A good paper to disseminate amongst Fundamentalist friends

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Your points are usually meaningless or verbatim regurgitations of already rebutted fundamentalist or rote Republican partylines. Why debate the ridiculous?

Even if that were true, it is still your obligation in a debate to demonstrate that "fundamentalist" or "rote Republican party lines" are false. Simply labeling my points "ridiculous" does not make them so.

Originally Posted by Archaea

This is entertainment not work. I have yet to see meritorious positions taken by you. Perhaps I missed one or two, but usually I can read the Republican platform to know how you think, or Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie or ETB, skipping over David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, James Talmage, Journal of Discourses, Dialogue, Sunstone, FARMS or NT textual criticism. You play it safe. Boring.

I'm quite sure you have almost no idea about what books I've read, to say nothing of what I believe on a variety of topics we have yet to discuss. But it's much more convenient for you to engage in hyperbolic personal attacks and straw men than actually address the points that I make.

Half of your responses fall under the "if you only knew what I knew, you'd agree with me" fallacy.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Half of your responses fall under the "if you only knew what I knew, you'd agree with me" fallacy.

No, you would never agree with me, even if you knew what I know. We are fundamentally different in the way we see the world. I'm glad to have mine and you're glad to have yours.

My world is fine for me but not for others I know that. My wife doesn't agree with me in the least. Disagreement is fine. I'll worry when you start agreeing with me.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yes. A very good article.

The article is excellent. I have two questions: 1. What is the publication date? and 2. The author points out that, in 1980, Bruce R. McConkie included evolution as one of his "seven deadly heresies" - what are the remaining six heresies and how many of them have been refuted?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Requiem

The article is excellent. I have two questions: 1. What is the publication date? and 2. The author points out that, in 1980, Bruce R. McConkie included evolution as one of his "seven deadly heresies" - what are the remaining six heresies and how many of them have been refuted?

I am not sure on the pub date. I first saw it a year or two ago.

I am sure grapevine would be more than happy to answer your second question.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Requiem

The article is excellent. I have two questions: 1. What is the publication date? and 2. The author points out that, in 1980, Bruce R. McConkie included evolution as one of his "seven deadly heresies" - what are the remaining six heresies and how many of them have been refuted?

It seems the publication date of the article is 2000, but I could be wrong. Not being a fan of BRM, I can't remember his seven deadly heresies speech even though I remember hearing the catchy phrase when it was delivered.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Requiem

The article is excellent. I have two questions: 1. What is the publication date? and 2. The author points out that, in 1980, Bruce R. McConkie included evolution as one of his "seven deadly heresies" - what are the remaining six heresies and how many of them have been refuted?

I heard the tape when I was on my mission. I don't know if I can remember all of them. I don't remember evolution being one. Let's see how many I can come up with.

1. Progression between kingdoms (ie., ability to move up from the telestial to terrestrial or terrestrial to celestial).

2. The idea that the spirit world gives people a second chance to accept the Gospel. His point is that it only gives a first chance.

3. God is still learning things. (Eternal progression does not mean that)

That's all I can remember.

[Archaea]

I remember the talk now. It generated lots of discussion and disagreement on campus at the time.

http://www.coolcontent.com/McConkie/heresies.html

Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is Teaming new truths.

Heresy two: concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.

Heresy three: There are those who say that temple marriage assures us of an eventual exaltation. Some have supposed that couples married in the temple who commit all manner of sin, and who then pay the penalty, will gain their exaltation eventually.

Heresy four: There are those who believe that the doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.

Heresy five: There are those who say that there is progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds or that lower kingdoms eventually progress to where higher kingdoms once were.

Heresy six: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

Heresy seven: There are those who believe we must be perfect to gain salvation.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I remember the talk now. It generated lots of discussion and disagreement on campus at the time.

http://www.dyestat.com/3us/5xc/footl...ci-St-Geme.jpg

Heresy one: There are those who say that God is progressing in knowledge and is Teaming new truths.

Heresy two: concerns itself with the relationship between organic evolution and revealed religion and asks the question whether they can be harmonized.

Heresy three: There are those who say that temple marriage assures us of an eventual exaltation. Some have supposed that couples married in the temple who commit all manner of sin, and who then pay the penalty, will gain their exaltation eventually.

Heresy four: There are those who believe that the doctrine of salvation for the dead offers men a second chance for salvation.

Heresy five: There are those who say that there is progression from one kingdom to another in the eternal worlds or that lower kingdoms eventually progress to where higher kingdoms once were.

Heresy six: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

Heresy seven: There are those who believe we must be perfect to gain salvation.

How many of those are really disputable? I know #2 is openly disputed and Eugene England attempted to dispute #1 .

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How many of those are really disputable? I know #2 is openly disputed and Eugene England attempted to dispute #1 .

#4 I think is maybe not as clear-cut as he states. 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 talk about disobedient spirits in the time of Noah who get the chance in the spirit world. I've always wondered about that. If they rejected the gospel as taught by Noah, why another chance? Also D&C 138 seems to leave the door opened a little wider for "wicked" spirits than I think McConkie does. I think McConkie is right about those who actually had the gospel and didn't live it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

How many of those are really disputable? I know #2 is openly disputed and Eugene England attempted to dispute #1 .

Eugene England openly disputed number 1, number 2 is widely disputed, number 3 is disputed by some not in the whitewashing done by BRM but in the fringes, number 4 to the extent that we don't know "having a full chance" means, number 5 is not disputed by me as I don't know enough but others have perhaps even in journal of discourse (I also seem to remember CaliCoug disputing it), number 6 involves the Adam God concept that was taught by BY and is still confusing for me, and number 7 is probably not in dispute.