No Joel. Atheists have no notion of God at all. But we’ve covered that before.
Sorry, I wasn’t very clear there. I see it as a failing for one to believe one knows the one and only Truth, and that others are perforce wrong. Which is why your posts often frustrate the hell out of me, TBH.
And, theists could just as well consider such a belief as equally silly if you catch my drift.
But if there is one Truth, and someone does know it, and they should of course believe others who do not know are wrong.
If there is one Truth and no one knows it, and it can not be found out, it can’t really be said to be truth at all.
Andros, you quoted me out of context, signaling a passive-aggressive motive here due from another thread perhaps. Incredibly, most of them are still true, even butchered by you. To take the most egregious one, “You are insane” should read something like “You are insane IF…” Also, intelligent people are leaving this personality cult in droves, who did I insult there? And to make an issue out of IQ is beyond the scope of this board, but suffice to say that the SLTrib ran a recent article that said that most people converting to Mormonism in Africa and elsewhere cannot even read the Book of Mormon in their native language. So, I will amend this claim to include that comment.
I invite you to examine this simple thread on another board. Sorry it is not the best example but at least it is current (it may not work, so be warned).
http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/w-agora.php3?site=exmobb&bn=exmobb_recovery
And you contradicted yourself in your very last post, claiming that it is a human failing to believe to have the one and only truth. What in hell do you think I am constesting here? Whatever issue you have with me, you should deal with it then and there on the correct thread, you have nothing to argue here except your preferences of courtesy. I’m not buying that you are the arbiter of congeniality, especially lashing out at me first calling me filled with “blind hatred.” I am not blind on this issue, you are, nor do I stoop to hate.
Of course. I figure “hard” atheists, that very small group who believe they have the Truth, to be just as silly. “Soft” atheists, however, generally accept the possibility of Godhood, however remote they may find it.
If there is one knowable Truth, no one can be certain they have discovered it. Religions come and go, each one claiming to be the real one. And each one is eventually supplanted.
:shrug: I guess I just consider it the height of arrogance to not accept that I may be wrong.
Oh yeah? Well you’re a doody-head. :rolleyes:
Whatever, Brian. Carry on. If you are determined to equate ignorance with stupidity, there’s nothing more to say to you.
I wouldn’t say that. I know several Salt Lake City residents who DID leave Mormonism, and most of them became evangelicals. Some started to doubt due to doctrinal reasons, and some did due to scientific and archeological reasons.
Some well-known examples of Mormons who left after examing the facts are Rev. Marv Cowan, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and Dennis and Rauni Higley. All continue to reside within Salt Lake City.
The Higley’s story is documented at http://www.exmormon.org/whylft50.htm . they left largely because Rauni Higley noticed some peculiar doctrinal changes being slipped in, while working at the Salt Lake church office.
Marv Cowan is the author of Mormon Claims Answered, one of the best books dealing with this subject. His book is available on-line at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/mclaimscontents.htm
The Tanners are well-known and thoroughly despised critics of Mormonism. They recently published the procedure for leaving the LDS church; in response, the church slapped a heavy lawsuit against them. Their materials and their story can be found at http://www.utlm.org
It was poor phrasing on my part I should perhaps have said that it was unfair to assert Mormons are particularly close-minded when it would be more appropriate to state that all believers are close-minded, and then have extended that to say that both assertions are incorrect, since they are quite obviously wrong as demonstrated by the existence of this thread and all of the ex-Mormons who are posting to it.
And as a matter of record, no, I’m not LDS.
That seems reasonable enough to me.
Why not? I consider a little doubt healthy, but you know what they say about too much of a good thing.
About anything though? It sounds like you are on a bad trip and I’m glad I’m not with you.
Re-reading first half dozen chapters of Ecclesiastes never hurt anyone.
Not a bad trip at all. I am willing to accept that I may be wrong, about anything. Tthat does not mean I believe in nothing, and it doesn’t mean I vacillate constantly.
I prefer Eccliastes in KJV, personally. I know it’s a little more intelligible in NIV, but it loses some of the poetry.
And I guess we may have different interpretations of that passage. I search for Truth, not as a monolith, but as a gestalt, with many facets. I find that Eccl 1:17-18 support this:
Trying to Know and to Understand is ultimately pointless.
But I suppose we’re going a bit afield from the Mormon-bashing.
Let’s examine BunnyHurts pattern shall we?
Brian posted some statistics about Utah:
I then post some positive statistics about Utah and I include cites.
