Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism

[rcronk]

articulett - I have repeatedly said that it's not just a feeling and I have also asked for examples of all of these "other people" you and others keep speaking of and have yet to receive any examples of someone studying something, praying to God to know if that thing is true, and then receiving an answer from God which conflicts with the truth I've received. It could certainly happen, but my point is that you make it out to be millions of people out there who have done this that disagree and conflict with me. Back up the claim with testimony from these people. You mentioned Tom Cruise but he's never said that he prayed to God and had a similar experience to mine and received a truth that conflicted with truth I had received.

Actually you shouldn't depend on my knowingness at all. You can choose to try to see if it can really happen by trying the same thing or you can choose not to do so. Please choose and let's move on.

I came to JREF to get some questions for Professor Jones about 9/11. I think the truthers are full of it and I had been talking to Jones via email and face to face for a while trying to get him to accept firemen testimony photos and video that showed WTC 7 was on the verge of collapse. That's why I came to JREF. Sometime later, I found that they had religious forums here too and so I looked around in them to find out more about evolution, abiogenesis, atheism, etc. I made some posts in a thread that compared God to Santa Clause that said that Santa does exist - he's your parents - you just had an incorrect knowledge of him - kind of like people can have an incorrect knowledge of God. That started a huge thread, then I explained how I had received knowledge of God and people wanted to know so I told them. People then challenged me to go read other religion's texts since I told them if they wanted to try it out to read the Book of Mormon. I agreed to read a Buddhist text and did so in the "religious book exchange" thread. Then RandFan came into that discussion and I asked him why he left the Mormon church and we agreed to have him share with me the reasons he left in the debate thread that is sister to this thread.

In coming to the religion part of the forums, I expected to learn more about other's points of view and in the process, I have been asked questions about my own point of view and I have answered them. That's how I got to where I am now. I didn't come here seeking coverts or to convince anyone.

 

[rcronk]

articulett - Yes, a person can "know" things within themselves. God knows things that are outside of us and He can share that knowledge with us so that we know it too. Again, yes, people can be deceived by other people, can feel good and assume that's from God, etc. That's all find and good and very important actually. I'm not talking about those types of experiences. I'm talking about (one more time) studying something out, sincerely praying to God specifically to know if it is true, then receiving a specific confirmation of that truth. (one more time) I have yet to see an example of this that conflicts with the confirmations I have received. (one more time) Sure a conflict could happen and someone could be deceived, but where are these people? Who are they? Where is their testimony? Please post it. You keep asserting they are out there but you don't post their stories so we can compare them. Please do so.

Elind - Had you read the entire DNA article I linked you to before posting your three line waffle example? Have you read the whole thing at the time you are now reading this post?

 

[Elind]

Elind - Had you read the entire DNA article I linked you to before posting your three line waffle example? Have you read the whole thing at the time you are now reading this post?

I read it, with sufficient speed to realize, as in all such issues where science appears to conflict with belief or faith, that all it takes to make everything whole is to modify the "belief", or rather explain it a bit "better" than the first time so as to remove the problem.

In simpler terms it's called the God(s) of the Gaps, but the gaps can always be found, all that is needed is to look a bit deeper.

I don't mean to sound rude, but we will never have a meeting of minds. You clearly NEED these beliefs, and/or the feeling of belonging that it probably gives you. Why the difference between us I don't know, but I do know other people somewhat similar (not the Mormon variety, but who cares about the details) who I call friends.

We don't have these discussions when we meet and stick to what we have in common. Food, gardening, property, whatever, and help each other out with all the usual mundane things when we can.

You seem a pleasant enough person and we could probably get along too, as long as we observed those rules. You think your way is real to you, I mine to me.

Not that I won't talk further, but I do think it's not leading anywhere. Just promise me you won't run for president, please.

 

[ChristineR]

Christian sects vary in their acceptance of the idea of personal revelation, but it's certainly not unique to Mormonism.

Catholics generally discourage it, but relevations are actually quite common. It's uncommon for the church to validate them, but of course it happens. Think of all those visions of saints and saints with visions.

At some of the charismatic Protestant churches I used to attend it was the norm to pray to Jesus and ask him whether you should buy a particular chair or not. If the chair fell apart it was assumed that Jesus was testing you or trying to send you a message.

For Quakers revelation is pretty much the whole church service. There are no ministers or priests, because your revelation is no worse than anyone else's.

I have strained my memory to remember if I was ever at a prayer meeting where we prayed and God told us that Mormonism was heresy, but I can't recall one way or the other. We were mostly into anti-Catholicism at the time. God had plenty to say about Catholics, I'm afraid.

So while it's true that Mormonism places far more emphasis on revelation than the average Christian denomination, they are not the only, or even the most extreme example.

