Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[rcronk]

P.S. articulett - Please provide descriptions of all of these deceived peoples' experiences (Tom Cruise, etc.) you've been referring to so I can compare them to mine.

 

[Tanstaafl]

articulett - I understand what you're saying. I choose to trust subjective evidence and some objective confirmations over "a bunch of others have been deceived so I must be also." We disagree. Ok, please let's move on.

I truly don't think you have gotten this point yet, though you think you do.

It's not that "Others have been deceived so you must be".

It's that "Others have been deceived, so you could be".

It's not so much your belief that's inappropriate, it's your certainty.

 

[ChristineR]

I truly don't think you have gotten this point yet, though you think you do.

It's not that "Others have been deceived so you must be".

It's that "Others have been deceived, so you could be".

It's not so much your belief that's inappropriate, it's your certainty.

I'm afraid it goes one step beyond that.

"Since these beliefs are mutually contradictory, almost everyone must be deceived."

I can't pass judgment on rcronk and the others who are posting on this thread. Maybe their experiences are the ones that turn out to beat the odds. But so far, nothing posted here has not been echoed in experiences of persons in other faiths.

Personally (and this is just me) I really wish that God would drop down from the heavens and show me beyond all question which faith He wants me to follow. Many churches promise that sincere people will always receive a sign, but I haven't got one yet.

 

[rcronk]

tanstaafl - OK, "could." My certainty is appropriate if I have actually received truth from God and actually know that it is true. That others have "the same" experience and are deceived is something to consider seriously but so far it's a weak argument since no testimony I've seen from these "others" (the child preacher was disturbing, but didn't match my experience at all) has been produced that matches what I experienced and the argument relies on association fallacy in general.

ChristineR - OK, "almost everyone must." Thanks for not passing judgement on me - that's refreshing. It's funny that your wish matches what Joseph Smith said has happened. God (and Christ) dropped down from the heavens and showed him beyond all question which faith He wanted him to follow. Lucky. So, what was your take on the link to the studies done regarding Book of Mormon word-prints? I figured you would have commented on that.

 

[The_Animus]

We ran into nuns and Jehova's witnesses sometimes. The Catholics had been there a very long time. I'm not sure about the Jehovah's Witnesses though.

Do you think its possible that with missionaries being there for a very long time and constantly trying to convert people, telling them they are sinners, or they will go to hell if they don't convert, that these people would begin to feel guilty or insecure about their beliefs? So when someone walked up to them and said what he said they broke down crying? This may be the case, and it may not. But would you say that its at least possible that having missionaries there for so long could have that sort of effect?

If you kept a journal then I'll drop the possibility of false memory.

If a Catholic had the same experience and the truths they received conflicted with what I had received I would either assume that I don't understand how those truths could be reconciled or that they were misled or possibly that I was misled.

Thank you. I believe those are all good honest answers to how someone would feel or think about the situation. One of the options was that you don't understand how they can be reconciled. I agree. If you consider all the different religions and that they have their own personal experiences just like yours to testify the truth of their beliefs, several possibilities become clear.

1. No religion is right.
2. One religion is right.
3. All religions have some small part that is right, in which case you shouldn't follow any of them and instead simply take what parts you think are right from each religion as your own beliefs. So this is similar to number 1.

So the only option that you are left with to maintain your beliefs would be #2.

Then you go on to say that either they were misled or you were misled. This would have to be the case since as I explained just above, #2 is your only option. Now which is it. You or him? Perhaps you feel that other peoples experiences aren't up to par with yours. That yours was true and theirs was not. Where you live are there multiple churches near you? Not just Christian but others as well? If so it might benefit you to go to them and ask people to tell you the stories of their own personal experiences for their religion. Or if that makes you uncomfortable I would suggest joining various religious chat rooms and asking the people there for their personal experiences.

Even if you decide not to, you must understand that for every story you have there are 1000 EXACTLY like it from many people in many different religions. And for every single other persons story you have to go back and answer the question I posed. Who is misled? Is it them? Is it you? Or is it all of you? And the even better question then is, which I would like to to try to answer.

How do you figure out who, if not both, has been misled?

