LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Slowvehicle said:
Do you intend to address any substance?

There are many, many questions you have failed to address.
Click to expand...
That's prejudic... oh look, squirrel.

t6kn.jpg
 
This diversion is boring. Can we get back to the actual point of discussion (which, no doubt, will lead to a new diversion)?
 
jsfisher said:
This diversion is boring. Can we get back to the actual point of discussion (which, no doubt, will lead to a new diversion)?
Click to expand...

I really don't get it, here's a believer with a bunch of unbelievers to witness to and instead of trying to engage intellectually he chooses to pettifog about the meaning of the word dogma.
 
tsig said:
I really don't get it, here's a believer with a bunch of unbelievers to witness to and instead of trying to engage intellectually he chooses to pettifog about the meaning of the word dogma.
Click to expand...

It's more or less what I've come to expect of believers. Pretty standard fare.
 
Amazer said:
tsig said:
I really don't get it, here's a believer with a bunch of unbelievers to witness to and instead of trying to engage intellectually he chooses to pettifog about the meaning of the word dogma.
Click to expand...

It's more or less what I've come to expect of believers. Pretty standard fare.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Just some obvious, silly, diversionary tactics to avoid any kind of actual discussion.
 
Slowvehicle said:
Why yes, you are right--you bragged:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9478095#post9478095

I maintain that what I said is a fair paraphrase, given your tone. Your implication is certainly that you claim the "authority" of the Jesus of which it was said that he was said to be "the christ". If you are admitting that there are LDS dogma of which that is not true, I will retract my implication. If not, you should stand by your braggadocio.



If by "denigrated the bible", you mean that I have pointed out that a cursory examination of what is left of the xianists texts demonstrates them to be a poorly-edited and sectarially redacted collection of at least 4 different sources into at least two different traditions, for at least two different reasons, yes. I have studied the bible extensively. I am aware of its failures as literature, as science, and as a cohesive document.



But I do know (I'll say it again) that your claims are not contained in the xianist bible, but in egregious texts. I can, and do, say that the xianist bible cannot be used to demonstrate that the "authority" for the LDS dogma of "baptism for the dead" comes from the Jesus said to have been said the be "the christ" as contained in the xianist scriptures. If you want to invent a document that has extrabiblical claims of what he is said to have said you are free to do so; but at the cost of admitting why mainstream xianists do not accept your claim, nor consider the LDS to be mainstream xianists.

IOW, it is perfectly accurate to say that the Jesus recorded in the xianist scriptures did not institute, mandate, or commission "baptism for the dead". You are, of course, free to provide contrary evidence.



The claim that Jesus spoke out against homosexuality is as much a fabrication as the claim that Jesus instituted "baptism for the dead".
Do try to keep up.



What evidence do you offer that the xianist bible supports your claims?



No. You are supposed to pay attention, and realize that trying to divert the issue does not change the fact that I did not say that I thought thhat LDS are not xianists. I said that other mainsteam xianists do not accept LDS as mainstream xianist.



sect
1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.

Are you claiming that the BoA is, in fact, Abraham's autographic record of his time in Egypt, and that it is not at all unusual for standard Egyptian funerary texts to contain distinctly anti-Egyptian material? Are you claiming that Smith's "translation" of the Book of Breathing has been widely used toaid in the translation of other texts?

I am not surprised at your evasion. And, by definition, LDS is a sect no less that the Southern Baptist Convention.



In other words, there have been dogmata of the LDS not based upon the "authority" of Jesus who was said to have been said to be "the christ". And, (to coin a phrase) you don't know which existing dogmata will be discovered not to be based on that "authority" in the future...



I am certainly aware that this passage does not constitute Jesus who was said to have been said to be "the christ" instituting a dogma of "three levels of glory".



...it is almost as if you are unaware that this passage (which does not institute "three levels of glory") was not said to be spoken by Jesus who was said to have been said to be "the christ"...



1. Don't call me Shirley.

2. Are you saying that you, as an LDS, are free to repudiate LDS dogmata?



What "compelling", practical, empirical, physical evidence, attested to by neutral scholars, for the anachronisms claimed by the BoM to have existed in the Pre-Colombian Americas have you offered at all?

I have been patiently asking for such for a good while--all I have been offered is hoaxes, apologetics, and vague linguistic excuses. I will happily keep waiting for actual evidence.



...and when actual, practical, empirical evidence, attested to by neutral scholars, is produced, I will read it with fascination.



Which is your way of ignoring what I said about the quality of the lack of evidence for the anachronisms claimed to have existed in the BoM in the pre-Colombian Americas.

Bring me evidence and I will be fascinated.

Until you have evidence, you ought to be moire careful not to make dogmatic claims of faith as if they were demonstrated by reality.
Click to expand...

Nicely done sir! :th:

NOMINATED.
 
skyrider44 said:
No need to read minds, just text.
Click to expand...

Did you read this text?

Since you've introduced your opinion regarding my motives, I'll share my opinion regarding yours.

