LDS

[pakeha]

Really hung up on that, aren't you? Assuming that the BoM and BA are frauds, tell me how that affects you.

What a classic trick to avoid discussing a known fraud and con, skyrider.
It's the sort of tactic I'd expect from a politician or preacher.
Why bring it here?
Why not discuss the intellectual dishonesty involved in Smith's claim to have translated those texts and the LDS' intellectual dishonesty in refusing to discuss it?
None of the Mormons here have discussed the intellectual dishonesty at issue here.
All have taken refuge in claiming spiritual 'benefits' from reading and thinking about the BoA, correct me if I'm wrong.
My answer to that is consistent- how can there be a spiritual benefit from considering a fraud a sacred text?

kellyb was more succinct

There is this thing called "truth". Some of us are rather fond of it. Defensive, even.

 

[dafydd]

My answer to that is consistent- how can there be a spiritual benefit from considering a fraud a sacred text?

That implies that some sacred texts are kosher. All sacred texts are frauds.

 

[Pup]

What a classic trick to avoid discussing a known fraud and con, skyrider.
It's the sort of tactic I'd expect from a politician or preacher.
Why bring it here?
Why not discuss the intellectual dishonesty involved in Smith's claim to have translated those texts and the LDS' intellectual dishonesty in refusing to discuss it?
None of the Mormons here have discussed the intellectual dishonesty at issue here.
All have taken refuge in claiming spiritual 'benefits' from reading and thinking about the BoA, correct me if I'm wrong.
My answer to that is consistent- how can there be a spiritual benefit from considering a fraud a sacred text?

To play devil's advocate here, or maybe just to inject some realism...

I'm curious what answers people want to see? What would be satisfying?

Given the fact that there isn't any evidence that any texts have been written/dictated by a god, let alone the Book of Abraham, what are Mormons supposed to say?

As far as I can tell, anything other than, "Yes, you're convinced me it's a fraud so I'm resigning my membership in the church tomorrow" would be unacceptable.

I'm genuinely curious what other responses would be satisfactory.

Now, admittedly, it's beyond my comprehension that people, including my wife, believe the god itself behind Christianity/Mormonism is actually really real (even if they're not scriptural literalists).

I can understand being fans of an alternate fictional universe. I used to be a Sherlock Holmes fan, and when much younger a Peter Pan and Oz fan, knew all the "canon" and the rules of those worlds. But I always, deep down, understood it was fiction. And I thought religion was the same way.

As far as I can figure out, it's something to do with how different people's brains work. I know that cognitive behavioral therapy tries, but in general, one can't usually talk a clinically paranoid person out of believing people are following him, or a schizophrenic that the voices are really an artifact of his own brain, just by presenting more and more reams of logical evidence. There's something deeper in their brain that insists on its own "truth."

And that's the best way I can understand and accept religous people. For some of them--obviously not all--there's something in their brain that insists on the truth that there's a god, and that "truth" can be adapted somewhat but not eradicated, any more than I could eradicate what seems like my common sense and start really believing in Peter Pan or Sherlock Holmes.

If someone said, "Well, I know Star Wars is fictional, but there are some good spiritual truths in the idea of the Force," I think most people would accept that, even if they didn't agree on the significance of the truths. So it's not impossible for something known to be fake, to also offer insight.

The problem seems to be because Mormons or any religious people say, "I know [insert scripture] is inspired by God and there are some good spiritual truths in its ideas." It's that first clause that bothers people and which they can't accept.

Is there any response a religious person could give, other than renouncing their belief in their religion, which would be satisfactory?

Because if that's the standard, I don't think an internet thread is going to be that successful in converting people to atheism and this could continue to be a long, long thread if that's the goal.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Because if that's the standard, I don't think an internet thread is going to be that successful in converting people to atheism and this could continue to be a long, long thread if that's the goal.

To play Devil's advocate of the Devil's advocate, the thread was started by a proponent of one sect of Christianity, not atheists.

It's similar to the question that skyrider44 had for atheists "why is it important to you?", not stopping to think that if she didn't think it was important to us, why did Janadele start the thread?

 

[Pup]

To play Devil's advocate of the Devil's advocate, the thread was started by a proponent of one sect of Christianity, not atheists.

