Mormonism

Remove all ads!

So in other words, you don't let pesky little things like "facts" get in your way? You are simply astounding, sir.

Ida know - but this doesn't prove anything. Ever heard the saying, "he lies so much, he believes himself?" Maybe he made it all up and, encouraged by the devotion of his followers, ended up believing his own petard. Or maybe he believed it from the beginning and used the whole "seer stone in the hat" show to convince the gullible. There are a number of reasons why a fraud wouldn't necessarily know he's a fraud. David Koresh certainly didn't think he was a fraud, and found a number of creative ways to attract his flock. You work with the tools you know how to use.

At the end of the day, I don't know why. But either way this is a moot point and inconclusive of anything. That he chose to accept his fate doesn't mean he was the real deal. It could just as easily be proof of insanity than divinity.

The United States Constitution protects free practice of religion in the first ammendment. Pick up a copy. Also, churches are given legitimacy by their numbers.

A second moot point.

Moot point number three. Just because a group has a large donor base does not authenticate the faith in any way.

Maybe you should pick up a copy of that logic rule book we all seem to be using. I'm sure they're in stock at Amazon.

 

Just a note to bring up here....

Logic is not lost on all Mormons. Most of the leadership of the Mormon church are very strong in logical arguments (many are attorneys, businessmen and scientists). The Mormon church, in particular, has many publication and journals that logically present issues (I just disagree with the premise of the articles). With any religious group there is a significant portion of the membership that does not need or want any logical reason for the divine. I tend to have a hard time with such individuals and that is probably why I so often confront Gnarff (especially when he is expressing his opinion as church doctrine).

I don't agree with many of the precepts of the Mormon church but lies and inaccuracies that often enter the topic are simply annoying to me. Debating the Mormon church with a knowledgable church historian is very enjoyable, yet the same discussion with a blind fanatic is an exercise in frustration.

Edit (after Fel's post)...

Gnarff:

You really don't know? The Law of Consecration was attempted a little in Kirkland and again in Missouri. At that point it was abandoned until 'after the kingdom of heaven was established on earth' (the Millenium). The Law of Consecration was not followed in Nauvoo or Salt Lake City. This is taught in high school level seminary courses. So, yes, the individual members owned their own land.

At what time do you refer? In Nauvoo there were over 15,000 men. The city was the largest city in Illinois and had a huge percentage of the overall votes in the state.

Emma was asked in public where the church got it's doctrine of spiritual wives (plural marriage) -- she responded 'straight from Hell.' She was a very vocal opponent of the practice -- which coincidentially started about the same time she no longer wanted children....

[ April 24, 2007, 22:51: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Would they? Or is it possibly where the talk of forgery of documents came from? You're probably right, given the time frame likely wasn't long enough for people to have so deeply invested themselves that they would make up excuses, but still...nothing is quite that black and white.

You do realize you sound like you're talking out of your ass, don't you? It's not a bad thing to admit that you don't have the time to look things up. ...Unless, of course, you're so invested in your faith that you can't stand any challenge going unanswered. Which isn't a bad thing, but does make the first rather unfortunate considering that you can't mount an adequate defense without doing so.

Ahhhh, serfdom without the hardship. I've always found the idea of stewardship to be quite admirable. Does anyone care to refute this claim with proof?

So if two sides argued over the color of the sky, would you really expect any source examining the claims to never pick a side? Their picking a side only means that they found one claim had more merit than the other. I guarantee you wouldn't be complaining in the slightest if they'd thought the Mormons were the ones claiming the sky was blue.

I'm betting I've said this to you before, and if so, I will say it again. Noone has a monopoly on "The Truth". If you need to feel that way to keep the faith that makes you happy, I won't begrudge you that, but don't expect everyone to fall in line with your ideal of the perfect world simply because you say so. People will question your Truth, and if you truly have enough faith in it, you ought to be able to take that in stride.

As a side note, I think anyone's faith that questions do not make stronger is not for them.

Somehow I doubt that sounded how you meant it to, because it sounds...well, I think DR already covered that.

