A question for logical Mormons in the know.

Great Debates
161

But still, you do not give in secret, though you have the means at your disposal to do so. Your giving of alms is indeed seen by men, is it not? Nor do you give expecting nothing in return – for if you truly expected nothing in return, you would give in secret. Nor do your leaders give access to your temple expecting nothing in return or they would give freely. If your intentions are good, give your alms in secret as Jesus commanded and teach others to do likewise. A good tree does not bear thistles.

:rolleyes: That is a devil’s argument if I’ve ever seen one! Be careful for whom you are advocating, emarkp.

That would be my secret.

162

Felice,

You are amazing. No Mormon disputes they are demanded to pay tithing, only you do. Furthermore, no Mormon disputes the LDS church has tens of millions of dollars in unlisted assets, only you do. They all read the news articles I mentioned when they came out and they don’t even want to dispute this, which is folklore by now, and not disputed by the Mormon church or its members. Case closed. By the way, the Catholic church used to own a third of Europe, not from giving alms, but from taking them. What is your point about Presbytarians? They have the same criticisms of Mormonism I do. You are bluffing badly. You demand a link to what? The Mormon church doesn’t publish it, MY POINT EXACTLY. (I anticipated your next response: “Link please to their blank financial statement!”) Please keep up, you can’t force an issue by virtue of lack of cooperation from the Mormons. I pointed this out twice.

Also, you are suggesting you dispute my claims for technical reasons, yet I didn’t see you, an unbiased non-Mormon jump down GBeakers throat because he just claimed to dismiss the DNA evidence by quoting Monster, who quoted himself on behalf of all church members on what they believe about Lamanites. Absolutely incredible, and THEY DIDN’T PROVIDE A LINK FOR IT! Felice, I am not here to prove anything, because I am not promoting a scenario, I am here to say they have no proof, and have no evidence, and there is ample evidence to question all their fantastic claims. This only regards Mormons from this point on. Thanks anyway.

This thread has degenerated bigtime. All the Mormons can do is re-quote everything I say, a passion for quoting scriptures perhaps, which came from bible bashing, or constantly demanding other scriptures from their Christian opponent. This is why they easily feign objectivity.

Here is now the problem:

GBeaker didn’t read my first links, which I even reposted, WHICH STATED THE LIVING MORMON “PROPHET” AS SAYING THAT CENTRAL/SOUTH AMERICANS ARE DECENDENTS OF LAMANITES! And then they have to nerve to demand more links, and provide their refutations WITHOUT A LINK! Cheeky to say the least.

GBeaker, sorry I was so busy over the weekend, AS PER YOUR STALLING REQUESTS! Here is what you said:

*1. You give a single instance where you feel that Mormonism has been proven utterly false. You back up this instance with evidence in the form of a cite.

  1. I (or another) will rebut the evidence you provide.*

You claim to have fully answered DNA and the lack of archaeology of NOT ONE SHRED of evidence of Nephite, or Lamanite, or any culture listed in the BoM? You did no such thing, you stated an opinion of what a mass of ignorant people BELIEVE via false scripture! Again, this is after you already ignored my list and my original cite completely. You also ignored my last request that you give your reasons for thinking Mormonism is the one and only true church. Please don’t cite any sources for your reasons. Just say whatever you think makes sense. I don’t care that you hope it’s true, I care that you think you’ve got reasons to believe it. I don’t even care if you stay, leave, or vibrate in between, I only care that you know you can’t provide evidence of prove a damn word of it.

I have seen all the rebuttal against my assertions from Mormons before. They don’t bother with facts, but merely say over and over, “Nobody has proved it wrong.” You can’t prove something that never existed in fact never existed. There is no procedure for this, because the assumption is that no one should believe it to begin with. That’s why we resort to REASONING!

163

Gee, folks at Berkeley and and UCLA might take exception to that, you know.

So?

That just plain doesn’t make any sense. It is true that the ACT is more taken in the west than the east, but conversions to compare the scores are quite well standardized. Some people do better on one than the other.
http://www.gananda.k12.ny.us/library/mshslibrary/col3.htm
http://www.baylor.edu/~IRT/Vol967/IR96750.htm

I don’t know what you’re talking about. This doesn’t make any sense.

Not familiar with this test. Reference, please?

Political grandstanding, not valid evidence.
However, there is evidence that the educational system in Utah is not everything it could be:
http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc98/states/ut-rc.htm
On the other hand, according to 1994 data, Utah ranked only 17th in percentage of 4th graders who were proficient in reading: SuperKids Software Review - Reading: How Does Your State Compare?

That is indeed your assertion: we would like to see data to support it.