Exactly. Atheists and/or non-Mormons have used the opportunity to ask questions of Mormons, which is exactly what the thread was apparently for. I'm not saying the questions are wrong, because Janadele apparently started this thread so people could receive answers from believers.

So I understand why people are asking the questions.

What puzzles me is that they continually reject the answers as not real answers, or not good enough, or... something.

What is it they want to hear from Mormons, if not what they're hearing? What, other than a Mormon renouncing his/her religion, would a satisfactory answer from a Mormon look like?

 

[Pixel42]

if she didn't think it was important to us, why did Janadele start the thread?

I'm sure she thinks it should be as important to us as it is to her. Unfortunately she's been unable to provide one good reason why it should be important to anyone. Indeed the more we investigate her unsupported assertions the more reasons we find to dismiss them.

In reply to Pup: I don't think anyone expects Janadele or skyrider to suddenly see the light and realise they've been fooling themselves all these years. The most I hope for is that they go away and stop polluting our nice sceptics forum with their superstitious drivel. But as long as they continue to do so there will posters who continue to point out that it's superstitious drivel, as the alternative is to let it stand unchallenged.

 

[Slowvehicle]

To play devil's advocate here, or maybe just to inject some realism...

I'm curious what answers people want to see? What would be satisfying?

Given the fact that there isn't any evidence that any texts have been written/dictated by a god, let alone the Book of Abraham, what are Mormons supposed to say?

As far as I can tell, anything other than, "Yes, you're convinced me it's a fraud so I'm resigning my membership in the church tomorrow" would be unacceptable.

I'm genuinely curious what other responses would be satisfactory.

Now, admittedly, it's beyond my comprehension that people, including my wife, believe the god itself behind Christianity/Mormonism is actually really real (even if they're not scriptural literalists).

I can understand being fans of an alternate fictional universe. I used to be a Sherlock Holmes fan, and when much younger a Peter Pan and Oz fan, knew all the "canon" and the rules of those worlds. But I always, deep down, understood it was fiction. And I thought religion was the same way.

As far as I can figure out, it's something to do with how different people's brains work. I know that cognitive behavioral therapy tries, but in general, one can't usually talk a clinically paranoid person out of believing people are following him, or a schizophrenic that the voices are really an artifact of his own brain, just by presenting more and more reams of logical evidence. There's something deeper in their brain that insists on its own "truth."

And that's the best way I can understand and accept religous people. For some of them--obviously not all--there's something in their brain that insists on the truth that there's a god, and that "truth" can be adapted somewhat but not eradicated, any more than I could eradicate what seems like my common sense and start really believing in Peter Pan or Sherlock Holmes.

If someone said, "Well, I know Star Wars is fictional, but there are some good spiritual truths in the idea of the Force," I think most people would accept that, even if they didn't agree on the significance of the truths. So it's not impossible for something known to be fake, to also offer insight.

The problem seems to be because Mormons or any religious people say, "I know [insert scripture] is inspired by God and there are some good spiritual truths in its ideas." It's that first clause that bothers people and which they can't accept.

Is there any response a religious person could give, other than renouncing their belief in their religion, which would be satisfactory?

Because if that's the standard, I don't think an internet thread is going to be that successful in converting people to atheism and this could continue to be a long, long thread if that's the goal.

I, for one, am not looking for an "admission" from any credulist that their "sourcebook" ia a clumsy fraud.

Where I engage is at the point where I am told that it is my lack of preparation, or the quality of my scholarship, that prevents me from admitting that whatever text in question is, in fact, "really true", which does, in fact, mean that the credulist has the right, even the holy responsibility, to try to enforce the tenets therein upon me and mine.

For instance, if a person wants, even needs, to find my (or any other) lifestyle "abhorrent and disgusting, this tells me more about the person holding the opinion than it tells me about reality or morality. If that person wants to join, and participate in the rituals of, a club that absolutely prevents the members of the club from engaging in whatever behaviour du jour is this generation's "abhorrence", I still have no problem. (You will notice that you very seldom see group advocating laws to control their own, behaviour).

Where I have a problem is when the credulists come out of their cloisters and claim that, since their sourcebook is "really real", and "really holy", that they get to dictate behaviour to non-members. A symptom of this mindset is when a credulist feels (for instance) the need to tell me that 'god' instructed them to be disgusted by my lifestyle.