I think this is another example of Gnarf's admitted not-being-good-with-words. If I had to guess, I'd say he's either talking about a specific kind of spiritual connection (to Mormon ideals), or he's suggesting that any other spiritual connections are false (devil tempting, etc.). I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant the former.

I know this is a Mormonism topic, but I cannot let this be. Muslims, while they are convinced that they are right, do not believe that everyone else is wrong. They also consider Christians and Jews to be "people of the book", following the same god.

And Christianity's wars being left in the past? Have you seen ANY news this decade? Our "courageous" presipope declared war on Iraq, probably "nudged by his faith" just like so many other misguided leaders of the past and present (and likely future). In truth? There is no such thing as a Holy War. Just people in power claiming to speak in their god's name.

 

I don't, but I somehow doubt that you have made the spiritual connection to my religion. Just as I don't believe I have made any spiritual connection to yours. I have attended wedding/funeral services in other branches of Christianity, but did not feel the same spiritual connection as ones through my own. Fel had that one right.

Logic has confirmed my faith, but a huge part of this is my own personal experience, which apparently means squat all to most people. From there, I look at the doctrine, and logically try to interpret it. But the bottom line is that "gut instinct" as you would probably understand it, is how I judge whether I got my logic right or wrong.

Having been that route, I understand the atonement better, and have the personal experience to talk about it...

I do remember him recording that he felt temptation over the value of the plates of brass when he first saw them. But again, I look to Nakia's interpretation on the "glass looking". By the fact that he is revered as a prophet, he was given the gift, but had to learn to use if to do God's will, not his own. This would take a major part in the length of tiem between the First Vision and the key events (Translating the book of Mormon, restoration of the Priesthoods, organization of the Church). Here in Canada, without the intensity of "peer pressure", a youth who does not feel they are ready is not shunted through the offices for the sake of appearances. I think the fact that I was 31 when I was ordained an Elder (despite being baptized at 15) has helped me to be a better servant within the church. If I had faced the pressure like you and others have described, I would likely still be inactive, or may have even left as you did...

I do, logically, know that my faith is right, but the rigorous demands of logic mean that I can't prove it. To others, it looks like I have foregone reason in favour of faith.

From what I've seen of him (and heard others say of him), I envy his gift for such posts.

How about the faith to accept the initial premise (in this case, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the Prophets, the Book of Mormon), then logically or critically examining the doctrine to understand better how God wants us to live? That's how I look at this. The problem I have discussing this with non members or even non believers is that the leap of faith is over a huge chasm, and there is no real bridge. To those on one side of the chasm, the other side is harder to understand.

How about 10 to 15% of your annual gross income every year? Tithing starts at 10%, then fast offering, humanitarian aid, missionary funds, Book of Mormon funds and maybe a couple other things I can't think of off hand beyond that. If this is given based off of a fraud, then that is a criminal conspiracy, perpetuated on a global scale. If it could be conclusively proven that Joseph Smith was a fraud then the current General authorities could be indicted. I don't see that happenning, therefore strengthening my conviction that this is not a fraud.

But how is it thaty they deliver these things more efficiently than any other organization? I look at that as Divinely guided principles...

On the Contrary, I consider things as facts that others will not accept as facts. For anything spiritual, whatever spiritual experience you seek out (Thanks Rally for pointing out that omission in my earlier statement), there is that leap of faith, but you don't know that the ledge is on the other side of the chasm until you've taken that leap.

But how do you explain away his knowledge that he would be lynched and murdered that night. It was recorded that, on his way to the Carthage Jail, that he said he KNEW he was going to die in that jail from that arrest. Without that divine gift, it would just be a guess...

 

Well of course it means squat - the definition of a "personal experience" is something that you uniquely possess. If everyone had that same experience as you, it would cease to be "personal".

Having this personal experience is very important, but ONLY TO YOU. We haven't experienced what you have, so we cannot possibly comprehend how this experience has shaped your outlook, and there are no words you can give us that will make your personal experience a global experience. I understand that you're trying to explain this personal experience to us, but some things can only be truly appreciated through personal experience. For example, I can tell you what it's like to be married and have your wife be pregnant. You'll get some understanding of this, but you will not be able to truly understand it until you experience it for yourself - see what I mean?

