1. Is it dishonest to tell people the truth?
Or
2. Is it dishonest to hide things from people like secret ceremonies, deeper doctrine, and where the ***hing money goes?
1. Is it dishonest to tell people the truth?
Or
2. Is it dishonest to hide things from people like secret ceremonies, deeper doctrine, and where the ***hing money goes?
Nope
2. Is it dishonest to hide things from people like secret ceremonies, deeper doctrine, and where the ***hing money goes?
Like... all it takes to be saved is belief in Jesus Christ? Except that it has to be the mainstream Christianity teaching of Christ as a Trinity, etc. etc.
And i responded to billyray with this, which he conveniently is not presenting:
"c'mon...don't pretend to not understand what I just said.
Presenting LDS beliefs dishonest? No.
Presenting LDS beliefs by reshaping them into a form to shock people, and in a way to make it appear that LDS believe something when the basis for that belief is left out to give the real doctrine and belief IS dishonest. I gave a great example about the sex thing. On its face all you have to do is say that God had sex with mary (which is an oft repeated attack from you guys). But then when you dig deeper that isn't what LDS doctrine is at all. So what you've done is take something, reshape it, reword it, and make it look to be something it really isn't.
Dishonest."
To which billyray replied:
"Truth is truth. You seem to think that it is dishonest to tell the truth. You are sadly mistaken."
See? This is a perfect example of what is being talked about. If billy believes something is TRUE, then to him it is not dishonest to go around proclaiming it as such. The example I give above is a great one because it proves my point. LDS doctrine is NOT that God had sex with Mary to procreate Jesus. But this is how critics like billyray will present our belief that the Father is Jesus' father. He will call that truth, but he will not divulge the actual DOCTRINE of the conception of Jesus. Why? Because that would undermind the shock-value that making a statement about sex would invoke.
And also, notice that after i explained to billyray about the difference in presenting LDS doctrine with all the correct information vs. presenting it in a salacious and reworded form to shock people WITHOUT the added context, he says,
So, ironically, while creating a thread about being dishonest to tell the truth, in the OP billy dishonestly claims and presents as truth that I somehow believe telling the truth is dishonest.You seem to think that it is dishonest to tell the truth
And THAT is what is dishonest.
Sadly.
Christians will tell you what they believe. Our churches tell you exactly where they spend the money. LDS on the other hand hide their doctrine, hide their temple ceremony, and hide where they spend their money.
Exactly.
btw, see my other response to this thread. billyray claims I believe it is dishonest to tell the truth, which I never said and even explained in detail my position.
This in ITSELF is being dishonest, and should prove my point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I am always fascinated that critics of the LDS church are so obsessed with what we do with our money.
Here is my post that got this started. Is there anything in my post that is incorrect?
Still doesn't explain why you lied in this thread and claimed I am of the position that it is dishonest to tell the truth.
You like to ignore the things that refute your argument, so you can make your dishonest claims againt others.
That is a sad commentary on you.
And it is dishonest.
And I understand why you will not address my post in this thread that explains it once again how you took my comments and ignored half of them to make your dishonest claim.
I thought you were better than that.
It amazes Christians that LDS hide where they spent their money. To us that raises a big red flag.
Here is an example of a Christian relief organization and they boldly provide details of where they spend their money.
www.samaritanspurse.org
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/pdf/2010_Form990.pdf
http://issuu.com/samaritanspurse/doc...ion&mode=embed
Here is my post
This was your post
Can you tell me what was dishonest in my post or what was inaccurate?
So are LDS willing to open up and tell America what you really believe?
Or are you afraid to do so?
Here are the financials for Samaritan's Purse
www.samaritanspurse.org
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/pdf/2010_Form990.pdf
http://issuu.com/samaritanspurse/doc...ion&mode=embed
Now where can we find the financials for the LDS church?
That's my point.
As a Mormon, I couldn't care less where your church, or any other church spends its money or how much it brings in, or on what the money is used. Why? Because it does not concern me at all.
And yet, Mormon-critics often attack the church for their financial practices.
And funnier still, the people that actually actively and cheerfully give money to the church don't even care. Why? Because we have faith the money is in the care of honest stewards of it. And if not, that is on them, not me.
They why do you guys always talk about a paid ministry and why did you have in the temple ceremony pre 1990 that Satan pays ministers for their service?
Sure.
Simply saying that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers without explaining the context is being dishonest, since you are aware that on its face it appears to imply a brotherhood or a common bond of the two.
Would it be dishonest to call you an anti-mormon? On its face it seems like a pejoritive and most critics of LDS dislike that term and call it inaccurate. They have to add context and clarify their position as being against the doctrine not the people etc.., but the point is the same. Once there is contect and clarifiers, a statements of fact can have a more accurate meaning.
And I could care less where the Mormon Church spends it's money because it is not my money but it is deceptive to hide where all that money goes and raises a big red flag.
OK you put it into words that is acceptable to you with respect to Jesus and Satan being spiritual brothers.
Nice try.
Not even close to the same thing, and you know it.
unless you can provide a quote of any LDS here asking to see the financial salaries of christian pastors, or where LDS have asked to see and know where all your money is going, then maybe we can discuss it.
See?
I couldn't care less about your money
But you said you COULD care less about LDS money, implying you do care a little.
The only red flags are the ones that Mormon-critics see because they think they should be privelaged to be in the know of their enemy's information.
Then you are the FIRST Mormon critic on here, or even CARM to make such a statement. The rest of your cohorts cry foul and get very upset when they are called that. In fact, that's one of the reasons that term was banned from being used here.
EDIT: I wonder if you HAD to say that since by claiming otherwise you would see and reveal the hole in your position. Again, you are the ONLY Mormon-critic to claim it would be accurate to call you an anti-mormon, while all the others would correct you or add qualifiers to the term to make it more reflective of their position......which is what this whole discussion is about.
Last edited by Sir; 11-16-2011 at 01:26 PM.
I am glad that you asked about a tax return form. Here is the tax return form from Samaritan's Purse and you did not give them any money. They have nothing to hide and provide the tax form to anyone who desires to look at it.
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/pdf/2010_Form990.pdf
Ahhh.....the old dodge, duck, evasion and, in this instance, DISHONEST answer since I asked for YOUR tax return and knowing this you changed my request to simply asking for 'a' tax return.I am glad that you asked about a tax return form. Here is the tax return form from Samaritan's Purse and you did not give them any money. They have nothing to hide and provide the tax form to anyone who desires to look at it.
http://www.samaritanspurse.org/pdf/2010_Form990.pdf
Thank you for showing us all that, once again, your logic and hypocrisy has come back to bite you in the rear and that actually having an "HONEST' discussion would have proved fatal to your position and therefore you needed to twist it around.