Also maybe you missed my last question from my last post. I know it must be hard to respond to everyone since almost all the posts in here are directed towards you. But if you don't mind would you please explain what made you leave the LDS church the first time to become an atheist?

I also have a completely different way in mind to approach this topic, but I'd like to wait and finish discussing these points first before moving on. That way it's kept simple.

 

[The_Animus]

God (and Christ) dropped down from the heavens and showed him beyond all question which faith He wanted him to follow.

Sorry for posting so much for you to read and respond to, but I just had one other question/comment about this response you gave.

Why does God only show himself to one person at a time? God in all his wisdom and knowledge should know, especially by now from past experience, that doing it this way only creates separate religions, which ultimately creates conflict. Why doesn't he show himself to everyone at once so that all his children would know in their hearts and minds that he does truly exist and know what he truly wishes his children to believe? Why does he instead only show himself to one at a time ultimately spreading confusion, distrust, and violence (most wars throughout history are in some way related to conflict of religious beliefs).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Most Mormons are American and most American males are circumcised... less so as insurance companies have stopped paying for it. But conservative groups such as Mormons are unlikely to have "rebelled" and stopped the practice on their sons. Allegiance to authority and custom is big in Mormon culture.

But I'm sure they are rolling their eyes at everything else you say just as they roll their eyes at other truths. They know that you aren't "feeling" your truth the way they are, and therefore, it can't be the real truth because real truths are felt only after praying to know if the Book of Mormon is true (circular logic)-- and no other "truths" are felt as strong as Mormons feel their truths (and they will tell you this themselves). Therefore, there woo is the true woo.

My cousin (Catholic) said at the dinner table one Easter ("the parting of the seas is enough for me") And others nodded in agreement. He was saying that what he'd heard of biblical miracles was enough to make him buy the whole ball of wax. And I was thinking, "Does he even know that in the story (unverified) that it's MOSES that parts the sea-- not Jesus? And that we don't have evidence of Moses actual existence much less actual seas parting?" It's a story-- not actual knowledge and even if it was accurate in means nothing in relation to whether Jesus existed... much less whether he was god (incarnate) killed and then risen bodily after a day and a half that is somehow extrapolated to 3 days... to supposedly pay for sins of people past and present in some bizarre atonement plan by some guy who has no need for atonement plans.

But I just shut my mouth. But I have to say that I am flummoxed by the wacky stuff that passes as assertions of unquestioned faith all because it's tied to "god". I think it's scary and that it's weird that we've made a culture where such outrageous claims go unchallenged--even rewarded. People feel special because they've "believed" something or had "faith" or "felt" a "higher truth" or because "god" told them-- and they reaffirm this nuttiness in other believers without barely a thought as to the implications of how crazy their beliefs sound to a non-believer... and how very different the world would be if their claims were true-- if the laws of physics were routinely messed with so that bodies and golden plates could float ala "Left Behind" books or yogis that supposedly levitate-- so that men could part seas. (And aren't these piddly miracles considering magician, Lance Burton makes a car fly every night. Heck, I've seen it with my own eyes. Cars, would be "chariots of the gods" back in biblical times-- and airplanes moreso, would they?) To me it just seems to take a mind not to think about these things to keep "faith" alive.

How can you look at the history of mass delusion and assume that your personal feelings somehow kept you immune? Do they just not think that others have feelings like they do. (I always wonder when people praise god for things --if they don't realize that they are insulting people who prayed for equal or more heartfelt favors like curing a childs' cancer.. and their prayers weren't answered. Do believers feel, "why did god answer that persons prayers and not mine"? or Do they all just write it off as god's mysterious "will"?)

I keep wanting to think that it's something more than a feeling or "the parting of the seas" that make people believe the wild claims they make-- but it never is. They've just trained themselves not to think a lot or use reason when it comes to "faith". And I'm tired of being the bad guy for asking if there IS anything else (and pointing out how lame it is if there isn't.)

I know. I know. I just keep asking the question in the forlorn hope that one day I'll get a response that has even a tiny intersection with reality.

