Commentary: Discussion on Mormonism
- Thread starter prewitt81
- Start date
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
All I could gather, is that you don't think the Native American thing is a show stopper one way or another .
Since I asked for your position, it seems like a reasonable answer..
However, you seem reluctant to go out on a limb and admit it seems unlikely, in the light of DNA evidence.
I would be interested in the official Mormon position.
If it's not seen as an important part of Mormon doctrine, then they should say as much; and maybe even concede it as being unlikely.
But then I see how that could be a hole in the dike, so to speak ..
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Yes... that was odd...
I think he meant accusations of confirmation bias... but isn't he accusing all non-Mormons of anti-Mormon bias? He seems to not understand what the fallacy of ad hominen is in regards to an argument or what objective means (hint: it does not mean having receiving direct knowledge from a supposed divine source.) Could a Mormon who believed they were getting messages from a god affirming that a given text was "the truth" be objective? Isn't that like asking a Muslim about "facts" in the Quo'ran not indicated by the evidence?
If the evidence had indicated that the BoM was right about Native American Descent, they would be trumpeting that news all over the place. But when the evidence doesn't affirm the story, and in fact seems to pretty much dis confirm it-- then it gets brushed under the rug as this notion that you can be related to people in ways that you can't detect due to assimilation. While this is true... what you see with Native American DNA is not at all what you would expect if they had any ancestory in common with the people who lived in the Middle East during the time period indicated. Sure, their skin is similarly "tan"-- but, the first humans probably had skin of that color-- we can't see skin color in genes and skeletons, but we know why and when skins started achieving it's multicolor hues and it was all generated from the same stock--just as all dogs are generated from wolf stock.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
I suspect he may be thinking of my description of the faulty reasoning process people are prone to use when considering claims in which they have an emotional investment. In case he is, let me clarify that this was not an attack on Mormons or anyone else, it was a description of human nature. We all have this tendancy, there's nothing we can do about it but be aware of it and try to make allowances for it.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Yes... dogmas can be very clever that way... attack on the beliefs are seen as attacks on the believers ("fighting words")-- that's why it would be interesting to know what cult "deprogrammers" do to break through. I notice that a lot when I try to address beliefs in general or claims stated as fact that are, at best, opinions.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
articulett, I think rcronk has a point. I've posted a reply in the other thread. We can of course discuss it further.
Thank you.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
From the moderated thread:
rcronk:
Who says their mistakes prove they are not really prophets of God ?
We need to establish the existence of god, before we can weigh the veracity of god's prophets.
However, if we assume for the sake of argument, that a god exists; when someone claims to have been given special information by god, and it proves to be bad information, it would seem to cast doubt on the quality of that persons relationship with the alleged god..
rcronk:
Whoa! Someone get the matches ...
Who says their mistakes prove they are not really prophets of God ?
We need to establish the existence of god, before we can weigh the veracity of god's prophets.
However, if we assume for the sake of argument, that a god exists; when someone claims to have been given special information by god, and it proves to be bad information, it would seem to cast doubt on the quality of that persons relationship with the alleged god..
Tanstaafl
Unindicted Co-conspirator
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2006
- Messages
- 5,463
That's a very good point.
Yes. But prophets are also human and imperfect. If a prophet, in the name of God, makes a prediction and claims it to be prophecy and it ends up false, yeah - give him the boot. If he gives his opinion as a person about something that's not in the name of God or not as he is acting in the position or calling of prophet, I think we can give him some slack.
Yes. But prophets are also human and imperfect. If a prophet, in the name of God, makes a prediction and claims it to be prophecy and it ends up false, yeah - give him the boot. If he gives his opinion as a person about something that's not in the name of God or not as he is acting in the position or calling of prophet, I think we can give him some slack.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
That would cover everyone who is not claiming to be a prophet..
When does being a prophet become special ?
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
How do you tell if he's speaking as a prophet?... who decides?... who decides what gets slack?... how does one distinguish between a true prophet and a false prophet?... Why would god be indistinguishable from a false prophet or a schizophrenic vision? Why wouldn't god just be clear? What if the Mormon god is as much as an invention as Zeus or Thor or other gods? I mean, I guess I'd cut a prophet some slack if I believed there was a god and a man who talks to him via "feelings" and telepathy and occasional seeing stones and gold plates...
