LDS II: The Mormons

[halleyscomet]

Obviously (why need I say it?), the answer depends on the moral/ethical "weight" of the belief. If one believes murder is acceptable, his/her belief should be rejected. However, individuals can derive satisfaction and happiness from watching a magician perform "miracles," even though they know the magician is tricking them; i.e., that the "miracles" are not true.

Thank you for conceding the importance of KNOWING a thing is false. I have no issue with people enjoying a good bit of fiction. My objection is to people being tricked into believing a thing is true when its not. If you want to read the Book of Mormon as allegory and teach it as allegory or myth, go for it. My issue is with the people who claims a thing is TRUE when it is not.

This tangent started with the fact that Paul didn't really speak about homosexuality, and the term he did use was too vague to attach the meaning to it that you're trying to attach. How can you cling to your anti-gay stance when the core evidence you had to offer is based upon not an accurate translation, but a traditional, yet inaccurate one?

Not unless one has extensive peer-reviewed data from science journals that justify, or at least call into question, liberal claims re. climate change.

Climate change is no longer up for debate in the scientific community. The illusion of there being a debate is a creation of right wing news outlets. That said, I don't think a climate change debate is relevant to this thread. Suffice it to say, I'm going to side with the well over 90% of climate experts who say the data supports the theory that climate change is happening.

The answer depends on whether or not one believes "its historical claims have been blasted to atoms."

What historical claims made in the Book of Mormon HAVE survived scrutiny? Native Americans are not descended from Jews. There's NO evidence of the steel working claimed by Nephi. The closest to a horse like animal in the New World before Columbus was the Llama. There's NO archeological evidence of any of the massive cities or battles mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

The ONLY way the Book of Mormon could be valid history would be if, when Jesus allegedly appeared in the Americas after his death and resurrection he ALSO:

• Eliminated ALL archeological evidence of the advanced metalworking described in the book of Mormon.
  
• Killed all the horses and European farm animals and removed all their bones and remains from the continent.
  
• Recoded the DNA of all the people in the Americas to explicitly remove the DNA markers we've tested for to trace Jewish ancestry.
  
• Inserted new DNA to trick us into tracing the ancestry of Native Americans to specif regions in Asia.
  
• Removed all the archeological evidence that would have existed of mining an processing the ore needed to produce steel.
  
• Removed all the steel.
  
• Wiped out all the European food crops mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
  
• Erased all the archeological evidence of vast cities and massive battlefields.
  
• Reworked the contents of the latrines and cesspool areas used by Native Americans to eliminate evidence of numerous European crops and insert evidence of an entirely different diet.

I could go on, but Jesus would have had to do a LOT of cleanup for the explicit purpose of eliminating evidence of the Book of Mormon. Why would God work so hard to make it look like the Book of moron was a work of fiction?

 

[bruto]

Well, one must admit that if you get enjoyment from watching a skilled mountebank at work, you could do much worse than following Joseph Smith!

 

[skyrider44]

Thank you for conceding the importance of KNOWING a thing is false. I have no issue with people enjoying a good bit of fiction. My objection is to people being tricked into believing a thing is true when its not. If you want to read the Book of Mormon as allegory and teach it as allegory or myth, go for it. My issue is with the people who claims a thing is TRUE when it is not.

I have said from the outset that a person can enjoy an event or happening even if he/she knows it isn't true. I gave examples of professional wrestling and magic shows. I have conceded nothing.

This tangent started with the fact that Paul didn't really speak about homosexuality, and the term he did use was too vague to attach the meaning to it that you're trying to attach. How can you cling to your anti-gay stance when the core evidence you had to offer is based upon not an accurate translation, but a traditional, yet inaccurate one?

Note the following: "From the Apostle Paul's initial usage through 1453 AD, the Greek Language Thesaurus at the Univ. of California-Irvine, lists 73 occurrences of the arsenokoit stem. The first two are found in 1 Corin. amd 1 Timothy, and all of the remaining references come after the biblical citations made by the Apostle Paul. Therefore, these later occurrences cannot be argued to have any influence on the meaning of Paul's usage of the term—if anything, it would have to be the other way around."
www.charismanews.com/opinion/43977-the-apostle-paul-and-homosexuality-answer

How did Paul come up with such a word? One need look no further than the Septuagint (2nd century B.C.), the Greek translation of the OT. Biblical writers included quotations from the Septuagint in the NT. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 we see the "two Greek stems from which Paul constructed the compound word translated as homosexual." (same source as above).

