LDS

[Empress]

No, I'm asking questions that apparently make you squirm because they address the issues of motivation and intent, and, yes, civility.

You haven't answered my questions. Why do what Mormons believe matter to you, especially inasmuch as you probably don't even believe in the existence of God? What drives what is often more than merely "discussion" about the LDS Church and its members, sometimes taking the form of mocking and denigration (not to mention the use of emotionally loaded words like "histrionics")?

I freely admit that a good number of my posts are mocking and denigrating towards your religion, though within the confines of the MA. Some of my reasons? I was raised to believe this nonsense, and despite the fact that as I reached adolescence I clearly saw through it, it still rankles that I was told all this hogwash was true. If these sorts of discussions stop anyone from joining your religion, I consider it a good thing, and well worth my time.

In addition, my mother and all seven of my siblings have been baptized into your religion and most of them are still active. I cringe when I think about them wasting so much of their lives given over to such a rank fraud. I hate that good people are in the situation of being conflicted over the racism, sexism, and homophobia of their religion. Would it be better if they were members of another, more liberal, welcoming religion? Perhaps not. It would still be a waste kowtowing to a non-existent being, but yours is the religion to which they belong, so yours is the one that gets the force of my contempt.

Your religion also has influenced politics in the US in a way that I personally disapprove and find offensive. (Prop 8 in California.) I would like to see all churches lose their tax-exempt status except for direct charitable causes, but your church put a great deal of money into that issue, and was even fined for malfeasance in the case. This despite your church's article of faith stating that you believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. I consider that hypocritical.

I don't think that most people here have any particular animus towards your religion any more than any other woo that is discussed. I do. I have seen first-hand the damage your religion does, and I will mock and denigrate it as I see fit.

 

[skyrider44]

Then I'll say what I please about your idiot prophet boy and his imaginary friend.

This is an example of what is known as "discussing" the LDS Church.

 

[skyrider44]

I freely admit that a good number of my posts are mocking and denigrating towards your religion, though within the confines of the MA. Some of my reasons? I was raised to believe this nonsense, and despite the fact that as I reached adolescence I clearly saw through it, it still rankles that I was told all this hogwash was true. If these sorts of discussions stop anyone from joining your religion, I consider it a good thing, and well worth my time.

In addition, my mother and all seven of my siblings have been baptized into your religion and most of them are still active. I cringe when I think about them wasting so much of their lives given over to such a rank fraud. I hate that good people are in the situation of being conflicted over the racism, sexism, and homophobia of their religion. Would it be better if they were members of another, more liberal, welcoming religion? Perhaps not. It would still be a waste kowtowing to a non-existent being, but yours is the religion to which they belong, so yours is the one that gets the force of my contempt.

Your religion also has influenced politics in the US in a way that I personally disapprove and find offensive. (Prop 8 in California.) I would like to see all churches lose their tax-exempt status except for direct charitable causes, but your church put a great deal of money into that issue, and was even fined for malfeasance in the case. This despite your church's article of faith stating that you believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. I consider that hypocritical.

I don't think that most people here have any particular animus towards your religion any more than any other woo that is discussed. I do. I have seen first-hand the damage your religion does, and I will mock and denigrate it as I see fit.

I can accept some of what you say. Your last sentence, however, violates rational, civil discourse. Therein you confess that your principal purpose for posting on this thread is not to discuss the LDS Church, but to besmirch it, defame it, denigrate it. That is what I find unacceptable.

 

[Empress]

I can accept some of what you say. Your last sentence, however, violates rational, civil discourse. Therein you confess that your principal purpose for posting on this thread is not to discuss the LDS Church, but to besmirch it, defame it, denigrate it. That is what I find unacceptable.

Where did I say that was my principal reason for posting? The thread was going on for some time prior to my joining in, and I did so then only to clarify something for a poster who didn't understand some of the esoteric Mormon language Janadele was utilizing.

I freely confess that many of my posts are mocking and denigrating. On the other hand, many of my posts have been informative and useful to the thread, imo much more so than yours or Janadele's. If you find my posts to violate civil discourse, report me and/or put me on ignore.

While I have your attention, when are you going to enumerate those items int he BoM that that rest of us have been calling anachronisms, but you claim have been proven true? We're still waiting.

 

[skyrider44]

A good question would be why did Janadele open the floodgates? You agree that it's foolish to think there wouldn't be honest commentary after opening such a subject?

"Honest commentary"? Yes, I had hoped for that. After all, skeptics are supposed to be honest, truth-seeking, rational individuals. Isn't that the banner under which you march? What I did not anticipate was the blatant hatred expressed toward the Church.

