Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

Elind... I gave links... but... "no true scotsman". If they didn't get his answer, they weren't as sincere as he was... or didn't feel what he felt. When faith gives you the answer, reason and evidence are not able to touch it--especially when you believe your salvation depends on such faith... and that you are very special and chosen to have such "faith".

Same story as all beliefs... different package... same types of circular confirmation bias. I'm curious as to why he came to a skeptics forum (in his first thread) with the notion that you could "feel" the truth as though that were something we'd just accept. It's weird that this is such a commonly held belief, and I wonder if it's a quirk of humans in general or something inculcated by theologians through the eons. I guess before science and the amassing evidence-- it was the closest you could come to knowing how things worked and attempting to influence them.

But I think we've outgrown this primitive notion and it's time to dismantle it.
 
P.S. Since two of you mentioned "Under the Banner of Heaven", I thought I'd post a link, in the name of objectivity, to a review of that book by a Mormon apologist:www.fairlds.org/Misc/The_Krakauer_Journal.htmlIf you want to learn about the Mormon church, in my experience reading anti-mormon literature is a load of disinformation. It's fine to get multiple points of view, but generally anti-mormon material is drivel. If this type of material is par for the course here, then I think I might understand all of the misconceptions I have been seeing here.To explain this thread to Elind, this thread is supposed to be a place for people to discuss the two person debate thread linked to at the top of the thread. It's basically a runaway train, but lately we happen to be talking about what the debaters are talking about (I'm one of them). Try to keep discussion here about the debate topics - you'll be the first to do so. :)
 
http://thetruereligion.org/modules/xfsection/article.php?articleid=254
(prays to know true religion gets proof that it's Muslim)

How to know if Scientology is true per Scientologists:
http://www.scientology.org/en_US/religion/catechism/index.html

Scientology comprises a body of knowledge which extends from certain fundamental truths. Prime among these are:

Man is an immortal spiritual being.

His experience extends well beyond a single lifetime.

His capabilities are unlimited, even if not presently realized.

Scientology further holds man to be basically good, and that his spiritual salvation depends upon himself and his fellows and his attainment of brotherhood with the universe.

Scientology is not a dogmatic religion in which one is asked to believe anything on faith. An individual discovers for himself that Scientology works by applying its principles and observing or experiencing the results.

The ultimate goal of Scientology is true spiritual enlightenment and freedom for the individual.

http://www.skeptictank.org/ronsays.htm
http://www.xenu.net/archive/FAQ/answer_for_kids.html (cult)

Where Tom Cruise sounds like rconk to me: http://w3.cultnews.com/archives/000704.html

Speaking in tongues as proof of god:
http://www.jimfeeney.org/speakingintongues.html

Christian as to why Mormonism is not true (and it will tell you why all other religions other than theirs are wrong too.) http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r003.html

Rather than providing evidence to support the Book of Mormon, Mormons often ask Christians to read the Book of Mormon and pray to see whether or not it is from God. As the Book of Mormon says,

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
—Moroni 10:4 (Book of Mormon)

Mormons also reference James 1:5 to support this practice:

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Most Mormons claim they have received a "burning in the bosom"—a testimony of the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is true.

But is this spirit the Holy Spirit? Is prayer a proper test for truth? How are we to test for truth? What about James 1:5? How do we test the spirits?

Proper Tests

It is vitally important to know proper tests when assessing spiritual truth-claims. "There is a way that seems right unto man, but the end thereof is death (Proverbs 14:12)." Let me illustrate with a lighter matter.

While in Africa, a missionary friend was approached several times by ivory peddlers. Though he was not interested in buying ivory, he learned some tricks of the peddlers' trade. He would ask how one distinguishes ivory from polished bone. (He learned that polished bone was often sold as ivory.) Almost always, the answer came, "Light a match under it. If it is bone, the soot will not wipe away. But if the soot wipes away, it is ivory."

The problem with this test (for which many tourists fell) is that it isn't proper at all. Soot wipes off of both polished bone and ivory just the same! The moral of the story? You must use the proper test.