Of course members of the Church make financial offerings to the Church. The Church has operating expenses, and also likes to engage in humanitarian aid missions, which also require money. However, all churches are also supposed to be public and non-profit. Under those guidelines they get tax breaks, and allows for the pooled money to be used appropriately. So unless the contributions are being used to line the pockets of your Elders (beyond what is considered fair compensation for the work they do), then it's not fraud.

Also, there's no chance that even if Joseph Smith is proven to have been a fraud (which I admit is unlikely), there's no way that the current Elders would ever be tried for perpetuating this fraud, unless you could also prove that they *knew* Smith was a fraud and perpetuated his teachings anyway. I think it would be safe to say that all the Elders believe that Smith was a Prophet. As such, they would not be tried as they themselves were equally deceived as the rest of the faithful. In other words, putting them on trial would be punishing some of the VICTIMS OF THE FRAUD.

I honestly need you to explain this a little more clearly. Based on what you're saying, efficiency comes from the divine? Could not other possibilities include that they are better organized than others? Or perhaps they spend their available funds more wisely than others? The only explanation is divine guidance? FEMA worked much more efficiently under Clinton than Bush, yet I could hardly claim that either Clinton or FEMA operated by a set of "divinely guided principles", especially considering Bush seems like much more the holy-roller than Clinton.

While I commend you taking the time to read up on Spinoza, it seems you left a very important fact out. I agree with part of what you said - namely that in order for the conclusion to be valid, you first must accept definitions and axioms that were the starting point. However, Spinoza generally started with axioms and definitions which were obviously true to his audience. To the contrary, you are not starting with any self-evident truths in your arguements with the rest of SP (a good chunk of SP isn't even Christian - never mind specifically Mormon).

 

Gnarff: It would be good if you respond directly to the issues instead of skirting around and intentionally muddying the water. As I've mentioned before, your responses mainly show that you simply do not know the history (and in many cases doctrine) of your religion -- this should not be a post to teach Gnarff the basics of Mormonism. You have the same information available to you that I have -- one important distinction appears to be that I am actually using those resources.

 

Those poor elders pay for themselves in most cases, sometimes they get the money from other church members.

Unless there is some more deception, nobody recieves any compensation for doing the church's work. It's odd that this came up... I just saw something on the news about a Catholic bishop paying 6 million out of his own pocket to help pay their settlement for some of the cases of molestation.

 

That you believe and consider these things to be facts does not make them facts. Truths, perhaps; beliefs, certainly - but not facts. A more digestable and universal standard is required.

Again - this doesn't necessarily prove anything. It doesn't take a divine influence or even psychic powers to know that in a hostile environment with a crowd gunning for you your death is likely. The American justice system wasn't known for it's impeccable ethics and accountability back then, or even today for that matter. If he'd known he was going to die in the tea cup ride at Disney Land and then did, that would be something.

Of course. But if they don't consider themselves victims there's not a lot that can be done about it, is there?

Again - what does this have to do with ANYTHING? How does an efficient funds dispersal system have any bearing on this discussion? This is a completely irrelevant point. Unless you're suggesting that they disperse aid better than other organizations because of the power of God. Then it's nutty AND irrelevant.

Why not ask yourself? Not if they have more faith in Joseph Smith than the do his critics. Isn't this one of those questions that sort of answers itself?

Derogatory or not, you still refuse to address the points they raise. One man's derogatory is another man's objective. Can you refute the points they raise or not?

Exactly. It's highly unlikely that any of us has an accurate understanding of what the "truth" really is in the first place, despite how absolutely 100% sure some of us are that they do know what the truth is.

Just for the sake of our better understanding of your position - I'd like to see your logic in practice here. Please lay out for us the logical pathway that lead you to the confirmation of your faith. I would certainly hope it would involve statements along the lines of "this idea exists, and this evidence supports this idea, and further this evidence holds up to all presented scrutiny, therefore this idea I now accept as truth" kind of thing. I think that would help all of us out, here. It will also serve to determine whether your definition of logic is the same as ours, which I hope we can at least all agree on THAT much.