I believe that you are experiencing a crisis of faith. The deliberate nature of your evasive self-martyrdom strongly suggests to me that you are fully aware of the devastating evidence against the claims of Joseph Smith, as well as the feeble nature of the apologetics offered in his defense. Yet you are, as yet, emotionally unprepared to deal with the evidence of the fraudulent nature of your religious beliefs. By focussing on the idea that you are a victim of bullying, you are able to avoid thinking about the facts that you are so uncomfortable about confronting. I'm not so sure that you are trying to convince us of the veracity of Mormonism so much as you are trying to convince yourself.
 
skyrider44 said:
Hmmm. . .a criminal's rap sheet describes his crimes. Do you think that documentation, which is certainly descriptive, is positive?
Click to expand...
Can you point to this "rap sheet"? If you have a problem, report it to the moderators.

"Dogma," as used in this discussion, was descriptive while being pejorative and prejudical. You seek to neutralize "dogma." The context in which it is used by you and others hereon makes that impossible.
Click to expand...
Had I referred to it in a clearly denigratory manner, it would still not have altered the core of the argument. That's what you are running away from: the fact that the best you could come up with was a list of unsubstantiated supernatural beliefs that accomplish no more than to say, "Mormonism is true because Mormons believe Mormon teachings".

He has admitted what his intent was; read his post.
Click to expand...
Which post was that? Was it this one?

Reminds me of that old line. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Click to expand...
It reminds me of your claim that the scientific method involves faith.
 
skyrider44 said:
The word was used pejoratively, which means that it was used prejudicially. That is what I set out to establish, and I have succeeded.
Click to expand...

So what?

Congratulations. You established that an atheist does not think highly of religious beliefs. That's the apologetic equivalent of proving water is wet. That "victory" does nothing to counter the criticisms of Mormonism.

Saying you find meaning in the tenants of your religion do nothing to establish the objective truth of your beliefs.

For example, practitioners of a religion that believes in reincarnation might see Mormon baptism of the dead to be comically absurd, an act devoid of meaning or purpose. Just about any vaguely Christian religion is going to have beliefs about the fate of dead infants that will be seen as inferior, even heartless and cruel, compared to being reincarnated.
 
While googling "mormon dogma", I came across the site called Mormonism Research Ministry.

Mormonism Research Ministry is a missionary/apologetics organization that was organized in 1979 to propagate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to critically evaluate the differences between Mormonism and biblical Christianity.
Click to expand...
An article written by an apparently lapsed LDS member tells his account of a mission that he felt was characterized by lies that troubled him.

Ten Lies I Told as a Mormon Missionary by Loren* Franck is a really interesting read. I'm sure many posting in this thread will identify with this gentleman's concerns.

As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible.

After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984. Cheated and betrayed, I lacked spiritual life for the next 17 years. But God, knowing those who are His (John 10:14; 2 Timothy 2:19), drew me to Christ (John 6:44) and saved me in 2001. My spiritual emptiness was replaced by the abundant life only the Savior can give (John 10:10). And now, like millions of Christians worldwide, I have everlasting life through my faith in Him (John 3:36; 6:47).
Click to expand...
For me it was a fascinating site to investigate, and in doing so I better understand the real dilemma presented by the tradition of faith that I have seen in many of my own friends over the years.

I also have a better view as to a possible reason why the questions implied in my posts concerning lies in the LDS article about acceptance of Joseph Smith, as a "religious genius", have remained unanswered.

ETA: *The name "Loren" is ambiguous, could be a woman.
 
Last edited:
Dear Skyrider44,

As a person sitting on the fence in this discussion, I believe you have taken on a defensive response to answering a straightforward question: The people you're hair-splitting with on the definition of "Dogma" are not being intellectually dishonest nor are they being deceptive in the meaning. The questions are not deceptive Skyrider, but you appear to be the one extremely deflecting here and giving the impression of intellectual dishonesty on your behalf.

This continuing deflection is a turn-off to people considering the LDS.
 
Last edited:
poblob14 said:
Just for the record:


Quite an interesting article indeed.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I assumed Loren to be male, because I could not recall ever hearing of a woman doing a Mormon mission. So I looked it up, and sure enough, women do go on missions for the church.
 
Olowkow said:
Thanks. I assumed Loren to be male, because I could not recall ever hearing of a woman doing a Mormon mission. So I looked it up, and sure enough, women do go on missions for the church.
Click to expand...

FYI: Mormon women go on missions.
 
You would think believers would be full of wisdom and understanding, and that they would be epic containers of the Holy Spirit, showing forth astounding wisdom and love for there fellow men.

You would think they would be bastions of principles such as kindness, friendship, tolerance and patience.
 
Last edited:
skyrider44 said:
Hmmm. . .a criminal's rap sheet describes his crimes. Do you think that documentation, which is certainly descriptive, is positive? "Dogma," as used in this discussion, was descriptive while being pejorative and prejudical. You seek to neutralize "dogma." The context in which it is used by you and others hereon makes that impossible.
Click to expand...

So you do not disagree with it being a dogma. only that one would call it such?
Dogmatic thinking does carry a negative connotation these days. Typically because it results in barriers to development and progress in science, in medicine, and in social causes.

Your complaint about this highlights the fact that you also recognize the negative aspects of dogma, which suggests the problem doesn't lie with anyone but yourself.
How do you rationalize having a dogma AND accept the idea that dogmatic thinking is highly limiting?

skyrider44 said:
Reminds me of that old line. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Click to expand...
this is only a good analogy if you believe that your view is not dogmatic.
So which is it?
Do you accept your view fits the book definition of dogma or doesn't it?
 
skyrider44, any chance of you explaining why the BoA should be considered anything but a cold-blooded fraud?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom