LDS

[RandFan]

After my mission I came home and studied psychology at the University of Utah. One of my classes discussed cults and how to manipulate emotions. Over time, and with much study of the human mind, it was readily apparent that I had, like many people of many faiths, experience what was actually a pedestrian religious experience typical of all faiths. I realize now that I had been manipulated by well known psychological techniques. I'll post more on this later.

In the video below, Derren Brown Instant Conversion, Derren demonstrates how our emotions can be manipulated so we can experience a spiritual experience. It's quite compelling.

 

[StankApe]

I would feel awful wasting so much time on some pretend,fairy tale deity..... The saddest thing is that one day, religious people will die, and there won't be an afterlife... They won't even be able to reflect back on how and why they went wrong.

 

[SezMe]

Thus, in the 11th Article of Faith, we read: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may [emphasis added].

About that emphasis. Notable by its absence is not worshiping AT ALL based on our own conscience. Does Mormonism honor that choice? Do you?

 

[bruto]

And in other news, neither skyrider nor janadele have bothered to speak to my request for enlightenment as to the nature of the answer god never bothered giving me in my sincere supplication for the truth, as the missionaries promised me, 100% guaranteed.

Since the discussion is obsessed with documentation and grammar, I guess the raw soul goes unremarked.

I would think, given your claims, that my experience would be of more relevance to the OP than all this clerical debate.

Why are you disrespecting me, Skyrider? Janadele?

Hello?

I think I looked in the wrong place, thinking that the answer might have come from Skywriter when it actually came from Janadele. But Skywriter has kindly added his version, along with some other stuff including a nice sentiment about allowing latitude in belief. True enough that, but only if you acknowledge that it is belief, not fact. As soon as you represent anything at all as fact, you have left the safe haven of religion and entered the realm of controversy.

It comes as no surprise to me, of course, that faith is required for faith. It's one of the kickers about faith. If it worked any other way it wouldn't be faith. The only way to find it is to assume it. The answer to the question "is my faith real?" is unobtainable unless it was real before you asked the question. Playing with the ambiguities of the language that Skywriter prefers not to acknowledge, one can say that you cannot ask for evidence of faith in good faith.

 

[StankApe]

As far as "deceiving", the inclusion of "atheist" in my nic ought to give some indication I'm not a Mormon Cheerleader. Also, I object to the fact that the Mormon Church counts as members anyone baptized whether that person is still active or not. The Church should also report the number of active member. I think many would be aghast. That number is a tiny fraction of the entire membership list. Many of whom like myself are atheist. Some belong to other churches and many simply do not self identify as Mormon.

Mormon Numbers Not Adding Up

well isn't that sneaky? Impossible for your numbers to EVER drop as everyone EVER baptized counts? No checking back in to see how they identify?

Sounds like the church is still taking lessons from conman JS!

 

[skyrider44]

...in this post: "stoop" to give an answer? Really?

Other posts in fee simple:
#1013
#1015
#1018
#1024
...and so on, including "stooping" to equivocation and pretend word games.

The posts you list do not mock or denigrate or otherwise trash non-believers in any way, to wit: Post 1013: I list the names of some of the world's greatest scientists who were religious; Post 1015: I take issue with StankApe's use of "may have" with reference to the religious faith of the scientists I listed in Post 1013; Post 1018: I challenge RandFan's unqualified support for the internet (which, to his credit, he later clarified); Post 1024: I revisit the "may have" issue, whereupon I am accused of being ignorant of English grammar.

As for "equivocation" and "pretend word games" (whatever they are), I credit you with a fertile imagination.

Please do not misrepresent my statements.

 

[RandFan]

well isn't that sneaky? Impossible for your numbers to EVER drop as everyone EVER baptized counts? No checking back in to see how they identify?

Sounds like the church is still taking lessons from conman JS!

Agreed, it most certainly isn't intellectually honest. It was these kinds of nagging "why the hell we they do that" questions that drove me nuts. Of course they invite more questions, why the need to keep records at all? Doesn't god already know?

