Mormonism

Remove all ads!

True, but to be honest, there is no way a Christian could argue well and win. Sorry there just isnt.

So points for trying!

 

They did though, I'm actually suprised you did not hear of it. It wasn't manpower help because as you stated, they aren't too represented in Indonesia, but they did send quite a bit of supplies and money. Also they kinda teamed up with the Muslims to help them get their aid over to the victims as well.

Like the much beloved George W. Bush

 

That's a problem right there. Why do you have to argue? I like to discuss religion to learn why people believe what they do. There are educated religious people out there that can discuss their religion and other religions and philosophies intelligently. Unfortunately some people refuse to educate themselves and have intelligent discussions. Instead the spout the same propoganda over and over again, never addressing the issues or contributing anything positive or new to the conversation.

I learned something about mormonism that I didn't know from this post, but it didn't come from the only practising mormon here. It came from someone, that having studied the religion in depth, left the faith because things just didn't add up. Why is it that I had to learn this from someone that educated himself and left the faith rather than from someone that still believes? I'd wager the reason being that the person still in the faith knows less about it than the one that left it.

 

A big spiritual hole left to be filled by a thousand new devils leaving him worse off than he was before he "saw the light".

Also, we are not created equal despite all the hype to the contrary. We have different intelligences, different talents, different backgrounds, different levels of education.

Gnarf and I have been arguing off and on for about 3 years now and IMO his posts have improved considerably from when he first ruffled my feathers.

He doesn't claim to be a brilliant, well educated elocutionist but he has the guts to try and express his opinion.

For those of you who complain about the "personal experience" posts I can only say this: I certainly could not do any better and I doubt that anyone else could either.

 

I don't want to take his faith away. What I want is to have an intelligent conversation about religion without it being hijacked because someone decides to interject their uninformed views into a discussion. He says the same exact thing that he's been uttering in every other post he's made. Other's might actually get something out of the topic's discussion if not for his posts taking it over and derailing the discussion. We all know where he stands and can accurately predict what his next post will be well before he makes it. It's ridiculous. I mean why can't I have a discussion on one of my favorite subjects, inwhich I almost always had come out the better for in the past, without having to worry about someone coming in and, essentially, demanding that everyone recognise his skewed views as the one and only truth? We've all read it the last 10 billion times(give or take a few) and could do without ever seeing it again.

Everytime it happens the conversation turns into the same one that's been hijacked a million times before. I recognise that it takes more than one person to keep it going. I realise that it's typically the same people as well. However it's always in response to the same instigation, and many of them were already involved in what had been, up to that point, a productive conversation. This is why I try not to respond when baited, but it's pretty hard not to when it's a topic you actually want to get something out of and it gets derailed by the same person over and over again.

Also remember he's not the only person of faith on these boards. There are others and we know this. I've seen some pretty decent conversations with them giving their input and it actually further the conversation.

I've said it before, I enjoy talking about religion with religious people in an intelligent way. These discussions I've been refering to have not been intelligent conversations. Again, he's not the only reason for it. There are many other perpetrators. He's just the most consistent. I don't think he should be banned or anything. Despite what some would have you believe he does contribute in other parts of the forum and it's typically in a positive way. I've enjoyed some of those topics he's posted in. I just think that when these kinds of derailments occur the posts should be removed. It'd send a message that all the petty repetitive bickering needs to stop so that we can have intelligent conversations where everybody comes out the better for having participated.

[ April 27, 2007, 05:34: Message edited by: Shadow Assassin ]

 

What if there is religious truth? And further, what if it is as difficult to accept as the Scientific truths you point out?

Critics branded Gallileo a heretic. Critics also branded Joseph Smith a fraud. Gallileo was no heretic, and I don't think Joseph Smith is a fraud. Such mud slinging is an attempt to crush what they don't like. It didn't work for science, does that lend credibility to my faith?