 

But it also doesn't mean that it's not real. I wish some people would realize that...

Since we have no paid ministry, then any taking money from the church for their services is not allowed.

They have delivered such aid much more effectively than mand made procedures have done. Either it's the application of divine principles or that other such organizations (FEMA, the Red Cross) really aren't that organized...

But to many Mormons, they have that personal conviction of those principles, therefore the Doctrine holds up. I have yet to see clear proof that these things are wrong.

I'm just pointing out how muddy the waters already are. When you dredge up mud to sling at someone, the mud is stirred up, leaving the pool murky. The facts aren't always that clear...

You've also had a huge head start, and I don't have as much availability of such resources as you assume. My time online is limited, and some nights I have all I can handle and then some...

So truth does not always qualify as "facts". I'll take the truth...

Not a guess, but a guarantee. This was stated with certainty. That is a recorded fact...

Of course, it is something positive about the Church that some here seem to argue as a giant fraud...

I've tried, but I just get slapped down. The allegations prove nothing, but they are thrown in my face.

First, I was taught what to expect.

Secondly I did as I was told.

Third, then I observed the things I was taught to expect.

Therefore, my religion is as valid to me as Science (which uses similar methodology).

 

Your "methodology" only proved that your brain makes you feel a certain way given certain external and internal stimuli, hardly scientific proof of god.

js being a fraud or not a fraud doesnt influence his religion continuing on, because truth or facts arent required for belief as we all well know. As long as he was charasmatic enough to start a faith and make people believe in it, it propagates itself because people believe in it.

if you look at any scientific truth that was difficult to accept in the past - a rounded earth, tectonic drift, evolution, perhaps the dinosaurs - all of these theories faced heavy opposition, because people believed the opposite. people cling to what they believe, beyond all reason, as you have proved to us.

 

Sounds like one of Nostradamus' predictions in that you're told something will happen, albeit in a non-specific sense. Then something resembling what you are told would happen, does happen, and it seems in line with something else that could happen - because it's all up to interpretation.

Now, the Bible is quite capable of standing up to a fair amount of scrutiny and many things within it have been noted and even proven to be fact. The Book of Mormon, however, is so widely contested, disputed and in many cases simply proved false by scientific study that one boggles to understand how anyone could believe what's written in it. Not to mention the controvosy surrounding its author.

The other scary thing is that the only people who believe anything that is written in the Book of Mormon are the mormons. Next to nothing that is written the book can be proven to have actually happened. Can it be any wonder that people simply view mormonisim as a religion of deluded fools? They might as well claim that Venus is made of old paper towels

 

Gnarff, you're still not answering questions. You are making vague comments about the subject and then moving to next vague comment. Even your comment on the efficiency of the Mormon church to give aid was extremely vague -- just where did they provide aid? If you research it you will find the aid was provided in areas where the Mormon church has a good sized population and already has resources. That's not divine influence (if you argue the reason for the resources is divine influence you're seriously full of it), that's just the extremist-survivalist nature of the church.

The Mormon church has tremendous resources stockpiled up because of the whole 'year supply' thing -- and they have such resources everywhere there are Mormons. The Mormon church is the most organized church on the planet with an incredible volunteer system. So while other organizations may need to bring supplies in and organize volunteers, the Mormon church MAY already be in place there with LIMITED help. However, I did not hear of the Mormon church providing quick relief for the tsunami victims or victims of the genocidal attacks in Africa -- and I wouldn't expect it because the Mormon church has very limited resources in those areas. In the Mississippi river area during the floods a few years ago it was the National Guard and Reserves that provided immediate relief and volunteers to bag sand -- volunteers from the all walks of life helped, but Guard and Reserves had the people and equipment in place for immediate help. That was prior planning not divine intervention.