Brian responds (paraphrasing here):
I respond by asking where the Mormons have officially proclaimed that their religion improves depression or education. No answer and no cite provided by Brian.
I question the wisdom of rejecting statistical information based on personal experience.
I ask how many people he knew who had gone bankrupt from paying tithing
I ask if the culture of a given area could have a noticeable impact on it’s inhabitants behavior.
Brian doesn’t respond
I asked how many teen marriages he was aware of that were arranged by the LDS church (and I’m not talking about polygamist or other splinter groups)?
Brian doesn’t answer this
I asked for cites for the statistics provided and state that I’ll be willing to accept them as accurate provided they come from a reasonably neutral source.
No cites provided
Brian Continues… again paraphrasing
I indicate that it is impossible to know how his scenario affected the statistics since we don’t know the methodology used to obtain the information. Also indicated that Brian is assuming that his personal experience applies broadly across all teen pregnancy cases in Utah.
I ask Brian if the people he knew who went bankrupt did so specifically because of tithing. Also asked if the people in question stated that specifically? Offered alternate explanations for bankruptcy.
Brian does not answer
I indicate that I have never expected monetary reward for paying tithing. I challenge Brian to find anywhere in official LDS literature where it explicitly states that paying tithing will bring a quick profit.
Brian provides no cite of an official LDS stance that tithing brings monetary profit
I ask for clarification on his opinion of the materialism of mormons by asking which of 3 statements most accurately matches his intent.
All Mormons identify righteousness with overt displays of wealth.
The LDS church officially promotes the materialism among its members.
Brian knows some Mormons who are materialistic.
I claim the first is patently false as I know members who do not behave this way. I ask for evidence if he claims the second. I state the 3rd is meaningless since there are materialistic people of all churches.
Brian Responds… paraphrasing and bolding mine…
Brian assumes 3 things with no information from the church regarding LDS Social Services procedures.
Brian rejects out of hand a statistic which because LDS Social Services runs a well-funded adoptin agency which may or may not have any relevance to the statistic.
Brian does not answer my question regarding his opinions on mormon materialism
Brian claims that Mormonism is proven to be socially lacking but he provides no cites.
Brian claims that the mormon church emphasizes personal rewards and self-interest but he provides no information and no cites. He doesn’t even provide personal experience as proof!
Final count?
Explicit assumptions: 3
Questions directly asked and not answered: 5
Assertions made without a cite: 12+ (I kinda lost count…)
Brian, have you considered that even if you are only arguing passionately that you are being perceived as bitter and angry. Regardless of what your current emotional state is people are perceiving your posts as being less objective due to the manner in which you post. Perhaps, if you cooled your “passion”, your arguments would hold more weight. That and provide cites 
Grim_Beaker
I just figured out your beef with me, Andros, you should have listed it sooner.
jmullaney wrote:
Wrong. Mormons believe no such thing. That would indeed be an atrocious idea, that God would play favorites like that. LDS teaching is that everyone gets an equal chance at the highest (best) heaven, whether they hear the gospel in this life or in the next. That’s a major function of LDS temple work, to baptize and do other necessary ordinances for the dead by living proxy. LDS teaching is that we cannot be saved without our dead, and that giving the dead the opportunity to accept (or reject) their baptism is an extremely important obligation of living saints.
Once again, I don’t know why I’m bothering.
But I did see one or two actual questions in there, so here goes.
Monster asked why we continue to believe that Native Americans are of Hebrew extraction when DNA analysis has proven that they’re mainly Mongolian. I have two responses: a) if you read the BoM, you’ll see that by the end, two out of the three cultures have been eradicated, with few or no survivors. This leaves one group, the Lamanites, in about 400AD. Not a lot of people to entirely populate two continents with, and it’s not what we think. The BoM never says that the groups it’s concerned with are the only people in the land. As posted on page 1 of this thread, we don’t claim that Native Americans are solely Hebrew–we’re perfectly willing to accept that any number of Mongolians (or other groups) also traveled to these continents and set up camp. The Lamanite blood, so to speak, may run thinly, but we still believe that it’s there. Also (and this is part b), we do tend to place the BoM more in South America than in North America–not that we really have any idea where the BoM took place at all (that’s why ‘maps’ are not approved, btw–they usually have a good dose of wishful thinking thrown in). I would be much more interested in the DNA histories of South American Natives, and I think many LDS people would feel the same. That’s just me talking, though.
