubt that anyone left in TWI is that "commited" these days.
There's a group called Landmark Forum (Landmark Forum that I think is an organization to be wary of. It's infiltrated my office. One of the guys jokingly refers to it as "my cult" and the people involved are all passive agressive in their recruiting people to these "seminars".
I've shared my doubts, reservations and disagreement with the group. I've also made no secret of my recent "cult" experience, so you'd *think* they might at least consider what I've shared with them, but - no. This Group is Different! Yeah, right!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
on another note:
Jet, sorry, I have to agree with WordWolf. Perhaps it's because tone of voice doesn't communicate very well in print or it's because you have yet to learn how to communicate what you're thinking without appearing judgemental and accusative..... Raf has posted a bit about JW's and you obviously haven't taken the time to read around the board and learn about people before you attack them (and, yes, your posts do look like attacks and subsequent justifications of your attacks).
Since you're new here, I'll tell you that many of us have been posting for a long time and we know the integrity (or lack thereof) of many of the long-time posters and Raf is NOT one of those lacking integrity. It's also not wise to put words into his mouth or to extrapolate hidden meanings in what he posts. He is pretty clear on his own. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
on yet another note:
Mo, your ability to maintain a rational, clear headed response to people who consistently attack you, instead of genuinely having questions about your religion, is, in and of itself, a very good witness and shows more humanity and commands more respect than all those attacking you put together. They don't really want to know what you have to say; it's just like a bully trying to pick a fight, imo. I am constantly inspired and impressed with you and your posts. :)
Jet, sorry, I have to agree with WordWolf. Perhaps it's because tone of voice doesn't communicate very well in print or it's because you have yet to learn how to communicate what you're thinking without appearing judgemental and accusative..... Raf has posted a bit about JW's and you obviously haven't taken the time to read around the board and learn about people before you attack them (and, yes, your posts do look like attacks and subsequent justifications of your attacks).
Since you're new here, I'll tell you that many of us have been posting for a long time and we know the integrity (or lack thereof) of many of the long-time posters and Raf is NOT one of those lacking integrity. It's also not wise to put words into his mouth or to extrapolate hidden meanings in what he posts. He is pretty clear on his own. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:)[/color]
Belle, God Bless you, and thank you for your Gentle Observation., and Repromand.
Just so you and WordWolf will know, I have Send RAF a personal Apology!!
I see the error of my ways, and I appreciate the loving way in which you have 'corrected me'. TY
I did re-read those posts and I still cannot see how I could have INSULTED Raf, and I'm not sure why he did not communicate to me if he were offended., however, to set things RIGHT, I wrote him and APOLOGIZED. I wish others were nicer in how they "Tear apart and Criticise other's posts".
Since there are no voice tones, only words, its Easy to Assume someone is attacking another. I assure you I didn't write those things to attack RAF, but rather to voice my opinion regarding the JWs.
JET: I could get out previous notes I made while I was in the organization and show you all the places where they put in the word Jehovah, or Jesus in place of the word 'lord' where it WAS NOT appropriate.
RAF: That would only reinforce what I said, which was, “The New Testament is where it gets tricky, because they used "kurios" (not sure I have the exact transliteration there) when quoting OT passages that contained YHWH. So sometimes inserting "Jehovah" in place of Lord is appropriate in the NT, and sometimes it is not.” So, if I said sometimes the change was not appropriate, and you show instances where it was not appropriate… I’m confused. Where are we disagreeing? :)
JET: One thing comes to mind is where it was talking about a woman and her husband, and it was said her husband was her 'lord' in the Bible, in the NWT is said Jehovah (I believe).
RAF: I’m not familiar with that verse. I’d love to see it.
JET: You are protective of the JWs; is this because you are among them?
RAF: Am not; no.
JET: If so, I caution you against this group.
RAF: You’re about 24 years too late on that one.
JET: They are fear motivated, among other things.
RAF: Including disingenuous, legalistic, and no fun at birthday parties.
JET: …but hey, you and others should follow your hearts.
RAF: Umm, thanks.
JET: I personally have found many of their doctrine full of mis-truths.
RAF: So have I.
JET: For instance, do you REALLY believe Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel?
RAF: Did I say I did? Where did I say I did?