Your condescending attitude towards my personal experiences aside, I posted a link a couple days ago that provided supporting data for the Book of Mormon and the Church itself. www.ancientamerica.org is a site that's researched the claims made in the Book of Mormon and found more corroberating evidence than the critics would care to admit.

Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami, I've heard a story where they were credited for helping immensely after tornadoes in Florida. Those are a few examples. I don't have links, but I would assume that they could be found through the Church's official site...

And how much of this is the Government starting to mimic? For years, we've been told to prepare "72 hour backpacks" with all the essentials for survival if you need to leave your home for up to 72 hours. Just his past fall, the Government here in Canada has been telling citizens in general to do that. And are you saying that having a year's supply of food (maybe not fancy, but edible) on hand wouldn't help in times of financial distress (like sudden job loss)? Based on the prophesies of the end times (look at Isaiah, Revelation and the Doctrine and Covenents for these), and we have been warned that things are going to get worse...

The Church doesn't send members into a war zone. They have pulled missionaries out of such hotspots in the past...

I do not claim a monopoly on such ignorance or intolerance...

The links given by my critics in the past have proven nothing. The ones I have provided have apparently been ignored. How is anything supposed to change?

I wasn't the one that went there. If you must give me hell for something I say, make sure it was something I said. I find your comments about my religion to be just as hateful and bigoted as you say my religion's teachings about the native peoples are.

Actually, I give my opinions and I face ridicule to actual hatred. Recently they ventured into character assassination against the founding prophets of my religion. Who's trying to derail anything?

Thanks Proteus_za. My religious beliefs require me to speak up, and warn me that I will face such flak. The recent threads were more than I was prepared for...

We don't see it as harm. We don't think we're harming someone by calling them on their sins. We believe it more destructive to leave them on these paths unwarned. Having tread some of thes paths, I understand this...

Again, I think my problem comes from a lack of skill, not from a position of hatred. Further, I don't have the ability to research (ADHD), and due to limits on my time online, access to research materials. I rely on what is provided here to see the charges against my faith.

I try to do that, but I focus more on learning the Doctrine, not the imperfections of the past leaders or any of the accusations against them.

But the doctrine doesn't change. Who says that change is a good thing?

T2 researched the history of the church, and dug up things that I question the validity of. I, on the other hand, investigated the doctrine and evaluated the spiritual side of the matter. What I know about the church is harder to explain than the documents and site links that T2 can produce, and that is another thing that makes it harder to discuss my beliefs in a way that others can relate to.

Further, who says that if you did strip that faith away from a person and browbeat them into a logical path, how do you know that they will reach the conclusion that you want them to?

A mixture of apathy and wrath with an unhealthy dose of anomy? No drug or alcohol that can fill that void like it seemed to once before...

Practice. Also, to understand what people are saying is harder to do at "ground zero" than it is later when I have time to think about the things are said without the perceived arrogance or hostility towards my points. Some of the "compromises" I have come to required me to think about this. But no matter what I give, there is still a line in the sand that I will not give up. Something tells me that the discussions here in the alleys need someone to toe that line. I sometimes wonder if my lack of skill does a disservice in that regard...

But what if some people are calling religious beliefs uninformed? There will always be a chasm between believers and non-believers that can only be bridged by a leap of faith. Those that refuse it don't believe in the ledge on the other side, those that miss emerge on the non-believing side more convinced of this, but the believers usually like their side of the chasm better than where they started...

I try to share my beliefs on the topic, but face derision that tends to derail the topic. Is it my beliefs or the criticism I face that caused the problems?

I know what I say will not be "politically correct", and I know what I say will not be popular, but is it me or the people that seem to want me out of the conversation that cause the problem?

Then why is it that any positive points I try to make are ignored or lost in the shouts of people telling me that my beliefs aren't welcome.

But how do you point to where the point ends and the bickering begins? I often try to make a point, only to find multiple people derailing the topic to tell me to shut up...