Leviticus 20:13 has hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos. Arsenos translates as male, "and the word koiten means 'to lie/bed with," which is a euphemistic reference to sexual intercourse." (same source as above)

Your denials notwithstanding, Paul spoke clearly against homosexuality.

Climate change is no longer up for debate in the scientific community. The illusion of there being a debate is a creation of right wing news outlets. That said, I don't think a climate change debate is relevant to this thread.

So why did you introduce it into this discussion?

What historical claims made in the Book of Mormon HAVE survived scrutiny? Native Americans are not descended from Jews. There's NO evidence of the steel working claimed by Nephi. The closest to a horse like animal in the New World before Columbus was the Llama. There's NO archeological evidence of any of the massive cities or battles mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Again, how is the foregoing relevant to this discussion? The issues you present have been discussed again and again (and again). I must conclude you felt compelled to shoe-horn in criticism of the LDS Church, a practice that is in evidence in some of your other posts.

Because the balance of your post is off-topic, I have deleted it.

 

[halleyscomet]

Again, how is the foregoing relevant to this discussion? The issues you present have been discussed again and again (and again). I must conclude you felt compelled to shoe-horn in criticism of the LDS Church, a practice that is in evidence in some of your other posts.

This thread is ABOUT Mormons. Criticism of the Mormon church is more on-topic than our tangent about Paul.

The issue I've been focusing on is believing something is true when it clearly is not. The Book of Mormon is about the best possible example one could think of for discussing this concept in a thread about Mormons. The historical claims of the Book of Mormon are pure fiction, yet there are Mormons who believe it's a historically accurate document. If the Book of Mormon was merely a fiction created by John Smith then this is just the natural result of a con artist having successfully fooled his marks. However, if the Book of Mormon really IS a divine document then believing it to be literally true when it clearly is not means Satan has successfully tricked Millions of Mormons into NOT seeing God's real message in the Book of Mormon.

Imagine people reading Pilgrim's Progress and instead of seeing it's allegorical messages, they struck out hunting for the literal road the protagonist walked. Whatever moral or theological message that could have been learned from it would be lost in a futile effort to try and prove a fiction to be true. That's what you're doing to the Book of Mormon. If you actually believe the BOM is a divine document, then your dogmatic insistence that it's a literal history is Satan misdirecting you.

 

[halleyscomet]

Your denials notwithstanding, Paul spoke clearly against homosexuality.

I can see debating what Paul did or did not say about homosexuality with you is a futile effort. Biblical scholarship is a complex matter where there's considerable disagreement. Charismanews.com, being an overtly Charismatic outlet offers rather streamlined, simplistic commentaries. Since the debate lies in the complexity of language, charismanews.com isn't gong to get into the nitty-gritty needed for us to even HAVE a discussion about it. Your quotes completely SKIPPED the issues brought up in the article I linked to. Milk vs meat and all that.

This loops us back to the original issue. Even IF Paul spoke against homosexuality, so what? We've already discussed the fact that to Paul, ALL sex, even within the confines of marriage, is a moral failing. More to the point, Paul's Epistles are still just his personal advice to individual churches. You have yet to offer any compelling reason why Paul's opinions on sex should form a foundation for overall Christian morality. Even if we were to grant Paul a source of theology instead of mere human wisdom, you have offered no compelling reason why Paul's admonishment against sex in general is to be ignored.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want to heed Paul when your think he's attacking homosexuals, yet you want to ignore and discard him when he advises Christians to remain chaste unless they HAVE to get married because they're too lustful to resist the temptations of the flesh.

 

[kmortis]

This thread is now off Moderated status. This does not, however, relieve you all of the onus to post in a manner consistent with the Membership Agreement.

Think of the MA as your very own Book of Later Day Forums.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[RandFan]

...has it occurred to you that most Latter-day Saints derive enormous satisfaction from being active in the Church whether or not they have reservations about its validity?

I don't believe this is true. When I was a member I told everyone how happy being a Mormon made me even when I was getting therapy for depression. This is a common confession of those who leave Mormonism. Humans who force themselves to believe in things without evidence tend to suffer cognitive dissonance more than those who don't.

The thing about religious organizations is that the members are committed to their religion and most can see no way out. So they put on a happy face and pretend. I'm not saying they get no satisfaction, I'm not saying that there isn't value to belonging to a community, I'm saying that overall church is dull and time consuming. I'm saying the price of admission to the community is high. So high that the Church intentionally hides the down sides of membership (milk before meat) Most children wouldn't go if you didn't force them.