JET: There would be more. I've made it my passion to try and FORGET about the indoctrination I went through within that Group.
RAF: Why did “Group” get a capital G in your statement? A little holdover respect for The Truth? (I’m kidding, of course. Just wanted to see if I could get a rise out of you). Anyway, I’m the opposite: I don’t want to forget that experience, because I want to recognize it when I see it happening again. For instance, the church I currently attend (even though I don’t agree with them on every point of doctrine) recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, and they had this big, back-patting celebration the last two Sundays. They were kind enough to tell us they were going to do this. I stayed away, because I get the heebie-jeebies every time groups get so danged proud of themselves. Too Watchtower and Way for my tastes.
JET: At any rate, I didn't intend for my comments to 'offend' but perhaps if you want to start a post in support of the JW's so many TRUTHS, I'd be glad to dig up my notes.
RAF: Why would I want to do that? Because I think they got YHWH right in the OT? I think they got tithing right, too.
JET: I'd also be happy to share with you years of Horror that occurred all in the name of that Organization.
RAF: Great. Not only do I have to live through that, now I have to hear how you lived through it? :) Kidding again. But, hmm, a capital O in Organization…
JET: How a man disowned his family because they did not become JWs. OH, I could write a book.
RAF: And I could read it. In fact, I have. Several times. One of the best is called Crisis of Conscience. Interesting stuff.
JET: Have you ANY idea what takes place in their Headquarters?
RAF: Yeah, and I’ll give you a hint… ker-CHING! ker-CHING!
JET: Russel and Rutherford were in no way Biblical Scholars....
RAF: And they were no fun at birthday parties or Christmastime either.
JET: Blessings,
Jeannette
RAF: Don’t give God a direct order. BAAAAAhahahahahahahaha!
It just seemed he got pretty defensive when I pointed out that The JWs also had their own translation of the Bible.
Actually, I wasn't defensive when you pointed out that the JWs had their own translation. I merely said that the translation of YHWH as Jehovah in the Old Testament made sense. They're not the only ones who do it, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's why I said your criticism was an "incomplete" statement. You inadvertently made it sound as if they shoved the name Jehovah all over the Bible where it does not belong, when in fact your criticism applies almost entirely to the NT and just about not at all to the OT.
And one last thing...
I did receive Jet's apology, and I would accept it if I were offended at all. The apology was unnecessary.
The reason I did not communicate that I was upset is...
Well, I wasn't upset. :) But more to the point, I didn't follow up on this thread after I posted, for which I apologize.
So, we have some things in common? That is interesting.
JET: I could get out previous notes I made while I was in the organization and show you all the places where they put in the word Jehovah, or Jesus in place of the word 'lord' where it WAS NOT appropriate.
RAF: That would only reinforce what I said, which was, “The New Testament is where it gets tricky, because they used "kurios" (not sure I have the exact transliteration there) when quoting OT passages that contained YHWH. So sometimes inserting "Jehovah" in place of Lord is appropriate in the NT, and sometimes it is not.” So, if I said sometimes the change was not appropriate, and you show instances where it was not appropriate… I’m confused. Where are we disagreeing? :)
I don't guess we are disagreeing at all, RAF. Excuse me for inferring. I apologize.
JET: One thing comes to mind is where it was talking about a woman and her husband, and it was said her husband was her 'lord' in the Bible, in the NWT is said Jehovah (I believe).
RAF: I’m not familiar with that verse. I’d love to see it.
Actually I no longer have a collection of those Watchtowers or Awakes which 'corrected those mistranslated verses'. I looked, thought I had saved them. Perhaps I threw them out when my dad passed away about three yrs ago. He was the JW who disowned his family until a few years before his death. (Long story, I'll just skip it., it wouldn't profit anyone.)
JET: You are protective of the JWs; is this because you are among them?
RAF: Am not; no.
I should of put a ? after the first part of that statement. OR rearranged my words to Are you? Glad to hear you aren't and to have these replies.
JET: If so, I caution you against this group.
RAF: You’re about 24 years too late on that one.
That's almost the same amount of yrs ago I was forced to be involved.
JET: They are fear motivated, among other things.
RAF: Including disingenuous, legalistic, and no fun at birthday parties.