Well, I can’t verify these particular stats right off the bat, but let me help you out here:
In 1999 Utah ranked second (tied with MO) in number of meth labs seized: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/cngrtest/ct072899.htm
On the other hand, this could just mean that Utah’s police are more efficient than most other states at finding the meth labs - it doesn’t necessarily mean there are more there to find. That’s the danger of statistics, you see.

164

Thankyou Felice,

By the way, the same article that reported the meth labs being seized here in Utah (SLTribune) also reported that Utah ranked highest in consumption per capita (a tie with AZ, I recall). But what do they know. Thanks again.

Here are some interesting links for Mormons and anyone else interested in doctrine and historical claims, to get back to the subject at hand:

http://downmaine.com/mhistory.htm

http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/table.htm

http://www.realmormonhistory.com/newpage13.htm

http://www.exmormon.org/mhistory.html

Enjoy!

165

By the way, in my second post above this one, it should read “tens of billions of dollars in unlisted assets.” Sorry. I would like to learn how to edit posts, assuming it is possible.

166

No Catholics dispute the ex-cathedra abilities of the Pope, either, only non-Catholics do. If you want to start a debate , you’ve got to provide evidence beyond ‘Nobody who is a member of the church disagrees with this.’ You should provide positive evidence, as well. If, on the other hand, you want to present a platform to state your own opinions, which is quite obviously what you want to do, then you shouldn’t post it in GD.

My point was simply that to criticize the Mormon church as a member of the Fortune 500 is irrelevant without some data about the financial status of other churches. If you want to talk about the financial corruptness of organized religions as a whole, on the other hand, by all means go ahead.

Yes, you did. But if there is no evidence about it one way or the other then it is a meaningless claim! It is the same as me claiming that andros is a multi-millionaire. He may or may not be, but since none of us can see his bank statements, we have no evidence that my claim is either true or false. It is a meaningless claim.

(BTW, I’m not making that claim, and I’m not asking andros to post his bank statements. He’s just a convenient target.

Uh, no, you didn’t. I don’t know what you’re talking about, I haven’t addressed GBeaker at all.

If you’re not interested in debating the issue, then this thread has no business being in Great Debates.

I quit.

167

Which part is the devil’s argument? Reading the scriptures? Asking you to justify an interpretation which is not there in the literal text? Here’s what Jesus said about alms:

Your interpretation requires me to believe:
[ul]
[li]“secret” means in absolute secrecy–that is no one else may know, and that if someone else knows it invalidates my gift (even if I don’t know that they found out).[/li][li]“do not sound a trumpet before thee” means vehemently protecting the secrecy above–which is a non sequitur IMO.[/li][/ul]
It is clear to me that Jesus was saying to give alms with the intent of doing good, not with the intent of receiving recognition from fellow men. A perfect example of sounding trumpets today is when an organization puts a plaque up listing donors and the amount they donate. Giving so that you can receive the plaque is doing so for the reward of recognition. Writing a check to a charity doesn’t violate what the Lord said because I’m not giving to be seen of men. My purpose is to obey the commandments as I understand them and help my fellow man.

What is your basis for claiming that I am in error?

168

Bunnyhurt wrote:

Bunnyhurt continued:

Wrong on both counts. I dispute that LDS aren’t demanded to pay tithing. No one has ever demanded that I pay tithing. I have never demanded that anyone pay tithing. I dispute that the LDS church has 10’s of billions of dollars in “unlisted” assets.

Your assertion is therefore false. Please apologize and retract it.

169

Felice,

It’s called “The Law of Tithing” for a reason. One must pay their full tithe before they are even allowed to attend their own child’s wedding in the temple. What evidence do you need of demand? They pay it. It is demanded. They must prove it is optional to their heavenly blessings to refute it. They cannot do this, too many speeches calling tithing personal “fire insurance.” And, yes, you did not address GBeaker, which is what I said, and you agreed. All I have been doing is debating the issue. Mormonism is false to its claims. There is no link from God to prove it false. Get it? No link from God, therefore, no God! The burden of proof is not mine. So, by you, therefore, religion cannot be debated. I disagree. That’s what reason and is all about. A debate is a form of argument. Argument is a form logic. Logic is a form of reason. There is no such thing as a fact in logic, its called an assumption or conclusion.

170

If you are trying to say Jesus meant you should not give alms at all because you can’t literally give with one hand without letting the other one know, I would say you have missed the point.

What part of “do not you alms before men, to be seen of them” do you not understand? Do you admit that you could be more secret? What part of “otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven” don’t you get?

Furthermore, if the Temple is a place of God, did God not give this freely? Then why is access not given freely?

A thornbush may be intent on producing grapes as well – if you do not seek first God’s kingdom and his righteousness, you have no reward from God in heaven for these alms whatever your “intent” is.