Why do millions of parents spend substantial time and money playing Santa Claus? Because it brings them and their children joy. Or why do professional wrestling fans spend big bucks to attend matches knowing full well that the wrestlers are faking it? It isn't necessary to believe in the truthfulness of something to receive satisfaction by accepting it on a peripheral level.

Most Mormons would pay a heavy price for leaving. I know I did. I lost friends and loved ones due to shunning. I lost a community that I did in fact value. I know non-believers who go to the Church just as parents play Santa Claus.

It sucks that the Church requires people to pretend or be punished (see bishop interview questions).

I advice anyone who is considering joining the following.

• The church does not respect the basic fundamental right of informed consent (milk before meat). Prospective members are not told embarrassing details about strange rituals in the temple. They are not told that they will have to give up much of their free time. That the Church pressures members to accept callings and they pressure members to pay 10% of their income, even if that means that an individual cannot pay rent or mortgage. Failing to pay tithing can keep you from your child's wedding.
• The Church does not respect freedom of expression. No criticism, even constructive and well intentioned criticism, is allowed of Church leaders. Even if the criticism is true.
• The Church does not respect freedom of conscience. You can be punished for thought crimes. You won't be put in prison or shot like people are in North Korea but you can be disfellowshipped or excommunicated.
• The Church has rewritten its history to keep prospective members and members from making informed choices.
• The Church is not transparent. It will not disclose its finances and will not allow members to actively participate in the allocation of funds.

Most non-members who find out the truth about the church would never accept the apologetics. The apologetics are only a means to keep members from leaving. They are no more compelling than Scientology apologetics. Both have galactic space dramas as their beginning, both require lots of volunteer work, both are full of contradiction and absurdity.

 

[halleyscomet]

Failing to pay tithing can keep you from your child's wedding.

Do Mormons ever invoke a version of the protestant work ethic to justify behavior like this?

For example, is it ever claimed that a person who can't pay the tithe is being punished by God for a failing elsewhere in life?

 

[skyrider44]

This thread is ABOUT Mormons. Criticism of the Mormon church is more on-topic than our tangent about Paul.

Then why do you find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time minimizing the importance of Paul?

The issue I've been focusing on is believing something is true when it clearly is not.

How can that be an "issue"? Where we part company is your unwillingness to admit that something doesn't have to be true to produce enjoyment and happiness.

The Book of Mormon is about the best possible example one could think of for discussing this concept in a thread about Mormons.

Are you unaware that some faithful LDS reject the plates story as the origin of the BoM, but still find valuable, unique spiritual insights in the book?

The historical claims of the Book of Mormon are pure fiction, yet there are Mormons who believe it's a historically accurate document.

Critics have had to backtrack re. claims that some statements in the BoM are false. I can cite examples if you're interested.

. . . However, if the Book of Mormon really IS a divine document then believing it to be literally true when it clearly is not means Satan has successfully tricked Millions of Mormons into NOT seeing God's real message in the Book of Mormon.

If the BoM "really is a divine document" how would Satan be able to trick millions of Mormons into missing God's "real message" in the book?

. . . If you actually believe the BOM is a divine document, then your dogmatic insistence that it's a literal history is Satan misdirecting you.

As I note above, if the BoM is a divine document, Satan is tricking no one.

 

[jsfisher]

Are you unaware that some faithful LDS reject the plates story as the origin of the BoM, but still find valuable, unique spiritual insights in the book?

If the official LDS dogma is to accept the plates story, then those who reject it cannot possibly be faithful LDS. It is not a buffet, after all.

Critics have had to backtrack re. claims that some statements in the BoM are false. I can cite examples if you're interested.

Yes, please.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Then why do you find yourself spending an inordinate amount of time minimizing the importance of Paul?

How can that be an "issue"? Where we part company is your unwillingness to admit that something doesn't have to be true to produce enjoyment and happiness.

Which leads, inevitably, to the question: Why is something that "does not have to be true" a valid foundation for enforcing your moral ideas upon others?

NTM, what do you suppose Tarsi would have been said to have said about "pretending" to believe, like that?

Are you unaware that some faithful LDS reject the plates story as the origin of the BoM, but still find valuable, unique spiritual insights in the book?