 

[skyrider44]

Where did I say that was my principal reason for posting?

You gave yourself away, as I noted, in the last sentence of your recent post.

: The thread was going on for some time prior to my joining in, and I did so then only to clarify something for a poster who didn't understand some of the esoteric Mormon language Janadele was utilizing.

But then you went well beyond that, didn't you? (See first sentence in the next paragraph.)

: I freely confess that many of my posts are mocking and denigrating. On the other hand, many of my posts have been informative and useful to the thread, imo much more so than yours or Janadele's.

You're welcome to your opinion.

While I have your attention, when are you going to enumerate those items int he BoM that that rest of us have been calling anachronisms, but you claim have been proven true? We're still waiting.

You and those of your mindset will not accept anything that originates from the work of LDS scholars. How open-minded is that?

 

[SezMe]

"Honest commentary"? Yes, I had hoped for that.

Why did you not read #4272?

 

[Myriad]

I can accept some of what you say. Your last sentence, however, violates rational, civil discourse. Therein you confess that your principal purpose for posting on this thread is not to discuss the LDS Church, but to besmirch it, defame it, denigrate it. That is what I find unacceptable.

What other people find unacceptable is funding efforts to deny civil rights to gays, using the Boy Scouts as a platform to encourage religious hatred and exclusion, and generally allying with and supporting the current U.S. political factions dedicated to the proposition that the rich must get richer and the poor get poorer.

So, how about a deal? The unacceptable criticism to stop, and the unacceptable conduct of the Church of LDS to also stop. How about midnight tonight EST; does that work for you?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Wolrab]

Still dodging, eh? Good job. When you know you can't answer, evade.

 

[RoboTimbo]

"Honest commentary"? Yes, I had hoped for that.

Glad we could oblige. Won't you repay the favor and answer some of the outstanding questions honestly?

After all, skeptics are supposed to be honest, truth-seeking, rational individuals. Isn't that the banner under which you march? What I did not anticipate was the blatant hatred expressed toward the Church.

What you are actually seeing is disgust at an obvious fraud by a known conman. That's the part you don't want to address. That's why you dishonestly claim that it is hatred towards your church. It isn't. You shouldn't choose deliberate dishonesty. I would think that blatant hatred would be something that a church would shun. Let's ask some "Negroes" what they think about LDS love and tolerance.

 

[RoboTimbo]

You and those of your mindset will not accept anything that originates from the work of LDS scholars. How open-minded is that?

No Sideroxylon, I have no interest in wading through error and the works of Lucifer.

My response of "lying propanganda" referred to anti-Mormon sites

LOL all anti Mormon sites... which I would never read.

I hope not all Mormons are as hypocritical as you pair. "Open-minded". LOL.

 

[RandFan]

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church?

One more time. skyrider, this is a skeptics site. We exist, in large part, to expose lies and frauds. We are equal opportunity critics. We criticize Scientology, Catholicism, Muslims, Hindus, Presbyterians, psychics, tricksters, con artists, mountebanks, grifters, matchstick men, etc., etc..

It's not personal. We do this because we believe in a better world. One based on critical thinking, philosophy and science.

 

[RandFan]

You and those of your mindset will not accept anything that originates from the work of LDS scholars. How open-minded is that?

That's flat out untrue. I'm a big fan of BH Roberts and Steven Covey. More importantly, I will read your sources and honestly consider them. Janadele simply labels any contrary information as lies. Tell me, how open minded do you think she is?

 

[TjW]

Glad we could oblige. Won't you repay the favor and answer some of the outstanding questions honestly?


What you are actually seeing is disgust at an obvious fraud by a known conman. That's the part you don't want to address. That's why you dishonestly claim that it is hatred towards your church. It isn't. You shouldn't choose deliberate dishonesty. I would think that blatant hatred would be something that a church would shun. Let's ask some "Negroes" what they think about LDS love and tolerance.

Be fair. Deliberate dishonesty is an integral part of his religious tradition.

 

[skyrider44]

Glad we could oblige. Won't you repay the favor and answer some of the outstanding questions honestly?

Please read my questions again. I asked, in effect, if all the charges made against Joseph Smith and the Church are factually correct, why does it matter to you (presumably, you are an atheist). Does the Church threaten you in some way? Do you find it impossible to tolerate someone else's belief system, provided that it doesn't harm anyone?

You want to dwell on errors in the BoM. Why? You have already dismissed it, and you won't accept anything LDS scholars say in its defense. So your motivation is what? To discredit the Church? To dishonor its members? To discount the tremendous amount of humanitarian work it does?