As far as "Under the Banner of Heaven" I just read it. Actually I listened to the audio book...three times. Some books work better if you can go back to page 27 and remind yourself who Krakauer was talking about.

The book is basically three interrelated threads: a look at modern "Mormon fundamentalists," an accounting of the early history of Mormonism, and an account of the throughly vile and evil murdering Lafferty brothers. Krakauer is basically trying to argue that there is an unbroken line through the early Mormon church through to the modern "fundamentalists" and through to the Lafferty murderers. A line, that is, of self-serving violence, dishonesty, and lust, all backed up by supposed revelations from God.

I really do think Krakauer made his point. After all, the Lafferty brothers grew up as mainline Mormons and justified their (self-serving) conversions to fundamentalism on the grounds that the fundamentalists are sticking closer to Smith's original vision.

I don't think we can condemn modern day Mormons for the excesses of some early Mormons: lust, violence and dishonesty. I certainly don't blame modern Catholics for the inquisition...and I could go on with similar examples for hours.

Mainline Mormons rejected polygamy because is really is an awful idea. They no longer get into violent confrontations with non-Mormons. That link rcronk gave did acknowledge an unfortunate tendency for Mormons to defraud other Mormons, though. I suspect it's a form of wishful thinking: God will bail us out if I can just find one more investor to keep us going another month.

Others have addressed the question as to whether it's true that the early Mormon church was characterized by such vices. I'll just say that it appears the best the Mormon apologists can do is to argue that it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have to go with the weight of the evidence, I'm afraid.

 

[articulett]

articulett - I have repeatedly said that it's not just a feeling and I have also asked for examples of all of these "other people" you and others keep speaking of and have yet to receive any examples of someone studying something, praying to God to know if that thing is true, and then receiving an answer from God which conflicts with the truth I've received. It could certainly happen, but my point is that you make it out to be millions of people out there who have done this that disagree and conflict with me. Back up the claim with testimony from these people. You mentioned Tom Cruise but he's never said that he prayed to God and had a similar experience to mine and received a truth that conflicted with truth I had received.

Actually you shouldn't depend on my knowingness at all. You can choose to try to see if it can really happen by trying the same thing or you can choose not to do so. Please choose and let's move on.

I came to JREF to get some questions for Professor Jones about 9/11. I think the truthers are full of it and I had been talking to Jones via email and face to face for a while trying to get him to accept firemen testimony photos and video that showed WTC 7 was on the verge of collapse. That's why I came to JREF. Sometime later, I found that they had religious forums here too and so I looked around in them to find out more about evolution, abiogenesis, atheism, etc. I made some posts in a thread that compared God to Santa Clause that said that Santa does exist - he's your parents - you just had an incorrect knowledge of him - kind of like people can have an incorrect knowledge of God. That started a huge thread, then I explained how I had received knowledge of God and people wanted to know so I told them. People then challenged me to go read other religion's texts since I told them if they wanted to try it out to read the Book of Mormon. I agreed to read a Buddhist text and did so in the "religious book exchange" thread. Then RandFan came into that discussion and I asked him why he left the Mormon church and we agreed to have him share with me the reasons he left in the debate thread that is sister to this thread.

In coming to the religion part of the forums, I expected to learn more about other's points of view and in the process, I have been asked questions about my own point of view and I have answered them. That's how I got to where I am now. I didn't come here seeking coverts or to convince anyone.

I see... so you came here to convince yourself and give a no true Scotsman argument whereby you can affirm that no-one asked god the right question in the right way and got an answer you can't fit into your "truth"... Sure, I'll try it... oh that's right, I already did... but I didn't get a burning in the bosom... nausea more like it-- so now I have to cycle through all the other methods to find out if their methods for finding "the truth" will make me feel like I "know" something that can't be verified in any way other than subjectively... or maybe objectively but with some mental and semantic twist-- the way Catholic saints perform "verified miracles" and the Pentecostals get proof by speaking in tongues for all to witness. A nice rain would prove my rain dance made the rain gods happy, eh? Especially if I got a burning in my bosom and I made people feel moved to tears with my story... and moreso if they danced and it rained!! I'll try it after you try the Scientology steps and see if you don't have more success, happiness, and wisdom in your life.

You ask for ridiculous and bizarre evidence to disprove a claim that you've accepted on the most embarrassingly simple evidence available-- which rests on multiple unproven bizarre claims involving invisible unknowable entities that you happen to KNOW all about from following methods in a magic book and receiving a "sign" which tied it all together in one big bundle of special higher unprovable bizarre truth. In any case, why aren't you trying to speak in tongues, again? How can you know they are wrong until you follow their method for knowing it's right?

WHAT GOOD IS IT?