What my friend experienced is similar to the Mormon plea to pray about the Book of Mormon. Though we are called to pray always (1 Thessalonians 5:17), the Bible nowhere teaches that prayer is a test for truth.
What about James 1:5?

Well, in context, one finds reference to the testing of one's faith by trials and temptations (see verses 2-3, 12, and 13). We are exhorted, if we lack wisdom, to ask God for wisdom and understanding (not truth) when faced with trials and temptations so we may respond in a godly fashion.

The apostle Paul warned the believers in Galatia not to listen to anyone who teaches another gospel (Galatians 1:6-8). There are many false teachers who preach a "gospel" and a "Jesus," and a spirit may accompany them. But we know that there are false gospels, false christs and unholy spirits (2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 13-14). Should we pray to find out which is which? How can we know?

The danger with praying to find truth is that spiritual testimonies are a dime a dozen, and those which are valid may be difficult to distinguish from those which are not. We cannot trust the feelings of our hearts (Proverbs 28:26; Jeremiah 17:9), nor can we trust every spiritual witness (1 John 4:1-6). Called to be like the Bereans of Acts 17:11, we need to "search the Scriptures daily" to see if what Mormonism teaches is true. The biblical test focuses on the Word of God as our standard for truth (2 Timothy 3:15-17); for the witness of the Holy Spirit will never contradict the Word he himself inspired—the Bible (2 Peter 1:21).

May our great and gracious heavenly Father richly bless you as you seek to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ the Lord (2 Corinthians 10:5).
For further reading

* What are the differences between Mormonism and Christianity? answer
* Is there any archaeological evidence for the claims made in The Book of Mormon regarding Jesus' visit to the Americas? answer
Click to expand...

To a skeptic it just all seems the same. "My invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend".
 
Thanks articulett! I'll check those links out and reply in the morning. My thumbs are getting tired replying on my phone. :)
 
Yes, if you want to learn about the Mormon church don't read anything anti-Mormon... and don't read anything from former Mormons or the churches secret documents available online. And I think Scientologists will tell you the same thing... they even have a "net nanny" so your browser won't clue you into the dissent. It's hard to keep the "testimony" when pesky details intrude.

Oh and if you want to know if the book of Mormon is true... read it and pray to know if it's true... If you want to please the rain gods... learn which religions have the best rain dances that work the most often.

I just think you may have opened a bigger can of worms than you intended when you came to a skeptics forum...but I think you are fortunate even if you don't. And it gives me a chance to peek into the mind of a believer... many of the ones we get aren't that coherent... and I am always curious how one can see all these people who believe they have the truth that are wrong and not wonder the same about their own beliefs. How does each belief system explain away the others in a world where everyone's belief system is available for all to see and there is no criteria useful for establishing the veracity of one over the other-- the only veracity that we can establish is that people are very easily fooled when it comes to certain types of beliefs--especially ones that make them feel purposeful, special, eternal, saved, and "in on a cosmic secret"-- part of some great plan.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say don't read anti-mormon literature - by all means, read it. My point was to get multiple points of view to cancel out errors and get a better picture. That's all.
 
rcronk said:
I didn't say don't read anti-mormon literature - by all means, read it. My point was to get multiple points of view to cancel out errors and get a better picture. That's all.
Click to expand...

Well he seems to have missed the main point or maybe not... he ends his review with this: It is frustrating for faithful LDS to read sensationalized versions of their history, and to have it validated by unschooled reviewers as somehow "journalistic truth." The fact of the matter is that Krakauer's book will go down in history more as a polemic against religion as a whole--and Mormonism in particular--than it will as anything even remotely approaching the truth.


