LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

(emphasis added) Thank you for (finally) admitting to a place in the text where you have altered my post. Seeing you master the ellipsis is, in fact, a refreshing change. it almost gives one hope.

Ever hear the expression "grasping at straws"?

OTH, you immediately pull a "26:11" by resorting to distortion of my words. Again.

The highlighted term is your own, unique, redaction; it neither appears, nor can with any pretense of honesty be said to be implied by, what I posted. It is, however, the argument to which you are prepared to respond, so your need (independent of my words), makes it (in your mind) a proper insertion.

You seek refuge in semantical circumlocution (here and elsewhere).

What I did, in fact, say, is that an artist's own conviction that "divine inspiration" was operative in her creative process is not, in fact, evidence for the operation of "divine inspiration" (any more than the home crowd's conviction, at Notre Dame Stadium, that "touchdown Jesus" is on their side is evidence for what the final score will be).

Your "clarification" does nothing to change the intent of your statement. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I do know that there is no evidence, none, for the mere existence of a "divinity"; further, there is no evidence, none, for the operation of "divine inspiration" (to say nothing of the problem of from which of the multiple thousands of invented 'gods' the "divine afflatus" is to be taken as having issued).

That being the case, you are not as well informed as I thought you were.

I will forego your careless use of the term, "masterpiece".

And I will forego pointing out to you that periods go inside of quotation marks. Oh, wait, perhaps you're a Brit.

Consider the Teapot; consider the Unicorn. I can say, with confidence, that no evidence of the existence, upon Mars, of any form of life (more complex than bacteria) has even been advanced. Currently, Mars appears to be inhabited primarily by robots.

Indeed.

First, you mistake a hypothetical. Tsk, tsk. Then, you indulge in the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Which is odd, as you, yourself, belong to a minority splinter sect of xianity. How does the number of people on board, or the cost of the calliope, repair your fallacia pompae?

You've obviously forgotten what Professor Strunk said or at least implied: Don't try to be impressive by inserting foreign terms into English compositions.

I wonder how many 'gods' capable of "divine inspiration" you, personally, believe there are. I wonder if you realize that the concept of multiple 'gods' is not an xian concept.

Feel free to ponder to your heart's content.

First, is it you, not I, who assumes there are (or must be) "many 'gods' " (see just above). I do not assume there is (or are) any 'god' (or 'gods'). (To clairfy: "not any" is less than "many"; in fact, it is less than "one".)

That certainly seems to be the case.

Second, if you are not qualified to discern the deeply Lutheran protestant themes in the theology expressed in Messiah, you must (at least) be able to encompass the idea that Handel was not a devotee of the mormon 'god', as mormonism had not yet been invented. I do not claim to "know" what 'god' Handel worshiped, but I can read.

Oops, you attribute to me a statement I did not make. Hmmm . . . I think that makes you guilty of the very thing of which you accuse me. Tsk, tsk.

You (once again) mistake a hypothetical. It is not, in fact, I who "asserts" that there are multiple 'gods'. The one making that implication is, in fact, you (see just above).

I stated the composition of what Mormons believe constitutes the godhood.

To clarify: what I have asserted is that an artist's claim, or belief, or assertion that "divine inspiration" was operative in her work is not (I repeat, not) evidence of the actual existence (or operation) of "divine inspiration".

So you would not allow eyewitness, first-person testimony in a court of law.
Oh, you haven't said that. OK, how is one to interpret what you write above?

Perhaps you should check your "650,000-word dictionary"; you appear to be misusing the simple English noun, "accusation".

Good advice, inasmuch as that very dictionary gives multiple definitions for "accusation." You might want to consult Fowler's Modern English Usage, 3rd edition, and give special attention to "accuse."

OTH, as long as you indulge yourself in your habit of basing your arguments upon cherry-picking, and quote-mining, and research-by-title, and special pleading, I will point it out.

I'm all a-tremble.

(I'm out of time. I'll respond to the balance of your post later.)

 

[Slowvehicle]

So if I say that The Flying Spaghetti Monster inspired me to know that the BoM was written by a con man who hoaxed up a new religion so he could get into little girls' pants, then that proves to you that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real?

Ramen, and ramen! Sauce say we all!

 

[Giordano]

That being the case, you are not as well informed as I thought you were.

Then please feel free to do as requested and provide evidence of such a deity. Thanks! And again, just so you are clear, claiming a divine inspiration is not quite the same "evidence" as that several people saw John rob a liquor store at 5:34 PM last night. Especially because people clearly differ as to the identity of the deity that allegedly inspired them, let alone differ if a deity did so at all. "It was John! No it was Jim! No, it was Sally! No, the liquor store was not robbed at at!" Is this the "evidence" for the LDS deity on which you intend to rely? Such "first-person" often contradictory evidence in the absence of physical evidence would not lead to a conviction in a court of law.

