Bashing Religions?

Remove all ads!

Actually I just found out that she was ordained in a Roman Catholic splinter group, but anyway its an outdated concept - just because Mary was not ordained.

Many female Protestant Ministers etc have been very popular, and are more likely to practice what they preach - being female not Protestant (in the event that my comment was misunderstood)

 

I step back in here with egg on my face. I have a few wired crossed upstairs and have always confused two church authorities -- Hugh B Brown and Paul H Dunn -- and I did it again here. It was Paul H Dunn who was found to have lied extensively in his books and speeches. His war stories and baseball accounts are legendary and, unfortunately, false. Packard's own nephew discovered the inconsistencies and paid the price for revealing the lies (through a friend at the Arizona Republic). Lynn Packard was fired from his job at BYU following the leak of the story -- I had heard he was excommunicated but have not found proof. Paul H Dunn 'retired' from the Quorum of the Seventy shortly after the stories were published due to 'health reasons.'

To the Mormons out there I do sincerely apologize for slandering Hugh B Brown (as I said I have always confused the two, but that is no excuse). Boyd K Packard's 'altering' of stories was questioned at the time Dunn's story hit -- I can only assume his alterations were deemed appropriate (perhaps just altering names to protect those in the stories -- whereas Dunn took credit for other's actions and credited himself with accomplishments which were unfounded).

Looking at the church website I was glad to see Eyring in the twelve -- his brother was a professor of mine at Utah and helped me get into graduate school. Good things do happen to good people on occasion.

 

hehehe... if priests are married to God/Christ, and since God is traditionally depicted as a man, then isn't the Church's opposition to gay marriage rather hypocritical?

Either that, or ONLY women should be allowed to be priests.

 

Uh, Darkthrone, I'm sorry that that's what you took out of my post -- what I was getting at is that former members of the LDS faith tend to have a lot more data that they can use when critiquing the faith.

For instance, T2Bruno knows quite a bit about church history and leading figures in the church (mistakes about Brown and Dunn notwithstanding). Understand this clearly -- I respect Bruno's opinion and his criticism, Mormon or not.

I will take issue with some of his assertions (Mormons are anti-science based on the comments of McConkie, for example) but I do not think he's Satan's tool or anything reactionary or dogmatic as that. Using that against me is a straw man attack.

 

You still miss my point. It is not question of changing dogma. It is not question of a posibility to do so. Dogma is "carved in stone" as you put it. But I can assure you, that every single one is, was and will be discussed. Not because someone wants to change them. Faith is not that simple that you automatically believe in everything Church said. (I'm talking about Catholic Church) Somehow, you need to "understand that personally". Understand what that means to you.

It is difficult to explain while talking to non-believers. But you can't believe if your reasoning forbids you to do so. And you are completely free to have doubts, to question everything, in fact that's how faith is build, by overcoming doubts. It is slightly similar to strengthening marriage by resolving conflicts, settling differences and such...
That was Darkthrone statement about freedom of thoughts that I question so much.

 

That's right. It is more about simply believing automatically in everything your parents said. I still hold the point that as soon as you have faith, you don't doubt the existence of god (for example). There may be a moment in which you have doubt and question your faith. This, however, is by definition a state without faith. You can't have both at the same time, doubt and faith. Doubt and hope maybe. There have been people who lost faith. Some recovered their faith, some didn't. However, those who have faith don't ask certain questions. Well, maybe exciting ones of the should-we-really-avoid-meat-on-fridays-variety.

 

Huh? True faith begins when you think by yourself, and decide that you want to believe.

Not true. I can say for myself, no matter how strongly you believe, there are times when you doubt in everything. Many saints said that...

Not quite. As I said before similarity with marriage is perfect. You still love, even if you have doubts, or if you are infuriated at her.

Also you can doubt in one thing, but still believe in the rest. It's very complicated, but it's normal, everyday experience for a catholic.

No, those who have faith knows that there are many questions without answers.
I don't eat meat on Fridays if you want to know, and that has nothing to do with my inability to find answer to everything.

 

Everyone lives by faith.

Whether that faith serves to cause you to disbelieve in the existence of God, doubt the existence of God or shape your life to live in the service of God...there is always a leap of faith.

There's no human being who is able to be certain in their conception of the world we live in and the purpose for which we're here...some are able to quell doubt with what they consider reason and technology...and therefore mistakenly assume that they are "faithless"...some embrace a life of Faith and rest in the surety of a Divine Creator who is decidely integrated into the lives of His creation. You can't arrive at either end without an act of faith.

Probably the closest thing to a "faithless" person is someone in the middle...perhaps someone who blandly accepts the existence of God but lets that acceptance make no changes upon their life.