 

I've tried to avoid posting here and instead just read what has been posted. I just can't do it anymore. We all know exactly how Gnarf is going to respond, we know he won't say anything different, nor will he offer any kind of proof. He'll offer ignorant views on other philosophies, religions, and peoples. We all know Mormons ignore history to support their tenants. We also know that he's going to be treated with hostility at every turn, even if he were to bring something new, though he never does. No one is going to accept anything Gnarf says and Gnarf won't accept anything anyone else says, so why don't we stop responding to his posts and he can stop responding to ours, because it's always the same from both sides. That way we can move the conversation along.


And Gnarf, know that I take mormon views on Native Americans as a personal attack as I am over 1/4 native american. It is a racist view and unbelievably innaccurate as Judaism didn't even exist when the Native Americans made their way across the berring strait. I would appreciate it if you'd restrain from talking about something that is probably the easiest thing to disprove as there is more than enough evidence to do so.

 

SA: You describe the path exactly I took in my eventual discounting the Mormon church (and pretty much all religion). Studying anthropology and archeology was very eye opening and fascinating -- no matter how I tried, I could not reconcile the data from archeology and the Book of Mormon. But most Mormons discount the archeological record quite vehemently (as do most christians). As Beren said up front, you need to have thick skin -- Gnarff will not back down from his beliefs on this, and while I agree it is racist, he will not. The Mormons believe the Native American were part of a divine plan and so see no racism in their beliefs. I have personally known many, many Native Americans who were Mormon (including my first girlfriend who was ¼ Cherokee) and I never saw discrimination toward any Native American in church.

 

The discrimination is in the texts. If you think about it it's obvious that such a view at that time would be very self serving seeing as they were going to the places that the Native American people of the time had been "relocated" to. I admit I do not know that much about Mormonism as I studied the major religions and religions of historical importance. Mormonism just doesn't make the list. It only received a cursory glance as I was studying christianity. However, the more I learn about it the more I'm dismayed that people could believe such, well in my mind, gibberish. There's just too much evidence that contradicts the claims made by this religion.

 

There is no give or take with him---it is not a conversation. The Alleys are for the trading of ideas so that we may all grow as a result---Gnarf just hangs around derailing that process for his own selfish needs.


[Edited - dmc]

[ April 26, 2007, 22:19: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

My If this is what you truly believe why bother to respond to his (Gnarf's) posts? You are only encouraging him and giving him space.

It seems to me that we have already established in another thread (actually many) that arguing matters of "faith/religion" is pretty much impossible.

I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe. Of course I am right.

 

Great edit dmc. '...so that we may all grow as a result.' -- classic.

SA: I think you're interpreting a few things the wrong way. First of all, when the Book of Mormon was written Joseph Smith and his followers were in New York and Ohio -- not near any reservations. The next move was Missouri (Jackson County to be specific) where the Native Americans had already been wiped out by the non-Mormon settlers. Joseph Smith planned to stay in the Illinois/Missouri area so using the writings in the Book of Mormon in the way you interpret it was not in his mind at all.

Edit: I had to remove my last paragragh after reading about the Black Hawk Indian Wars (and the tale of the Utes, Paiutes and Goshutes). Mormon agriculture caused irrepearable damage to the ecosystem the Utes relied upon -- the Mormons took over water supplies and allowed livestock to use up precious resources the Natives had always counted on to live. Tensions increased until a war broke out. The war took a toll on both sides and each side was guilty of killing women and children (the most notorious incident occuring in Circleville). However, that does not change the fact that the Mormons believed they would settle in Missouri -- the flight to Salt Lake City was to escape rising tensions in the midwest (which ultimately killed Joseph Smith).

[ April 26, 2007, 23:20: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

Lets not diss Gnarf. Ultimately hes a man who stands up for what he believes in, even if he knows he will get flak.

I really dont like religion, especially including the ones best known for indoctrination and intolerance - Christianity and Islam.

But I'm not one to say that Gnarf is a bad man for what he believes, as long as no harm to others come from his beliefs.

 

I don't think anyone harbors ill will toward Gnarff because of his beliefs. It is the way he argues his beliefs that people do not care much for.