 

[rcronk]

The Animus - Based on what I know about the Chilean people after living and interacting with thousands of them on a very personal level during that time, I don't believe at all that they would normally break down crying if someone came up to them and said those things. I did it for two years and it never happened to me like that nor to the many other missionaries I talked to. It was as though Elder Lizarraga had a gift of being able to testify and have people feel the truthfulness of it. If anything, it was something about him, not the people. And I paid very close attention to him to see what he might have been doing and there was nothing physically that I could see different from myself or any other missionary I knew.

As I stated earlier, the witnesses I have received are more powerful than standing out in the sun and having someone tell me the sun is not shining on me. Either I'm misunderstanding them or they are wrong - or perhaps I'm on codeine. Generally speaking, I trust the spiritual experiences I have had more than I trust my five senses and therefore I have a hard time thinking the sun isn't shining when I can see plainly that it is. I don't think it would be arrogant to suggest that the person who suggested that the sun isn't shining is mistaken, it's just overwhelming evidence (to me) that I have standing against the suggestion, that's all. Basically, of the thousands of people (based on the number of discussions we taught per week, it would be a minimum of 4,800 discussions and several times as many in-depth conversations outside of the actual discussions) I never ran into anyone who had a similar experience to mine that conflicted with truth I had received.

Based on my experience, I think the idea that all or even most religious people are receiving conflicting answers (or even asking at all) is false and so the "overwhelming number of people" who have had the exact same experience as me but the truth they received conflicted with the truth I received just doesn't exist. I'm sure there are some, but I personally haven't experienced it. And if someone is asking if God exists while attending the Catholic church, yes, they would get an answer and it would be in harmony with the answer I got. I'd like to see actual testimony from all of these masses of "other people" whose answers conflict with mine before considering this assertion any further.

I go to the Hare Krishna's and the Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists churches around me and talk to the people there too. My experience in these places matches my experience in Chile. The vast majority of all of these people go to the church of their parents or the church they most agree with or most like - they didn't pray about which church to join. I think this is a false dilemma with an absence of facts other than the thousands of people I've personally talked to on my mission and since, none of which caused such a dilemma - almost all had never thought to pray about it, and if any had received a witness from God, it did not conflict with any truths I already had witness of. Unless you've got witnesses from people that show this dilemma, I don't think there is one.

Figuring out who is misled would involve conversing with this person to figure things out and compare experiences in a spirit of honesty - kind of like what RandFan and I are doing in the moderated thread - though even he, to my knowledge, didn't receive a spiritual witness that conflicted with mine either.

Oh yes, I thought I had replied to that - I left the LDS church originally out of rebellion and just wanting to go do what I wanted to do.

Why does God only show Himself to one person at a time? Well, that speaks to the purpose for which we are here. According to Mormon (and many other religions') doctrine, we lived with God before we came here. We progressed and learned much as children progress and learn as they live with their parents here on Earth. Then there comes a point where the children have to go out on their own and live and make their own choices without parents looking over their shoulders all the time. This is where we are now. Therefore it goes against the purpose of being here for God to just come down and prove to everyone that He exists - He only does that to those who have come to a point where they have chosen Him over all other things and it seems that this combined with the need to put forth guidance into the world without making an appearance is what gets Him to come forth. Even then, many prophets didn't see God, they just received inspiration from God. And yes, there are many false prophets - I get it. Yet another reason to ask God yourself.

I think a huge problem I've seen here is really just a POV problem. Certainly it's hard to put yourself into this POV, but when there, things make more sense. With the bigger picture of where we came from, why we're here, and what our purpose is here, things make much more sense than Mr. Deity claims.

I watched Mr. Deity (about 6 or 7 episodes) and it's pretty funny. I get the POV of it and it makes sense given that POV. But the things that don't make sense to them that they make fun of really make sense when put into perspective.

I'm feeling worried about this post. I've opened myself up for attacks on many fronts simply by expressing my point of view. I'm sad that I have to feel that way here.

 

[Tanstaafl]

tanstaafl - OK, "could." My certainty is appropriate if I have actually received truth from God and actually know that it is true.

As I thought, this clearly shows that you still have not gotten the point.

But as there's nothing more I can do to communicate it, I suppose it's time to just move on.

 

[rcronk]

tanstaafl - Let me give it one more try. You (and others) are asserting that it is not possible for someone to actually receive truth directly from God and know it for certain. I reject that assertion based on my experience. You reject my rejection based on the fact that others have said that they know something to be true and that it is from God and were deceived. Is this correct?