Woe to those who give charity but neglect justice and the love of God – “these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

A perfect example is when an organization allows entrance to a sacred place only to those who make a certain donation. What is the difference?

True, true – a good tree does not bring forth bad fruit.

Luke 11:41 – Woe to those who give charity but neglect justice and the love of God – “these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.”

Keeping Jesus’s commandments shows your love of God, and his commandments are just. He said to give as secretly as humanly possible – not to even pat yourself on the back as it were. You admit that you do not give as secretly as you can (don’t you?), and in fact the Latter Day Saints encourage such unChristian behavior. You should mend your ways. Since you are not a hypocrite who mearly cares about having a seat in the Temple (Luke 11:42), what do you have to lose?

171

It was a valiant effort, Felice, and I thank you for it.

But it’s clear to me that Elder Bunnyhurt simply does not understand the concept of backing up his assertions. It seems he does not know how to divorce his hatred for the LDS church from his debate, or how to oppose the religoin without trying to insult and deride its followers. And he further seems not to have the slightest idea of what logic really means. I see him give lip service to logic, but he does not follow its rules and does not understand that pure logic is irrelevant to a discussion of religion.

In sum, it seems he just doesn’t get it. He still thinks you’re a Mormon apologist, fachrissakes, even after you clearly told him otherwise. And he has trouble realizing that one can oppose the LDS church and its teachings reasonably and without the kind of slavering bile his posts seem to contain.

Coventry is the kindest solution.
(btw, Felice–drop me an email, willya? I used to live in SLC too.)

172

Andros,

What point were you confused at? And I still think you’re Grim Beaker since you never provided a link to prove otherwise.

173

I’m not saying that. My point was how literal you’re reading the scripture, and if you’re reading it literally, why are you then taking meaning which is not literally there? (see below)

Actually, I have to ask you that. The phrase “to be seen of them” states (as I read it) that the motivation of your gift is what the Lord is talking about. If my motivation is to seek praise of the world, or status, etc. then my gift is worthless in God’s eyes, because I’ve received the reward I saught–recognition by other men and women. However, if my motivation is to serve God and help the needy, then I have obeyed God’s command and will receive the blessings He promises, whether or not anyone finds out what gift I’ve given.

He most certainly did not say to give “as secretly as humanly possible.” That is not in the text, and that is precisely where I take issue with your interpretation.

Furthermore, giving in the most secret (or anonymous) way possible would be to donate to a swiss bank account in the name of your congregation. Any drop box that someone can observe is not “as secret as humanly possible.” Any collection plate is not either.

Since your interpretation is not the text of the scripture, I respectfully ask you to desist from telling me that I’m not following the Lord’s instructions here. I’m not saying that your interpretation is incorrect–indeed it is one possible interpretation. However, I object to your claim that it is the only possible interpretation, especially when you make claims that simply don’t exist in the text.

174

Yet you know quite well that your giving is going on a man-kept score card somewhere. Are you pleading ignorance?

So, just one more time: you give alms in a way which is seen by men and tracked by men, and if you give enough alms you are rewarded by men to be allowed to enter the temple which again can be seen by men who know that those who can enter the temple have given a certain amount of alms – and, of course, those who have not given enough alms are not allowed to enter the temple and anyone who sees them turned back at the gate knows that these people have not given enough in alms. Right?

That seems to be a clear violation of what Jesus taught. Otherwise, I don’t know else what this teaching in Matthew 6 could possibly mean. Do you really think you can fool me – that what is in your heart isn’t shown by your actions? But perhaps you do not understand about the trees and the fruit. Perhaps this is a recipe for lemonade, no?

Finally, a reading from Matthew 17:

175

emarkp,

Too late to dispute it now. But nice try. Apologize hell, I haven’t willfully misrepresented one facet of Mormon life in five pages of posting and twenty-five years as a Mormon. By the way, show me a passage from the reams of information on Mormon tithing to back up your claim that tithing is optional to members and/or can pay whatever amount they please to be less than a full tithe? I seem to recall that people weren’t allowed to be baptized unless they agreed to “obey the law of tithing.” DO YOU DENY IT?

What are you really saying here other than attempting to get me to retract something? You are saying the “Lord” is not demanding his tithing as a test of faith? Mormonism uses tithing to see who is a Mormon from day to day. It’s a grinding extortion plan with dire economic consequences (Dear whiners: I already posted that link). You can’t even have a staff job at BYU or any Mormon owned facility without paying tithing, because you need a temple recommend. (My friend lost a job at BYU over it, even though he had student and faculty awards and worked there for 16 years). Another friend of mine here in Utah works at a care center for mentally handicapped and the workers there at that particular place SUBTRACT 10% AUTOMATICALLY FROM STATE SUPPORT CHECKS FOR TITHING. My friend there was raised Catholic. He said, “My boss said they NEED THE BLESSINGS TOO!” Need the blessings too? WHAT BLESSINGS COULD SHE MEAN? Every Mormon reading this thread knows what the hell I am talking about. It’s the most overused CLICHE in Mormonism. Andros, have you heard it too? Oh, I forgot, you’re not Mormon, just bitter that it’s false.