@Rally...that was just, plain evil.

 

I found that statement insulting. To accuse me of simple sophistry and try to refute me by simply playing with words was not worthy of comment. To satisfy you on that matter I will stoop to that however. When you mocked my point, you did not accuse Mormons of contradicting scripture, of simply being wrong. Wasn't part of the position I was taking that Science contradicted Scripture? You left that out in your haste to mock my views.

But Someone else who doesn't like the moral code that you would rather I accept could well tell me that it's a load of hooey and that I should give that up too because it says that something else is wrong. They would likely use the same points that you would bring up to discredit my chosen moral code. The result would be either abandoning all moral code because it makes my head hurt, or wasting my life trying to figure out how to live that I don't actually go out and live. By accepting the moral code I have and staunchly (stubbornly?) clinging to it, I have those questions answered and can go on with my life.

I think the point that LKD wanted to make, and I expect that he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that because this person has left the church with such objections as have been voiced, his opinions have been tainted by his rejection of the doctrines. It's not that he shouldn't be taken seriously, it that his views should be taken with a grain of salt, and such position recognized.

One minute you say that persecution is inevitable, the next you say it isn't. Which is it?

I disagree. I teach a class on Sunday Mornings to 12 and 13 year old boys. I believe that you are expected to ask questions. How else do you come to an understanding of what's being taught. You also have to question yourself about these beliefs. Pray about them, ask your teachers and leaders about them, and thus, hopefully, you will gain your own faith in the teachings that you are presented with.

Prone to, yes, but that is something that must be resisted. It's surprisingly easy to say something like (and I'll apologize for any offence caused) "you're a faggot, you're going to Hell". But you can't do that. First off, just because someone is a homosexual, doesn't make it your business. Secondly, use of the word "faggot" is rude. Part of the purpose of coming to Earth is to learn how to get along with each other. Third, we don't decide someone's eternal fate, that's for God and the individual to decide. Fourth, There is always the possibility of repentance. They have the opportunity to change their ways, but why would they change to appease some arrogant jerk that has already condemned them?

I don't know enough about it to fairly comment, and do not care enough to learn about it. I have trouble accepting it because it does not focus on the life, teachings and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If you actually take a look at the multitude of materials published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, you'd know that I've got enough to learn just within my own faith. Even T2Bruno would agree on that one...

I have never expected you to be perfect. I have heard of General Authorities in the church being Excommunicated in the past as well, but I know nothing of the details.

I suggest treading with care on the topic of splinter groups. If you start taking their teachings to represent the group they splintered from, then you are bound to err, sometimes in a grevious fashion. BTW, didn't Sinead O'Connor get in deep dookie for tearing up a picture of the Pope on SNL a few years back?

I've heard that for Nuns, but never found out about priests. I can answer from a Mormon perspective. In my religion, only the males hold the Priesthood. It is because the Women have certain duties, that are just as important and Sacred as those of the Priesthood, if not more so. Further, Women do hold positions within the Ward (congregation), and are sustained and set apart to those callings and given blessings to help them to do what has been asked of them.

Exactly. Sunday school classes and sermons are discussions of these dogmas, what they mean, how to follow them and the blessings of obeying them. I have a past that I'm not proud of, and from cleaning myself up and getting back on track, and accepting the atonement of Jesus Christ, I have a personal connection to that dogma. That is Faith. The Hope of things not seen but true. You can't prove that God exists, but spiritually, I know it to be true.

So even an aetheist lives by the faith that religion is a lie? I see the same conviction in the responses of my critics as I try to show here.

That's where I was for several years of my life. All that got me was twelve years of regret...

 

Speak for your own country. I'm not aware of any organised religion bashing going on in NZ to any noticeable extent. We tolerate all sorts here, no matter how nutty they might be.

 

You, then are lucky.

 

@Gnarfflinger:

I think Aldeth brought up a valid point and didn’t try to mock your views. How you read this out of his comment is beyond me. Your answer to his question is that Mormons never err because they are completely synchronized with the scripture, did I get that right? Of course I did, because being in line with scripture was the only defence you had to assert that Satan can never influence your priesthood. And how do you know that what you call scripture was not influenced by Satan? Because the scripture says so. Aha…

And the moral code? No one should accept any moral code without thinking. Regardless of its origin, be it religious or secular. What is this thing about having to accept anything anyone claims just because you don’t have the Bible as a reference? There’s a general consensus in the world that killing each other is not a moral thing to do. How did all those non-believers arrive at this conclusion without the Bible at their side? Pure chance? Face it, Gnarfflinger, the Bible contains “Thou shall not kill” because it is a generally accepted view, not the other way round.

