No problem, Morgainelf!
PLD: “Might have” isn’t “Was.”
arisu: I submit that you don’t know how many LDS you’ve met in your life. I’m willing to bet that you may have met only one who’s told you they’re LDS, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve only met one. After all, there are millions of us. {Insert Rod Sterling music here, please.}
Really? No shit! Thanks for clearing that up!
:rolleyes:
Monty, You are completely right, of course. I was responding to that “Are all Mormons really, really, approaching-Stepford-levels nice?” question.
Looking back, I realize that it doesn’t read like I meant it to. Apologies, I should have been more clear.
PLD: I responded to a “Where is” question with what the current understanding within the church is: that the item in question has been taken to heaven. To point out the absurdity of the item not being located on Earth, I made the comment about Sodom. You responded with a “well, it might have been” comment. That doesn’t have jack (pun unintended) to do with is. Now that you’ve decided to make the sarcastic remark above, how about reflecting on how silly of you it was to mention it to begin with? The story in the Old Testament, AFAIC, doesn’t rely on the place actually being located somewhere.
I think whether or not the story in the OT relies on Sodom being somewhere depends on whether or not readers believe it to be literal truth or reflective of a spiritual truth. In the former case, if there was never any city anywhere by that name, then the OT story cannot have happened at all.
But that’s neither here nor there; your question only relates the two things – the story of Sodom and the story of the golden plates – on a very surface level. To wit, “Each of us has things in our religion that appear not to be around anymore, which proves nothing.” But that’s really only as far as it goes.
It’s not at all surprising that a city which is alleged to have existed more than 2,000 years ago isn’t around anymore, Bible or no Bible, God or no God. How many completely or partially extant 2,000 year old cities are there in that part of the world? Not many. It proves nothing to ask, “Well, where’s your 2,000 year old city?”
In the case of the tablets, we’re talking about something that happened in the last two centuries. If you believe the tablets were taken into heaven, OK, good for you. But it isn’t like they would otherwise have been lost into the mists of time. They could easily have been retained by the church. (In fact, it would lend a great deal of credibility to the church’s claims.) The fact that they aren’t available is . . . convenient, at best.
Any person who made a claim like Joseph Smith’s today would be, quite rightly, laughed off as a con man. “I had some ancient objects with mystical writing that I alone am able to translate thanks to a revelation from God. But, uh, they disappeared, so you just have to believe me.” OK.
So, what’s the Straight Dope on Kolob? I haven’t heard much about it, and what I have heard is fairly derisive (it is alleged to be the Home planet of God).
It also doesn’t seem to show up in a lot of apologetics sources.
Thank you emarkp: I was correct then about marriages, temple and time.
Hey, at least I learned something.
Or have a good memory.
I have read in a few books however, (any LDS out there correct me if you are old enough to recall) that the ceremony to enter the temple, they have actors on stage, and the person playing Lucifer thanks a mainstream christian pastor for doing Satan’s work.
They said it was changed and taken out fo the ceremony in April of 1980.
Correct?
PLD: And what about the claim of someone rising from the dead and the body ascending into heaven.
2nd question: Why do you suddenly feel the need to be so damned insulting regarding the LDS church?
The experiences I’ve had with LDS missionaries have been positive.
They have never been pushy, rude, or condescending. They have always been very knowledgable on religious subjects.
They have also been respectful or my personal time and desire or lack to talk with them.
And I’ve sometimes gotten into fascinating discussions with them when I questioned their beliefs and doctrines. They could stand up for their beliefs without soundsing like “We’re right and you’re wrong.”
I think they have a terrribly tough job, and they have to make enormous personal sacrifices to be missionaries. I always try to be nice to them.
This said, I think the religion is a bunch of hooey.
Same thing, I should imagine.
Bringing attention to the fact that the claims of the church’s founder are similar to those of con men is not ipso facto insulting unless one is inclined to be insulted every time one’s own religion is questioned.
Should I hold Mormonism to a lower standard of proof than I do Uri Geller? After all, if I am related to any LDS members, they intend to baptize me by proxy when I am dead, in all likelihood. Aren’t I therefore allowed to question its fundamental claims? Either the tablets existed and Joseph Smith translated them as claimed, or they did not. I contend that they did not. Occam’s Razor and all that, you know.
PLD: The vicarious baptism has been discussed at length on this site. It’s a prayer. Get over it.
Can we stop the imminent shouting match now and get back to some civilized conversation, please? Thank you.
Mormon missionaries always seem to be in their twenties, and they always wear very formal attire. Why is that?
The formal attire (white shirts and dark suits) are a part of the dress code for men, with dresses for women. Also, the age limits for going are 19-26 for men and 21-2?(sometime in the twenties) for women. So the answer to both of your questions is, themz the Rules.
So I take it you concede that, when a religion makes a claim about things occurring in the physical world in which we reside, that there is no good reason to hold those claims to a lesser standard of proof than we would any other pseudoscientific claim. Thank you.
Furthermore, while proxy baptism, from my perspective, might indeed be “just a prayer,” no more or less functional than any other, LDS theology holds that it allows me to receive the Gospel after death so that I may have a chance to be saved. So from the LDS perspective, it’s much more than “just a prayer,” and I’m somewhat dumbfounded that you would claim otherwise.
You yourself have admitted frequently that you accept the fact that you might be deluded concerning what you believe; honest assessment would require me to admit that I am wrong as well. If I am wrong, and the LDS church is correct, does it not behoove me to judge its claims?
You take it wrong. The question was: Where are the plates? The answer, according to the belief system in question is: In heaven. Therefore, the plates no longer occupy this physical realm. It’s a non-issue no matter how much you want to make it an issue. In short, it’s a weak gripe.
Regarding the vicarious baptism: It’s still not “more than just a prayer.” It’s a specific prayer, to be sure, but still a prayer. You know, kind of like the prayers said over the bread and water during the sacrament service are specific prayers for a specific purpose.
PLD, you’re certainly smarter than this.
By
what I meant is:
OK, Monty, you’re right–take the proxy baptism stuff off the table. It’s unrelated and inconsequential, assuming I am right about the nature of the universe.
But asking about the plates is, AFAIC, not a non-issue, nor is pointing out that Smith’s claims regarding the plates do in fact sound quite similar to what one might hear from Sylvia Browne or John Edward or someone: Don’t show them to anyone else, don’t take them out of the stone box until the angel tells me, don’t attempt to profit from their existence, etc.
I understand what you’re saying regarding the claim that the plates were assumed into heaven, but whether the plates were in fact ever here at all is, in my opinion, a testable claim.
Smith also claimed to have transcribed and translated characters from them which turned out to be ancient human languages and were allegedly accurately translated. (Although a testimony to that effect from a professional was, once again conveniently, torn up.) That is a testable claim. If the characters Smith wrote down are not in fact Egyptian or Chaldean, or are not in fact accurately translated according to modern understanding of those languages, then it weighs heavily against the truth of the religion.
The claims about ancient peoples residing in the Americas is testable also. If modern ethnography, population genetics and archaeology indicate them to be unlikely, then again, the truth of the religion must be cast into doubt by an honest person.
How can it be testable? The claim is that the things were here at one time and that a certain group of people saw them. Then after that viewing, they were taken above.
It’s like looking for the skeletal remains of Jesus. The usual Christian claim is that Jesus ascended to heaven with his entire body, presumably including the skeleton.
In each case, the claim is that none of the item in question remains in this physical universe.