Yeah I know, the only celebration they have are 'death parties' or 'weddings and anniversaries'.
JET: …but hey, you and others should follow your hearts.
RAF: Umm, thanks.
If of course that had been where your heart was. :-)
JET: I personally have found many of their doctrine full of mis-truths.
RAF: So have I.
JET: For instance, do you REALLY believe Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel?
RAF: Did I say I did? Where did I say I did?
Again, IF you had been - course I'm blessed to know you also found a way of escape., and still have your SANITY and obviously a Sound Mind.
JET: There would be more. I've made it my passion to try and FORGET about the indoctrination I went through within that Group.
RAF: Why did “Group” get a capital G in your statement? A little holdover respect for The Truth? (I’m kidding, of course. Just wanted to see if I could get a rise out of you). Anyway, I’m the opposite: I don’t want to forget that experience, because I want to recognize it when I see it happening again. For instance, the church I currently attend (even though I don’t agree with them on every point of doctrine) recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, and they had this big, back-patting celebration the last two Sundays. They were kind enough to tell us they were going to do this. I stayed away, because I get the heebie-jeebies every time groups get so danged proud of themselves. Too Watchtower and Way for my tastes.
Actually Raf, sometimes I just cap words for no good reason. I have an iMac and I can't even bold words from within this greasespots format. I also have severe neuropathy in both hands n feet, so sometimes in my typing I have difficulty. I try to proof-stuff but get in a hurry. Human error.
JET: At any rate, I didn't intend for my comments to 'offend' but perhaps if you want to start a post in support of the JW's so many TRUTHS, I'd be glad to dig up my notes.
RAF: Why would I want to do that? Because I think they got YHWH right in the OT? I think they got tithing right, too.
Yeah, they have a great many things 'right'. In my opinion as well.
JET: I'd also be happy to share with you years of Horror that occurred all in the name of that Organization.
RAF: Great. Not only do I have to live through that, now I have to hear how you lived through it? :) Kidding again. But, hmm, a capital O in Organization…
Aren't Lots of nouns suppose to get caps? No you don' t have to hear or read anything about me, or my past in the JW organization or even TWI.
JET: How a man disowned his family because they did not become JWs. OH, I could write a book.
RAF: And I could read it. In fact, I have. Several times. One of the best is called Crisis of Conscience. Interesting stuff.
TY for the reference.
JET: Have you ANY idea what takes place in their Headquarters?
RAF: Yeah, and I’ll give you a hint… ker-CHING! ker-CHING!
JET: Russel and Rutherford were in no way Biblical Scholars....
RAF: And they were no fun at birthday parties or Christmastime either.
JET: Blessings,
Jeannette
RAF: Don’t give God a direct order. BAAAAAhahahahahahahaha!
How did I give God a direct order? I must be missing something?
So, are you ex-Way as well?
Rafael
Note that I've added remarks in the Quote Section too.
Ex-WAY, is that OBVIOUS? :unsure:
Yepper, but I had a great many WONDERFUL experiences in the Way.... by the way.
At the time Raf, TWI seemed to be the Safe replacement for the JW group., as I was instructed that if I were to return to a Church, it was pagan and God (Jehovah) would be destroying it and anyone within its walls. I was thrilled that TWI met in homes and taught a lot of similar things. (example: Jesus Christ is Not God.) Then the fact that Christ was more than just a 'great teacher', also had my respect. I really loved the opportunities for travel I got in TWI. The Music Ministry, the many friends., the 'positive thinking' teachings that helped to boost my 'self esteem'. Those were valuable to my future and have kept me from going 'insane'. A positive mental attitude is just plain healthy!!
My first spiritual experiences however were in the Baptist Church. I now have a difficult time visiting any Church to this day. I feel so lost and uncomfortable in 'Christiandom' altogether.
When I learned about this place I had hopes of finding long lost friends and wondering where they went from TWI and where is it SAFE to worship....
Guess you could say I still have unresolved issues about where to serve God., and I am lonely spiritually for fellowship.
It's hard sorting everything out. I've only been out of TWI a year and got divorced because my husband accused me of turning my back on God. I know all too well how the lonliness and confusion can be stiffling. We're a pretty good group here for the most part. ;) Glad you're here. You'll find new friends even if you can't find the old ones.
