Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
To you, I don't see any mocking.
It's been established however in your opinion that anything questioning LDS is mockery/propaganda/lies
LDS
- Thread starter Janadele
- Start date
- Status
To you, I don't see any mocking.
It's been established however in your opinion that anything questioning LDS is mockery/propaganda/lies
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Messages
- 10,293
Do you realize in how bad a light you are representing your church to those who may come here to learn more about it? You make it seem almost a mockery of religion.
Last edited:
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Anything coated with Marmite is never done lightly.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
I'm going to assume that you consider questions about what seems like obvious misrepresentation in Facsimile 1 to be either inappropriate or made by people who are not interested in the truth.
Let me assure you that sceptics are people who deeply care for the truth. This is why they subject ideas to doubt and harsh questioning.
Do you know much about the sceptic movement, Janadele? Have you read any Carl Sagan? You would do well to do so if you want to understand the worldview of many of us here. Here is a very typical sentiment about scepticism and the search for truth:
Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along. [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]
Now if the questions about Facsimile 1 are inappropriate, could you explain why?
Last edited:
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
It's obvious to me that your posts belie this most recent statement.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Cop out.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
I agree with you, which is why I'm perplexed neither posts on the subject.
The BoA could use some common sense defense and the comic value of some martyrdom claims would enliven the thread considerably.
Thanks or the links, Pup!
What most struck me was this
"It is not surprising then, that the LDS Church heavily stresses the absolute necessity of trusting its system and leadership. Members are taught, for instance, that praying to know the truthfulness of a matter is a more sure way of determining its validity than thoughtful examination of the evidence. But in so doing, the very evidence God has provided to steer us to truth may be ignored. Contributing to the confusion is the fact that there is no "official" answer from the LDS Church that addresses the issues raised by the discovery of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Nor has there ever been. All approaches, theories, and defenses, including those proposed by Hugh Nibley and others in Church publications, have been offered solely at the author's own initiative, and as his own opinion. (In fact, the works of Mormon apologists almost universally include a disclaimer to the effect that the author does not write as an official spokesperson for the LDS Church.)"
We have a number of posters with LDS family members.
I'd be interested in knowing they find the BoA even remotely acceptable as inspired scripture.
Nice one.
Of course, the REAL challenge is making sure the cornflakes don't get entirely squashed when you roll the Marmite coated cheese balls in them.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Thank you for the answer. See, this is what good dialog here looks like. You respond with your own words (I assume) and discuss your position. This post proves you can do it so please continue while avoiding the mindless copying from you holy books.
Now, I want to be clear that I think your post is absolute nonsense. Complete and utter. But at least it is not contentless.
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,366
And then thrown away
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Given that Mormons seem to believe in a Devil that interferes directly in the world, one thing I've never understood is how they can be so sure that it's God rather than the Devil that provides the burning in the bosom. I mean, isn't that exactly what Satan would do? Deliberately lead good people into blasphemy by appealing to their vanity and desire to feel special, so that they wilfully refuse to use the brains that God has actually given them to find the truth?
Akuma Tennou
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2012
- Messages
- 213
You're really talking about the genocide god who forbids to kill?
You're wrong, you're here on JREF, you play by the rules of JREF. This is a sceptical thread about LDS Church, not a preaching soapbox. As a follower of Joseph Smith you clearly lack the ability of defining terms like "misunderstanding" or "misconceptions". The purpose of this thread is clearly to show how much of a conman Smith was. And you're helping us much by showing your stubbornness to never call a spade a spade.
You mean, the devil could create a false church as a laugh to rival the established one? He'd probably make it all a bit silly, not really expecting many people to fall for it.
I guess he failed to allow for the Osmonds!
Probably decided to try it again, only with something even more absurd. He decided to call it Scientology just in case some people didn't get the joke.
Then along comes little tommy cruise......
Foiled again!Susheel
Illuminator
I think there is a fundamental issue with this thread. I dont think Janadele is even pretending to offer up objective evidence to the claims of the LDS patriarch/s unlike another thread about an old stained bedsheet. She is here purely to proselytize and there is really no benefit from arguing for evidence. She doesn't want to discuss or learn, she is primarily interested in preaching the "benefits" of her religion.
Having said that, I have learned a lot about the LDS through this thread.
Having said that, I have learned a lot about the LDS through this thread.