I think it does approach the truth... and it's saying what many people are saying... that when you tell people that god speaks to them via personal revelation... you have a lot of people who think god wants them to do all kinds of stuff-- who really believe it. For example...

http://www.nbc11.com/news/13996963/detail.html

And how else are we as a society to judge these actions if we accepts that some of these people might really be getting messages... there is nothing that makes one revelation more likely to be truer than any other-- and the evidence doesn't support any god speaking to anyone and giving them special knowledge or directions about anything. It's scary to respect the notion that this is true... because people don't just keep their beliefs to themselves... some feel "called" to convert others, or kill others, or paint messages on their house, or exorcise children behaving badly or convince others to speak in tongues or make others feel abominable for sexual urges they did not ask to have--.

The reviewer was so busy like you defending Mormonism and the stuff that is good about it--and missed the fact that faith and feelings are not avenues to truth. And there are consequences for propping up the notion that this is so. If you want your revelations and beliefs respected that are based on feelings, you have no argument for other beliefs based on the same thing no matter how detrimental you might think they are. You have no basis for saying your sect of the normal LDS is truer than the FLDS. And there just wouldn't be a zillion sects if an divine text was true or clear... and what does a diety need with such nebulous communication devices prone to ambiguity in interpretation? It's just madness to tell people they need to believe a certain way to be moral, or happy, or saved and that they will get "signs" if they are on the right track-- because there is no evidence that this is so and it creates an invisible untestable multiply interpreted authority on things that affect real tangible salient live sentient beings--and no criteria except more invisible immeasurable nothingness in which to measure the benefits construed by this notion and the many variations of it that exist. Beliefs should be respected in accordance with the hugeness of the claim and the corresponding measurable evidence in support of it. All unsupported beliefs--especially one's that call into the facts we do know like invisible entities that suspend the laws of physics at some moments... or speak to people in ways indistinguishable from a delusion or self hypnosis-- should be equally mocked, questioned, and/or ignored.

How can one respect your knowingness and not the pages of testimony from those who speak in tongues as proof of their being filled with the holy spirit? I bet their appraisal of your testimony is on par with your appraisal of their "proof". To me, it's the same trick. And a very old one at that. And if they dropped by a skeptic forum and asked us all to try speaking in tongues and recognize their "gift" in being able to do so-- I suspect they'd get similarly probed as you are. Burning bosoms? Inner knowingness? Speaking in tongues? The Muslim story? None are convincing of anything to me... except peoples' abilities to fool themselves. It's easy to find the truth when you are told what signs indicate you've found the truth. It just never seems to be the same truth.
 
Last edited:
The simple fact that sectarianism exists within Mormonism raises a serious question to the validity of the premise that a supernatural entity is the source of knowledge.

If you claim that the sectarian variations are due to apostasy, you must acknowledge that deception can and does occur.

If so, doesn't it follow that you may be deceived as much as anyone else who relies on the same origin of knowledge?
 
Articulett:
Based on my own more recent understanding of the Mormons, the issue of hearing messages appears to be central to the belief and there is a strong focus on learning how to do that. Listening. Keep listening, by damn, eventually you will hear something.

I fear there is no debate to be had here, but you are right about people who say they "were" atheists, who obviously were not. It seems those who get religion, particularly of the born again variety, inevitably think that the period when they were lapse according to their new found standards (or perhaps doped up much of the time, as many have confessed), then they think that is what atheism is, and no doubt increases their contempt accordingly. Atheists are the worst of what they have been.
 
Last edited:
Elind said:
A standard comment applicable to any and all "revealed" religions.
Click to expand...

Well, except for the ones that are too young to have broken off into sects... but maybe even then... Even Phelp's kids are "apostates" if they don't buy his "truth".

As a woman, this is why I respect Randi and other skeptic men. I just found it confusing... all these men, prophets, infallible guys, revelations... all these truths... all these guys so sure they had it... so sure I should believe it. I tried... but there were so many... none made sense... the punishment for doubting (biting from the tree of knowledge) was bad no matter where you looked (you are always choosing the hellbound alternative from someone's perspective). There just seemed no way to win. And I wonder how many women just go along... (as they must in Muslim countries), because to speak out means a loss of community support for you and your kids if not worse. I have been silent about my lack of belief so assorted believers wouldn't be afraid my son would go to hell or not have morals, etc. Always the men are the most chosen... in Mormon culture, women can't get into heaven without them... and god is rather sexist with the whole "original sin" thing and subsequent consequences... impregnating a virgin without her consent and devising a plan to have that kid killed when any mother would gladly trade places rather than bear witness to such horror. Turning into salt, incest, women as "help mates" or chattel or devices to prop up men and their ego.