 

[Giordano]

(I'm out of time. I'll respond to the balance of your post later.)

Great. Perhaps you will have time to address the many factual points that have been raised here, such as the existence of domesticated horses and steel tools in the Americas before the arrival of the Spanish. Evidence of such things would be especially helpful.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ever hear the expression "grasping at straws"?

Irony is as difficult for you as is nuance, isn't it? How very sad.

You seek refuge in semantical circumlocution (here and elsewhere).

This is, simply, incorrect. You dishonestly added a word to what you pretended I had said. Go back and read what I actually posted, then compare it to what you made free to pretend I said.

I need no "refuge"; your notorious habit of redacting my words is patent in the thread. Feel free to engage my actual words.

Your "clarification" does nothing to change the intent of your statement. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

This is, simply, incorrect. You appear to endorse the idea that an artist's belief in "divine inspiration" demonstrates that "divine inspiration" actually exists. In fact, an artist's belief in "divine inspiration" demonstrates no more than that she believes in "divine inspiration".

To say nothing of your admission that there must be more than one "divinity" issuing the "divine afflatus".

As long as you continue in falsehood, I will continue to point it out to you.

That being the case, you are not as well informed as I thought you were.

Do feel free to present actual evidence (insert litany) for the existence of "divine inspiration". It might help your cause if such evidence did not consist of simply pointing out that some artists believe in "divine inspiration"; after all, some artists believe in acupuncture, or feng sui, or crystals, or the efficacy of mind-altering substances. Suppose you link to an actual study demonstrating the actual existence of an actual "divine afflatus"?

There's a lad.

And I will forego pointing out to you that periods go inside of quotation marks. Oh, wait, perhaps you're a Brit.

That's right. You are the one who tried to claim that there was no such usage as "scare quotes". FWIW, the informal construction is that the period belongs outside the "scare quotes" if it is not part of that upon which the aspersion is being cast.
http://stevenhouchin.blogspot.com/2010/11/scare-quotes.html (for instance)

Did you figure out how you are misusing "masterpiece"?

Indeed.

You've obviously forgotten what Professor Strunk said or at least implied: Don't try to be impressive by inserting foreign terms into English compositions.

I'm sorry to have confused you with the scholarly habit of dog-Latin neologism. Does your evasion indicate that you are unwilling to address the issue?

In case you think it went unnoticed, you did not, in fact, address the question I asked.

Feel free to ponder to your heart's content.

Care to address the issue? If the "divine afflatus" that you claim "inspired" Handel (a staunch Lutheran) did not issue form the 'god' of C"JC"LDS dogma, whence did it issue? How many other "divinities" are also capable of ""inspiration"?

That certainly seems to be the case.

Care to address the issue? Surely you realize that you did not. It did not go unnoticed.

Oops, you attribute to me a statement I did not make. Hmmm . . . I think that makes you guilty of the very thing of which you accuse me. Tsk, tsk.

Are you even bothering to read the post to which you are pretending to respond?

Be so kind as to identify what part of:

Second, if you are not qualified to discern the deeply Lutheran protestant themes in the theology expressed in Messiah, you must (at least) be able to encompass the idea that Handel was not a devotee of the mormon 'god', as mormonism had not yet been invented. I do not claim to "know" what 'god' Handel worshiped, but I can read.

(my words)

...you consider to be a "statement" "attributed" to you? Seriously.

I stated the composition of what Mormons believe constitutes the godhood.

Care to address the issue? You did not explain the theology of Lorenzo Snow:
https://www.lds.org/churchhistory/pr...5&topic=quotes
http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

Nor did you explain whether it has been rejected by "divine revelation", or was simply wrong in the first place.

Does not LDS theology hold that humans can, themselves, become 'gods'?
http://www.mrm.org/god-of-mormonism

What source(s) do you offer, for your counterclaim?

Is this like your gloss on the fact that members of your club demonstrably embrace things not recorded anywhere in the xian canon, while demonstrably rejecting things that are, in fact, specifically recorded in the xian canon?

So you would not allow eyewitness, first-person testimony in a court of law.
Oh, you haven't said that.

Right. I did not, in fact, say that. Thank you for admitting that you were not telling the truth about what I said.

OK, how is one to interpret what you write above?

Where did you read for the law? Had you done so, or paid attention when you did, you would not need to ask that question. Had you read any of the material to which I linked, you would not need to ask that question.

Is it, in fact, your contention that testimony must be taken at face value?

Good advice, inasmuch as that very dictionary gives multiple definitions for "accusation." You might want to consult Fowler's Modern English Usage, 3rd edition, and give special attention to "accuse."

Actually, for legal terms I prefer to refer to a legal dictionary. Black's is good. Perhaps you would deign to identify the "accusations" you attribute to me...