If one needs to believe that millions of people marched out of Egypt, carrying the majority of Egypt' economy, and established "rightful" possession of an occupied land, one has my permission to do so. It is when you begin to claim that I am not smart enough to accept that the superstitions collected in the bible are sufficient evidence that the Israelites are not, in fact, autochthonous, that I will begin pointing out the problem with using the heavily-redacted and sectarially-edited materials collected form at least 4 sources into at least 2 different traditions for at least two different reasons as actual history, as evidence of your claims, has certain inherent problems.

I don't care that the BoM contain's Smith's inventions of his ideas about what pre-Colombian civilizations in america must have been like. I do care that there is no evidence, none, for (for instance) the existence of horses and horse cultures in those civilizations. I do care that, when challenged, the assertions get supported by lies, equivocations, really bad scholarship, appeals to eschatological heterodoxy, and personal vituperation.

I don't care about groups that believe in special creation--until I get told that I must incorporate unevidenced sectarian beliefs into a science classroom. I care when the "evidence" for any position is "because 'god' said so".

 

[RandFan]

I have no interest in such insulting false opinions! To presume to be eligible to judge and proclaim that a deceased person would become a God merely by accepting a Baptism by proxy is preposterous. To declare this to be a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not only incorrect but blasphemous in the extreme.

• Blaspheme is a victimless crime.
• If there were a supernatural entity who was the most powerful being in the universe, why would it need protection? Only those who are insecure require such measures.

The accusation of "blaspheme" is akin to the school kid who tells everyone "my dad is bigger than your dad".

 

[halleyscomet]

• Blaspheme is a victimless crime.
• If there were a supernatural entity who was the most powerful being in the universe, why would it need protection? Only those who are insecure require such measures.

The accusation of "blaspheme" is akin to the school kid who tells everyone "my dad is bigger than your dad".

Accusations of blasphemy can get people attacked or their property damaged, even in the western world. Blasphemy is a victimless crime, but accusations of blasphemy inspire violence and hatred from the followers of a "god of love."

 

[I Ratant]

That implies that some sacred texts are kosher. All sacred texts are frauds.

.
This is one of the valuable features of LDS. The originator has a genuine historical presence, and his ginning up of the religion is well documented.
This process is somewhat obscured the further back in time we go, but it should operated similarly with any of them.
And watching the evolution of the religion from its inception to what it is today is a view into the similar processes way back when as the controllers of a faith honed its precepts and requirements.

 

[I Ratant]

I'm sure she thinks it should be as important to us as it is to her. Unfortunately she's been unable to provide one good reason why it should be important to anyone. Indeed the more we investigate her unsupported assertions the more reasons we find to dismiss them.

In reply to Pup: I don't think anyone expects Janadele or skyrider to suddenly see the light and realise they've been fooling themselves all these years. The most I hope for is that they go away and stop polluting our nice sceptics forum with their superstitious drivel. But as long as they continue to do so there will posters who continue to point out that it's superstitious drivel, as the alternative is to let it stand unchallenged.

.
These conversations can be mind-openers to the uncertain in faith who may never have encountered genuine contrarian opinions to what they have been fed as absolute from the pulpit, but find it difficult to accept some of them as moral or ethical.

 

[I Ratant]

...

Where I have a problem is when the credulists come out of their cloisters and claim that, since their sourcebook is "really real", and "really holy", that they get to dictate behaviour to non-members. A symptom of this mindset is when a credulist feels (for instance) the need to tell me that 'god' instructed them to be disgusted by my lifestyle.

...

.
The bleever can tell you this!
What he/she can't do is punish you!
The belief that these people have some right to swing their arms into your/mine/anyone's nose is one of the worst things in a faith! And is responsible today for the 100s of people who will die today for religious differences!
Thank god for the separation clause!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Accusations of blasphemy can get people attacked or their property damaged, even in the western world. Blasphemy is a victimless crime, but accusations of blasphemy inspire violence and hatred from the followers of a "god of love."

That's why gods of love need hateful followers; they're too wimpy to stand up for themselves.

 

[Pup]

I suppose, like Pixel, I'd just prefer to see Jackadele go away and stop using this forum to get herself off.