BTW, I'm a former typesetter, so I arbitrarily capitalize letters sometimes. It's That Title Case Syndrome I Think I May Have Acquired along the way....... ;)
My first experience with typography and the printing industry was as a "Fellowlaborer" in Austin, TX under the direction of Rev. Burton. I typeset and printed the GrapeVine. Anyone remember that?
Oh well, Belle, you are a sweetie, I was WAY gone from TWI before you ever came aboard.
I always had hopes of being on staff with the Way Magazine, but instead God did bless me with the ability to own and operate my own Printing company for 10 wonderful years.
I appreciate all the REAL people I'm coming to know through GreaseSpots. I've even re-connected in here with a couple of my friends of afore, and they are still awesome!
to put something in bold on Greasespot, you need to put the letter "b" in brackets []. Then, to get out of bold, you put "/b" in brackets. The type of computer you use shouldn't make a difference. There's an easier way, too.
If you hit "add reply," NOT "Fast Reply," then you can type to your heart's content. Anything you want. Doesn't matter. Then take the word you want in bold and highlight it. Just above the area where you start typing, there's a B (look to the right of the smileys). Click on the B, and the brackets will show up around the text you've selected.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
11
27
14
Popular Days
Oct 11
24
Oct 18
13
Oct 7
13
Oct 17
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 8 posts
Allan 11 posts
jetc57 27 posts
templelady 14 posts
Popular Days
Oct 11 2005
24 posts
Oct 18 2005
13 posts
Oct 7 2005
13 posts
Oct 17 2005
12 posts
WordWolf
A) You DID jump to conclusions.
If you think I attacked you in my reply,
you're unfamiliar with REALLY hostile posts on messageboards.
You ARE oversensitive on the subject.
That really shouldn't count as news to you-it isn't to me.
Just take that into account before going on the warpath.
B) You did "accuse" when you said
"You are protective of the JWs".
C) He didn't get "pretty defensive"-
he saw an error and posted a correction.
You could have said "thanks" and adjusted your complaint,
or just taken it and let the subject drop.
He also never defended "having their own version of the Bible".
He addressed the translation of ONE word and some places where it is
CORRECT. He also suggested there were places it was INcorrect.
Reread his post and you may see what I mean.
D) I always recommend thinking twice before making posts.
I've deleted some posts unwritten that way, myself.
If the sole reason is "others may disagree", then you're in
for a rude awakening: in cyberspace, disagreeing is typical,
and on this board, it's unavoidable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
OH GOOD GRIEF WOLF.
You have NO idea anything about me. Spare me your satire and righteous BS. OK.
I give up this POST is all Yours.
You are LOVED Unconditionally!!!
And I, personally, do not care WHAT you think of ME.
Edited by jetc57Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Sorry Templelady
I find your answers less than satisfying.
I've been witnessed to by mormon missionaries, which is a two-year program that takes young men aw
away from their families (sort of like WOW on steroids). If they don't have your doctrines right,
then you should get on the phone with your Branch leader. (another way term)
While I disagree with the LDS take on the Bible, I don't want to appear that I am mocking you.
I just want some answers to questions I have had about your group.
When I left TWI I got as far away from God. After awhile I went to established churches and found
some peace. I couldn't go for another non-orthodox group.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) I know what you've posted here so far,
and take it as a given-unless there's evidence otherwise-
that you've represented your experiences and opinions honestly.
(And not, say, as an atheist posting and claiming they're a religious
person who wants all atheists shot or something.)
So, I know a LITTLE-and that, only what you have chosen to share.
B) That wasn't 'satire'.
That also wasn't 'righteous'.
Whether it is BS is a matter of opinion, I suppose.
C) People who don't care what I think of them usually don't
hit 'reply' when I post.
Perhaps you are an exception.
If I can offer some unsolicited advice,
I'd recommend a brisk walk around the block and not visiting this thread for at least 12
hours, to get a fresh start. Of course, you're free to completely disregard this-
it's unsolicited advice.
God bless you either way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The Mormons who have come knocking at my door have been good sports. Why last year, they even offered to help me paint my house! Though I declined at the time, I thought that was awful nice of them.
