LDS

[fromdownunder]

They come seeking me, and are most discombobulated when I have answers they don't much like.

Quite a few years ago, a couple of Mormons landed on my doorstep (I don't see them that often in beautiful downtown Lara - twice in 40 years IIRC). As it happens I had been in the States a few months earlier, and spent a couple of days in Utah. So I started talking about Salt Lake City, and we just talked about that for maybe twenty minutes. No godding, no conversion attempts, just a friendly chat about a place I had visited the year before.

Then they gave a book of Mormon, and left. They were very nice young men, and we got on quite well and just chatted about everything but God. It was probably their first, and last, visit to Australia.

I got on just as well with a JW who used to arrive once a fortnight and gave me copies of The Watchtower and Awake. He knew I was an atheist, and not interested in his normal spiel, so we mostly talked about Football (Australian Rules), Cricket, and sometimes Current Events if anything particularly nasty or nice had happened. He was just fulfilling his mission by handing out "x" number of Magazines per month.

From those I have met (not many), I find these types of people far nicer than door to door and telephone marketing spivs, and far less aggressive. Most of them, most religious people , unless they are totally brainwashed, are just like everybody else regardless of which god(s) they believe in. On the other hand, tele-marketing spivs...

Norm

 

[Pup]

Then why do Mormons proselytize so aggressively? If it was perfectly fine to be another religion, wouldn't it be better to let people find their own way to the LDS?

Cat Tale, you've been great in this thread and a real refreshing change from the other two (who did little other than hurt their cause), but this is really weak.

I'll just say that from personal experience, they're not what I'd call aggressive. Needless to say, I've had contact on and off for a couple of decades with missionaries, returned missionaries, church members in general, etc., and they were pretty much like Cat Tale describes: happy to share and discuss what they believed, and of course steadfast in maintaining it was true, but also perfectly accepting of the fact that I didn't think it was true and just as willing to accept me regardless.

Obviously it may be different in other places or with other individuals, but that's how it's been with me.

The Mormon church's face-to-face missionaries are more visible than other churches, but I've personally run into more open rejection or hatred from members of other Christian religions because I'm an atheist, and more of a live-and-let-live attitude from Mormons.

I've wondered if it has something to do with the belief that everyone can potentially become a Mormon even after they die, so members can believe that even the most steadfast atheist will obviously join them when he sees the evidence after he dies, and even if he still doesn't join them, he won't be punished too severely.

By contrast, other Christian religions are taught that if you're not a member of their church on earth, you're deserving of unimaginable torture when you die, so if they're naturally a mean kind of person, they can use that to ease their conscience because an atheist is just someone who deserves to be tortured anyway. A Mormon true-believer doesn't have that excuse.

 

[Empress]

It's called "calling and election made sure". Relatively I far prefer LDS salvation over all others. This black and white saved only by grace is about as silly (and monstrous) a thing as there is. But calling and election made sure is truly bizarre bit of ad hoc reasoning. It's one of those intuitive, not thought out well, bits of mythology. It shows a gross lack of understanding of human psychology and epistemology. The concept is utterly lacking any philosophical rigor. I'm willing to bet good money that the Philosophy Dept at BYU have fun with it from time time (along with debates about whether or not Adam had a belly button).

Wow. Thanks for the link. I don't recall ever having heard that before. Of course, now my brain hurts.

 

[RandFan]

I know your next question, and that is why do I believe in the Christian God, but not others. Because of faith and testimony, which cannot be argued with any logic. Though on this one, Mormons do not stand alone in the Xian world.

I can't agree with that. In fact, I have very good logic to argue against the Christian god. I know you are busy and probably don't want to watch the video but Richard Carrier gives a devastating probabilistic argument that cannot be refuted. Now, it doesn't prove in an absolute sense that the Christian God does not exist but it is a very compelling argument. It demonstrates why that the existence of the Christian God is as remote as meeting a talking canis lupus familiaris (domestic dog) somewhere. And I don't mean a dog that can mimic speaking. I'm talking about a dog that can tell you why he doesn't care for dubstep but appreciates Beethoven and Pinot Noir (I'm talking one smart puppy).