As for the wheels and swords, I’d like to point out that the BoM seems to imply that the Nephites, etc. built a lot of things out of wood, that there is tons of archealogical work yet to be done in the Americas, and that there are very few swords in the BoM. Also, a human trait is to be vague about names–if you have a vaguely sword-like object that hurts people, you’re not going to make up a new word and call it a scneel, you’re going to call it a sword. Likewise for animals–the Puritans that came to New England called many animals by old English names (for example, that bird over there looks like a bobtit, so that’s what we’ll call it). Thus, in England, many birds have the same names as American birds but are completely different species. All of the above is just thinking and reasoning, so there may be completely different reasons, but it actually doesn’t matter. The BoM is an important, life-changing book. If you are going to accept its teachings on faith, then no amount of arguing will change your mind. Likewise, if you’re deciding that it’s false and that you’re not interested in the gospel contained therein, no amount of archaelogical proof will convince you otherwise. Proof is irrelevant and unimportant to those who believe that God has told them it’s true.
For an interesting analysis of BoM cultures, I can recommend Hugh Nibley’s Lehi in the desert. It also has a good piece on the Jaredites. I’m sorry that I’m not posting websites, but I read a lot more than I webhunt, and I find that books are, in general, more reliable and coherent. I know it takes more effort on your part and I appreciate anyone who is willing to seek these books out.
As for ‘facts’ versus faith–well, yes, I am much more willing to take the Holy Ghost’s word for it than I am scholarly opinion. The Holy Ghost comes straight from God, and I figure he knows more about it than fallible people, who, we must admit, often have personal agendas and can rarely get all the information, no matter how intelligent and well-meaning they may be. Science is great and I’m all for it–but we all know that scientific knowledge and opinion changes as more information becomes available.
jmull, I don’t know why I’m even rising to your bait, but exactly what commandments do Mormons break? One of the original 10? Something from the Sermon on the Mount? “Love one another?” Because those are all commandments that I take very seriously and try to keep.
Any other rational questions from people who are interested in finding out the answers?
And thank you, Snark, for your post on an important and actually relevant topic–I meant to address that one, too, but forgot. I have always found that LDS theology about heaven is much fairer than others’–everyone gets an equal chance, whether in this life or the next, and everyone winds up exactly where they want to be. In essence, if you truly want to end up close to God, then you will. If not, then you’ll be more comfortable farther away from Him. No babies or unbaptized heathens get consigned to limbo or hell–everyone gets a chance.
GB,
Is it Grim Beaker knows that Brian knows that Grim Beaker’s Mormon assumptions are wrong? Or is it Grim Beaker assumes Brian knows Mormonism is false?
GB, your reply is deeply stressed and disturbed. Why are you are searching for something wrong with me believing or assuming anything? Assertions are invalid when their conclusions do not follow from their assumptions, impied or otherwise. You can assume the sky is green, then conclude otherwise, that is how an assumption is proved false. You think that Mormons don’t run an nationwide adoption agency? Whatever. Materialism? Yes I assume Mormons are materialistic, in varying degrees. Do you assume otherwise? Fine, as long as you don’t quote a scripture to “prove” it. That’s the problem with apologetics and scripture, they quote their leaders and founders to defend their “own” choices and their own behavior. That’s why joining a self-help personality cult that directs your thoughts and actions, and trying to get the world to join it with you, is a double contradiction.
Also, I don’t care how I’m perceived, I only care if my arguments are valid. Stick with my arguments and quit trying bluff everyone and focus on me. Or, do as you please. As you can tell, I can argue this stuff for days, I have actually taken the time to deconstruct it completely so you don’t have to. You can thank me later.
JMull,
Snarkhunter is quoting correctly. This is a loophole in Mormonism which states that people can join in the next life, but if you join in this life, then you are fully condemned if you ever reject it by their scripture. Also, in the temple, prior to 1995, people took blood oaths to either have themselves killed, or kill others (in Masonic ways), if they ever leave Mormonism and speak against it. So, it pays to ignore it in this life, but their own reasoning. I am not kidding, either. Also, if you die as an infant, you go straight to the highest glory automatically, without ever being tested for anything.
hah! Then you are on to something important!
And the great thing about that wise book is he goes there and back again then goes back again twice before he goes there and then further again. Quoting this teacher doesn’t always do him justice. But it begs the question – since it is all meaningless – then what? But, a discussion for another time…
How can what you do on earth affect those who are dead? And if it doesn’t matter if anyone hears in this life, but in some other life you claim is yet to come (though Jesus clearly taught those who did evil in this life, without repentance in this life, would not have any such opportunity), why bother trying to convert anyone. Surely they can catch on to whatever secret knowledge they need the next time around, correct?