I hope they come back next year when it's time to re-shingle my roof.
:)
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
What most people don't understand is that other that the First presidentcy the 12 Apostles and the Quorum there are no paid positions in the LDS Faith. Everyone supports themselves with an outside job--Every calling in the church is unpaid whether you are the Bishop the Stake president, or the bulletin person.
ThE Mormon TAbernacle choir is all unpaid volunteers--when they tour they pay for their own airfare, hotels meals. What motivates us is the Love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. No one is forced to do anything--you can refuse a calling , or leave a calling whenever you want.
LDS teachings on Lucifer
LUCIFER:
Literally the Shining One; also Lightbringer or Son of the Morning. Lucifer is also known as Satan or the devil. The name Lucifer appears only once in the Bible (Isa. 14: 12, but cf. Luke 10: 18). Apparently Lucifer is the name of the devil before his rebellion and fall. Latter-day revelation clarifies the fall of Lucifer and equates him with Satan (D&C 76: 25-38; cf. Rev. 12: 1-17; 2 Ne. 9: 8; D&C 29: 36-38; Moses 4: 1-4).
WAR IN HEAVEN
This term arises out of Rev. 12: 7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as agency, how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer. The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior. Such a refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan of redemption. It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (see Isa. 14: 12-20; Luke 10: 18; Rev. 12: 4-13; D&C 29: 36-38; Moses 4: 1-4). The spirits who thus rebelled and persisted were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, “and thus came the devil and his angels” (D&C 29: 37; see also Rev. 12: 9; Abr. 3: 24-28).
DEVIL:
The devil is called the prince of this world (John 12: 31; John 14: 30; John 16: 11); the adversary (1 Pet. 5: 8); Beelzebub, meaning the prince of the devils (Mark 3: 22); the wicked one (Matt. 13: 38); the enemy (Matt. 13: 39); Lucifer (Isa. 14: 12; D&C 76: 26); Satan (Rev. 12: 9); prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2: 2-3); Perdition (D&C 76: 26); son of the morning (D&C 76: 26-27); that old serpent (Rev. 12: 9; D&C 76: 28); the great dragon (Rev. 12: 7-9); a murderer from the beginning (John 8: 44); a liar from the beginning (D&C 93: 25); and the accuser (Rev. 12: 10).
The importance of not accommodating temptation in the least degree is underlined by the Savior's example. Did not he recognize the danger when he was on the mountain with his fallen brother, Lucifer, being sorely tempted by that master tempter? He could have opened the door and flirted with danger by saying, "All right, Satan, I'll listen to your proposition. I need not succumb, I need not yield, I need not accept—but I'll listen." (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p. 163)
Brother in this sense is used since the LDS recognize GOD as the creator of all (we are not trinitarians)
THerefore God created Jesus his only Begotton son and he created Lucifer --the angel of Light.
Their "brotherhood' comes from both being the creation of God and in no way places Lucifer on an eqaul footing with CHrist.
Christ is the second person in the Godheaad and always was, while Lucifer was an angel who chose to rebel.
we speak of the brotherhood of man, Christians acknowledge that we all all the children of Adam and Eve yet we can differentiate between that "brotherhood" and our natural siblings--so to is it in heaven
Edited by templeladyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
While I blanch at Ted Haggard's style and doctrine, there's nothing cultish about it. He is the personification of inclusive. He's built a big thing because he has boatlads of charisma. Now charisma can be a dangerous thing. As far as I know, he's used his ethically.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
It sounded a little too wayish to me Evan--from The Charismatic leader who started the church by 'revelation', to the community who is bound and determined that they are the right ones to save the world, to the personal visions and prophecies that guide them, to their 'utopia in the making' -- the mega structures and gospel that are centered around business principals---
I am sure they have the 'energy of their convictions' but like The Way I'd like to see what it will look like 20-30 years down the road after the initial waves of enthusiasm have died down, maybe its just me but i sort of doubt it will all be as pretty as the image it attempts to project...
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
I very much agree, mstar.Ted's work just doesn't make into cult status for me.