Empress
Piggish
I think there is a fundamental issue with this thread. I dont think Janadele is even pretending to offer up objective evidence to the claims of the LDS patriarch/s unlike another thread about an old stained bedsheet. She is here purely to proselytize and there is really no benefit from arguing for evidence. She doesn't want to discuss or learn, she is primarily interested in preaching the "benefits" of her religion.
Having said that, I have learned a lot about the LDS through this thread.
Pretty much. She's been plastering the net with this crap for years, and claimed earlier in the thread that she does it b/c her god called her to. She's even been banned from forums for refusal to discuss. It just so happened that she finally ended up on a forum that has loose rules, and if she keeps the copypasta to a minimum she could stay here forever preaching to the great unwashed.
Since, as you point out, many people have learned a lot about the silliness that is the LDS church, it's not in vain. Plus it's all rather amusing if you ignore the sad underlying nature.
Empress
Piggish
Now, you're never going to make it to the celestial kingdom for the ultimate joy of being one of multiple wives of a god, popping out spirit babies for all eternity, with an attitude like that!
Seriously, that's exactly what an evil creature would do, which is why the LDS insist that you have to follow the priesthood and the prophet because they are led by God. Very much a case of: "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?" Why any god worthy of being followed would create you as a thinking, reasoning creature and they expect you to ignore that intelligence and believe demonstrable crap is, in my experience, something that tends to be tip-toed around.
ETA: This is even worse when the person holding the priesthood is a crook. I personally knew one man who I just couldn't deal with, despite my wanting to help my mother with her calling as Stake Primary Secretary. I thought he was a total slime and treated people (women esp) horribly. I hated his guts and just refused to help her with her calling whenever he was involved, much to my mother's dismay since he was a Stake Leader and held the Melchizedek priesthood, which meant she immediately held him in high regard. I thought he was a complete creep. Turns out he was worse than I thought. He later killed himself, leaving his family in a huge financial mess, when it came out he was a crooked businessman, stealing from the business, etc, and was facing criminal charges. His family was devastated, but until he killed himself he was a highly respected Priesthood holder, and God had never seen fit to tell a higher-up that things weren't hunky-dory. God's always so useless.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
God always seems to be the last to know.
Empress
Piggish
Janadele, what are the salient points of this 'Eternal Law'? Is it codified anywhere? Given that you say God is also subject to this Eternal Law, who oversees the Law and punishes the transgressors? Who steps in to punish God if he breaks a part of the Eternal Law?
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
For what it's worth, Cat Tale told me she'd say pretty much the same as the paragraph that Beelzebuddy proposed and that I quoted in post #4449.
She asked me, are you claiming that's what I think in post #4449? I said, well, I sort of thought it was, but I didn't want to speak for you, so I didn't come right out and claim it. She said, well, I thought it was kind of implied.
So that's why she didn't post--there wasn't anything new or different to add and she kinda thought I'd already implied where she stood.
So, to clarify because I've talked to her and know for sure now: Her viewpoint is the same as Beelzebuddy suggested, but if you want her to actually post that, she can.
Pup
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 6,679
Most religions, at least those that have a trickster or devil-figure with supernatural powers, face that same problem. And as damning (no pun intended) as it sounds as an argument, it strikes me as similar to the solipsism arguments that one could try against the scientific method.
If the scientific method relies on reproducing experiments and a belief that there's consistency in the natural world, how do we know there's even a natural world out there? Why couldn't we each be just a brain in a vat, being tricked by a super-race of aliens into doing scientific experiments, thinking we were studying a real world?
There really isn't an answer, of course. The scientific method works, we seem to be learning more about the world, but there's really no way to prove we're not brains in a vat. Still, we might as well forge ahead doing what we're doing, and trust that there's a real world, because if we were being tricked, we'd never know.
I figure that religious people feel the same way. Sure, the devil or even a trickster god from some other pantheon entirely could be planting holy books and burning bosoms and fooling everyone into following the wrong god, but how could people ever know? Following their religion is just a postulate they have to take on faith, like those who apply the scientific method have to rely on faith that studying the supposedly real world is the right thing to do.
That said, there is the LDS test about trying to shake hands, if you actually see an angel or spirit. But that's not quite the same thing because it's only about seeing a spirit face-to-face, which Mormons don't typically claim to do.
- Status