But all religious apologists sound the same to me-- just because you find no fossils of snakes with hyoid bones, doesn't mean there were never talking snakes-- just because adults need to be children to program their language, memories, and brain development-- doesn't mean god couldn't have poofed people into existence with all these things already there in adult form (ape-ish DNA and all). Just because god isn't healing amputees doesn't mean he isn't inserting "higher knowledge" into peoples' hearts and other vagaries or protecting them because they're wearing special garments. Just because the DNA looks very different from people whose ancestors were in the Middle East 2600 year ago-- doesn't mean the Indian aren't descendants of Jews--(Lamanites) as was revealed to the supposed true church.
Yes... that is all true... but it sure doesn't bode well for the BoM being a book written by anybody particular omniscient or even prescient... it seems very much to be a book written and proffered by men who benefit from it's teachings and getting others to "believe". It seems that believers are so ready to be told "what to think" without having the basic tools of "how" to think. If nothing else, god would have had to know just how devastating the evidence would be for him-- and he could have at least given us a heads up about DNA.
I mean, speaking in tongues could be spiritual messages too... it's just that occam has taught be to deal with that which we know exists before inserting unknown, invisible, immeasurable entities or forces.
I'm curious to see what will happen as scientific facts reveal real replicable wonders while showing religions to be a common delusion that man is vulnerable to. Some will cling tighter to more extreme faiths I imagine--as though having enough faith can makes a falsity true. It's fascinating to watch. But I imagine it will happen millions of times a day in the coming years. How can it not? How can we afford people "thinking" they have "THE TRUTH"-- the highest one-- the one that puts them above all those others they feel have been fooled? How can mankind afford a populace who believes that faith is a good way to ensure salvation, choose your enemies, and know profound "truths"? If the harmless faiths can't examine their ridiculous tenets--how can we hope the more disturbing faiths will? None of the faithful are willing to admit that they could be wrong, right?
But all religious apologists sound the same to me-- just because you find no fossils of snakes with hyoid bones, doesn't mean there were never talking snakes-- just because adults need to be children to program their language, memories, and brain development-- doesn't mean god couldn't have poofed people into existence with all these things already there in adult form (ape-ish DNA and all). Just because god isn't healing amputees doesn't mean he isn't inserting "higher knowledge" into peoples' hearts and other vagaries or protecting them because they're wearing special garments. Just because the DNA looks very different from people whose ancestors were in the Middle East 2600 year ago-- doesn't mean the Indian aren't descendants of Jews--(Lamanites) as was revealed to the supposed true church.
Yes... that is all true... but it sure doesn't bode well for the BoM being a book written by anybody particular omniscient or even prescient... it seems very much to be a book written and proffered by men who benefit from it's teachings and getting others to "believe". It seems that believers are so ready to be told "what to think" without having the basic tools of "how" to think. If nothing else, god would have had to know just how devastating the evidence would be for him-- and he could have at least given us a heads up about DNA.
I mean, speaking in tongues could be spiritual messages too... it's just that occam has taught be to deal with that which we know exists before inserting unknown, invisible, immeasurable entities or forces.
I'm curious to see what will happen as scientific facts reveal real replicable wonders while showing religions to be a common delusion that man is vulnerable to. Some will cling tighter to more extreme faiths I imagine--as though having enough faith can makes a falsity true. It's fascinating to watch. But I imagine it will happen millions of times a day in the coming years. How can it not? How can we afford people "thinking" they have "THE TRUTH"-- the highest one-- the one that puts them above all those others they feel have been fooled? How can mankind afford a populace who believes that faith is a good way to ensure salvation, choose your enemies, and know profound "truths"? If the harmless faiths can't examine their ridiculous tenets--how can we hope the more disturbing faiths will? None of the faithful are willing to admit that they could be wrong, right?
I get your points. According to Mormon doctrine, God chooses righteous (not perfect but righteous) men to be prophets. They express God's will to others. The Holy Ghost confirms the truthfulness of that prophet and his message to others. The point of this life isn't to prove God exists. It's to learn good and evil and decide what we want. It's harder to do that with God hanging around. Kind of like how people generally follow their manager when he's around but do what they really want to do when he's gone.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Why not righteous woman... they seem to kill a lot less people as a gender--
They are also a lot less likely to commit rape or pedophilia... some of the "prophets" and biblical "good guys" do these less than righteous things.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Uh oh, randfan... now you've asked him the real question-- what WOULD make him change his mind? I predict he'll answer obliquely or ignore the question or say nothing... just like the Truthers he came here to sway.
