Do you know that the OP is a child? Why the reference as a “kid”?
Because Tom’s view of atheists is that they lack his mature perspective. This is just a more naked than usual manifesttion of that bias.
I’d be happy to try to answer your questions, but as has been noted above, this isn’t really a good thread to do that in. If you like, I’ll write up an answer and email it to you (my email is in my profile, so just drop me a line), or we could start a new thread. But I have 3 zillion things to do today, so it might not be very quick.
Ooooh…I LIKE you!
-Joe
I’m ex-LDS, with a pretty strong foundation in LDS doctrine (four years of seminary, went to BYU, served a two year mission, etc.). While I’m not bitter or hateful, I no longer profess belief in Mormonism. If you want my answers to these questions, based on what I learned, what I taught, and my observations of other Mormons, I’m happy to supply them.
Meanwhile, to answer the OP, Mormonism has a couple of strong factors working in its favor:
-
Conversion to Mormonism is based on a personal supernatural experience. The person investigating the church is supposed to read the Book of Mormon and pray to ask God if it’s true. God then tells the investigator, through the Holy Ghost, that it’s true. This confirmation is commonly described as a feeling of peace and happiness and a “burning in the bosom.” The point is, it’s personal revelation. If someone believes they’ve had such a direct communication from God, and bases their faith upon it, pointing out that the Book of Abraham was just a common burial scroll is unlikely to make much of a dent.
-
Mormonism does a terrific job at getting people to feel they belong to something larger than themselves. I don’t mean this in any snide way; Mormonism does a lot of good for some people. But everything, from the basketball leagues, to the frequent dances and social events, to the lay-staffed, “everyone has a job” church hierarchy, to the welfare system, acts as a large and powerful “safety net” that keeps a lot of people from falling through the cracks.
OK, I wrote up some answers to Pbear’s questions. Now I just have to figure out where to put them. And go fix some lunch before my kids eat each other.
Just yesterday, I received one of those mass-forwarded email messages which included this:
To which I asked of the person who sent me the message:
It’s beyond me how anyone can buy into any philosophical viewpoint other than mine. Literally.
Actually, you seem to be displaying your own personal anntagonism to me, here, rather than describing any attitude that I have demonstrated.
The reference to “kid” was directly based on the manner of posting demonstrated by the OP. Nearly every submission by a new member that sets out to “disprove” anything from atheism to evolution to particular religious denominations to general religious belief is posted by fairly young posters. (It often is a sign that a young person has recently discovered a new “truth” in their life or has recently discovered that other people do not hold all the same values as they do. There is nothing wrong with young people stretching their brains to deal with these new thoughts, but we should be aware of that aspect of their posting, so that we do not get inordinately upset by the errors they make.) In this case, the targets have been general religious belief and the CoJCoLDs. On other occasions, it has been a “failure” to believe in God.
Since I have never spoken against atheists as a group, (although I have defended them), your claim is simply more unsubstantiated personal malice. I do not bear any disrespect toward atheists (although there are a few individual atrheists whom I find silly–just as I find silly those religious people who tend to make grand declarations about anyone who disagrees with their beliefs.
Maturity has nothing to do with the particular belief one holds–only with the way in which one chooses to express it.
Whoa, Welcome back Liberal.
I had to check twice when I saw the user name.
Jim
You’ve never had any doubts?
What stuck me, Tom, is that while you did not have your mod hat on, you *do *moderate this forum, and you *were *responding to a question about the forum, therefore giving your words a bit more heft than those of the average poster. Referring to someone as a kid certainly seems like responding to a poster rather than his post; now that I see that you base your judgment on his posting history, something that you cannot expect the rest of us to be privy to, it seems even more so.
Posting history is out there for the world to see. (Just scroll the first couple of pages of this Forum noting the OPs.) I was probably being a bit flip regarding this OPoster, given his particular history. (We did have that poster a few months ago with dozens of threads that looked to have been initiated by a college sophomore when the poster eventually identified himself as a retiree.) On the other hand, the thrust of my response remains: this is the Forum for anti-witnessing, just as it is the place for witnessing. It just seeems to me that most of these sorts of threads (regardless which direction they go) tend to be started by precocious kids rather than weary old folks.
Same.
[sub]Not your philosophical viewpoint, of course. Mine.[/sub]
“Privy to” was definitely the wrong phrase. In my head it was “know of.” Don’t know how that happened. I guess I was trying to fancy up my prose.
Welcome back. In body or soul though?
Sorry. Had to ask.
How about here? When you have a few spare moments. Please.
Gah. Oops, sorry, too late, I posted it in a new thread 2 minutes ago. :o
She’s already opened the new LDS theology questions thread.
Thanks for the “heads up.” I agree with dangermom that a new tread is/was a good idea. I’ll take a little time to digest her post, then post a follow-up.