LDS

[RandFan]

You need to address the arguments made and not dismiss them as you have done here.

I'm going to withdraw this. While it is true that your dismissal is fallacy it is unfair of me to simply post a link to videos and expect you to come here and debate the merits of the arguments made in those videos.

I've seen these arguments debunked to the point that they are not compelling to me and I would say they would not compel many to change their position and start believing in god. These arguments of yours are just ad hoc rationalization.

 

[Pup]

I've seen these arguments debunked to the point that they are not compelling to me and I would say they would not compel many to change their position and start believing in god. These arguments of yours are just ad hoc rationalization.

I think this is the key. These are not new arguments, and it seems naive to present them as if people who have considered their religious beliefs haven't already been exposed to them and come to a personal conclusion about them. I suppose that everyone needs to work through them and form an opinion about them at some point in life, but after a while, they're just reruns.

The same is true about the LDS church and any other religion of course--I'm sure Mormons who've been in the church a while have already heard all the anti arguments, which is why they don't immediately react: "Oh! I had no idea Joseph Smith was being paid to dig for gold. I'll leave the church immediately now."

 

[RandFan]

I think this is the key. These are not new arguments, and it seems naive to present them as if people who have considered their religious beliefs haven't already been exposed to them and come to a personal conclusion about them. I suppose that everyone needs to work through them and form an opinion about them at some point in life, but after a while, they're just reruns.

The same is true about the LDS church and any other religion of course--I'm sure Mormons who've been in the church a while have already heard all the anti arguments, which is why they don't immediately react: "Oh! I had no idea Joseph Smith was being paid to dig for gold. I'll leave the church immediately now."

The psychology of belief is amazing. You are right, it just doesn't work that way. Most of our beliefs are not arived at by reason. We either got them from family and/or peers during our formative years or we were moved to believe through emotion.

See Spock fallacy (AKA Straw Vulcan). Shermer's How we Believe And Johnathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.

 

[SezMe]

So anyway, I think Randfan mentioned it earlier in the thread, but "milk before meat" could explain a justification for why it's considered more important for the church to adapt to popular culture than to be right.

I've never heard or read this phrase before. What does it mean and where does it come from? Thanks.

 

[Pup]

I've never heard or read this phrase before. What does it mean and where does it come from? Thanks.

See my post you quoted: 1 Corinthians 3:2, for most Christians.

The metaphor is to people or other mammals who start out living on milk before they're old enough to eat meat.

 

[RandFan]

I've never heard or read this phrase before. What does it mean and where does it come from? Thanks.

The idea is that you do not feed babies meat. You feed them milk. Applied to theology, you don't give newcomers all of the information AKA secrets, or as Mormons call them, sacred. In any event, it is IMO immoral. It robs those who are investigating the church a chance to make an informed decision. Scientologists have a similar philosophy. I think the phrase predates Mormonism. Thanks Pup. I forgot the scripture. Doh!

One last thing, the meat is now online and hopefully more and more people will be able to make an informed decisions. IMO: God should not have secrets. It is a lie of omission.

 

[jsfisher]

The idea is that you do not feed babies meat. You feed them milk. Applied to theology, you don't give newcomers all of the information AKA secrets, or as Mormons call them, sacred. In any event, it is IMO immoral. It robs those who are investigating the church a chance to make an informed decision. Scientologists have a similar philosophy. I think the phrase predates Mormonism. Thanks Pup. I forgot the scripture. Doh!

One last thing, the meat is now online and hopefully more and more people will be able to make an informed decisions. IMO: God should not have secrets. It is a lie of omission.

If we take the view implied by skyrider44 and firmly held by Janadele, it is not just the newcomers from whom secrets are withheld. God dispenses information on a need to know basis, and he's not above spinning the truth a bit (ok, lying) if necessary to get the then required result.

 

[tsig]

That's a question about whether it's possible to have sufficient evidence for a god, not whether or not there is evidence for one. One could be an atheist and reject all current arguments for the existence of a god, while still holding the position that it's theoretically possible. Or one could reject all current arguments and hold that it's theoretically impossible too.