Your comment on LKD’s post, alas, is in complete contradiction to what he himself asserted. How comes you didn’t notice? He says he respects T2Bruno’s opinion – you say that T2Bruno’s opinion is tainted. Not much respect in such a statement. The extended version of this statement is that all opinions save your own are tainted. But don’t distress yourself, I think the same thing about your opinion.

And what’s that:

Fasten your seatbealt, Gnarfflinger, and get ready for some disconcertment: It’s both! Yeah, man! Both! Can you believe it?! “As yet there’s no interpretation that didn’t lead to persecution” is a statement that deals with the past and the present “I don’t claim that all dogmas to come will inevitably lead to persecution although it is highly likely” is a statement that deals with the future. Accordingly, they can be true at the same time, because they refer to different points in time. I will give you an analogy because I know that high maths are involved to understand the concept:

a. Every time I forget my umbrella it starts to rain.

b. I don’t claim that it will start to rain every time I forget my umbrella.

The first is an observation based on subjective experience, the second is –now, come to think of it, I just included the “I don’t claim…” part to spare me some “Oh, so you claim to know each and every dogma in the world to come?” remarks. But honestly: dogma leads to persecution, period. It’s the nature of dogma.

And then there’s the point where there’s still a big misunderstanding between me and you and Arendil. Questioning your beliefs in Sunday school is not the same as questioning a dogma. The first leads to questions of the “Can I live with giving up with my homosexual pleasures for god” type or to finding reasons to justify the condemnation of homosexuality. What you said with “Sunday school classes and sermons are discussions of these dogmas, what they mean, how to follow them and the blessings of obeying them.” And then you try to answer these questions within the framework of your beliefs. The second approach would lead to questions of the “Is it true that homosexuality is bad?” type. It is more about whether the dogma is true, not about what it means. Which together with all available input from within and without your framework of belief would give you an answer, positive or negative. And this is not the same as saying that you asked yourself the question and that you found the answer to be “yes” because it is said so in the scripture. You would only have reasoned that the dogma is true because it is true. You have to bring your experience and other sources into the process to make sure your answer is valid. You may still conclude that homosexuality is bad, however you would have placed this conclusion on a ground that is generally accepted.

The same is true for science in general. In contrast to what Hacken Slash asserted, science is by no means comparable to faith. Faith is based on individual experiences and perceptions, things that often cannot be reproduced by others and that are not open to examination for all people of the world. Arendil says as much with the statement “it’s hard to tell non-believers”. Meaning: there is no general ground for faith; the people of the world don’t share the same experiences; it is not possible to make these experiences a basis for a debate. Science, however, provides us with a universal and general approach that leads to experiences that are reproducible by everyone (well, if you have 100 Mio. $ to spend on a particle accelerator ). In this way it is assured that we all talk about the same thing and that all of our experiences can be evaluated indiscriminately. A debate can only start there. We don’t have to have faith in science, because science is a method rather than a statement. If kicked in the family jewels, we all share the same experience of pain. The conclusion “hurting someone leads to pain” is universal and not subject to believe. The conclusion “blasphemy leads to damnation” is a matter of belief and is not subject to experience anyone has ever had. Understood? Good.

If you still insist that a leap of faith is required in concluding that a bullet in the head leads to extermination – well, then maybe your definition of faith is not one I recognize. Perhaps you could elaborate on this point?

And, Arendil, ask people like chevalier or toughluck about

You can be a pro-abortionist and still be catholic in their eyes? That’s new. I always understood it was more about responsibility-bla-bla and “take it or leave it” instead of having all the jam.

 

There is a difference between "doubt" and "denial", isn't it ?
Catholic can't be a "pro-abortionist", but is completely free to have doubts in that, or any other, matter.

 

How?

If doubt isn't resolved sooner or later into acceptance or denial it may be a) because the doubter is lazy or doesn't care enough, which is hardly a sign of belief, or b) because there's a more fundamental issue that is bothering the doubter without him being aware of this. In any case, doubt is only an intermediate step and not an ultimate solution, isn't it.

 

Well, my ex has said worse of me. And my Mormon friends when I choose to join the military instead of going on a mission (those comments were pretty brutal).

I still say this persecution complex of the Mormons is blown way out of proportion. Most who wave that 'stop picking on us' flag are converts or maybe a second or third generation Mormon. So, Gnarf, if you had ancestors that were killed for being a Mormon (like I did), then by all means raise the 'poor me' flag -- I won't. I am truly proud of my family heritage, even though I don't believe all the precepts of the church. To say 'we've been persecuted enough, leave us alone' is disrespectful to the sacrifice those early saints made -- and to be honest, if none of your ancestors were killed you have no right to use the dead as your shield.