So yeah, once you give a god like the Christian god attributes the theology goes to hell in a hand basket.

 

[Pup]

You get baptised when you die and become mormon whether you like it or not.

That's dead wrong, no pun intended.

Doctrine is that the baptism is as meaningless as taking a bath, unless you choose to accept in the afterlife.

(Edited to add: Oops, just saw that Cat Tale already answered this. Oh well)

 

[Cat Tale]

Took out too much of the original post, but it was about Outer Darkness and how it's difficult to get in.

I don't recall that from my childhood--it was considered quite dire to deny Mormonism, and they do spend a great deal of energy continuing to visit non-active members to get them active again.

I found what I was looking for "President Spencer W. Kimball wrote: “The sin against the Holy Ghost requires such knowledge that it is manifestly impossible for the rank and file to commit such a sin” (Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 123).

 

[Pup]

Took out too much of the original post, but it was about Outer Darkness and how it's difficult to get in.

^ That's how it starts. Innocently. You snip out some of the post you want to reply to, realize you snipped out too much, and just make a simple little notation above the quote to explain.

Next thing you know, you'll be sucked deep into the cult of top-posting, and you'll be making your entire post above the quote.

By the way, if you ever cut out too much and want some back without starting all over, there's a little back arrow which will undelete it, to the right of the smiley and paperclip icons, if you're in advanced reply rather than "quick reply."

 

[skyrider44]

Well done! Completely ignore the gist of my post to go off on some other tangent. Let me know if you need more straw.

The "gist of [your] post" is meaningless absent the establishment of critical background information. I understand, however, why you prefer to ignore it.

 

[bruto]

How can you believe that crap though? it's the silliest thing this side of scientology!!! It's not rational! Jesus never existed much less visited America!

it just boggles my mind

Take all the other stuff a Christian believes, about Jesus, his mother, God, history, the making of the universe, the voice in the whirlwind and the ark, sin, and....worrying about the oddities of Mormonism is like arguing about the color of Mickey Mouse's buttons.

 

[jsfisher]

The "gist of [your] post" is meaningless absent the establishment of critical background information. I understand, however, why you prefer to ignore it.

Here, let me make it simple for you: You believe in impossible fairy tales without evidence while criticizing others for accepting the plausible when backed with some evidence.

 

[RandFan]

Here, let me make it simple for you: You believe in impossible fairy tales without evidence while criticizing others for accepting the plausible when backed with some evidence.

To be honest, yes. I'm sorry but they are impossible fairy tales. Talking donkey, talking snake, witches, wizards, sorcerers and black magic; good magic, guy living in the belly of a fish, walking on water, water into wine, dead rising, etc., etc..

If the known fiction of Star Wars could spawn a real religion in a few short years imagine what self serving leaders could do over the course of thousands of years with a bunch of oral myths and legends?

 

[Foster Zygote]

The "gist of [your] post" is meaningless absent the establishment of critical background information. I understand, however, why you prefer to ignore it.

So, are we to assume that you are ignoring the issue of the complete lack of scientific corroboration of the "history" of North America offered in the BoM because you cannot address this glaring flaw?

 

[Cat Tale]

Skyrider44 wrote: You get ahead of yourself. Did a legal authority/officer of the law bring charges against Joseph Smith? No. Stowell's* sons or nephew brought the charges, and Joseph was taken to Judge Neely... Kindly note that under New York law, only Stowell could claim that Joseph had cheated him.

Not true, this case was a criminal case, so the actual examination was by the people (government), it was not for Stowell or his sons to stop once it was started. The fact that it was the people is so stated on the document at the top of the FAIR article. "The People vs. Joseph Smith the Glass Looker March 20, 1826."