 

[Tanstaafl]

tanstaafl - Let me give it one more try. You (and others) are asserting that it is not possible for someone to actually receive truth directly from God and know it for certain. I reject that assertion based on my experience. You reject my rejection based on the fact that others have said that they know something to be true and that it is from God and were deceived. Is this correct?

This is the part I am rejecting. And it is, in part, based on others getting conflicting revelations in a similar manner.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm feeling worried about this post. I've opened myself up for attacks on many fronts simply by expressing my point of view. I'm sad that I have to feel that way here.

Saying that you understand that you are opening yourself up for attack, is admitting that you understand your POV is attackable...

It seems to me that revelations from God, would be a bit more secure than that .

The Truth should be self evident, with no explanation needed..

 

[rcronk]

tanstaafl - Got it. I'm still waiting for any evidence of these conflicting revelations that you speak of. I haven't seen one in my own experiences and I haven't seen evidence from anyone here (maybe I missed it?). Failing this evidence, I think we all understand each other now and can agree to disagree at this point and move on.

diogenes - Sure - it's attackable. I wish this could be a more balanced conversation than an attack though. That's just how it feels from my end, that's all I was trying to say.

See, even my not-clear-enough expression of feeling attacked was attacked!

 

[articulett]

Don't you think it's a little weird that you feel other people just go along believing the religion they were raised with... and you believe the religion you were raised with? One of the big things about the Mormons is the way they manipulated people with the notion that you can "feel" god... and so people think they do. It's not so different from how Saints earn canonization in the Catholic church (2 confirmed miracles). How do you imagine your "testimony" is different than people in churches where they are told that god will give them the gift of "speaking in tongues"--and they take that as proof that their beliefs are right when they find themselves speaking in tongues"? Do you think that's god? Why or why not? Why don't Mormons get that gift? Why aren't they speaking in any actual languages (because that WOULD be impressive... but still not a sign of a god.) They are not saying anything in any known language... it's just babble... but they are sincere... their brain lights up differently than when people are asked to pretend to speak in tongues.
Evangelical Christians have their love bomb techniques, but they believe that Mormonism is a cult... and then there are those fundies who truly believe in the rapture. And what about all the people who die for their faith? Or the doomsday cultists in the book When Prophesy Fails who only become MORE convinced their church is true after the end of the world doesn't come.... these are people who give away all their possessions to do as Christ ordered in preparation for the end of time that doesn't come. Many have given away their possessions as Christ ordered, you know. And the Amish truly do believe that this life is a test... hence the only thing they read is the bible... and the only songs they sing are hymns-- they don't deal in worldly things... those are people really trying to earn the good eternity. I'm sure they'd be affronted to learn you think they are going to "get to learn Mormonism" when they die.

Are you actually thinking they aren't as convinced as you are that what they feel and believe is true? What about people willing to prove their faith by dying for it? Surely they have a "feeling" and are moved just as much as you are. Certain forms of epilepsy are associated with religious ecstasy, you know? It seems like you're playing the "no true scotsman" game... you just write everyone else who believes fervently as not having the "true" experience you had... --their feelings are fake; their tears not genuin (did you watch the links...?) and you write them off for just going along ith their families religion (even though it might not be as clever in it's manipulation)-- when you have done the same. You imagine that you just happened to be born into or stumbled upon the "right religion"-- the true "unbelievable" story. But you were raised to believe that god exists and you could know if Mormonism was the truth by getting a "feeling" from god. And lo' and behold--you got a magical feeling and you interpreted this as god telling you that you picked the right religion. It felt real so it must be god shining his light upon you.

