LDS

[skyrider44]

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?

Kindly note the saying I quoted refers to those who leave the Church.

 

[jsfisher]

Kindly note the saying I quoted refers to those who leave the Church.

Kindly note that Pup was contrasting your quoted saying with the other side of the coin.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

EDITED...never mind...

I will respond to just one example: in post #1015 you clearly equivocate the construction of "may", as pointed out by several counterexamples. Please do not misrepresent my statements...someone as well-versed as you claim to be should not need "equivocation" explained to him.

EDITED...never mind...

Do continue to keep in mind that this is a site for skeptical inquiry--"it is so because I believe it is so" carries little or no weight.

 

[Cainkane1]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=146987 For anyone here who is unfamiliar with this post I made a few years ago I believe its worth a read.

 

[Pup]

Kindly note the saying I quoted refers to those who leave the Church.

That's what I mean. I was referring mainly to those who've left other churches (or given up agnosticism or atheism) to join the Mormon church, then go on missions to spread the word to non-Mormons.

Edit to add for clarity: The missionaries have left those other churches, but they haven't left them alone.

Note that I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, since one can either discuss religion with the missionaries if one wants, or tell them no and they go away, but the LDS church is not particularly known for "leaving alone" non-Mormons, so it seems hypocritical to complain that non-Mormons don't leave the church alone.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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.

...and (mild derail), "perfect", like "unique" is an absolute; not subject to degree. (/derail)

 

[Slowvehicle]

Kindly note the saying I quoted refers to those who leave the Church.

Kindly note that you did not address the question:

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?

 

[RandFan]

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?

One thing I find particularly interesting is what is missing from the BofM given D&C 20:8-9.

8 And agave him power from on high, by the bmeans which were before prepared, to translate the Book of Mormon;

9 Which contains a arecord of a fallen people, and the bfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also;

10. The difference between the Aaronic & Melchizedek priesthoods
9. Endorsement of polygamy
8. The pre-existence of man
7. Limited punishment (no hell / generous salvation)
6. Nature of God (flesh and bone, 3 separate beings)
5. Baptism for the dead
4. Eternal Marriage
3. Endowment / Garments
2. Three degrees of glory
1. Eternal progression

Mormon Explanation.

 

[skyrider44]

Yeah. . . . I imagine you're not unfamiliar with the common english useage "X may have had (property Y) but it also had (property Z)".

You imagine correctly.

: 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.

The "shifting ground" fallacy is operative here. The structure of the sentence did not accommodate the dualism you describe in your first paragraph. The writer's intent was to cast doubt on the religious faith of the scientists I listed, not to admit to an alternate possibility. Even if I were to accept your "common English usage" point with respect to the post in question, why would anyone make a less-than-forthright statement about the religiosity of the scientists I listed (assuming he/she had at least a cursory knowledge of their biographies)?

: It's a construction familiar to any english speaker.

Indeed it is; however, it didn't function in the sentence posted.

: Your affected misunderstanding of this was one of the weakest arguments I have seen hereabouts outside of any Anders Lindman thread.

That leaves me something less than heartbroken.

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

Why do you suppose I'm interested in winning converts?

 

[jsfisher]

@Pup,

From the couple of posts of Mrs. Pup's thoughts on Mormonism, I get the impression hers may be her own personal version Mormonism. It doesn't quite agree with what I'm hearing from others as the official dogma.

Is that a fair summary? More importantly, does she feel she could express her thoughts openly within the LDS Church and still be welcome? What would the reaction be?

 

[StankApe]

Yeah. . . . I imagine you're not unfamiliar with the common english useage "X may have had (property Y) but it also had (property Z)".

You imagine correctly.



The "shifting ground" fallacy is operative here. The structure of the sentence did not accommodate the dualism you describe in your first paragraph. The writer's intent was to cast doubt on the religious faith of the scientists I listed, not to admit to an alternate possibility. Even if I were to accept your "common English usage" point with respect to the post in question, why would anyone make a less-than-forthright statement about the religiosity of the scientists I listed (assuming he/she had at least a cursory knowledge of their biographies)?

Ummm, being that I was the one who made that statement, I can inform you that was NOT my intent at all. I was using it in a "you may have hit a HR, but you are still not playing tomorrow" manner

this was my statement : (paraphrased)

Newton may have been scientific and rational, but his religious beliefs were irrational.