 

Darkthrone

I'll use an example. Mother Theresa, one of the greatest christian of XX century. Her last 50(!) or more years were full of doubts, suffering, and being on the verge of losing faith, according to her letters.
But that had nothing to do with what she was doing, being a "God's tool", helping people, and in the end, being choosen as a saint.

In most cases, most doubts are resolved sooner or later. But there are always some, because dogmas cannot be fully understand or proven.
In marriage it is not possible to be 100% sure that other person loves you. Because it is not possible to prove that without doubt...you see my point ?

A christian should live to be as Christ, to be perfect, but we all know that it is not quite possible, that sin will happen sooner or later. But most important thing is to try, to fight with yourself, to overcome weaknesses. To believe when you have doubts...

As you see, this is difficult to explain, but as I said, I experience such things everyday, and that occurs to all christians.

 

Using the dead as a shield? Pretty harsh, Bruno! I think that any thinking Mormon who cites the history of the church is merely pointing out that since the historical record very clearly illustrates the persecution and forced migration of the Mormons in the Eastern United States (forcing what even non-Mormon scholars call the largest forced migration in U.S. history) as an institution the church gets pretty antsy when people deface sacred symbols. We know where that can lead . . .

If it matters, my ancestors on my Mum's side were handcart pushers.

Oh, Darkthrone, I should clarify -- I think T2Bruno is wrong on a lot of things, just as I think many others are. Any term could be used to label that belief. But you are right in that despite this belief, I respect (and try to consider the logic and reasoning behind) the positions of all board members.

 

Gnarff,

First, let me start by apologizing. It was neither my intent nor desire to mock you, and even after re-reading my initial post, I'm still not quite sure why you found my particular comments so offensive. It wasn't meant to be a personal slam at you in particular or Mormons in general (as an aside, I wasn't bashing all doctors or lawyers either). Contrary to your interpretation, I was attempting to show that by extension, that logic you employ could be used to discredit anything you don't agree with. By dint of the all inclusive nature of your logic, it could be expanded ad naseum to include virtually every person on the planet.

So after offering this olive branch, please allow me to re-state my point, this time without any Mormon references to avoid offense. I'll use my doctor and lawyer examples of before to do this. Hopefully, you're not either a doctor or lawyer, or you may construe that I'm just bashing you again, which I will repeat, is neither my desire nor intent.

Recently the Michael Jackson case was resolved, and he was found to be not guilty of the crimes he was charged with. Despite this, many people feel he is guilty, regardless of the questionable nature of the accuser's mother. Furthermore, most people I know agree that even if he didn't commit any wrong doing in this particular instance, there is something intrinsicly unhealthy about his infatuation with young boys. However, in our country, we have the right to legal counsel, and defense from said counsel. During the trial, it is quite likely that his lawyers had some of the same doubts the rest of the country had regarding MJ's innocence. Therefore since fondling little boys is something that I think most major religions of the world frown upon, were the defense lawyers influenced by Satan? Using your logic above, it certainly appears that they could be. Being an accessory to someone who fondles little boys is (I imagine) something that Scripture touches upon at some point, and does not approve of. So I'm guessing here, but isn't aiding someone who fondles little boys contrary to Scripture?

Let's try another. Suppose a person has a do not resuscitate order, and his heart stops beating during a surgury. The doctor overseeing the operation has the means and the ability to save this person, bring him back to life, and the person would probably be no worse for wear as a result of it. Is this doctor doing the work of Satan by adhering to the patient's request as opposed to attempting to use his abilities to save a life in peril? Again, using your reasoning above, he certainly could be. Isn't allowing a person to die when you have the means to prevent it contrary to Scripture?

Hopefully, after reading this, my point will be more clear to you. In the future, I will show more wisdom by not acknowledging anything remotely Mormon for fear of causing you insult, or some other form of personal angst.

 

Let me try and clarify my views on this -- bear in mind that while I strive to follow the teachings of God as I understand them, I do not claim to speak for the Mormon Church, though I believe that my beliefs are in line with orthodox Church policy.

I believe that all that which is good comes from God (which of course means that I believe in a good, kind, and just God) and that all that is evil comes from the Devil.

If something evil occurs, it is a result of the influence of the Devil, who tempts and deceives people. Now, people who are deceived are not necessarily evil -- anyone (even religious people) can make a mistake and be tricked. With me? Hope so!

I also believe that God leads my church. If anyone were to be deceived (which is possible) God will, in his own time, correct the problem. This does not equate to the belief that any human being is infallible, but the belief that God is infallible. I hope that clarifies things a little.