You were never an atheist. You just hadn't tricked yourself into believing that god was talking to you yet. Or at least it sounds that way to me. Most atheists I know become atheists because they look at you and all the others that sound so similar and realize that faith is not a way to know anything true... that if the facts can't reveal something-- then that sure doesn't mean something else can. If faith was a mechanism for truth--how could we discern one from another. As skeptics and fans of Randi... the people here are way more aware than most how easy it is to be fooled. We get tired of trying to makes sense out of the nonsensical and apologize for a god that has morals that are less than our own. I'm not all-loving, but I wouldn't have a child if there was the remote possibility they could suffer forever... why?? And, if I leave a temptation out and my dog eats it--I don't punish her and all her descendants-- I chastize myself and learn to put it up next time. I don't want my child to have "faith" or be afraid of knowledge-- I want him to learn facts... the kind we humans are privileged to be able to know-- who judges their children on what they believe or what they have faith in? I'm an atheist because they can't all be true-- they CAN all be false... and if I can't know something... that means no one else can either. And feelings cannot be a way to know what is true--because too many people believe false things to the extent that they die for them. There's no way to distinguish one faith based claim from another except by what "feels" right-- and New Age stuff felt the most "right"-- but I knew that didn't make it true. It made so much more sense than monotheistic religions... more fair and such-- but that didn't make it true.

Just because you weren't into your religion, doesn't mean you were an atheist, rconk. An atheist doesn't believe that gods are talking to people any more than rain gods are watching for the right rain dances or aliens are doing anal probes. An atheist wouldn't read and pray to know if "x-religion" is true, because that is clearly a "non-double blind" confirmation biased test-- which makes believers feel bad if they don't hear from god... but a non-believer would think it was a ridiculous test for anything. What non believer thinks that feelings are messages from magical invisible divine sources? And why would they? That's more likely of people who think mental illnesses are caused by demons--people who have been immersed in delusion and superstition for some time--people who have internalized the message that faith is "good" and an avenue for "higher truths". There is no evidence supporting this commonly proffered religious notion.

I had a Buddhist told me to chant "nom yo ho ren ge kyo" for something I wanted, and when I got it, I'd know it was true. I got it... and it was intriguing... but I had already seen the the technique used by Mormons, creative visualization gurus and those speaking in tongues.... I knew not to make the bold leap believers of all sorts seem to make so readily. You just jump over so many bizarre claims to connect dots to see the picture you want-- and I think you'd readily see this error in the false conclusions others jump to. But you just can't see it in your own.

(And if you want to see conflicting revelation...as if it would count to you... how about John Krackauer's book, Under the Banner Of Heaven. Lots of people through the eons have been getting messages and "signs" from divine sources-- or so they have claimed. What do you consider the "gift of speaking in tongues" to be, if not a "sign" on par with your "sign"? http://www.speakingintongues.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2153947/

 

[articulett]

P.S. articulett - Please provide descriptions of all of these deceived peoples' experiences (Tom Cruise, etc.) you've been referring to so I can compare them to mine.

I provided links... of people moved to tears... and the people who speak in tongues... what exactly do you want... people saying that they know their beliefs are true "because" and then insert stories of deep meaning and feeling?
On this forum, Maatorc and Iamme and Phantomwolf and T'ai have different truths they are sure of-- maatorc's has to do with ESP... and he sounds like he thinks he IS a prophet... Iamme and T'ai just sound like daft evangelical types--I think they both may be young earth creationists... I mean, I really understand genetics and the weird stuff people go to in order to NOT understand it so they can pretend that scientists don't know things they do (just as the church did with Galileo) and that their preacher man knows things he doesn't--like how humans came to be and when and where... seeing the DNA proves evolution is unmistakable detail-- it's full of old genes that no longer work and junk and stuff we share more of with animals more closely related to us... But they write books trying to poke holes where understanding is weak so they can fill it with whatever magic they want to believe in.

I think you just ignore all evidence... just like Behe (Catholic creationist) ignores everything that disproves his "irreducible complexity" non-theory. You have learned to see your experience or feelings as deeper or more true than all those others-- but to a skeptic, there is no difference. You pay attention to everything that confirms your "feelings" and dismiss or ignore all that negates it. You seek confirmatory evidence, but never dare to test the null hypothesis. You just are incredibly blind to your own confirmation bias... and angry to even think this could be a possibility. You don't want to be like the nutters. But it's hard to tell one faith-head from another. Without facts--you are all delusional to me--until evidence shows otherwise.

 

[Elind]

I'm not sure I understand the intent of this type of "experimental" thread, but since I saw the word Mormon and since I recently finished the book "Under the Banner of Heaven" about Mormonism, I thought I would throw in a few words.