Okay, we've had a couple votes for no answer being the best answer (which must be confusing when other people keep demanding an answer). But I haven't seen any examples yet of what a real answer would sound like.

Here's a hypothetical answer that I'd find satisfactory, given the fact that believers don't generally deconvert after reading a few posts on a forum. It's actually fairly close to was given by Skyrider a while ago (edited to add, for example here or here), but apparently it isn't enough: "There are obviously logical contradictions and contrary evidence, but nevertheless, I can't shake the belief that there is a real god and that the LDS faith is the closest explanation of that god I've found. The logical contradictions don't seem as important to me as you, because my faith still feels true to me, even if it's not logical." (Edited to add: that's a hypothetical answer made up by me as an example of something that would satisfy me, not an attempt to paraphrase anyone else's answers.)

I have a feeling that such an answer would be met with choruses of: But what about the horses? What about the papyrus?

What's a hypothetical answer that would satisfy those who keep asking for answers (not counting of course those who don't ask and would best be satisfied by silence)?

 

[Foster Zygote]

.
This is one of the valuable features of LDS. The originator has a genuine historical presence, and his ginning up of the religion is well documented.
This process is somewhat obscured the further back in time we go, but it should operated similarly with any of them.
And watching the evolution of the religion from its inception to what it is today is a view into the similar processes way back when as the controllers of a faith honed its precepts and requirements.

Some time ago it occurred to me that the invention of time travel would be a devastating blow to virtually every religion.

 

[halleyscomet]

Tell me, have you seen Janadele cite ONE benefit she derives from her faith, other than a burning in her bosom?

She uses it to rationalize attacking gay people, which appears to be a pretty important aspect of her life.

Oh, and it lets her hero worship Willard Romney.

BTW: You've been nominated: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9579377#post9579377

 

[skyrider44]

What a classic trick to avoid discussing a known fraud and con, skyrider.

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

Attacking Joseph Smith is a diversionary tactic.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Okay, we've had a couple votes for no answer being the best answer (which must be confusing when other people keep demanding an answer). But I haven't seen any examples yet of what a real answer would sound like.

Here's a hypothetical answer that I'd find satisfactory, given the fact that believers don't generally deconvert after reading a few posts on a forum. It's actually fairly close to was given by Skyrider a while ago, but apparently it isn't enough: "There are obviously logical contradictions and contrary evidence, but nevertheless, I can't shake the belief that there is a real god and that the LDS faith is the closest explanation of that god I've found. The logical contradictions don't seem as important to me as you, because my faith still feels true to me, even if it's not logical."

I have a feeling that such an answer would be met with choruses of: But what about the horses? What about the papyrus?

What's a hypothetical answer that would satisfy those who keep asking for answers (not counting of course those who don't ask and would best be satisfied by silence)?

I had an epiphany yesterday about my relationship with my wife, and how we think in very different ways. To me, she often seems very illogical and sometimes speaks in baffling non-sequiturs that leave even less-analytical people than me going "huh?"

It occurred to me that the difference between us is one of heuristics. While I prefer to ponder and analyze every situation, she processes the information according to what she believes is true about the world. It takes a lot less effort, and only has the disadvantage of occasionally being wrong, and then about things that don't affect her directly.

I think that's probably true about a lot of religious people. Sure, there may be logical inconsistencies, but they don't ordinarily live by logic. It's a tool that's there if they absolutely need it, but they certainly aren't going to pull it out to voluntarily dismantle their own cherished beliefs.

I try to remember this when I get irritated with my wife for thinking like a normal person instead of a software developer.

 

[halleyscomet]

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

Attacking Joseph Smith is a diversionary tactic.

It's been repeatedly stated in this thread that the harm from Mormonism comes from Mormon contributions to the oppression of others. Merely believing a work of fiction to be a holy text is not in and of itself harmful. It's what you DO with that belief that causes harm.

Why are you avoiding this issue? Are you trolling? Are you too scared to give what you know in your heart of hearts to be a hypocritical answer?

 

[aggle-rithm]

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

Interesting! Throwing the "how does gay marriage affect you?" back in their faces.

Unfortunately, there is no equivalency between a moral pronouncement (such as "gays should not be married") and a statement of fact ("there were no horses in pre-Columbian America").