There were so many faiths and methods for determining the truth. I tried the one that felt the best... and I like how it "resonated" with me... but, even then, I had an inkling that maybe just maybe you couldn't "feel" the truth.

I have tremendous gratitude for the men who have taught me that anything any man could know, I could know-- and often I did know so much more. I kept thinking there was something wrong with me, because I didn't "get" religion... but now I think that believers are just too afraid or egotistical or brainwashed to let their mind wander towards the questions I had. It makes me appreciate Randi et. al. even more-- because people do very much want to be fooled... and it's easy to fool them... but it's much more noble to show them that they are easier to fool then they imagine themselves to be.
 
rcronk said:
P.S. Since two of you mentioned "Under the Banner of Heaven", I thought I'd post a link, in the name of objectivity, to a review of that book by a Mormon apologist:www.fairlds.org/Misc/The_Krakauer_Journal.htmlIf you want to learn about the Mormon church, in my experience reading anti-mormon literature is a load of disinformation.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not Anti-Mormon, it's a history, a history well documented and referenced in the book. There is also an "official" LDS rebuttal to the book's first printing in the appendix, with agreed corrections to a few factual errors that were pointed out, which are irrelevant to the total picture.

Regardless of historical validity of any literature of the subject, I do assume that the basic story as told to Joseph Smith is agreed by all as being correctly documented? If so I can only say that I think it is laughable that people would believe such things, not to mention knowing the circumstances that they are known to have been "revealed".




It's fine to get multiple points of view, but generally anti-mormon material is drivel. If this type of material is par for the course here, then I think I might understand all of the misconceptions I have been seeing here.
Click to expand...

As I said, you will have to do better than saying anything "anti-mormon" is drivel if you want to claim to be debating.

To explain this thread to Elind, this thread is supposed to be a place for people to discuss the two person debate thread linked to at the top of the thread. It's basically a runaway train, but lately we happen to be talking about what the debaters are talking about (I'm one of them). Try to keep discussion here about the debate topics - you'll be the first to do so. :)
Click to expand...

I'll have a look at the other thread again, but to be perfectly honest, what I saw at first pass was a theological discussion about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.

I'm making that up of course, but you get the point I'm sure.

There's plenty of that in other threads. Call me philosophically lazy if you wish, but I am a believer in simplifying (Occam and all that) and I tend to think that theology (or theology masquerading as philosophy) is a recursive argument with little meaning except to justify itself.
 
articulett said:
Well, except for the ones that are too young to have broken off into sects... but maybe even then... Even Phelp's kids are "apostates" if they don't buy his "truth".
Click to expand...

I meant as between the different religions, not within them, although that is the same thing.

As a woman, this is why I respect Randi and other skeptic men. I just found it confusing... all these men, prophets, infallible guys, revelations... all these truths... all these guys so sure they had it... so sure I should believe it.
Click to expand...

On the one hand you can quote Joan of Arc (Mother Teresa;)), the Virgin Mary and I have no doubt many other women, or you can also just say that obviously the women were smarter to not succumb as often.

There were so many faiths and methods for determining the truth. I tried the one that felt the best... and I like how it "resonated" with me... but, even then, I had an inkling that maybe just maybe you couldn't "feel" the truth.
Click to expand...

Now that is just like the point about who has the right message, above. All these people (you have recovered obviously) going out shopping not for the truth, but for what "feels" good to them.
 
articulett - The Muslim true religion link - It's not a person praying to know truth and receiving an answer, but I'll accept it anyway. This person reads the first part of the Quran, up to Al Baqara, which is 7 verses into the Quran, and starts crying and she "knew it was true". What is in those 7 verses she read? It says that God (Allah) is merciful, praiseworthy, is Lord of the worlds, is merciful again, is Sovereign of the Day of Recompense, that we worship Him and ask Him for help, that we ask Him to guide us to the straight path. I don't see any conflict with my beliefs in these statements. I agree with them.