I am curious if those who might now more about Mormonism from real life have read it, and how it differs from what they thought they knew (or taught them)?

I knew the basics, like the simple known fact that Joseph Smith was a gifted con artist and those who followed him were gullible to the extreme, or simply looking for leadership at a time of great uncertainty.

But what I didn't know was just how nasty their history was, and how bigoted, racially and otherwise, they were, and to some extent still are.

I didn't know that they, officially at least, were forced to give up polygamy at the point of a gun, or that they still consider blacks and other non white races to be the evil ones in God's eye.

I didn't know that their tradition is to listen to voices to the extent that their leaders are the ones who claim to hear them loudest.

I didn't know that the story they believe could just as easily have been written for Scientology, for all the sense it makes, and what is more, it is documented in real life stories of the time, not hidden in the mists after hundreds of years of retelling, which at least the main religions can hide behind.

There's more of course, but who needs more?

 

[rcronk]

I left Mormonism, was atheist, was miserable after 6 years of that, investigated many faiths, ended up praying about the Book of Mormon and getting an answer that it's true. That I was raised Mormon and left it actually made it less likely that I'd go back to it after leaving - I didn't want any part of it. I would have been better off neutral than negative.The gift of tongues in the Mormon church allows missionaries and others to speak and understand other useful languages like Spanish in order to preach the gospel. There are some miraculous instances of this in the Mormon church.Several people have told me that everyone else's answers conflict with the truth I received. I'm asking for testimony from these people where they sincerely prayed to ask to know something specific and received a truth that conflicts with truth that I have received through the same method. I have looked at the video links, etc. but did not see any that were like what I just explained. People are basing their disbelief in me being able to receive truth from God and know it on these conflicting answers people have received as though there are millions of them - as if all theists have prayed to ask God about a specific truth and got a conflicting answer to the truth I received. I have yet to see proof of this in my own experience or on this thread. Please post your evidence. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just asking for evidence to back up these conflict assertions. Thanks.

 

[Elind]

I'm sorry but I don't think I entirely understand what you are saying here. However I can say that whenever anyone says they "hear" truths or answers, instead of rationalizing them, then I fear a debate has ended.

Not that I am not willing, but if you hear voices and call that a truth, then I have no way to respond, and I even wonder why you would expect me to.

 

[rcronk]

Elind - I have asserted that it is possible to receive subjective evidence from God directly and know that it is true (based on my own experiences). Some people here reject that assertion mainly because others have said that they have done the same as I have and that they received conflicting answers. I am just asking for them to post the evidence they have of other people sincerely praying to God for a specific answer and claiming to receive an answer that they know to be true and that truth conflicts with the truth I have received. Since you didn't make this claim, the question is not directed to you.

 

[articulett]

He believes he can "feel" the truth and that he has. The book of Mormon tells you to read the Book of Mormon and pray to know if it's true and 'lo and behold-people get "testimony". It's similar to those who talk in tongues. But the reason his supposed atheism doesn't make sense is because...

It would be like if someone kept telling me to do a rain dance to please the rain gods and if I just did it and followed their directions, then it would rain and I'd know I had pleased the gods. Then if I did the dance after being harangued and it didn't rain, the person would say that I needed to keep trying and slow down my rhythm or something... and finally it would rain. Or suppose it rained right after I did that. As an atheist and a skeptic I would understand that this was, at best, a coincidence... not a sign that there were rain gods that liked dances... or rain gods at all... or that dances influences weather... or that I could influence the weather-- and yet that's what this whole story sounds like to me.

But I've heard a lot of "I used to be an atheist" from people who don't sound like they were ever actual atheists from my perspective. Maybe they were unchurched or hadn't thought about it--but they sure don't sound like any non-believers I've ever met.

What atheist could look at all the ways people have fooled themselves on this topic for eons without agreement with other similar fooled people and not conclude that faith and feeling are a very poor way to understand anything true? Do any of you know any atheists who still think they can access higher truths through "revelations" or "feelings" or "signs" that they or someone else interprets? Do you know of any atheists that believe in "higher truths"? Prophets? To me, they are all equally likely to be true and that is to say--none are any more likely than the other and some are definitely mistaken.