Bear in mind we all have our own threshold for what makes a cult. His group doesn't make onto my s-list because they talk like normal folks, they seem to welcome disagreement, they have a diverse congregation (though tending towards youngishness), and most importantly, the church submits itself to outside accountability in financial and other matters.
They just believe some wacky things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Evan said something that I believe is important to this discussion. he said:
Not only we as individuals have our own trhreshhold or criteria, but organizations do as well.
For exanmple, hard core trinitarians concerned with cults usually list a non-trinitarian belief system as the first criterion for defining a cult. "Cult" is also used by some as a form of namecalling, or by others (mostly well meaing religious folks), to expose or warn of a group whose doctrine does not agree with their own. Sometimes another religious group's beliefs are not understood and in some cases this is enough to warrant the label of "cult".
However there are dangerous "cults". Actually I prefer the term "harmful or dangerous religious organizations" because few people in a discussion like this can agree as to what makes a group a "cult".
I think a harmful group is one that actually does damage to it's adherants. The damage can be physical, emotional, financial, etc. The physical harm is obvious. The emotional and financial may not be so obvious since the members may not even be aware that they are being used and abused.
I think a dangerous group is one that is potentially dangerous to it members or to society in general. For example a group that has the potential to "drink the Kool Aid", kill dissenters, or send out suicide bombers.
Ok so how many harmful groups are there? How many dangerous ones? Who are they?
I haven't much of a clue these days, but I do know that Scientology is alive and well. How harmful or dangerous they are I am not sure. I think they are more about money and privilege for the leaders than anything. But I do also know that they will harrass, threaten, or blackmail just about anyone who gets in their way, including government offcials.
Of course TWI is still going, but it is probably not very dangerous. Harmful maybe, but not dangerous. However, I do believe that there was a possiblity that TWI could have become dangerous under Martindale had he been allowed to continue without restraint. I hear that there were some glassy-eyed supporters that would have killed "homos" if he had given the ok. Thats pretty scary. And I also suspect that at one point in time there were a small few die hard VPW supporters (not those who really knew him) who would have drank the Kool Aid if they had been told to. I doubt that anyone left in TWI is that "commited" these days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
There's a group called Landmark Forum (Landmark Forum that I think is an organization to be wary of. It's infiltrated my office. One of the guys jokingly refers to it as "my cult" and the people involved are all passive agressive in their recruiting people to these "seminars".
I've shared my doubts, reservations and disagreement with the group. I've also made no secret of my recent "cult" experience, so you'd *think* they might at least consider what I've shared with them, but - no. This Group is Different! Yeah, right!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
on another note:
Jet, sorry, I have to agree with WordWolf. Perhaps it's because tone of voice doesn't communicate very well in print or it's because you have yet to learn how to communicate what you're thinking without appearing judgemental and accusative..... Raf has posted a bit about JW's and you obviously haven't taken the time to read around the board and learn about people before you attack them (and, yes, your posts do look like attacks and subsequent justifications of your attacks).
Since you're new here, I'll tell you that many of us have been posting for a long time and we know the integrity (or lack thereof) of many of the long-time posters and Raf is NOT one of those lacking integrity. It's also not wise to put words into his mouth or to extrapolate hidden meanings in what he posts. He is pretty clear on his own. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
on yet another note:
Mo, your ability to maintain a rational, clear headed response to people who consistently attack you, instead of genuinely having questions about your religion, is, in and of itself, a very good witness and shows more humanity and commands more respect than all those attacking you put together. They don't really want to know what you have to say; it's just like a bully trying to pick a fight, imo. I am constantly inspired and impressed with you and your posts. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BELLE WROTE:
on another note:
Jet, sorry, I have to agree with WordWolf. Perhaps it's because tone of voice doesn't communicate very well in print or it's because you have yet to learn how to communicate what you're thinking without appearing judgemental and accusative..... Raf has posted a bit about JW's and you obviously haven't taken the time to read around the board and learn about people before you attack them (and, yes, your posts do look like attacks and subsequent justifications of your attacks).
Since you're new here, I'll tell you that many of us have been posting for a long time and we know the integrity (or lack thereof) of many of the long-time posters and Raf is NOT one of those lacking integrity. It's also not wise to put words into his mouth or to extrapolate hidden meanings in what he posts. He is pretty clear on his own. :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:)[/color]
Belle, God Bless you, and thank you for your Gentle Observation., and Repromand.