I haven't yet found anything in Scientology that talks about praying to God for an answer and to receive truth.

Tom Cruise is babbling about Scientology but doesn't mention anything about (not even close to) praying to ask God for truth and receiving an answer. It is interesting to know that you think I sound like his babblings - that's sad.

Speaking in tongues has nothing to do with praying for and receiving truth from God.

One non-Mormon christian giving his opinion about how people can't pray to God for truth (just wisdom) isn't an example of someone praying to know the truth and receiving an answer of any kind either.

So, we have one partially similar experience to mine with possible confirmation of truths that do not conflict with mine, and several examples of people who aren't praying to ask God anything and are not therefore receiving an answer the way I did. I'm sorry, but that's not good enough evidence for saying that "others have prayed and received conflicting truth so you could be deceived too."

I was saying that the book you read was full of twisted truths and half truths. For example, one that you mentioned later (perhaps not from this book) was that a woman cannot get into heaven without a man. This is a half truth that, when told by itself seems sexist. The whole truth is that neither a man nor a woman can get into heaven without the other. A man cannot get into heaven without a woman either. Do you see how these "truth tellers" show you only the parts of the truth that make Mormonism look bad? The link I gave you had the purpose of clarifying those half truths and giving a more complete picture, not to refute the fact that some people think it's impossible to receive truth from God.

The sexist claims you make above seem to be strawman arguments because few of them are based on the whole picture. Eve for example in Mormon doctrine is thought of as being able to see the bigger picture better than Adam did. She saw that going through "the fall" was worth it in order to know the good from the evil for ourselves - which was a key purpose of the plan of salvation. God impregnating Mary without her consent is simply false. In Luke 1, an angel appears to Mary and explains that she would conceive in her womb a son whom she should call Jesus. She asked how that could be since she was a virgin and the angel answered that the Holy Ghost would overshadow her and cause it to happen. She then said "be it unto me according to thy word" and by saying so, gave her consent. Sure it's strange and unheard of, but for you to say it was without consent (implying sexism or rape) was incorrect. As for coming up with a plan to kill her child - did you read the link I gave earlier regarding the meaning of the atonement?

kopji - Yes, I have already acknowledged many times that deception can and does occur. That doesn't prove that it always occurs.

Elind - Please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say "anything anti-Mormon is drivel", I said "generally anti-Mormon material is drivel". I welcome anti-Mormon material that is truthful - I seldom find any that is not twisted half truths though, which is sad. I have given some examples of this already. If RandFan brings up any anti-Mormon material in the debate, I'll address it then. If you have specific questions about it, I'll do my best to give you my point of view on it, which, based on my experience, will just give you "the rest of the story" and turn, for example, a sexist half doctrine into a non-sexist whole doctrine - as I did above in this post with articulett.

Had you, at the time of your post about it above, already read the whole article at the link I posted which reviewed the book? If not, have you read it yet (as of the time you are reading this post)?

The purpose of the debate (or discussion really) was for RandFan to tell me the reasons he left the Mormon church. I wanted to know and investigate the claims myself.
 
Last edited:
rcronk said:
Elind - Please don't put words into my mouth. I didn't say "anything anti-Mormon is drivel", I said "generally anti-Mormon material is drivel". I welcome anti-Mormon material that is truthful - I seldom find any that is not twisted half truths though, which is sad. I have given some examples of this already. If RandFan brings up any anti-Mormon material in the debate, I'll address it then. If you have specific questions about it, I'll do my best to give you my point of view on it, which, based on my experience, will just give you "the rest of the story" and turn, for example, a sexist half doctrine into a non-sexist whole doctrine - as I did above in this post with articulett.