I'm all a-tremble.

And yet, you continue to indulge yourself in cherry-picking, in quote mining, in research-by-title, and in false statements.

Fortunately, you appear to be soft on, and casual about, the whole "bearing false witness" thing.

 

[Pup]

This isn't rocket surgery.

If we should take at face value everyone's detailed claims of divine inspiration, then we have to take at face value that the inspiration is from a non-Mormon god, if the person says so. Therefore, such evidence may show that the LDS religion is false.

If we don't take it at face value, then we're free to have any sort of other interpretation, even one that supports the LDS church, but the LDS interpretation is not necessarily stronger than any other.

Either way, it produces weak support for inspiration from the LDS godhead, and may actually produce evidence against the church.

I don't see how this strengthens the pro-LDS side of the debate, if that's what it's meant to do.

 

[Giordano]

I think it might help to again point out to Skyrider that a statement saying that there is "no evidence for the existence of ..." is not the same as a statement saying that "there is evidence of the absence of..." The former is relatively easily refuted by providing any convincing evidence for the existence of...

And I would reiterate Pup's point: given that people have claimed, and do have, belief in many non-existent things, a simple belief is far from proof of the existence of that thing. I used to believe that Sherlock Holmes was a real person-did that make it so?

 

[Craig4]

Great. Perhaps you will have time to address the many factual points that have been raised here, such as the existence of domesticated horses and steel tools in the Americas before the arrival of the Spanish. Evidence of such things would be especially helpful.

The silk purse you're asking for won't be coming from the sow's ear that is the BoM or the Mormon "scholarship" that vainly attempts to repair the irreparable.

 

[halleyscomet]

Then please feel free to do as requested and provide evidence of such a deity.

Oh, but he HAS!

The fact that people talk about being influenced by divine inspiration is in and of itself proof of God!

Just LOOK at all the Allah inspired art out there!

http://www.iradaarts.com/

See? SkyRider44's metric PROVES Islam to be the one true religion. If you SAY God inspired you then he DID.

So, SkyRider44, now that you've announced your conversion to Islam, are you Sufi or Sunni?

And, uh all those Islamic terrorists who claim they were inspired by Allah to blow people up. What, er, ah, do you have to say about them? Since, according to you, they HAVE to have been inspired by God, it kida, well, doesn't reflect too well on God, does it now?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Oh, but he HAS!

The fact that people talk about being influenced by divine inspiration is in and of itself proof of God!

Just LOOK at all the Allah inspired art out there!

http://www.iradaarts.com/

See? SkyRider44's metric PROVES Islam to be the one true religion. If you SAY God inspired you then he DID.

So, SkyRider44, now that you've announced your conversion to Islam, are you Sufi or Sunni?

And, uh all those Islamic terrorists who claim they were inspired by Allah to blow people up. What, er, ah, do you have to say about them? Since, according to you, they HAVE to have been inspired by God, it kida, well, doesn't reflect too well on God, does it now?

 

[Pup]

Seriously, could we get an answer about this, Skyrider?

It seems the usual theist dodge, where theists use something as evidence for any god to beat those evil atheists in an argument, deliberately overlooking the fact that if it's true, it's also evidence that their own theology is wrong.

Is that what you're doing? What logical point are you making?

 

[halleyscomet]

Seriously, could we get an answer about this, Skyrider?

It seems the usual theist dodge, where theists use something as evidence for any god to beat those evil atheists in an argument, deliberately overlooking the fact that if it's true, it's also evidence that their own theology is wrong.

Is that what you're doing? What logical point are you making?

Perhaps he's decided to adopt the faith of the original inhabitants of this great land, since they too, were OBVIOUSLY inspired by the divine, because they said so. While the art inspired by Allah has a geometric wonder all its own, Native American cultures never had a prohibition against depicting living things.

Of course,the Aztecs had some rather, er, dramatic religious rituals inspired by their gods. (NSFL, probably NSFW)

By SkyRider44's own metric, this means the Aztecs AND the Muslims are right in attributing their inspirations to God.

I'm not surprised to find SkyRider44 is a polytheist. Mormons are cosmologically speaking polytheists by nature. Divinity is a pyramid scheme in Mormonism, with an infinite supply of planets for good Mormons to inherit after their hoped-for tin-pot deification. I am however a bit surprised at the scope of the pantheon Skyrider44's endorsing with his latest arguments against atheism.

 

[bruto]

Not to blow my own horn (or at least not too loud) I think I addressed the sectarian inspiration issue in post 1933.