Just so you and WordWolf will know, I have Send RAF a personal Apology!!
I see the error of my ways, and I appreciate the loving way in which you have 'corrected me'. TY
I did re-read those posts and I still cannot see how I could have INSULTED Raf, and I'm not sure why he did not communicate to me if he were offended., however, to set things RIGHT, I wrote him and APOLOGIZED. I wish others were nicer in how they "Tear apart and Criticise other's posts".
Since there are no voice tones, only words, its Easy to Assume someone is attacking another. I assure you I didn't write those things to attack RAF, but rather to voice my opinion regarding the JWs.
Blessings
Jeannette :)
Edited by jetc57Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wow! I got into an argument and I missed it! :)
That's a first.
Jet, you did not offend me in the slightest. You simply misread me. I'll post a few relevant misreadings in a moment (ones WordWolf did not cover).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Thank you RAF, now I can sleep better at night.
Being Human is such a Hastle! :D
I am a sensitive person who NEVER proposes to 'offend' others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
JET: Raf, are you affiliated with the JWs?
RAF: No, but I was, in my childhood.
JET: I could get out previous notes I made while I was in the organization and show you all the places where they put in the word Jehovah, or Jesus in place of the word 'lord' where it WAS NOT appropriate.
RAF: That would only reinforce what I said, which was, “The New Testament is where it gets tricky, because they used "kurios" (not sure I have the exact transliteration there) when quoting OT passages that contained YHWH. So sometimes inserting "Jehovah" in place of Lord is appropriate in the NT, and sometimes it is not.” So, if I said sometimes the change was not appropriate, and you show instances where it was not appropriate… I’m confused. Where are we disagreeing? :)
JET: One thing comes to mind is where it was talking about a woman and her husband, and it was said her husband was her 'lord' in the Bible, in the NWT is said Jehovah (I believe).
RAF: I’m not familiar with that verse. I’d love to see it.
JET: You are protective of the JWs; is this because you are among them?
RAF: Am not; no.
JET: If so, I caution you against this group.
RAF: You’re about 24 years too late on that one.
JET: They are fear motivated, among other things.
RAF: Including disingenuous, legalistic, and no fun at birthday parties.
JET: …but hey, you and others should follow your hearts.
RAF: Umm, thanks.
JET: I personally have found many of their doctrine full of mis-truths.
RAF: So have I.
JET: For instance, do you REALLY believe Jesus Christ is Michael the Archangel?
RAF: Did I say I did? Where did I say I did?
JET: There would be more. I've made it my passion to try and FORGET about the indoctrination I went through within that Group.
RAF: Why did “Group” get a capital G in your statement? A little holdover respect for The Truth? (I’m kidding, of course. Just wanted to see if I could get a rise out of you). Anyway, I’m the opposite: I don’t want to forget that experience, because I want to recognize it when I see it happening again. For instance, the church I currently attend (even though I don’t agree with them on every point of doctrine) recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, and they had this big, back-patting celebration the last two Sundays. They were kind enough to tell us they were going to do this. I stayed away, because I get the heebie-jeebies every time groups get so danged proud of themselves. Too Watchtower and Way for my tastes.
JET: At any rate, I didn't intend for my comments to 'offend' but perhaps if you want to start a post in support of the JW's so many TRUTHS, I'd be glad to dig up my notes.
RAF: Why would I want to do that? Because I think they got YHWH right in the OT? I think they got tithing right, too.
JET: I'd also be happy to share with you years of Horror that occurred all in the name of that Organization.
RAF: Great. Not only do I have to live through that, now I have to hear how you lived through it? :) Kidding again. But, hmm, a capital O in Organization…
JET: How a man disowned his family because they did not become JWs. OH, I could write a book.
RAF: And I could read it. In fact, I have. Several times. One of the best is called Crisis of Conscience. Interesting stuff.
JET: Have you ANY idea what takes place in their Headquarters?
RAF: Yeah, and I’ll give you a hint… ker-CHING! ker-CHING!
JET: Russel and Rutherford were in no way Biblical Scholars....
RAF: And they were no fun at birthday parties or Christmastime either.