Had you, at the time of your post about it above, already read the whole article at the link I posted which reviewed the book? If not, have you read it yet (as of the time you are reading this post)?
Click to expand...

You are correct, I had read the "official" response from the church as printed in the book. Not your link.

However I just did read it, to be fair, and what I found was a synopsis of the book. Fairly fair in it's summary, but mainly sprinkled with side or snide comments to the effect that this or that source of history is incorrect or that this or that assertion of belief or tradition is exaggerated or that the LDS is not responsible for this or that excess. There was no refutation of substance that I saw.

Your comment above about "putting words in your mouth", is a good example of what I mean. Your fine distinction is meaningless in this context.

I haven't gone to the sexism issue at all, and don't see any point in doing so, beyond what I said about pretending to give up polygamy at the point of a gun, which I think is well recorded in history.

Your link does not refute "Under the banner of heaven". At best you could argue that it is a book that focuses on the negative and no doubt one can write a book about all the nice Mormons around, while ignoring the former.

However, human foibles or failings apart, which all groups have, there are plenty of uncommonly unpleasant aspects of the LDS that it is perfectly correct to bring attention to.

Taken as an abstract history of human endeavor this story is actually quite remarkable, warts and all.

However there is nothing there that can make me change my mind that the whole thing was a gigantic con by one of the most skilled artists of the sort ever, along with Muhammad for example, whom Joseph Smith copied from liberally.

Without any mention of actual circumstances or events, the whole story is so ridiculous and contrived and copied from all other religions and comes from such a silly example of a God, that it cannot be taken seriously in a rational sense.

Obviously people are not rational, often, and so facts are facts as far as what we see, and I expect to have no effect on irrational thoughts by this argument, but that is where we stand.

Hope I don't offend too much.
 
Elind - people were taking the book at face value and making assertions from it and apparently from other anti-Mormon literature and I was just providing a little (not a lot) of balance to it by providing a link. I guess I'm just tired of the one-sided judgements and negativity used to divide people instead of at least taking a more balanced approach. No offense taken.

I figured people would be able to figure out the link was broken and how to fix it. I was providing a fixed link for one-click convenience, that's all.
 
rcronk said:
Elind - people were taking the book at face value and making assertions from it and apparently from other anti-Mormon literature and I was just providing a little (not a lot) of balance to it by providing a link. I guess I'm just tired of the one-sided judgements and negativity used to divide people instead of at least taking a more balanced approach. No offense taken.
Click to expand...

The link was just a little joke to lighten the tone, I hoped.

I don't see how you can have a "balanced" approach to what was an often violent and brutish history which, by the way, applies to the times and not only to the Mormons. Nevertheless, there were few saints if any in that history, just powerful people with influence over others, gullible people and victimized people.

I have made a number of harsher criticisms of Mormonism just from a personal perspective, but I note that you don't seem to want to discuss those. I'm assuming that this is because you take it on faith that Joseph Smith was being dictated to by God, however weird the whole construct sounds, and we have nothing to contribute to each other in that regard?
 
Elind said:
I don't see how you can have a "balanced" approach to what was an often violent and brutish history which, by the way, applies to the times and not only to the Mormons. Nevertheless, there were few saints if any in that history, just powerful people with influence over others, gullible people and victimized people.

I have made a number of harsher criticisms of Mormonism just from a personal perspective, but I note that you don't seem to want to discuss those. I'm assuming that this is because you take it on faith that Joseph Smith was being dictated to by God, however weird the whole construct sounds, and we have nothing to contribute to each other in that regard?
Click to expand...

"balanced" meaning the whole truth, not enough of the truth to make Mormons sound evil or stupid, etc. Well, this thread is supposed to be for commenting on the debate thread, so I'd rather not derail it any more than it has already been. We could discuss it elsewhere if you really want to, but I'd rather leave Mormon apologetics to the ones who have time for it, like the ones at www.fairlds.org. If you want to, you could check out that site and the articles they've written. They are also open to questions if your criticisms aren't addressed in the articles already written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom