LDS

[StankApe]

that and to avoid the thread turning into a big derail on the definitive use of "may have"

but I failed

 

[Vic Vega]

It shouldn't be, and I never said it was. To challenge is one thing, to besmirch is another, as in "She [Janadele] looks like a complete fool" (Vic Vega, Post 703 [before the split].

She started a topic and then did nothing but preach, refusing to answer any direct questions put to her except with meaningless platitudes.

I'll stand by my assessment of how she comes across. Foolish is one of the words I would use. There are many others.

 

[kerikiwi]

that and to avoid the thread turning into a big derail on the definitive use of "may have"

but I failed

May I say that the thread may be about LDS but we may achieve more with English grammar lessons.

 

[Shalamar]

that and to avoid the thread turning into a big derail on the definitive use of "may have"

but I failed

Noticing that the claims that the BoM may be wrong are *not* addressed by the believers here, perhaps they 'believe' it can not be defended, and this the only thing to do is to divert and change the subject?

 

[bruto]

It shouldn't be, and I never said it was. To challenge is one thing, to besmirch is another, as in "She [Janadele] looks like a complete fool" (Vic Vega, Post 703 [before the split]).

That aside, religious belief is not an "irrational" idea. If you believe that, then you must also believe that the following were beset with irrational ideas:
Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, William Thomson Kelvin, Max Planck--the list goes on.

Yes, irrational is the word, though "non rational" might be kinder. It's clear from your list and the unspoken continuation of it that many people find the limitation of what is rationally explainable or accessible to science to be uncomfortable, and in areas where there is no rational explanation, all speculation is, by definition, irrational. Many people find it possible to live with that division without making their science irrational. Philosophical arguments abound about the validity of "non overlapping magisteria" but obviously many scientists have found it possible to function in both without either being bad scientists or proving anything positive about their various and incompatible faiths.

As far as challenges to Janadele are concerned, most if not all of us have nothing against her. She's proven to be a pretty good sport, and stayed polite. But she has appeared to invite challenges and then stated that she can not and will not answer them meaningfully, and I at least do not think that continuing to point this out, to challenge the assertions and to demand that she (or anyone else) admit that faith is faith and cannot be proven simply by citing the authorities of faith is "besmirching." I would hope that nobody actually accuses Janadele of being an idiot, which I'm sure she is not, and if one did, it would be reportable. But saying she looks like one here, though harsh, is unfortunately not far from the truth.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Exactly. And no one here is forcing anyone to accept anything. Like the missionaries we are trying to propagate what we believe to be the truth. You want us to stop doing that all the while the Mormons do so officially. Don't you see the hypocrisy of that?

The difference being that we didn't even go knocking on their doors. They came to us.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I appreciate the offer, but I'm reasonably well versed in avoiding fallacies in logic and argumentation. Madsen Pirie's book How To Win Every Argument is especially instructive. I also recommend Nils Ch. Rauhut's The Big Questions.

Then why can't you defend your statement about scientific hypotheses requiring faith?

 

[Giordano]

Nope, all those guys may have had rational scientific beliefs, but their belief in a God is entirely irrational.

Sir Isaac Newton may have had a "rational scientific" belief?

Surely you jest.

Aside from the grammatical nitpicking, Newton did have some irrational scientific beliefs, such as in alchemy. And of course his rational scientific beliefs do not make his religious beliefs rational.

 

[StankApe]

Aside from the grammatical nitpicking, Newton did have some irrational scientific beliefs, such as in alchemy. And of course his rational scientific beliefs do not make his religious beliefs rational.

True, but I am a firm believer in zeitgeist and try to avoid the history vs modern comparison. To US alchemy seems quaint,silly and dangerous. To them, using the available knowledge, it seemed realistic, possible and an important discovery waiting to be made.

I don't think you can hold prior generations of scientists up to the same scrutiny you can a modern one. Unless of course they were ignoring established science in pursuit of flights of fancy.

 

[RandFan]

You might want to add something here.

Too late. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[jsfisher]

Too late. Sorry 'bout that.

I just took it as extreme sarcasm. I'm flexible that way.

 

[Giordano]

True, but I am a firm believer in zeitgeist and try to avoid the history vs modern comparison. To US alchemy seems quaint,silly and dangerous. To them, using the available knowledge, it seemed realistic, possible and an important discovery waiting to be made.

I don't think you can hold prior generations of scientists up to the same scrutiny you can a modern one. Unless of course they were ignoring established science in pursuit of flights of fancy.

True. My point was mainly that even intellectual geniuses can get things wrong. And that excelling in science doesn't imply one's religious views must be equally correct or "rational."

 

[StankApe]

Oh I heartily agree!

I am very rational in my look on many things. Yet I will wear my baseball cap upside down when the Atlanta Braves are behind late in games!

A friend, who is a brilliant electronic engineer, whistles while fishing as he says it "works"! lol

 

[skyrider44]

Skyrider:
What do you know about Sir Isaac Newton's religious beliefs?

I know what is readily available in any authoritative account of his life.

: In your mind, are all religious beliefs equally rational, and to be accepted on equal footing?

Obviously not. The followers of Janism, for example, will not kill living things, including insects.

 

[Giordano]

I know what is readily available in any authoritative account of his life.



Obviously not. The followers of Janism, for example, will not kill living things, including insects.

In your view does that make Janism more or less rational than Mormonism? I really can not tell from your post.

 

[kerikiwi]

I know what is readily available in any authoritative account of his life.

But not on the internet, eh? That would never do.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I know what is readily available in any authoritative account of his life.

...interesting evasion.
So, what do YOU know about the rationality of Sir Isaac Newton's beliefs?

Obviously not. The followers of Janism, for example, will not kill living things, including insects.

Why are you quoting from anti-Jain propaganda? Have you no shame,denigrating people for their beliefs?

 

[RandFan]

I know what is readily available in any authoritative account of his life.

And was his belief in alchemy rational?

 

[Myriad]

Didn't the native peoples of North and South America already have their own narratives about their origins, long before Mormonism came along? From what I've read, those narratives are very different from what the Mormons say about their history.

In my view, that's a profound spiritual fly in the ointment.

It's not that I think that the Native American narratives are objectively true history, any more than the BoM version is. But telling the entire native population of two continents that their received narratives are wrong because they contradict the received narrative of a small group of invading settlers is rude to the point of being sinister.

How, historically, have the native peoples of the Americas reacted to the attempted amending of their origin stories by the Church of LDS? Have most of them accepted and acknowledged that they are actually descendants of the patriarch Abraham? Have they declared their gratitude to the founders and prophets of LDS for illuminating their past?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[DragonLady]

It's not that I think that the Native American narratives are objectively true history, any more than the BoM version is. But telling the entire native population of two continents that their received narratives are wrong because they contradict the received narrative of a small group of invading settlers is rude to the point of being sinister.

How, historically, have the native peoples of the Americas reacted to the attempted amending of their origin stories by the Church of LDS? Have most of them accepted and acknowledged that they are actually descendants of the patriarch Abraham? Have they declared their gratitude to the founders and prophets of LDS for illuminating their past?

I'm partly NA, and I know my grandmother despised it. She would say that NA's were doing just fine long before white men "discovered" them, and that the reworking of their legends, myths and stories to suit white ears was a crying shame.

I should say: white men in general. I don't know if she ever even knew the LDS church existed. So I don't know if she had any idea anyone was claiming NA's have Hebrew ancestry.