 

Our religion is such that, yes, we are to be synchronized with scripture. As for you question that Scripture could be inspired by Satan or otherwise false, I cannot logically refute it, but it is one of the first doubts that leaves as faith is acquired.

In most areas, even the non-believers grew up being taught that killing is wrong by people who were somehow influenced by religious people. Most areas included that in their laws originally as a manner of appeasing the religious authority, or a reflection of their own religious beliefs. Whether you want to admit it or not, Religion has played a part in shaping moral codes even for non believers. When you form your own set of morals, don't you have to consider things yourself? Doesn't Religion already address a number of those topics? It plays some part, whether your stance agrees or not.

Your original post made it sound like there was no interpretation that didn't lead to persecution because all would inevitably lead to persecution, then you backed away from that point. Trying to make things excessively complicated really isn't a good selling point in your opinion...

Actually, if the lesson is on sexual purity, then the consequences, be they physical, emotional or spiritual are discussed. I don't go there often in my class as I have younger boys, but I remember a lesson taugh on that subject when I was 17. I have talked about my experiences (and regrets) with drugs and alcohol (I wasn't always a good boy), and discussed that it really didn't do anything for me, but that quitting was the best thing I could have done. It's not just about teaching what's expected of them, but helping them to see why it's expected. That, if I'm not mistaken does deal with the second point...

Correct. My individual experiences have convinced me that Jesus Christ really did suffer unspeakable torment on our behalf and die for our sins, that we may be forgiven, asking only that we repent (confess, forsake and try to make right) of our sins and seek to follow His example and teachings. You haven't had my experiences, but there are some who have had the same experiences and make similar reports to what I have just said. It's not something a scientist can measure and observe, but to me it is no less real.

Not everyone has had the same experiences, but that doesn't negate them for those who have. No amount of science can refute these experiences...

Okay, let's see some scientist replicate Evolution, or the Big Bang...

When you pull the trigger to put the bullet into someone's head (reason is irrelevent to this discussion), you are doing so in faith that that will kill them. I've heard of cases where death did not occur immediately or as a direct consequence of a bullet in the brain. It's usually the case, but not always.

These fundamental issues ultimately have to be resolved some how as well. Living by faith doesn't mean the abscence of doubt, but the process of banishing it. When I was younger, I doubted my ability to be of any help to the Lord, and decided the best thing I could do was stay out of the way. I wouldn't deny the teachings, but I didn't think I could advance them. For the last couple years, I've been teaching the young men in my church, and done reasonably well. Those doubts have since been banished. Now if I can get rid of the doubts about finding a wife and being a father...

It's no longer about using the dead as a shield, but asking that the covenents that I've made not be mocked. RQ mentioned that there are a ton of aetheist bashing sites, and I don't agree with that either. He, like myself has made his decision, and really doesn't need to be mocked or put down for it.

Living by faith is not an abscence of doubt, but doing what is right despite your doubts. You can sit there until you have no more doubts, or you can go out and do something. Mother Theresa was a good Christian because she did not allow personal doubt to interfere with her sacred duty. Likewise, we all must do what is right, despite doubt or temptation to do otherwise.

Exactly what I was trying to get at in the post. Why should such desecration be tolerated as freedom of expression? Even in North America, there is violence that's motivated by differences in religious belief. Should Government be allowed to step in to tell such protesters to muzzle it in hopes that it won't escalate?

That is a problem we all have to face. I'm glad that you seek no mockery.

Reasonable doubt was provided to say that perhaps Mr. Jackson was not guilty this time.

The opinion seems to be that likely he is a pervert, but it couldn't be satisfactorily proven in this case.

That was what the lawyers were paid to do. I don't imagine that it was cheap either...

Certainly they could be. It is also possible that While Jacko may guilty of similar crimes, he may not have been guilty of that one. The Law assumes innocent until proven guilty. While it is important that people only be punished for crimes they actually commit, The Guilty must be punished. I don't know enough of the details of the case to state for certain. I really don't want details about molestation of young boys if it's all the same to you.

In most cases, this risk would be discussed before hand, and the patient would give informed consent one way or the other. Honestly, I think that the doctor would likely try to resuscitate the patient either out of instinct (Hypocratic Oath) or self preservation (fear of a malpractice suit).

By this point, Scientists or science are not evil, only a few theorists deceived, and spreading their inaccurate work (Evolution, Big Bang) around the scientific community.

In my Sunday morning class, if I don't know the answer, I will admit that I don't know because I fear giving them false information. The Last thing I need is for me to spout off something badly wrong, only to have it corrected the next week but have one of the boys not hear it and miss the correction!