"I don't object to the concept of a Deity but I'm baffled at the notion of one that takes attendance?" --Amy Farrah Fowler; Big Bang Theory

 

[skyrider44]

well isn't that sneaky? Impossible for your numbers to EVER drop as everyone EVER baptized counts? No checking back in to see how they identify?

Sounds like the church is still taking lessons from conman JS!

Assuming what RandFan posted is true, why does it matter to you--or to any non-member or anti-LDS or atheist?

There's an old saying in the Church that rings true time and time again: Some people leave the Church, but they just can't leave it alone.

 

[RandFan]

I challenge RandFan's unqualified support for the internet (which, to his credit, he later clarified); Post 1024: I revisit the "may have" issue, whereupon I am accused of being ignorant of English grammar.

Unless I'm wrong you've never admitted that there are multiple definitions of the word "faith" and you have never attempted to disambiguate. Further, you have intentionally taken my use of the word "faith" out of context.

When I use the word faith to describe a belief based on observation and experience you then imply that my usage is the same as religious or blind faith. This is equivocation. The first time was excusable but it was then explained to you and you continued to equivocate. That's dishonest.

I don't have "blind faith". I question my feelings, hunches and assumptions (as much as possible). I do not rely on faith to determine what is or is not true. I might act on faith, like turning on a light switch, but that is a faith borne of observations. I've seen it work before.

 

[RandFan]

Assuming what RandFan posted is true, why does it matter to you--or to any non-member or anti-LDS or atheist?

There's an old saying in the Church that rings true time and time again: Some people leave the Church, but they just can't leave it alone.

Many if not most drug and alcohol counselors are recovering addicts. Seems some people leave drugs but they just can't leave them alone.

• Many converts want to share what they believe is true.
• Many ex-Mormons want to share what they believe is true.

Why must I keep what I believe to be true to myself? If Mormonism is true why would any Mormon care about me?

 

[abaddon]

The posts you list do not mock or denigrate or otherwise trash non-believers in any way, to wit: Post 1013: I list the names of some of the world's greatest scientists who were religious; Post 1015: I take issue with StankApe's use of "may have" with reference to the religious faith of the scientists I listed in Post 1013;

No, you tried to imply that the fact they had religious beliefs somehow validated Mormonism. It doesn't. And many posters showed you that. Then you backed away from your original claim.

Post 1018: I challenge RandFan's unqualified support for the internet (which, to his credit, he later clarified);

No, Randfan went with the facts, which you have so far ignored.

Post 1024: I revisit the "may have" issue, whereupon I am accused of being ignorant of English grammar.

And you are not. You are clever enough to abuse the language into a shape not intended. It is just a more subtle form of lie.

As for "equivocation" and "pretend word games" (whatever they are), I credit you with a fertile imagination.

Or, perhaps careful observation.

Please do not misrepresent my statements.

No need. You do that quite well on your own.

 

[RandFan]

Someone sent me a private message in regards to my membership status and I want to make a couple of things clear.

1. For those who want to have their names removed from the records they simply need to follow the steps outlined here. I personally know many people who have done this. If there is a Mormon member reading this and is thinking about leaving, do NOT inform your bishop. They can make your life hell.
2. Once you denounce your membership the church cannot then retaliate and excommunicate you.

Finally, my NIC is meant to criticize the Mormon practice of counting inactive members. If and when they change that practice I will change my NIC.


No, I'm not a Mormon. I'm an Ex-Mormon. Some of my non-believing friends friends call themselves "cultural Mormons" but I do not.

 

[Pup]

Assuming what RandFan posted is true, why does it matter to you--or to any non-member or anti-LDS or atheist?

There's an old saying in the Church that rings true time and time again: Some people leave the Church, but they just can't leave it alone.

Why do Mormons go on missions to tell non-Mormons about the church? Why do they think it matters to non-Mormons what Mormons believe?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Post 1015: I take issue with StankApe's use of "may have" with reference to the religious faith of the scientists I listed in Post 1013;
...
Post 1024: I revisit the "may have" issue, whereupon I am accused of being ignorant of English grammar.