It looks like what really happened was that Stowell's sons complained to the sheriff and the sheriff arrested Joseph and the state had to decide whether or not to prosecute.

Skyrider44 wrote: William Purple took minutes of the trial and noted: "the sons of Mr. Stowell. . .were greatly incensed against Smith. . .[seeing] that the youthful seer had unlimited control over. . .their sire. They caused the arrest of Smith as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood" (FAIR, "The 1826 Trial of Joseph Smith," Russell Anderson). Stowell had agreed to pay Joseph "high wages" for undertaking the work, a fact that probably initiated the sons' (or nephew's anger). Please recall that it was Joseph, "high wages" notwithstanding, who urged Stowell to abandon the effort. *Spelling varies.

I'll warn you, be careful venturing over to this site because you'll see Purple's entire account that was published in the Chenango Union newspaper on May 2, 1877. Joseph Jr's own testimony basically admits to all the seer-type activities, by giving a background of his life.

 

[pakeha]

Wow, tough questions. I wish I had an answer to it. It may have been slightly easier for me due to the fact that I'd already questioned my faith. I grew up in a Protestant church and from my very earliest memory I knew it wasn't where I belonged, when I went to college I called the missionaries... So I already had questioned my birth faith.

I don't know if I'd said it's "faith" that leads people away. The reasons people leave are Legion, but among them are the usual pride, jealousy, envy, difficulty in keeping the Commandments, disagreements with Church policy, feel uncomfortable, really most any reason people leave any religion.

"The reasons people leave are Legion, but among them are the usual pride, jealousy, envy, difficulty in keeping the Commandments, disagreements with Church policy, feel uncomfortable, really most any reason people leave any religion."

Does understanding the story of Jesus in America is fictitious count as Legion?
Or learning that it's most unlikely the Book of Abraham was translated from papyrus texts?

 

[skyrider44]

Here, let me make it simple for you: You believe in impossible fairy tales without evidence while criticizing others for accepting the plausible when backed with some evidence.

You digress. That aside, if you want your "gist" to be plausible, it's necessary for you to do what lawyers call "discovery." You don't want to do that because it renders your argument something less than credible.

Is that simple enough for you?

 

[RandFan]

You digress. That aside, if you want your "gist" to be plausible, it's necessary for you to do what lawyers call "discovery." You don't want to do that because it renders your argument something less than credible.

Is that simple enough for you?

what part of "impossible fairy tales" do you not get?

 

[Cat Tale]

"The reasons people leave are Legion, but among them are the usual pride, jealousy, envy, difficulty in keeping the Commandments, disagreements with Church policy, feel uncomfortable, really most any reason people leave any religion."

Does understanding the story of Jesus in America is fictitious count as Legion?
Or learning that it's most unlikely the Book of Abraham was translated from papyrus texts?

Come now, you really don't know the answer to that? I think you do.

 

[pakeha]

^
That's an interesting tactic you've employed to try to deflect the point of my questions.

 

[Craig4]

You digress. That aside, if you want your "gist" to be plausible, it's necessary for you to do what lawyers call "discovery." You don't want to do that because it renders your argument something less than credible.

Is that simple enough for you?

You're still left with a made up fairy story. The details that Smith added to his lies to season the con were his undoing. No barley, no steal swords, no pigs, no horses in the New World prior to their importation by Europeans post Columbus. Smith's over selling the con is evidence that he was a liar. His claim that the mistakes are of man and not god only adds intellectual cowardice to his rather abundant list of character flaws.

There are other religions that are not so easy to falsify, why not simply pick on of them? It's not as if it matters which one you follow if you feel like this is something you need. There are other superstitions out there that have far less accessible histories to be refuted.

 

[SezMe]

You digress. ...

What digression. The topic of this thread is "LDS" so jsfisher asked you about the very core basics of LDS. C'mon, man up and answer the direct, relevant questions being posed. Wouldn't being honest and straightforward be a Mormon point of pride?