 

For the most part, those scientific proofs weren't accepted because of Religious beliefs.
"Truth" can't exist without evidence and ultimately proof. As has been pointed out many times before, Science works by taking a concept and testing it to try and prove it false. If it is ever found to be wrong it is discarded (Unless the "False" evidence can be proven to part of a different phenomena). Religion doesn't work this way - non-believers can proffer numerous examples of where religious beliefs do not fit with physical evidence but these examples tend to be totally ignored.
If you could offer us incontestable evidence, you'd make believers out of us, although of course then it wouldn't be "Belief".

 

Can someone enlighten me a bit further on the 'extremist-survivalist' nature of Mormonism? What's extremist about it, and is there something wrong with survivalism (frankly I think it's a pretty good idea at this point...).

Gnarff:
Are there areas of doctrine - if given straight facts from objective and reliable (i.e. scientific) sources - where you're willing to bend? I'm sure we could give you links to such sources, or point out where to find such sources, especially when it comes to the native Americans thing.

 

You're working from the skewed version of the Golden Rule. The original form was, That which is distasteful to you, do not do to another. The negative spin makes for a subtle difference, but when you examine it, trying to live to that standard is much more challenging.

Think about the point Gnarff just raised, that of saving someone from what he sees as their sins. Under the common version, a proseletyzer can justify his actions by saying to himself, "Of course I'd want someone else to save my from damnation! Therefore, I must do the same!" Yet applying the other version could give the same person pause: "Hmm, I can't stand it when someone tries to tell me that what I believe is all wrong. Maybe I shouldn't do that to them, either."

Those old Rabbis knew a thing or two about life, after all.

The Torah doesn't change, either, yet the world around us DOES. For the last 5767 years, it's been the challenge of Jews to figure out how ancient wisdom applies to modern situations. Even those who cling to tradition the tightest can't deny the world they live in, and they don't try to. That's the part about Mormon doctrine that I can't get past - the reflex to fall back on the easy solution of denying the world as a collections of temptations, instead of going through the intellectual and spiritual exercise of reconciling belief and fact. Who knows, maybe your faith will come out the stronger for it.

What I see in this thread - on both sides - is extreme unwillingness. Finding a religious path that's intellectually consistent is difficult, granted, but it is possible to do IF YOU WANT TO DO IT. From what I've read here, I don't see many people who are willing to make the effort. The anti-religion side falls back on its old saw of "I believe in science, therefore, I'm an atheist" as quickly as people of faith say, "That's not what my Book says!"

 

Scientists can have faith but religious nuts cant have science as I see it.

 

After taking a step back (and couple of deep breaths) I did a little self-evaluation to figure out what Gnarff has said that really irked me. It was his statement that the efficiency of the church in helping others was proof that it was divine. I interpreted that as he was trying to take partial credit for something he may or may not have had anything to do with. I could have been wrong, but that's the way I saw it.

I have been in many organizations where some people have taken credit for other's work (including mine). I also have many family member who work quite diligently in various projects in the Mormon church. I do not believe efficiency means divine. In the Chicago area a radio station (country, not divine by any stretch) organized a drive which filled six semi trailers of food, clothing and building supplies and had it to New Orleans in four days (from conception to delivery). That was a product of good organization, hard word and total benevolence.

The charitable contributions of the Mormon church are also a product of good, talented people working very hard to help their fellow man (the Mormons philosophy is that all mankind are their brothers and sisters). To say it is only because of God's influence that the charitable work is done efficiently is just robbing credit from those who did the work -- I may be a bit sensitive to this.

One of the strengths of the Mormon church is it's efficiency. It could easily be an excellent leadership model to study. The people in positions of leadership are very well trained and totally dedicated. The integrity of leadership is unparalleled (even comparing to other religions). The Mormon church has an excellent leadership training program and promotes (they use the term 'calling') people with proven track records into key leadership positions. As I said before, that is not divine -- just good, solid organizational structure.


If anyone want to discuss doctrine they should look first at the links I posted on the first page. Look at what the Mormons believe and ask questions from that. Going to one of many of the anti-Mormon sites is really counter-productive (many of arguments are really ridiculous) and you should be able to form your own opinions based on the actual Mormon doctrines.