The Apostle Paul writes, "He who speaks in tongues edifies himself...I would like every one of you to speak in tongues" (1 Corinthians 14:4,5). With these positive statement about tongues, why do so few Christians speak in tongues? I believe the answer is because there is very little sound, logical and scriptural teaching as to the scope and value of speaking in tongues.

Recently I spoke to a group of Mormons at the University Ward on North Oregon Street. I shared my testimony on how God saved and filled me with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. After the talk, the number one question the students asked was on speaking in tongues. One inquisitive student asked, "What does speaking in tongues do for you?"

I answered, "It does exactly what the Bible says it does: He who speaks in tongues edifies himself." The word "edify" means to "build up" or "charge up"--much like charging up a battery. We all need a spiritual charge. All of us at times feel spiritually drained. One of God's ways to charge your spirit is through speaking in tongues.

http://www.tbm.org/tongues.htm
http://www.jimfeeney.org/tonguesinitialevidence.html (tongues ALONE is proof--other stuff isn't)
http://www.jimfeeney.org/Spirit-filledevidences.html (proof and anecdote cooler than yours!)

Surely you don't doubt their claims? Don't you want edification? They've been gven the gift of knowledge just like you! Don't you believe the bible? Don't you believe the holy spirit gives signs? Don't you believe that if you prayed to know the holy spirit would manifest his presence by giving you the gift of "speaking in tongues" you'd get the gift-- the truth--and find out that Speaking in Tongues is the true sign of Holy Spirit possession?!-- and you thought it was burning bosom and a sense that knowledge was magically bestowed upon you! It's tongues, ALONE, my friend... they'll even give you the bible verse where it says so.

I'm not calling the guys in the speaking in tongues link liars. I just don't find their information for finding truths any more useful than yours... I do find it as interesting how people will mold their brain to perceive signs that support their beliefs and totally negate or explain away all other similar "signs".

What religious guy doesn't believe he KNOWS what god (or allah or Xenu etc.) wants and what happens to people after they die? And why so much disagreement for all these blustery claims to knowledge? Can't you see how you are identical to the "speaking in tongues" preacher to skeptics in general? The difference seems to be a semantic game and a claim to KNOW that you "received knowledge".

See whether you deny a claim or the fact that I think something doesn't change the facts-- the truth that is the same for everybody. Either there are invisible forms of consciousness or there aren't. Either they communicate with humans in the very ways that humans are known to fool themselves or they don't. Either you can get actually truthful useful knowledge from these sources or you can't. Either they have a special rubric for revealing their knowledge or they don't. Even if all the above is true-- humans have no ability, apparently, to test any of these claims scientifically for veracity and to weed out the "mistaken notions" from potential "truths".

I'm glad you feel happy about the "knowledge given to you"-- but I worry about those guys similarly certain about "knowledge given to them" that causes others to be judged, oppressed, or suffer. I think it's sick that people imagine that magic entities bestow revelation upon special people who follow some right rubric or have a penis or are born into or stumble upon the really true religion that has the right unbelievable story you must believe in. I think this false confidence makes believers of religion as unlikely to understand or examine the evidence as the truthers-- because evidence isn't important when you've been "given knowledge" directly into your brain via some magical osmosis, eh? How could you expect them to consider the fact that they might be fooling themselves when you are so certain that you are not because of your burning bosom and the witnessing of the burning bosom of others?

As a non believer I can only shake my head at all of this and the sloppy reasoning that goes into supposed "truths". tsk

 

[Elind]

Mainline Mormons rejected polygamy because is really is an awful idea. They no longer get into violent confrontations with non-Mormons.

My main source on that history comes from Krakauer and if you read it I'm surprised you say that. They rejected it because they were forced to by the US government, and then proceeded to do it anyway. True, most probably don't now because they have been raised to think it's not accepted in mainstream society. However there is little doubt that they dropped it from pressure and would otherwise be happily denying some poor Mormon boys marriage today, because there weren't enough women to go around, had they not been forced to do so. The "revelations" that they received to justify dropping it came, inconveniently, AFTER the change, not before (unless they have cooked the books since).

As to being an awful idea. Awful? Most Muslims don't think so. Makes one wonder where that Joseph got the idea?

That link rcronk gave did acknowledge an unfortunate tendency for Mormons to defraud other Mormons, though. I suspect it's a form of wishful thinking: God will bail us out if I can just find one more investor to keep us going another month.

If you read the news there's plenty enough of that going on in churches of all kinds. I think it just stands out in Mormon areas because there's a higher concentration of gullible people of the same faith there. Easier for cons to work. I doubt they are more criminally inclined than anyone else.

 

[rcronk]

all - This format isn't working. It might work face to face but this just doesn't work. I'm getting the same long arguments over and over mixed with repeated Mormon disinformation and bias. I really think it would work better face to face though. Thanks for your input.