I take exception to your assumptions because assumptions without facts prove nothing.
Egad! Does no one else see the flaw in this logic? So all that there is to proving an assumption false is to conclude otherwise?
Person A: “I think Bill Clinton is great!”
Person B: “I conclude otherwise, argument over”
Me: What?!!
You probably didn’t mean what you just posted. Soooo… I’ll try to use your green sky analogy.
If I say…
This statement is useless to someone (hypothetically speaking) who hasn’t seen the sky before. If however I say…
Then this statement provides facts that can be checked by people who haven’t seen the sky before. All of your assumptions so far are of the first type.
I agree that Mormons run a nationwide adoption agency. I disagree that there is any way for you to know to what extent (if any) their work affects the statistics I cited.
I assume that all people are materialistic to some degree. I answered your question, your turn to answer mine. What facts do you have which support your assumption that mormons are more materialistic than other people?
Haven’t quoted a single scripture yet. Why don’t you try debating people here instead of debating something some Mormon said at some other time in some other place in some other context.
If you cared whether people took your arguments seriously you would care how you were perceived and you would provide cites. I guess you likely don’t care and they likely don’t take your arguments seriously.
Grim_Beaker
Besides the fact that you’re basing your diatribes on assumptions, you’re good with these two.
You blew it here, pal. Way back in 1981, I heard a talk (I was in Germany, so it was on an audio cassette) given by Spencer W. Kimball regarding abortion. His counsel in that talk was for the families and the church to love and fellowship those unmarried youth who found themselves pregnant. He also counseled for the families to help raise the children if they were able. If not able, the counsel was to help find an appropriate adoptive home for the children. Maybe you’re just embarrassed by anything which tends to show your diatribe for what it is?
Cites, statistics, evidence?
Irrelevant without cites, statistics, evidence supporting your assumption.
What mentality would that be? Remember the talk given by Kimball before you answer.
Mighty convenient of you to reject any statistic based on an irrelevant criteria. Enlighten us as to what statistics you do consider valid. Or better yet, just admit you’re pulling stuff out of your rump here.
Got any proof of this wild assertion?
So, you’re into mind-reading too? Methinks you need more practice.
You have no valid case, apparently.
Please explain, then, why there are Catholic, Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Buddhist, Shinto, etc. adoption services? I thought they existed to find an appropriate home for children, not all of whom are orphans. Again, this irrelevancy does not bolster your “point.”
All mormons? Gee, there’s a word for someone who makes that kind of sweeping generalization about other people.
Funny things about opinions: some are well thought out and others are like the ones you’ve posted here.
You certainly posted diatribe based on your unfounded opinion.
One doesn’t even have to wade to show you irrational. Your diatribe and your refusal to accept statistics which show you mistaken do that well enough.
Cult? Nice of you to use a loaded word, here. Anyway, ALL religions are cults. The LDS Church claims that it has the fullness of the Gospel; it also, has has been mentioned above, asserts that many religions have some of the Truth in them. Nice of you to leave out that little tidbit.
Regarding burden of proof: You are the one asserting things and “backing them up” with assumptions not supported by statistics. I’d say you have the burden of making your case first.
Prove it then. This time without your diatribe. I notice your comment that “Mormon claims are proven to be false.” Nice of you to out-of-hand reject anything on that basis. Especially since you’re the one who’s been proven in this thread to make false claims.
To rephrase, then: “I can and will assert that Mormons are human, becuase they are.”
You didn’t imply jack, pal. You STATED “Mormons are materialistic.”
So, you admit you were mistaken in that statement?
Debate?
Why don’t I believe you don’t have any hard feelings towards the LDS “cult?”
I try not to tar with big brushes! I only know what I have heard. I have heard it said that they do not give their alms in secret; that they do not give their alms to the poor, but to those who are already rich, and that those rich then give some small pittance to the poor. I am sure many do not love or do good to those who do evil, but pay others to do bad to them on their behalf – but that is hardly a Mormon problem as I surely do the same, but not all do this. Do they believe you can divorce your spouse if the spouse is unfaithful? Do they take oaths or vows? Do they store up possessions upon the earth? Do they work for money and possessions in lieu of God? Do they run after food and drink and clothing? Do they not only break these teachings but teach other to do likewise? Are they beware of false prophets who do not bear good fruit? These things I only ask because I do not know. But to say you wish to strengthen the kingdom and not do these things is surely folly. Is Zion to be built upon sand? When the rains come down, the streams rise, and the winds blow and beat against what you are building, will it not fall with a great crash?