: What you are actually seeing is disgust at an obvious fraud by a known conman. That's the part you don't want to address.

Did that "known conman" swindle you out of "zillions" of dollars?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Please read my questions again. I asked, in effect, if all the charges made against Joseph Smith and the Church are factually correct, why does it matter to you (presumably, you are an atheist). Does the Church threaten you in some way? Do you find it impossible to tolerate someone else's belief system, provided that it doesn't harm anyone?

You want to dwell on errors in the BoM. Why? You have already dismissed it, and you won't accept anything LDS scholars say in its defense. So your motivation is what? To discredit the Church? To dishonor its members? To discount the tremendous amount of humanitarian work it does?



Did that "known conman" swindle you out of "zillions" of dollars?

Please read my response again. Read every sentence and word. Then answer honestly.

 

[Empress]

Did that "known conman" swindle you out of "zillions" of dollars?

Should frauds and conmen be ignored and tolerated by everyone who isn't a direct victim?

 

[Pup]

I'm more interested in the church from a historical and human-behavioral standpoint. Early-mid 19th century history is my interest anyway, so I need to know this stuff within the larger context of society at that time.

I don't make fun of the LDS church in particular, because among other religions today, it seems about average as far as fraud or harm--not the best, but not the worst either. Expecting me to believe that some guy could perform miracles and rise from the dead seems no more or less a con than expecting me to believe some other guy could magically translate hieroglyphics. Common sense rules both out immediately, so anyone who claims either one is true, is either lying, or gullible himself, or indulging in a fantasy that seems pointless and unnecessary to me, but apparently is really important to some kinds of people.

Do you find it impossible to tolerate someone else's belief system, provided that it doesn't harm anyone?

That brings up a good question. Why are so many Mormons against gay marriage? Mormons themselves can still marry whoever they want. It's not like there's a limited number of weddings to go around, so gay couples will be using up some of the limited supply. If you think the couples will be punished by God, well, they have their free agency, after all.

Letting gay couples marry does no harm, and actually does good, by encouraging more stable couples, which not only creates more happiness but provides more potential two-parent homes for children who need adopted.

Why do some Mormons find it impossible to tolerate gay couples getting married, when it's none of their business and does them no harm?

 

[DragonLady]

won't accept anything LDS scholars

You don't seem to understand.

If LDS scholars are telling the truth, and can prove what they have to say with real, hard evidence, then other people who are not LDS scholars will look at that evidence, read what they are saying, and agree.

If LDS scholars have no evidence, then no, we're not going to accept anything they say. They have to PROVE it.

You keep claiming they have 'proved' their claims. Fine. Show us the actual evidence, as vetted by qualified non-mormons who are neutral to the church, and we will look at it.

We do not accept the claims of used car dealers about how well a vehicle runs. We take it to a mechanic.

We want second opinions about our medical care.

We want to see empirical evidence, peer-reviewed studies, double-blind tests, and objective examinations of facts.

If you can't provide those, then admit it, and stop making claims that you can.

 

[AdMan]

I suppose this is as good a place as any to ask some questions, thus: If Joseph Smith was a con man/fraud/sexual deviant/crook/scoundrel. . .if his story about golden plates and translating them by looking into a hat is so absurd as to be laughable. . .if the Book of Mormon is a 19th century work riddled with anachronisms (and for which there is no archaeological evidence of any kind). . .if Joseph Smith and his followers used polygamy as a cover for having sex with young girls. . .if the Book of Abraham has nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. . .if Brigham Young was a rabid racist. . .if, in sum, all of the warts that are a part of Mormon historicity are factually correct. . .

why does any of it matter to those on this forum who relentlessly criticize/denigrate the LDS Church? Do the Church and its members pose some kind of insidious threat to those critics? Has the Church infringed on their civil rights? Do what Mormons believe invade the critics' privacy? In other words, if Mormonism is all bunk--a load of crap--why do the critics care? Have any Mormons held guns to their heads and forced them into baptismal fonts? Have any critics been forced out of their homes for attacking the Church?

I would really like to know what accounts for the depth and breadth of the critics' rampant animosity toward the Church.

I hold no particular animosity toward the LDS. I do not believe in God and I think religious belief can be dangerous, and I would be (and have been) as questioning and, yes, as mocking--because nonsense deserves to be mocked to be revealed as what it is--in threads and to posters coming to this forum to preach nonsense from any other religion holding similarly silly beliefs.

Did you forget where you are posting and that it was Janadele and you who decided to come here?