It's ironic, of course, that Skyrider has cited Handel, who, aside from predating the Mormon religion altogether, is nowadays generally held to have been gay. Which kind of makes one wonder why, quite in addition to how clearly God loves gay artists, if He was so involved as to inspire sacred music, he waited so long to drop off those golden plates and get things straightened out. There's a lot of explaining left to do on this score. Some of the most ravishingly beautiful and inspiring, if not inspired, sacred music of the last century was written by Francis Poulenc (whom I earnestly suggest anyone who loves great choral music to look into further whatever their religious proclivities!), a Catholic who, like Benjamin Britten, was in love with his favorite tenor. uh oh.

Seriously now, folks. 'tis the season to crack open Poulenc's Christmas Motets. Golden plates make a tinny clink by comparison.

 

[Giordano]

Not to blow my own horn (or at least not too loud) I think I addressed the sectarian inspiration issue in post 1933.

It's ironic, of course, that Skyrider has cited Handel, who, aside from predating the Mormon religion altogether, is nowadays generally held to have been gay. Which kind of makes one wonder why, quite in addition to how clearly God loves gay artists, if He was so involved as to inspire sacred music, he waited so long to drop off those golden plates and get things straightened out. There's a lot of explaining left to do on this score. Some of the most ravishingly beautiful and inspiring, if not inspired, sacred music of the last century was written by Francis Poulenc (whom I earnestly suggest anyone who loves great choral music to look into further whatever their religious proclivities!), a Catholic who, like Benjamin Britten, was in love with his favorite tenor. uh oh.

Seriously now, folks. 'tis the season to crack open Poulenc's Christmas Motets. Golden plates make a tinny clink by comparison.

I already asked how one person, saying that they are divinely inspired, is proof of a god, but why another person saying that they were not divinely inspired, is not proof of the lack of a god. Let alone how one person states that they were inspired by the Christian God, another person states that they were inspired by the Islamic God, and yet another person states that they were inspired by Shiva.

Now, you bring up that at least one of the people toted here as being inspired by a Christian God (clearly not the one described by the Church of LDS) to write music had other inspirations that apparently do not fit in with Skyrider's theology. It is all very confusing and makes one suspect that feelings of inspiration are not proof of the factual existence of a god.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I already asked how one person, saying that they are divinely inspired, is proof of a god, but why another person saying that they were not divinely inspired, is not proof of the lack of a god. Let alone how one person states that they were inspired by the Christian God, another person states that they were inspired by the Islamic God, and yet another person states that they were inspired by Shiva.

Now, you bring up that at least one of the people toted here as being inspired by a Christian God (clearly not the one described by the Church of LDS) to write music had other inspirations that apparently do not fit in with Skyrider's theology. It is all very confusing and makes one suspect that feelings of inspiration are not proof of the factual existence of a god.

 

[tsig]

To believe in Mormonism you have to beleive:

1. there is a god

2. this god wants to communicate with mankind

3. this god thinks the best way to communicate with mankind is to have a golden book written and then hide it in the ground.

 

[halleyscomet]

I already asked how one person, saying that they are divinely inspired, is proof of a god, but why another person saying that they were not divinely inspired, is not proof of the lack of a god. Let alone how one person states that they were inspired by the Christian God, another person states that they were inspired by the Islamic God, and yet another person states that they were inspired by Shiva.

Now, you bring up that at least one of the people toted here as being inspired by a Christian God (clearly not the one described by the Church of LDS) to write music had other inspirations that apparently do not fit in with Skyrider's theology. It is all very confusing and makes one suspect that feelings of inspiration are not proof of the factual existence of a god.

makes one suspect that feelings of inspiration are not proof of the factual existence of a god.

makes one suspect that feelings of inspiration are not proof of the factual existence of a god.

makes one suspect that feelings of inspiration are not proof of the factual existence of a god.

makes one suspect that feelings of inspiration are not proof of the factual existence of a god.

Immaculately Inconceivable!

 

[Slowvehicle]

Immaculately Inconceivable!

You keep usin' that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

 

[Giordano]

To believe in Mormonism you have to beleive:

1. there is a god

2. this god wants to communicate with mankind

3. this god thinks the best way to communicate with mankind is to have a golden book written and then hide it in the ground.

Appears to be keeping with the other "known" attributes of gods: they cannot use any of the many means available to them that would actually prove their existence; instead you must have faith! Even though the most popular Western god will doom you to Hell if you don't believe. Sort of like: "I am thinking of a number between 1 and 1000; guess it or spend all eternity in a place of torture. Oh sorry, you and another 5 billion people guessed wrong. Too bad."

Oddly, big, showy "proofs" were acceptable to god(s) thousands of year ago (darkened skies, zombies, etc.), but don't expect these anymore- too blatant. And even gold plates a hundred years ago had to be given back to the angels presumably to avoid leaving behind actual, factual evidence. Instead, we are reduced to small stuff: images on burnt toast for example.

 

[Giordano]

You keep usin' that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

Sure I know what it means: inconceivable relates to our discussion of non-procreative sex in another thread, right?