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT IS MUCH WORSE. Mormon members are slowly and unofficially forced out of Mormonism when they stop paying their tithing, because its the oven buzzer of their faith sounding off. They don’t let them linger in the crowd too long with their doubts, BECAUSE IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! They lose their church position, their temple recommends, then their spouse is pressured to pressure them, then their spouse is counselled to threaten them, because their eternal rewards may be on the line! In this way, families are trashed as a matter of religious priority.

TITHING IS A LITMUS TEST OF FAITH FOR MORMONS. Mormons are interviewed annually by their bishops to ask IF THEY PAY A FULL TITHE, its called TITHING SETTLEMENT! Talk about pressure, they even take credit cards. And in many cases, after bankruptcy, creditors have attempted to retrieve the tithing that was paid to the Mormons, but owed to them, and the creditors lost in court. I REPEAT, Mormons pay 10% of their income because they have heard the myriad of rumors that evil may befall them if they don’t, and it’s true, they will lose their family in short order and most of their friends, and maybe their job (again, read the stories at http://www.exmormon.org to see what happens to Mormons as they attempt to leave).

Also, every Mormon I ever knew or met is proud of the fact that the Mormon church is reputed to be wealthy, and almost every Mormon uses this fact to erroneously believe that Mormons are wealthy too, sort of like that cheeseball Swami in Antelope, Oregon who had his devotees buy him 86 Rolls Royces. (It’s a weird phenomenon described by Freud, who used Hitler as his example of how to make demands and supress people to get them to identify with and love you).

If you want to make a Mormon angry, just suggest to them that their church is poor (because it’s not and they know it). But they can’t have it both ways can they? I mean, either the Mormon church is poor AND Mormons don’t declare record bankruptcies, or vice versa. The reality check is always the hardest one to cash.

176

FWIW, I scored the exact same on the SAT as I did on the ACT. (1220) Again, that’s with 2 years in Utah and 2 years in CA. On the SAT I took as a 4th and 8th grader (in Utah) I scored in the 97 percentile of the nation.

Now for the question:
Why does anybody have to justify their religious choices?
Brian et al: Mormons suck! Why are you a Mormon?
Mormons: Big explanation
Brian et al: Mormons still suck!
Mormons: Big explanation
Brian et al: Mormons suck even more!

This isn’t even a debate. It doesn’t help that two of the least logical posters on the board are currently involved in this “debate”.
Look, nobody should have to justify their religious choices to anybody. Choosing a religion is highly personal affair, and is based on faith. One cannont prove faith by definition. So why waste time and bandwidth on a pointless debate?

177

PLG,

I’m sure someone is reading this thread somewhere and enjoying themselves plenty. You are right about faith. In this case, however it may be different. Mormonism makes so many DEMANDS on people that it is all based on a faith in unearned rewards. Mormons are just know questioning their selfish motives to destroy all other churches assert their cult religious demands on others due to the fact that the BoM has been forcefully debunked for anyone who has enough intelligence, honesty, and dignity to admit it.

178

Why are other Christian churches concerned? Last I checked, Christianity does not, generally, have a very good track record. Hell, there are probably hundreds of threads in GD alone debunking The Bible!
No matter who is right or who is wrong there are a couple of Universal truths:

  1. It takes a lot to convince someone that their entire faith and belief structure is wrong.
  2. It is none of your (in a generic sense of the word) concern who worships what.
  3. People should deal with their own personal problems before trying to “save” the world.
179

Did I mention courage? I meant to say, intelligence, honesty, dignity AND courage. Thanks.

PLG, are you saying the thread is getting boring?

180

Well, if by boring you mean “a sickening amount of childish whining with no credit or cites to back up said childish whining” than yes, this thread is boring.
It would be one thing if there was a strong give and take, with passion and logic! But there is not. Because what we have are a couple raving, ranting posters who do not have any support for their biased claims arguing with a group of people who base their knowledge on faith!
That is not a debate!
The only time I have ever seen a “religous” debate that could actually be classified as a debate (albeit heavily one-sided) is the “evolution vs creation” threads because the “evolution” side at least has evidence! Proof! Facts!

All this thread is “you suck!” “No I don’t!” “Yes you do!” “No I don’t. Why do you think that?” “Because I say so!”
How is that a debate?