And in what way are those soi-dissant "valuable, unique, moral insights" applicable to anyone not voluntarily adopting their sway? Why is following them on your own not enough for you and yours?

Critics have had to backtrack re. claims that some statements in the BoM are false. I can cite examples if you're interested.

I have been asking for evidence that the pre-colombian mesoamericans husbanded the horse, or raised bovine cattle, or smelted steel, or knew corn, barley, wheat, and the elephant, for a long time now. What new evidence have you to offer?

And why does that not apply, for instance, WRT grammar and lexicon?

If the BoM "really is a divine document" how would Satan be able to trick millions of Mormons into missing God's "real message" in the book?

As I note above, if the BoM is a divine document, Satan is tricking no one.

"Divine document", forsooth!

 

[skyrider44]

Which leads, inevitably, to the question: Why is something that "does not have to be true" a valid foundation for enforcing your moral ideas upon others?

The marketplace of ideas is open to all. The Church cannot "enforce" its "moral ideas upon others." It is free to express its position on moral issues and to advance them in public venues, but it cannot "enforce" its position on any given moral issue. True, one definition of "enforce" is to "urge with energy." Perhaps that is the sense in which you use "enforce." I suspect, however, that the applicable definition—given the context of your statement—is to "compel, constrain."

NTM, what do you suppose Tarsi would have been said to have said about "pretending" to believe, like that?

". . .would have been said to have said": Hypothetical questions, typically, are not worthy of a serious response.

And in what way are those soi-dissant "valuable, unique, moral insights" applicable to anyone not voluntarily adopting their sway? Why is following them on your own not enough for you and yours?

Here you validate my belief that you use "enforce" in the sense of compelling and constraining. That aside, following them on my own is enough for me and mine. What makes you think otherwise? Because General Motors advertises and promotes its line of cars and trucks, do you assume they disdain those who do not voluntarily buy their vehicles?

I have been asking for evidence that the pre-colombian mesoamericans husbanded the horse, or raised bovine cattle, or smelted steel, or knew corn, barley, wheat, and the elephant, for a long time now. What new evidence have you to offer?

I have presented some evidence, but those of your mindset will not accept it.
It is dead on arrival.

And why does that not apply, for instance, WRT grammar and lexicon?

What is "WRT"?

 

[Craig4]

Yes, please tell us of all the things the BoM gets right about the people living in the Pre Colombian Americas.

 

[Craig4]

You're not talking about the whole tapir being confused with a horse are you? That made an impression but not the way you had in mind I suspect.

 

[Nonpareil]

The marketplace of ideas is open to all. The Church cannot "enforce" its "moral ideas upon others." It is free to express its position on moral issues and to advance them in public venues, but it cannot "enforce" its position on any given moral issue. True, one definition of "enforce" is to "urge with energy." Perhaps that is the sense in which you use "enforce." I suspect, however, that the applicable definition—given the context of your statement—is to "compel, constrain."

That's quite a blatant dodge of the actual question.

Why is something that isn't true a valid basis for a moral code?

 

[tsig]

The marketplace of ideas is open to all. The Church cannot "enforce" its "moral ideas upon others." It is free to express its position on moral issues and to advance them in public venues, but it cannot "enforce" its position on any given moral issue. True, one definition of "enforce" is to "urge with energy." Perhaps that is the sense in which you use "enforce." I suspect, however, that the applicable definition—given the context of your statement—is to "compel, constrain."



". . .would have been said to have said": Hypothetical questions, typically, are not worthy of a serious response.



Here you validate my belief that you use "enforce" in the sense of compelling and constraining. That aside, following them on my own is enough for me and mine. What makes you think otherwise? Because General Motors advertises and promotes its line of cars and trucks, do you assume they disdain those who do not voluntarily buy their vehicles?


I have presented some evidence, but those of your mindset will not accept it.
It is dead on arrival.



What is "WRT"?

Picking a religion has no more significance than if I like a Ford or a Chevy?

 

[Olowkow]

....
How can that be an "issue"? Where we part company is your unwillingness to admit that something doesn't have to be true to produce enjoyment and happiness.
....

It's interesting to me that when I ask religious people if they really believe various doctrines of religion such as transubstantiation to be true, or do they merely go along with the dogma to preserve their social group of like-minded friends, I am often met with outrage at the mere suggestion of their feigning belief. Many of us, upon becoming adults, pride ourselves on maturing beyond false beliefs that make us feel good on the assumption that the general well being of our families, our communities, friends and ourselves benefits, when the greatest number of our beliefs reflects the true nature of the world around us.