Gnarff, your interpretations of the church doctrine has not always been presented in way that is in line with what the Mormon church publishes. You claim to know the doctrine and imply that I only know the history -- that is simply not true.

 

That is one huge problem I have with Christianity - the belief that we are all inherently evil and only god is good and the source of god.

That undermines humans and makes them feel okay to be bad. god is not the source of god, we are.

 

There are two basic tenants in many Christian beliefs:

1. Original sin. Children are conceived in sin and are born in sin. They cannot be cleansed until properly baptised. The Mormons do not believe in this. They believe children are born perfect and sinless -- young children who die automatically gain entrance to heaven. Children cannot sin until they reach a point where they understand sin (this happens somewhere between ages 5 and 10, it is different for each child). Mormon children are not baptised until they are 8 years old. There is some very interesting Mormon doctrine around this -- which is very appealing to parents who have lost young children (a lot of converts from Catholicism because of this).

2. Left to his own devices, man will chose evil. It is only through faith and diligence that man is good. I like Buddism on this point -- man is good unless influenced to do evil. The Mormon philosophy is that man is basically good, but weak without adequate moral support. A weak individual has a much greater risk to do evil.

I think these two points are strengths of the Mormon church.

[ April 27, 2007, 20:44: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

The words religion and science cover a broad spectrum. The word Christianity covers a lot of sub-beliefs having common that they are based to some extent or another on the teachings of Jesus.

I have said it before and I'll say it ad infinitum :

Religion is not to blame for the evils of this world; human beings are. Humans are inherently self-centered. If they weren't the species probably wouldn't have survived. Religion was and still is an attempt to explain ourselves and the world around us.

So is science which is where the conflict arises. Science is not
perfect, mistakes have been made and sometimes it takes a long time to rectify these mistakes.

Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of a divine being. Religion can't either except to the individual.

The first human looked at the world and found it mysterious and scary as well as beautiful and enticing. So began our journey which continues and will continue as long as humans exist.

I believe the world is round. Why do I believe the world is round? If I look outside it looks pretty flat to me. I was taught that the world is round. Sure there is plenty of evidence that it is round but I personally haven't seen it. Even from an airplane it doesn't show as a ball and I haven't been to outer-space. I am taking someone else's word for it that the world is round.

 

Science doesnt give people the motivation to go to war though.

Yes I know it makes killing easier, but we've been killing from back when we were using sharp stones, we will carry on killing when we use plasma guns. the only difference is how efficient we are.

As for religion, religion is only a product of man, and often embodies his worst traits unfortunately.

Faith can be great, but religion can be terrible.

 

Religion doesn't give people motivation to go to war either. People in power are the ones that cause wars, whether secular leaders or religious ones.

Also...
/me applauds Nakia

 

Thank you, Fel. /me applauds Felinoid.

I simply do not understand why anti-religious people keep saying that religion causes war or any other evil for that matter. If religion is human-created and not god-created then it is humans that cause war. You can't have it both ways. If you do not believe in god then he/she/it didn't create anything. So who is left to create dissension? I'd quote Fel but his post is right up there above mine.

Now an agnostic might say ( ) there is a possiblity that god causes wars but I don't really know because I don't know if there is or is not a god.

Moderates get ignored. Threads such as this one don't (IMO) exist to discuss religion but to agrue about it and arguing is and that is my

 

Religion can be terrible and an excuse to do all kinds of horrific acts. But religion also can bind a community together and provide a place where like-minded people can gather (granted, sometimes this is not good). The social aspects of religion can be quite beneficial.

I think science can be a motivation for war. Technology gives an advantage and requires resources. Nuclear technology has caused no end of grief throughout the world. The war in the Pacific (WWII) was all about Japan's need for oil -- that's a technology motivated war.

In the end, I think you'll find greed causes most wars. One side is envious of something the other side has. Another main cause of war is pride.