That's fine, thews. I recognize that you come at this from a polemical Christian stance. What bugs me is that you can't allow for others not to take the same stance. You can believe what you want about lies and who is or isn't Christian, but you don't have the right to condemn others for being phony just because they don't agree with you.
I’m not claiming others are being phony because they don’t agree with me, I’m accusing others of being phony because they are. Trevor is constantly making left-handed comments from a pseudo pro-Mormon position and it adds distortion. Knowing that people like Mike Reed and Trevor don’t believe in the Book of Mormon yet still champion its cause gets my goat, and that where my perspective comes from. They truly are posers, because how can someone like Mike Reed, who is not a Mormon, claim Joe Smith’s magical cane is a “Christian” object? That makes no sense whatsoever. I understand Brant’s position because he believes in Mormon doctrine, but to champion the cause you don’t believe in and look for some new “cultural Mormon” label to sprout some new distortion is done so with intent. Who is the target audience?
Runtu wrote:Speaking for myself only, you don't necessarily deal with facts but rather see the facts from a polemical and ideological position, hence the otherwise mystifying harping on the word "occult." Just about everyone else here sees that insisting on such pejorative terms doesn't help anything, least of all your case against Mormonism. It just cements in my mind (and I don't think I'm alone) that you are a completely unyielding dogmatist and not in the least interested in discussing facts. But that's just me.
Ok, it’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it, but I completely disagree. If one argues that Jews are Christians they don’t need a passion to make the argument, though they probably would if they tried. You and I can agree that a Jew is not a Christian… correct? The label is simply a function of the definition of the words. When it comes to seer stones, to claim magical properties of the tools of a glass-looker are “Christian” would fall under the same situation. Seer stones are Mormon, and Mormons claim their faith is based on the Christian God, so it’s ok to claim seer stones for hire are not of the occult. This isn’t my opinion, but rather the most correct way to define what is or isn’t occult magic. If you, as a non-Christian, don't really care one way or the other, then it doesn’t warrant much attention, but I do. Do you see how logic dictates that an object used for hire (like a crystal ball) is of black magic? The entire process of money-digging and its rituals to appease evil spirits (bleeding ghosts) who supposedly guarded treasure, which the Smith family was into, is centered around black magic. Again, this is not my opinion, but by acknowledging the facts clearly defines seer stones and village “seers” for hire as what they are by definition, which is to hire someone using occult objects to “see” something; either your future, or treasure for $14 a month. If someone gets paid, the act of doing something for hire removes religion from the argument. My argument centers around what the “Christian God” encompasses, and I contend that magic, when someone pays $14 a month for it, is not of the Christian God. Do you see why I don’t agree with you?