I wasn't trying to diminish the fact that Newton had religious beliefs, I was trying to point out that just because someone may be rational in one part of their life doth not mean they are,by proxy, rational in ALL parts of their life.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

............

Why do you suppose I'm interested in winning converts?

Because you are a Mormon ..

Are you saying you are not? ( interested in winning converts )

 

[RandFan]

@Pup,

From the couple of posts of Mrs. Pup's thoughts on Mormonism, I get the impression hers may be her own personal version Mormonism. It doesn't quite agree with what I'm hearing from others as the official dogma.

Is that a fair summary? More importantly, does she feel she could express her thoughts openly within the LDS Church and still be welcome? What would the reaction be?

I've pretty much been an all or nothing Mormon. But through my life I've met a lot à la carte Mormons (the term was first popularized for Catholics).

These Mormons pick and choose which rules to follow and which metaphysical beliefs they hold. Many Mormons, including scholars, reject the official story of the BofM. For many people community is the priority in their lives. I have family members who believe in Mormonism to various degrees but reject many of the tenants and rules.

 

[Craig4]

Perhaps I should "stoop" to give asydhouse a response (although I think I know why he keeps raising the "issue"). In Doctrine & Covenants 46: 11-14 (abridged): For all have not every gift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God. To some is given one, and to some is given another, that all may be profited thereby. To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the son of God. . . . To others it is given to believe on their words, that they might also have eternal life if they continue to be faithful. [This theme continues for several more passages.]

It may come as a surprise to you, bruto, but faith is the first principle of the gospel, as stated in the 4th Article of Faith.

I make this post with some reluctance, because I suspect it will be mocked, derided, labeled as discriminatory, and otherwise trashed. I take comfort, however, in the fact that I have not returned the "favor" with respect to non-believers. 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].

What you describe is gullibility which in a religious context is indistinguishable from faith.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

It matters because he is sharing his own personal experiences related to the subject being discussed at Janadele's initiation. Do you think that RandFan's input should matter any less than your own?

 

[Craig4]

I've pretty much been an all or nothing Mormon. But through my life I've met a lot à la carte Mormons (the term was first popularized for Catholics).

These Mormons pick and choose which rules to follow and which metaphysical beliefs they hold. Many Mormons, including scholars, reject the official story of the BofM. For many people community is the priority in their lives. I have family members who believe in Mormonism to various degrees but reject many of the tenants and rules.

I know Dawkins takes issue with religious "cherry-picking" like this but I see it as a hopeful sign. I doubt most people who reject religion do so "cold-turkey". I suspect for most people it's a process of rejecting magical thinking bit by bit. At some point they just run out of things to cherry pick from and it all goes away.

 

[skyrider44]

. . .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?

Perhaps you overreach when you write "everyone [emphasis added] has one thought. . . ."

The following from the title page of the BoM is noteworthy. It won't carry any weight with you, but that circumstance renders it nevertheless noteworthy.

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God. . . .

 

[Craig4]

Agreed. I'm not sure that I am though. It's an interesting epistemic question. I have no ire for average Mormons. I'm deeply disappointed in many actions of the Church. For instance their actions on Prop 8 were devastating to personal friends of mine. Their actions certainly violated their very own standards of avoiding the appearance of evil by raising money for Prop 8 in the way they did.

I consider myself more anti irrational belief and anti magical thinking. To have actually been informed of and aware of the history of how Mormonism came about is to by definition engage in both.

 

[skyrider44]

Yeah. . . . I imagine you're not unfamiliar with the common english useage "X may have had (property Y) but it also had (property Z)".



Ummm, being that I was the one who made that statement, I can inform you that was NOT my intent at all. I was using it in a "you may have hit a HR, but you are still not playing tomorrow" manner

this was my statement : (paraphrased)

Newton may have been scientific and rational, but his religious beliefs were irrational.


I wasn't trying to diminish the fact that Newton had religious beliefs, I was trying to point out that just because someone may be rational in one part of their life doth not mean they are,by proxy, rational in ALL parts of their life.

Thank you for the clarification, overdue though it is.

 

[Craig4]

Perhaps you overreach when you write "everyone [emphasis added] has one thought. . . ."

The following from the title page of the BoM is noteworthy. It won't carry any weight with you, but that circumstance renders it nevertheless noteworthy.

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God. . . .

Wow, what a nice and easy way to ignore the fact that the BoM is a made up bit of fiction. Tell me, how is the barley thing a mistake? Why even add it? Same with horses and pigs, why add them?