A person of faith may derive great joy from the belief that a gold medallion will protect him from harm, but when the tornado approaches, the wise man will go to the basement. Basing life and death decisions on false beliefs is not worthy of admiration among those who value their lives.

As for religion's imposition of their members' beliefs on non believers, just ask the thousands women in Texas if they are being affected by the closing of women's health care centers because of religion's effect on governmental decisions. Ask the husbands of women who are destined to die of ectopic pregnancies, because preachers of some religion or politicians of "faith" know what is best for them. Ask those who have been denied basic fairness in their lives in being open and free to love whom they want whether, as homosexuals, they have been harmed by religious fervor.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You're not talking about the whole tapir being confused with a horse are you? That made an impression but not the way you had in mind I suspect.

 

[bruto]

I really think it is extremely odd for a person who has so long been touting the genuineness and correctness of his faith suddenly to say that one might accept the good stuff without believing it.

I am not so much opposed to that idea, and I know a few people who seem to approach their religion that way, but most of those I know are straying within the religion they were brought up in, which is in their comfort zone. Converting to a religion you cannot believe is another matter. In any case those I know who are unsure of their religion's doctrine are usually intelligent enough to be tolerant of others who do not buy it either. I would roundly condemn any person of any religion who combined that lax attitude toward doctrine with the idea that a church's policies should be insinuated into civil law.

It is more than odd, it's just crazy, to compare the efforts of various churches (broad brush intended here) to promote legislation of their moral point of view with the advertising of General Motors. Yes indeed, GM puts a lot of effort into trying to induce us to buy their product. I have yet to see GM promote a voting initiative to outlaw Fords.

The overweening attitude of zealots is harmful enough, but if you are going to take what you like and leave the rest you have no business telling others what to believe or how to behave.

 

[skyrider44]

I don't believe this is true. When I was a member I told everyone how happy being a Mormon made me even when I was getting therapy for depression. This is a common confession of those who leave Mormonism.

Your last sentence is conjecture—nothing more. Can you cite a sample size?
Demographics? How about a peer-reviewed journal article?

. . . I'm saying that overall church is dull and time consuming.

An inductive factor of one is less than credible.

Most Mormons would pay a heavy price for leaving. I know I did. I lost friends and loved ones due to shunning. I lost a community that I did in fact value.

I'm sure that's true, and I'm sincerely sorry that it happened to you.

I know non-believers who go to the Church just as parents play Santa Claus.

I know some of those, too. The term "social Mormons" has been used to describe them. Do you think the phenomenon is unique to Mormons?

It sucks that the Church requires people to pretend or be punished (see bishop interview questions).

You state a supposition, a belief, an opinion as a fact. Inasmuch as it's a "fact," perhaps you can provide documentation stating the percentage of Mormons who give dishonest answers to temple recommend questions.

I advice anyone who is considering joining the following.

• 
  . . . the Church pressures members to accept callings and they pressure members to pay 10% of their income, even if that means that an individual cannot pay rent or mortgage.

• 
  
  Your list lacks a semblance of balance; example: My ward paid the circa $1,800 monthly mortgage for a financially challenged family for almost two years.
  
  

  The Church does not respect freedom of expression. No criticism, even constructive and well intentioned criticism, is allowed of Church leaders. Even if the criticism is true.

  Apparently, you never attended a fast meeting during your time as a member of the Church (or a Gospel Doctrine class).
  
  

  The Church does not respect freedom of conscience. You can be punished for thought crimes.

  
  I didn't know the Church could read members' minds.
  
  

  The Church has rewritten its history to keep prospective members and members from making informed choices.

  
  Of course, that's why they have released Joseph Smith's personal papers.
  
  

  The Church is not transparent. It will not disclose its finances and will not allow members to actively participate in the allocation of funds.

  
  There was a time when the Church did disclose its finances. That policy led to disruptive debates about how the funds were being allocated.
  Members do actively participate in the allocation of their contributions via choices they mark on fast-offering slips.
  
  

  Most non-members who find out the truth about the church would never accept the apologetics. The apologetics are only a means to keep members from leaving. They are no more compelling than Scientology apologetics. Both have galactic space dramas as their beginning, both require lots of volunteer work, both are full of contradiction and absurdity.

  
  Your first sentence is yet another example of your commitment to conjecture.