Yeah. About that: My toes were fairly curling in awkward embarrassment for you, but it was still funny.

I imagine you're not unfamiliar with the common english useage "X may have had (property Y) but it also had (property Z)". I assume you recognise that "may have had" in this context is not a challenge to the claim of Y, it is a concession to Y while extending the argument to incude Z. It's a construction familiar to any english speaker. Your affected misunderstanding of this was one of the weakest arguments I have seen hereabouts outside of any Anders Lindman thread.

That aside, how do you feel the thread's going so far? Winning any converts?

 

[RandFan]

Devils Advocate:

Why must I keep what I believe to be true to myself? If Mormonism is true why would any Mormon care about me?

Let's take this from a different perspective. If Mormonism is true then, just like Satan, I'm doing god's work. It's been said that one of the purposes of Satan is so that he may sift the saints as wheat, separating the edible good wheat from the inedible chaff.

Satan desireth to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.

(note the similarity to Luke 22:31)Hey, it's a difficult job but someone got to do it.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.....

I should add that there was a time, in a more civil age, when it was considered boorish and coarse to denigrate a person's faith, and--by extrapolation--the person himself/herself. Obviously the practice of good manners and mutual respect--in religious belief and virtually everything else--is now ancient history.

There was a time, in a more civil age, when persons of color were considered subhuman; bought and sold like any other livestock.
During those same civil ages, women were held with not much more regard. After all, it could be justified with holy scripture.

Are we to believe that God has changed since those times ?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm all for getting back on topic.

I think it was claimed that the BoM was not perfect, but was the 'most perfect' book. How might we assess that claim?

How do you measure perfection in a book? Least number of errors? Most number of true facts? Highest proportion of fact to falsehood? Perhaps it also needs a weighting system to compare fact with fact in some qualitative way.


No. To be less facetious, the basic problem is that we have been advised not to concentrate on the errors, but to embrace the good in the book. The problem with that advice is that, for the non-believer, the errors are the very thing which most obviously undermine any authority the book might otherwise claim, by making it appear to be the work of a fraudster rather than what it purports to be. I suppose that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the writer might unknowingly have been divinely inspired to write the world's most perfect book while imagining himself to be just making stuff up. But I'm not going to just assume that's what happened.

 

[jsfisher]

[T]he basic problem is that we have been advised not to concentrate on the errors, but to embrace the good in the book. The problem with that advice is that, for the non-believer, the errors are the very thing which most obviously undermine any authority the book might otherwise claim, by making it appear to be the work of a fraudster rather than what it purports to be. I suppose that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the writer might unknowingly have been divinely inspired to write the world's most perfect book while imagining himself to be just making stuff up. But I'm not going to just assume that's what happened.

^^^ This.

Also, we have one poster in this thread saying the Book of Mormon is without error while another implying it is not so perfect, just nearly so. Which is it?

 

[DragonLady]

To be less facetious, the basic problem is that we have been advised not to concentrate on the errors, but to embrace the good in the book.

That's essentially it, isn't it? We've been told the errors are of no consequence, and that the BoM contains so many good things that a few silly mistakes here and there just shouldn't matter.

hmmm.... I'm betting we could fill another thread with examples of "good people" who have only done one or two terrible things.

But sometimes, those few terrible things mark a person forever.

Mark David Chapman will forever be known for murdering John Lennon. That one blotch stains his whole life. It will follow him for hundreds of years after his death. It matters not one whit how many good things he has or might have done.

Same with Timothy McSh*t. By most accounts, his family loved him and people thought he was a pretty good guy. But one bomb ruined it all forever.

The same with any text that claims to be the inspired works of an infallible, eternal, unchanging God. One little mistake stands out like a black spot on a pristine white table -everyone sees it, and everyone has one thought: why is that there?

 

[StankApe]

I doubt many of us have any problem with any individuals personal beliefs. It's when they choose to engage the forum in discussion and then hand wave/ shirk off any actual.... ya know, discussion that bugs us.

Make any claim you like and we will listen, present a reasonable defense free of fallacies and ad hom's and we might actually applaud (even if you haven't convinced us)