Why not women? That's a good question and a good idea. I really have no idea. There are many leadership positions for both men and women in the Mormon church. The "relief society", for example, is the oldest and largest worldwide women's organization and is a large part of the Mormon church's organization.
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Yeah... it just sounds so sucky for a woman with a brain and no interest in "homemaking" and "domestic skills"--
For those interested on some perspectives of "relief society" of which every LDS woman is "automatically a member"-- below are some links...
Mormon women are "called" to teach and do various services for the Mormon community (as are the men... but the men get to do a little more interesting and respectable things for the most part).
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSO...ceId=d572a7b37c11c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft76.htm
http://www.signaturebooks.com/utahwomen.htm
http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/r/RELIEFSOCIETY.html
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/in...nnel=ae11627d59eec010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/63847
I guess I'm lucky for not being born into or trying to fit into such a culture. I think I'd have severe depression... but it seems to work for some women; and they are industrious. It just sounds like the Stepford Wives to me.
For those interested on some perspectives of "relief society" of which every LDS woman is "automatically a member"-- below are some links...
Mormon women are "called" to teach and do various services for the Mormon community (as are the men... but the men get to do a little more interesting and respectable things for the most part).
http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSO...ceId=d572a7b37c11c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____
http://www.exmormon.org/whylft76.htm
http://www.signaturebooks.com/utahwomen.htm
http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/r/RELIEFSOCIETY.html
http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/in...nnel=ae11627d59eec010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD
http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/63847
I guess I'm lucky for not being born into or trying to fit into such a culture. I think I'd have severe depression... but it seems to work for some women; and they are industrious. It just sounds like the Stepford Wives to me.
Last edited:
articulett
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 15,404
Cool, randfan, he's willing to concede he could be biased so long as you concede you could be biased. That's a major admission on his part. I also think it's interesting how he's explaining why you left the church in his own apologetics instead of hearing you...
And this is the thing that really interests me about Mormons and others of such faith-- what goes on in their head so that they can belief others have fooled themselves while they have not?
As a kid, this utter confidence of so many men regarding "beliefs" coupled with the fact that they didn't believe the same things as each other always confused me. In order to believe you have the one truth-- you must explain to yourself why others think they have it, and are wrong-- don't you? You have to feel like you are somehow smarter or more chosen or more "righteous" or luckier or something to have THE TRUTH --while those other believers of prophets like "Mohummud" or those who think the Pope is infallible are terribly mistaken in a way that you could never be.
What happens when the desire to know the truth meets up with the fear of losing faith-- the thing you were told was a gift from god-- and essential to your "happily ever after"?
And this is the thing that really interests me about Mormons and others of such faith-- what goes on in their head so that they can belief others have fooled themselves while they have not?
As a kid, this utter confidence of so many men regarding "beliefs" coupled with the fact that they didn't believe the same things as each other always confused me. In order to believe you have the one truth-- you must explain to yourself why others think they have it, and are wrong-- don't you? You have to feel like you are somehow smarter or more chosen or more "righteous" or luckier or something to have THE TRUTH --while those other believers of prophets like "Mohummud" or those who think the Pope is infallible are terribly mistaken in a way that you could never be.
What happens when the desire to know the truth meets up with the fear of losing faith-- the thing you were told was a gift from god-- and essential to your "happily ever after"?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Looks like rcronk is moving from "all LDS teachings are true and can be confirmed by asking God" to "this particular teaching may not be true, but it's not an important one so it doesn't matter".
Where does that leave all those Mormons who prayed to God to find out if the teachings of the LDS are true and got a resounding "YES"? AFAIK none got the answer "Yes, apart from that bit at the beginning about the ancestry of the native Americans, but you can ignore that bit because it's not important".
Where does that leave all those Mormons who prayed to God to find out if the teachings of the LDS are true and got a resounding "YES"? AFAIK none got the answer "Yes, apart from that bit at the beginning about the ancestry of the native Americans, but you can ignore that bit because it's not important".