 

[Elind]

all - This format isn't working. It might work face to face but this just doesn't work. I'm getting the same long arguments over and over mixed with repeated Mormon disinformation and bias. I really think it would work better face to face though. Thanks for your input.

You're welcome, but what did you hope to achieve if not to hear differing perspectives? Agreement?

 

[rcronk]

I expected to hear other viewpoints one time. Apparently in the name of trying to convince me or because people think I don't get it yet, I'm hearing them over and over and over again. We can't seem to agree to disagree and move on. I've found that forum communication doesn't work well when it slips into this mode. I do appreciate everyone's input though.

 

[rcronk]

P.S. ChristineR - I've been waiting for your comments on the Book of Mormon wordprinting article. What do you think?

 

[articulett]

I expected to hear other viewpoints one time. Apparently in the name of trying to convince me or because people think I don't get it yet, I'm hearing them over and over and over again. We can't seem to agree to disagree and move on. I've found that forum communication doesn't work well when it slips into this mode. I do appreciate everyone's input though.

I think the main gist is that you claim to have a lot of truths that are not only untestable, but based on a lot of inferences. You've made not a single case for the most basic one-- that there is a god that communicates to some people via some method indistinguishable from the known ways humans full themselves. Moreover, you've made it clear that people can be fooling themselves--all people except you, that is, because you were "given knowledge" but can't prove it.

Instead of defending Mormonism why not just start with the essence of what you supposedly know and why you think it's "true" other than this subjective knowingness that others who follow the Mormon "know the truth" method receive? What if anything would change your mind and how is your tenacity of your claims different than the truthers you came here to argue against?

The truth doesn't need to be defended does it? It will still be "the truth" whether we get the knowingness or not, right? You aren't suggesting that people need to believe in something it order for it to be true are you?

 

[Elind]

Probably not, but if logic fails, it helps.

 

[rcronk]

I'm done. I realize that we don't seem to be able to agree to disagree and we really still don't completely understand each other (and that goes both ways) and no progress is being made so please let's stop - except for the whole Book of Mormon wordprint ChristineR thing.

 

[articulett]

I expected to hear other viewpoints one time. Apparently in the name of trying to convince me or because people think I don't get it yet,

I don't want to convince you-- I just wish I could understand why you think your truth is truer than the "talking in tongues truth" or the Tom Cruise "truth" and why you don't see our dismissal to your claims as on par with your dismissal of theirs? I always try to get assorted believers who preach here to explain it to me, but they keep changing the subject and the bottom line just seems to be to me-- "my woo is the true woo--obviously, I'm not nutso like those other believers". Aren't you saying that? You have the truth--they don't...except where it agrees with your truth, of course.

 

[articulett]

I'm done. I realize that we don't seem to be able to agree to disagree and we really still don't completely understand each other (and that goes both ways) so please let's stop.

We can disagree-- but it helps if we are on the same page as to what is a fact and what is a belief. You seem to claim that things are facts that are merely beliefs as far as any measurable evidence is concerned. It is evidence on par as "truther" evidence as far as any objective testing is concerned, isn't it? Aren't you just mad because you thought you might win converts here and boost your "in" with the holy spirit?

Of course reality doesn't change whether we agree or disagree... nor do facts. I'm perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree, but I also know that doesn't change what is true.

 

[articulett]

Probably not, but if logic fails, it helps.

They always leave when we fail to respect their beliefs the way they fail to respect others... but I guess it's because to them their beliefs are "facts" and everyone else's is just "opinions" etc. I always thought facts were the things that were the same for everybody no matter what you believed. They'd still be true if no human ever knew it just as DNA would exist even if humans never discovered it.

Or maybe they are just used to women being submissive and it bugs their masculinity to have a woman question their authority... Mormon guys are future gods, you know... the ladies need to toe the line to get the joy of going to the highest heaven with these future gods-- it's nice when you can oppress people by virtue of an invisible "higher authority".

 

[rcronk]

ok, I'll play one more time but only because you were short and to the point - speaking in tongues can be counterfeited by satan - I've seen it happen. Tom Cruise gets his information from men instead of directly from God. Is that good enough?

 

[rcronk]

I gave it one last shot above and then got sucker punched. I'm mad because I can't win converts here? I'm leaving because you're not respecting my beliefs like I'm not respecting others' beliefs? We really haven't been listening to each other have we?

 

[Elind]

We hear you, but this conversation has been had in many forms many times and usually ends the same way.

On reflection though, I should point out to you that you came here and I think initiated, invited, this exchange. Nobody accosted you and you knew very well that many here are atheists or similar when it comes to "hearing" voices or holding unverifiable "beliefs".

What did you expect to hear?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

ok, I'll play one more time but only because you were short and to the point - speaking in tongues can be counterfeited by satan - I've seen it happen.

Could it possibly be Satan speaking to you instead of God ?