JET: Blessings,
Jeannette
RAF: Don’t give God a direct order. BAAAAAhahahahahahahaha!
So, are you ex-Way as well?
Rafael
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Actually, I wasn't defensive when you pointed out that the JWs had their own translation. I merely said that the translation of YHWH as Jehovah in the Old Testament made sense. They're not the only ones who do it, and there's nothing wrong with that. That's why I said your criticism was an "incomplete" statement. You inadvertently made it sound as if they shoved the name Jehovah all over the Bible where it does not belong, when in fact your criticism applies almost entirely to the NT and just about not at all to the OT.
And one last thing...
I did receive Jet's apology, and I would accept it if I were offended at all. The apology was unnecessary.
The reason I did not communicate that I was upset is...
Well, I wasn't upset. :) But more to the point, I didn't follow up on this thread after I posted, for which I apologize.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Personally,
I didn't think an apology was called for.
(If Raf were FOLLOWED AROUND THE BOARD and attacked, THAT would call for an apology.)
There was a misunderstanding, which led to an incorrect post,
which led to a discussion.
I'm glad everyone is agreeing to play nice. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
Note that I've added remarks in the Quote Section too.
Ex-WAY, is that OBVIOUS? :unsure:
Yepper, but I had a great many WONDERFUL experiences in the Way.... by the way.
Edited by jetc57Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ah, so now we have TWO ex-JW ex-Ways in da HOUSE! Yeah!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
At the time Raf, TWI seemed to be the Safe replacement for the JW group., as I was instructed that if I were to return to a Church, it was pagan and God (Jehovah) would be destroying it and anyone within its walls. I was thrilled that TWI met in homes and taught a lot of similar things. (example: Jesus Christ is Not God.) Then the fact that Christ was more than just a 'great teacher', also had my respect. I really loved the opportunities for travel I got in TWI. The Music Ministry, the many friends., the 'positive thinking' teachings that helped to boost my 'self esteem'. Those were valuable to my future and have kept me from going 'insane'. A positive mental attitude is just plain healthy!!
My first spiritual experiences however were in the Baptist Church. I now have a difficult time visiting any Church to this day. I feel so lost and uncomfortable in 'Christiandom' altogether.
When I learned about this place I had hopes of finding long lost friends and wondering where they went from TWI and where is it SAFE to worship....
Guess you could say I still have unresolved issues about where to serve God., and I am lonely spiritually for fellowship.
:blink: I so need a hug.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
(((((((((Jeannette))))))))))))
Here's your hug! :wub:
It's hard sorting everything out. I've only been out of TWI a year and got divorced because my husband accused me of turning my back on God. I know all too well how the lonliness and confusion can be stiffling. We're a pretty good group here for the most part. ;) Glad you're here. You'll find new friends even if you can't find the old ones.
BTW, I'm a former typesetter, so I arbitrarily capitalize letters sometimes. It's That Title Case Syndrome I Think I May Have Acquired along the way....... ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Someone had a smiley for group hugs once.
Oh well. GROUP HUG!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jetc57
All hugs accepted and thank you.
My first experience with typography and the printing industry was as a "Fellowlaborer" in Austin, TX under the direction of Rev. Burton. I typeset and printed the GrapeVine. Anyone remember that?
Oh well, Belle, you are a sweetie, I was WAY gone from TWI before you ever came aboard.
I always had hopes of being on staff with the Way Magazine, but instead God did bless me with the ability to own and operate my own Printing company for 10 wonderful years.
I appreciate all the REAL people I'm coming to know through GreaseSpots. I've even re-connected in here with a couple of my friends of afore, and they are still awesome!
Thanks for the welcome and the hugs. :wub:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
to put something in bold on Greasespot, you need to put the letter "b" in brackets []. Then, to get out of bold, you put "/b" in brackets. The type of computer you use shouldn't make a difference. There's an easier way, too.
If you hit "add reply," NOT "Fast Reply," then you can type to your heart's content. Anything you want. Doesn't matter. Then take the word you want in bold and highlight it. Just above the area where you start typing, there's a B (look to the right of the smileys). Click on the B, and the brackets will show up around the text you've selected.
See? It's easy!
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.