Not sure your point.

The point is to distract from the BoM anachronisms and BY's lies.

 

[tsig]

I've never heard or read this phrase before. What does it mean and where does it come from? Thanks.

It means you start them with small lies before you whip out the whoppers.

Or, bait the hook, set the hook, boat 'em.

Cor 1:2
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

 

[RandFan]

If we take the view implied by skyrider44 and firmly held by Janadele, it is not just the newcomers from whom secrets are withheld. God dispenses information on a need to know basis, and he's not above spinning the truth a bit (ok, lying) if necessary to get the then required result.

It's not above Mormons and Christians in general either.

Lying for the Lord.

Lying for Jesus.

But there is a problem.

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

 

[Stomatopoda]

"Milk before meat" seems kinda like the "fake it 'til you make it" philosophy in MLM circles.

...or just hilariously appropriate when combined with all the sheep metaphors in the NT.

 

[jsfisher]

But there is a problem.

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

It is only sensible that God gets professional advice from the very top professional, isn't it? God needed a few pointers on spinning a really good yarn, so who else would he call upon?

Maybe Satan is the good one?

 

[Janadele]

To understand John 8:44 one first needs to read it in context:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/8?lang=eng

 

[jsfisher]

To understand John 8:44 one first needs to read it in context:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/8?lang=eng

I note that you don't provide any interpretation to foster further discussion. How very non-helpful of you.

The key part of the passage, though, for our purposes here is that Satan is clearly identified as the father of all lies. The context does not change that revelation.

Now, add to that the suggestion and/or admission in this thread that God may not have been completely truthful in his communications through the LDS prophets, where does that lead?

 

[RandFan]

To understand John 8:44 one first needs to read it in context:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/8?lang=eng

I would be happy to hear your take on it given the context.

 

[Akhenaten]

It is not yet the time to bring forth clarification of the advanced knowledge and understanding that President Brigham Young possessed.

Waiting until institutionalised racism returns to acceptibility, are you?

Disgusting.

 

[Akhenaten]

I think faith with evidence to the contrary is blind faith. Faith with no evidence is just...faith.

Faith, with no evidence, is blind faith.

Faith with evidence is just faith.

Faith, with evidence to the contrary, is a class of its own.

I usually post this in DOC-infested threads, but I can't help but think it seems to fit rather well here:

 

[AdMan]

I note that you don't provide any interpretation to foster further discussion. How very non-helpful of you.

So what's new with this particular robot poster?

 

[abaddon]

to understand john 8:44 one first needs to read it in context:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/8?lang=eng

baaaa!!
ETA: Or if one happens to be a pigeon then "LOLOLOLOP" which is the pigeon equivalent of "Duh" (credit Terry Pratchett)

 

[abaddon]

To understand John 8:44 one first needs to read it in context:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/8?lang=eng

Going along with the weirdness of John, that chapter starts out with

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

Good for him.

2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

What did he teach them? Nothing important enough to include in the bible.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

Prodnoses found someone making the beast with two backs. And?

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

These loons don't know the meaning of the word privacy. If I was being intimate with a woman, I would be more than put out to find out that an entire villageful of idiots were peering in my window. Anyway, why wasn't the bloke dragged along? are you proposing mysogyny? Or was she simply masturbating?

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

What is she accused of exactly?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger awrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

What did he write? Why is that not important enough to be recorded?

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And he knew they were all masturbating/fornicating. Not exactly a guess or a miracle.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Yet once again, what he wrote is not considered worthy of recording. Maybe he was just doodling.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

And much as the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork, he simply did nothing until they became embarrassed enough to withdraw.

Scroll forward to verse 44

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

That's right, the bible says we are not god's children, but satans. Satan is described as a murderer, except gods murder tally far exceeds satans. Satan lies, except in the garden of eden satan only told truth, and god only told lies.